the queen of denial

fox news' alan colmes interviews corporal matt sanchez, the latest in a never-ending line of fallen conservative heros, who was toppled from his poignantly brief pedestal after being outed as a former porn film actor and male prostitute:

alan: ... as a great american, and embraced by conservatives because you were taking on those anti-war protestors — matt: i dunno about that. i would say i was just doing, i spoke out against something that — alan: you spoke out and they embraced you and invited you to the conservative political action conference over the weekend and you — matt: had me on fox news, several people did. alan: that's right, and thank you for coming here tonight. matt: my pleasure to be here. alan: and then it just comes out over the weekend that you, uh, you were outed as, uh, having done gay porn ... ? matt: outing is one thing ... i wouldn't call it that ... uh ... yeah, it came out — alan: it's not an outing? matt: i was very straightforward — well, how can you out something that's already out there. there's nothing more [ public? ] than that. alan: right, but i mean they, in general, but the people who were embracing you, and calling you, telling everyone how great you were because you were doing all these wonderful things for the troops didn't know about your past.

... because matt, and i'm just guessing here, maybe if they did know, they wouldn't have put you up on stage with them ...

matt: that's true, i've never walked around with a "scarlet p" on my forehead. alan: right, but — go ahead. matt: in no way did i try to hide it, so when it did come out — and it came out rather viciously — i felt i had to defend myself right away, and that's what i did. alan: well, you defended yourself and you acquited yourself well in that you were honest about it. you didn't duck it — matt: absolutely. alan: — you didn't deny it, you didn't say it never happened — matt: sure. alan: — you didn't say those pictures on the internet are not me — matt: absolutely not! alan: — as some people have done.

... because lying is not an option when you're so totally, totally busted that pants have been known to burst into flame ...

matt: look, i wrote an op-ed piece for salon.com and a couple of other people have picked up on it as well. the conservatives that i've met, really, have been the most warm people and i mean they haven't walked away from me at all. it really has been the liberal people that have been really the harshest with me. alan: how are they harsh with you? matt: harsh with everything. i've been called everything today and the past few days i gotten over 3,000 emails from people with this, just invective that you wouldn't believe. alan: well, uh — matt: you get that stuff ... alan: i do get it, and i get it from both sides, but — matt: [ laughs ] alan: but tell us what happened? first of all a number of years ago, and how many years ago was it you did gay porn? matt: it was 15 years ago, and it just wasn't gay porn, by the way, uh, but it was 15 years ago. alan: what else did it ... what else was it? matt: it was more than that, it was, but it was more than porn. alan: did you work as a male prostitute? matt: that as well, yeah. alan: a male prostitute. matt: this was one of the worst periods in my life. alan: now when you say "15 years ago" — matt: 15-plus years ago. alan: "-plus years ago," and i did a little web — matt: sure. alan: i had to go to gay porn sites to do my homework for the show! matt: yeah, those are some of the worst sites, they've been really harsh on me. alan: but it turns out that you had an adver — you advertised in the advocate here in new york city for your massage services as recently as three years ago. matt: no ... there's no such thing as an advocate here in new york city.

... cap'n, evasive maneuver number one!

alan: yeah. there's a, there's a magazine called the advocate, your phone number's on it ... your picture ... matt: the number you contacted me on?

... evasive maneuver number two!

alan: yes. matt: no. alan: and it says that you're available for, uh, massage. matt: massage, yeah. yeah, no, sorry — alan: and it was in november of, ah, 2003. matt: no — yeah, i hear you, uh, no. alan: well, i can show you the link — matt: sure. alan: — it's there. matt: give it to me. send it over, that's — that's fine. i mean, anything, i'll admit, i'll own up to it. that's not what the issue at hand is.

ow, a hit! um, let's try evasive maneuver number three ... retreat!

alan: but i understand. i, i — matt: but those movies were — alan: you've been — you've been very candid so far — matt: yes, yes, i want to be as candid as possible. alan: you've been saying that it's been "15-plus years ago," and it seems it was a lot less than that. matt: 1990 up through — throughout the mid-90s, 1993-94. alan: so that's how long ago it was? matt: yeah — well, we're talking about the films. alan: what about gay, y'know, out — massage stuff. matt: anything else, gay, massage stuff — i am a licensed massage therapist.

... evasive maneuver number four ...

alan: and you cater to gay men. matt: no — not exclusively. alan: are you gay? matt: no. absolutely not. alan: you're not gay? matt: and i'll be very candid about that.

... because, y'know, someone less candid and upstanding would actually lie about being heterosexual ...

matt: but again, this is a, this is a losing, it's a losing argument. and i say one thing and the other side says another — alan: well, i'm not arguing — matt: fine. alan: — i'm just trying to establish, y'know, a, i mean why would you — now i don't care whether you're gay or not — i mean, i pro- gay rights — matt: i, i agree, i don't care who's gay either by the way — alan: — and, and i'm just trying to get to the truth — matt: absolutely. alan: you were ... marketing yourself as a masseur for gay men and doing gay films and you said you were a prostitute for gay men, so, i mean ... how, why would you — matt: yeah, there's a different word for that today, but i ...

... because "gay" after all is just another label ...

alan: hustler, whatever ...

... um, that wasn't the label i had in mind ...

matt: i own up to all that stuff. alan: why would you do that if you're not gay? matt: i think if you ... people listening probably don't realize it, but those who are in the know, know that this isn't as cut and dry as black and white. there are lots of shades in between, and lots — especially a lot of the clients — alan: right. matt: — weren't, wouldn't have considered themselves gay. i dunno if this conversation is what you wanna have but — alan: yeah — no, no, i definitely want to have this conversation.

... no, dammit! you're not supposed to want this conversation!

matt: oh great. well, in that case, the majority of the clients weren't openly gay. a lot of them were married and had, i mean, really wasn't, it really wasn't as cut and dry as, people who came to me at that time really wouldn't have considered themselves as gay. alan: right, but you were not servicing women, you were servicing men. matt: um, there were those as well ...

... hmmm, did that last answer not come out strong enough ... ?

matt: uh, absolutely! i mean there were definitely tons of women!

... ok, much, much better ... whew, that was close!

alan: and you took ads in gay publications — matt: as well as, as well as — alan: — in order to appeal to gay men. matt: — as well as other publications. alan: right. but you've never been gay, you never personally — matt: yeah, it's not something, it's not how i would describe myself, frankly, and i understand that some people have a problem with that. alan: i don't have a problem, i, i have a problem — matt: no, not you — alan: — i'm, i'm just trying to establish the truth — matt: — members of the audience. alan: well, i'm sure that there are — look, here's what, one of the things i think you've been criticized for is that, uh — in fact i'm trying to go there right now, something called — matt: one of those blogs? alan: no, i'm trying to see, there's this ad, there's something called "masseur-finder" with your picture on it ... matt: yeah, i've seen that. i've seen that. i've been getting calls in the past couple of weeks on that and i am not running that ad.

... because someone less upstanding would deny that that was their picture ...

alan: right. and there's an ad in the advocate and i'm trying to come up with a date for that which is a new york publication ... matt: great. alan: i'm sorry, it's the new york blade, forgive me. matt: the new york blade. alan: the new york blade. matt: another one ... alan: and that ad was from november 19th, 2004. matt: sure. lemme tell — alan: an ad for you. matt: lemme tell you something really interesting — alan: not the — let me correct myself, it was the new york blade, which is the gay publication, but not the advocate. matt: ok, the new york blade. great. fair enough. alan: all right. matt: um, i've seen, i was in australia one time, and i saw someone advertising ... using my picture. alan: right. matt: anyone who knows that whole — alan: but it's got your phone number on it, too.

... retreat! retreat! retreat!

matt: any, uh, that's which — alan: your current phone number. matt: that's not my current phone number. alan: ok, well, i'll show it to you — matt: i mean i've had, i've had my current phone number for about, a year. alan: ok, well, i'll, i'll show you — matt: ok, no problem. look, i own up to all that stuff. i just want to make that straight. i've been, for the past week i've had, i've had people calling me about this, and apparently someone has placed an ad, just recently. alan: alright. well, this was three years ago. well, i'll show you the link when, during the commercial — matt: i'm talking about just yesterday.

... oh please, god: tell me he hasn't checked up on that one, too ...

alan: really. matt: yeah, just yesterday. i mean, this isn't, this isn't, there's something going on —

... now ain't that the truth?

nevada debate preview

so, will fox viewers be watching this:

or, at long last, this?

(with apologies to charles schulz)

---

update: well, it looks like democrats have decided to go for what's behind door number two:

senate majority leader harry reid and the nevada democratic party announced today that they are backing out of a fox news-sponsored presidential debate in august following fox president roger ailes's recent remarks comparing democratic senator barack obama to al qaeda terrorist osama bin laden. fox news did not answer calls seeking reaction to the decision. democratic presidential candidate john edwards had already announced that he would not participate in the fox debate. his party followed suit today, under pressure from the more than 265,000 people who signed a petition calling fox "a mouthpiece for the republican party, not a legitimate news channel" and urging nevada officials to cancel. danny coyle, a moveon.org member who serves on the executive board of the carson city democratic central committee, yesterday offered a resolution calling on the state party to drop fox, and it passed overwhelmingly among the grassroots democrats in attendance. "i am glad and relieved that the nevada democratic leadership has come to its senses," coyle said. "any kind of relationship with fox is bad for the party." at first, senator reid defended the decision to work with fox, reasoning that it might help democratic candidates reach out to right-leaning fox viewers. but party activists argued from the start that any connection with fox was a mistake. robert greenwald, director of the movie outfoxed, called the final decision a "victory for truth and journalism." some 280,000 people have viewed greenwald's new youtube film "fox attacks: obama" — located with the petition at www.foxattacks.com. "by standing up to fox's right-wing smears," greenwald said, "the patriotic grassroots, netroots, senator reid, senator edwards, and the nevada democrats have all worked together to protect one of the most important elements of a free society — the press." and eli pariser, executive director of moveon.org civic action, said he hoped the decision would "set a precedent within the party that fox should be treated as a right-wing mis-information network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news."

where's rove?

good question:

collins: ... i will say that there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for mr. libby on the jury. it was said a number of times: "what are we doing with this guy here? where's rove? where's ... y'know, where're these other guys?" we're not saying we didn't think mr. libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but that it seemed like he was, to put it the way [defense counsel] mr. wells put it, he was the fall guy. he was — now, he made bad judgments, and he — q: was he the fall guy for vice president cheney? was that the belief of the jury? collins: the belief of the jury was this, that he was, he was tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters. we never made any, y'know, came to any conclusions or — we never even discussed whether cheney would have told him what exactly to say.

while all the noise surrounding rove's increasingly desperate five appearances before fitzgerald's grand jury certainly gave the impression that bush's brain was the star of the show, in the end it appears that turdblossom was just a rodeo clown.

the plot against wilson, the world now knows, clearly originated on cheney's desk, and he made its execution his deputy's responsibility. however, libby was not first and foremost a smear merchant — but he certainly knew someone down the hall who was, someone who might be willing to lend a hand on a juicy project, and best of all, someone who employed his dubious talents with gusto:

l.a. times: prosecutors investigating whether white house officials illegally leaked the identity of wilson's wife, a cia officer who had worked undercover, have been told that bush's top political strategist, karl rove, and i. lewis libby, chief of staff for vice president dick cheney, were especially intent on undercutting wilson's credibility, according to a person familiar with the inquiry. while lower-level white house staff members typically handle most contacts with the media, rove and libby began personally communicating with reporters about wilson, prosecutors were told. a source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the white house. when asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, rove responded: "he's a democrat." rove then cited wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

so for rove the pursuit of wilson was just another fishing expedition for his favorite prey rather than a mission to protect a colleague. his investment simply wasn't as high as libby's, and when things turned sour, rove was the first to start cashing in his markers, which pleased the conspirator-in-chief none too well:

abc news: the note from cheney, which the defense discussed during the opening day of the trial, was submitted into evidence and reads in full: [stamp: the vice president has seen] [ people have made too much of the reference in how i described karl and libby ] i've talked to libby. i said it was rediculous [sic] about karl and it is rediculous [sic] about libby libby was not the source of the novak story. and he did not leak classified information. [sidenote: tenet wilson memo] has to happen today call out to key press saying same thing about scooter as karl not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others. cheney's note was to direct the white house press secretary to offer the same assurances about libby that mcclellan had made earlier about rove: libby was not the source of the novak column.

fitzgerald apparently picked up on the dynamic between libby and his fair-weather friend, determined that rove was mainly along for the ride, and sweated him publicly and repeatedly, like some two-bit cop show snitch, knowing that rove wasn't about to play the fall guy for cheney. after all, cheney already had one.

and fallen on his master's sword libby has, though his sacrifice appears to have been offered in vain, since by their clumsy intrigues, everything they sought to hide has been revealed, and the persecutors have now become the prosecuted:

king: we have an e-mail question from hugo in arcadia, florida: "now that "scooter" libby has been found guilty in this criminal trial, will you and/or your wife bring suit against him and/or the vice president in civil court?" wilson: we have filed a civil suit and we've named in the civil suit the vice president, mr. libby, mr. rove and mr. armitage, and john does, i think, one through nine now, in anticipation of learning more information through this trial.

chairman henry a. waxman announced a hearing on whether white house officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of cia agent valerie plame wilson. at the hearing, the committee will receive testimony from ms. wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal white house security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred. the hearing is scheduled for friday, march 16. in addition, the committee today sent a letter to special prosecutor patrick fitzgerald commending him for his investigation and requesting a meeting to discuss testimony by mr. fitzgerald before the committee. the oversight committee will webcast the hearing live at www.oversight.house.gov.

the verdict

(with apologies to garry trudeau)

it won't be much longer now

because something tells me dubya's war doesn't have two years of steam left in it ...

for three years after the invasion of iraq, it was difficult to drive more than a few miles through middle america without seeing a car displaying a magnetic yellow ribbon. the magnets, bearing the slogan "support our troops", became a symbol of patriotism for millions of us motorists. but as support for the war fades, demand for yellow ribbons has collapsed. magnet america, the largest manufacturer of the product, has seen sales fall from a peak of 1.2m in august 2004 to about 4,000 a month and now has an unsold stockpile of about 1m magnets. "we have enough supplies to meet demand for years to come," said micah pattisall, director of operations. "every product has a lifespan and this one has run its course." at its peak, the north carolina-based company employed 180 people to handle sales, marketing and distribution. today, it employs 11 people. mr pattisall said declining support for the war was not the only reason for the slump. a flood of cheap imports from china also hurt the company, which has refused to shift production overseas even though it costs three times as much to manufacture in the us. only about half a dozen companies are still supplying the magnets compared with up to 200 at the height of the fad, according to mr pattisall. when the company was founded in april 2003, during the initial invasion of iraq, nearly all its revenues came from yellow ribbons. today, patriotic products account for only 6 per cent of sales. the yellow ribbon has been overtaken as the company's best-selling product by a wristband promoting chastity before marriage with the slogan "true love waits". "we are growing again and looking to hire additional staff," mr pattisall said. yellow ribbons were first displayed widely in support of kidnapped us diplomats during the iranian hostage crisis in 1979. some critics have condemned the magnets as a cheap and superficial way to honour the armed forces and highlighted the irony of placing them on gas-guzzling vehicles that deepen the us's dependence on middle eastern oil. resentful that the yellow ribbon has become associated with support for the president, george w. bush, opponents of the war have introduced their own car magnets emblazoned with anti-war statements. on ebay, the internet auction site, on thursday, a black and white ribbon bearing the slogan "out of iraq, bring 'em back" was priced at $5. traditional yellow ribbon magnets, in contrast, could be bought for one cent. "yellow ribbons dwindle with war support" andrew ward, the financial times

vice president sock puppet

i guess now that his "former hill staffer" and former right hand man is waiting for a jury of his peers to decide said staffer's fate, our cartoon-villain vice president is stuck pimping his own "background" ...

washington, feb 28 (reuters) — the senior bush administration official who briefed anonymously on vice president dick cheney's visit to afghanistan and pakistan sounded suspiciously like, well, cheney himself. the white house transcript of the tuesday briefing left little room for doubt as to the official's identity, including this opening sentence: "the reason the president wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world on both sides of the afghan-pakistan border," the official said. cheney had just left afghanistan, where a suicide bomb attack against bagram air base killed up to 14 people. cheney used the visit to the two countries to press for stronger action against the taliban and al qaeda. "let me just make one editorial comment here. i've seen some press reporting (that) says, 'cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them.' that's not the way i work," the official said. the official was speaking on "background," a common practice in washington that means he could only be identified by the euphemism, "senior administration official." media critics have long complained about the practice, saying public officials should be identified. the "senior administration officials" often make sure they leave no clues to their identity in these sessions. but in this case, the official blew his own cover. "i would describe my sessions both in pakistan and afghanistan as very productive," the official aboard cheney's plane said. cheney arrived back in washington early on wednesday and briefed president george w. bush on his trip.

the "senior administration official" full press report can be seen in its entirety on the white house web site.

hat tip to gary crosse.

dead man's hand

the arguments have all been made. all the cards are on the table.

in special prosecutor patrick fitzgerald's hand:

robert grenier, cia iraq mission manager, who testified that he told libby about ex-ambassador joe wilson's wife's employment at the cia.

cathy martin, cheney's public affairs officer, who testified that she relayed to libby from cia director of public affairs bill harlow his confirmation of grenier's information about wilson's wife.

marc grossman, former number three at the state department, who testified that he also told libby about wilson's wife.

craig schmall, cia briefer, whom libby and cheney together asked, after the novak article, about the repercussions of leaking the name of a cia officer. he replied that there was a "very grave danger."

david addington, cheney counsel, now chief of staff, whom libby asked about the president's authority to declassify material.

judith miller, former new york times reporter, who testified to three conversations with libby during which wilson and his wife were mentioned.

ari fleisher, former white house press secretary, who testified that libby told him about wilson's wife, that it was "hush-hush and on the q.t."

tim russert, nbc washington bureau chief and host of meet the press, from whom libby had told the fbi and the grand jury he first learned about wilson's wife. russert flatly denied ever speaking with libby about wilson's wife, destroying his principal alibi.

libby was depending on russert and miller and the other reporters who received the leak to win their court battles to keep the leakers secret.

but one by one the libby's cards were burned. from the beginning he'd been threatening to see fitzgerald's bet, by calling rove, by calling cheney, by taking the stand himself. but in the end it was all a tantalizing bluff. he folded without a word in his own defense.

all that's left now in libby's hand are his lawyers' assertions that libby doesn't remember anything — because it wasn't important enough. and nobody else remembers what really happened either. and the one thing libby does remember is russert telling him about wilson's wife.

after handing down libby's indictment fitzgerald explained:

when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. he's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

in his summation he reiterated his predicament:

there is a cloud over the vice president. he wrote those columns, he had those meetings, he sent libby off to the meeting with judy, where plame was discussed. that cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice. that cloud was there. that cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there.

in other words: dick cheney, you're next.

time to ante up.

jim morin © 2007

from the mouths of babes

(cross-posted at daily kos)

from today's "grim" new unicef report on child welfare in the the top 21 industrialized nations, in which the netherlands and scandinavia came out on top, while the united states and britain sat "roundly bottom":

peter marshall, narrator: in the netherlands, home of liberal views on sex and drugs, their young people rank at the top of unicef's survey for well-being. we went to a school in the heart of amsterdam to talk to sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds. laura vos, student: in this country it's very free. you can do what you like, you can smoke when you're sixteen, you can buy pot in the store next to the school — [laughter] because it's not illegal, it's not that interesting for us to just — to provoke our parents with.

are you listening, mr. social conservative, mrs. moral majority, uncle christian coalition and auntie no-child-left-behind?

probably not.

still, miss vos does leave us with an interesting question: just what do dutch kids have to do there, to provoke their parents?

overall rankings from the report:
1. netherlands 2. sweden 3. denmark 4. finland 5. spain 6. switzerland 7. norway 8. italy 9. ireland 10. belgium 11. germany	12. canada 13. greece 14. poland 15. czech republic 16. france 17. portugal 18. austria 19. hungary 20. united states 21. united kingdom

all kidding aside, it is of course simplistic to attribute the success of the dutch solely or even primarily to its liberal attitudes. after all, a number of conservative and strongly religious nations like spain, italy and ireland made it into the top ten.

but what's noteworthy is how the report discredits the long-standing conservative-religious argument that morally permissive societies are dangerous to its children's moral and physical well-being. presumably this is the argument propping up their endless campaigns against hollywood, music, drugs, sex education, birth control, abortion, and the rest of their entire program. it's all about saving the children, don't you see?

and uncle christian coalition and auntie no-child-left-behind would have us all believe that only a strict country devoted to dogma can protect the young, not that a "decadent" country like the netherlands could ever rate such a list, much less come out on top.

finally, someone grew some stones

oh wait — he isn't one of ours ... ?

hat tip to crooks and liars.

the speaker: order. order. the honorable leader of the opposition? opposition leader kevin rudd: thank you, mr. speaker. i seek leave to move the following motion: this house censures the prime minister — [scattered boos] rudd: — for his statement that al-qaeda is praying — the speaker: order! order! rudd: — for a democratic party candidate to win the next united states presidential election. two: his false statements today in parliament that his statement yesterday was restricted to one u.s. senator, and not the democratic party as a whole. three: the damage that this partisan comment has done to the united states-australia alliance and to australia's relationships with both american democratic and republican members of congress and four: the gross insensitivity in lecturing united states presidential candidates on iraq, when the war in iraq is responsible for the deaths more than 3,000 u.s. servicemen and -women, the wounding of 20,000, and expenditures exceeding 360 billion, and finally demands that the prime minister unreservedly withdraws this remark. the speaker: his leave granted. leave is granted. the honorable leader of the opposition: rudd: thank you, mr. speaker. how can the man who is prime minister of this country come into this parliament and say that he is a person of experience on the question of national security when within the last 24 hours he has made this statement, that when it comes to the operation of al-qaeda and its dealings in the world of international affairs today, that somehow al-qaeda is an organisation, a terrorist organisation that would prefer to see a democrat win the next presidential elections rather than any other representative of another political party? the prime minister today has inserted that in fact he was only making a reference to mr. obama, one of the us democratic party presidential candidates. it's important that we place this unequivocally on the record. yesterday the prime minister was asked this question, in relation to the obama plan: yes, i think he's wrong. i mean, he's a long way from being president of united states. i think he's wrong. i think that that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy iraq and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and to hope for obama victory. if i was running al-qaeda in iraq, i would put a circle around march 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory — not only for obama but also for the democrats. but also for the democrats. that is not an addition invented by the australian labor party. that's not an addition invented by anybody else. that was spoken yesterday — or would we dare say misspoken yesterday — by the prime minister of australia on a matter of great consequence — that is, the future of this country's relationship with the united states, particularly on the question of the future direction of iraq policy. to accuse the democratic party of the united states as being al-qaeda's party of choice, to accuse the democratic party as being the terrorists' party of choice — this is a most serious charge. to accuse the party of roosevelt, to accuse the party of truman, to accuse the party of kennedy and johnson of being the terrorists' party of choice. i cannot understand how any responsible leader of this country can say to the nation that it's his serious view that the democratic party of the united states is the terrorists' party of choice. but these are your words, prime minister. i did not invent them; they are yours. and in this parliament today we gave you every opportunity to say that you got it wrong — the speaker: order! order! the leader will refer his remarks through the chair. mr rudd: — we gave the prime minister every opportunity to say that it was wrong. it may have been that he got caught up in the flurry of the interview. it may have been that he didn't hear it clearly. it may have been that he didn't understand it clearly. i understand that these things can happen, but when you are given given not once, not twice but on three separate occasions in this place today an opportunity to say, "i got that wrong; i didn't mean that." and for him to pass each of those up i think says much about the partisan nature with which this prime minister now views the relationship with our great american ally. let us be absolutely clear about what is at stake here: not just an attack on a single u.s. senator, but an attack upon an entire political party. and here is where australia's national interest kicks in: this party, the democratic party, currently controls the majority in the united states house, it controls the majority in the united states senate, and within a year or so's time, may control the white house itself. and this is the party which this prime minister, in this country, and this parliament today, has reaffirmed he describes this party as the terrorists' party of choice. this is a serious matter. prime minister, could you imagine if i stood up in this parliament as the alternative prime minister and said to the people of australia that the terrorists would be advantaged if the republicans were to return to the white house at the next presidential election? ponder for a moment how that would be regarded. how would it be seized on by those opposite? [scattered assent] can you imagine the reaction from those opposite. if i stood at this dispatch box, if i appeared on national television and said that the republicans, if they won, would cause an eruption of joy on the part of al-qaeda and on the part of the terrorists? can you imagine the reaction from those opposite? [scattered assent] this is a grave mistake and i fear that it reflects a deep view on the part of the prime minister in turn to those with whom he may not share a view within the u.s. political system.

what's your sign?

because my camera decided to poop out on me last weekend, i came back with just a single shot of my entire trip to washington last weekend. it was taken the night before the march, as i was checking the camera at a friend's house in philadelphia. the picture shows the sign i would carry throughout the next day. the camera pooped out after taking the shot.

but what the flying spaghetti monster takes away with one noodly appendage, he/she/it gives back with another.

during the march, someone liked the sign so much that he offered me 50 dollars for it right on the spot. since the sign was double-sided (in fact it was two complete signs taped back-to-back), and since i didn't want to go without it, i separated the two halves and gave one to the guy for 20 dollars.

photo by dave hill © 2007.

one more bush hater

uh oh.

amid still sliding poll numbers, president bush has just lost his number one fan:

i am frustrated with the progress. if you were to take it and put me in an opinion poll and said do i approve of iraq, i'd be one of those that said, no, i don't. — president bush, pbs newshour with jim lehrer

hmm — looks like it's really just down to laura and barney now.

like writing on toilet paper

it sounds like bush is getting tired of all the carping know-it-alls-without-a-plan:

president bush on saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in baghdad. "to oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," bush said. — "bush: war skeptics 'proposing nothing'"

but if bush is genuinely interested in seeing other plans, he need only check his inbox.

it's where he'll find, among others, the murtha plan, the kerry-feingold plan, the biden plan, the edwards plan, the levin-reed plan, and not to mention the baker-hamilton plan, otherwise known as the iraq study group plan, which bush already sounds familiar with, since he was recently overheard describing it as "a flaming turd".

and then there are the seemingly daily growing roster of freely-dispensed blogger plans like the johnson plan. it's plainly apparent to none but the willfully blind and deaf that at this late date there are no lack of thoughtful alternatives.

unfortunately (and i do say this with the utmost respect to all those who have been applying the necessary brain-power and wisdom that's been heretofore lacking in this debate) all these plans represent nothing more than idle academic masturbation. they're all quite pointless. and that's why you'll find no trademarked and patented "aarrgghh plan" on this site.

because unless the first step in your grand strategy reads:

my grand strategy for iraq by carping know-it-all 1) remove george bush and dick cheney from office.

... then your plan is nothing but toilet paper.

because unless you're willing to let events continue to spiral for at least another two years, george bush will give your precious plan all the due consideration he gave to the over-anticipated iraq study group report — that is, as steve gilliard remarked, he'll "wipe his ass" with it.

which leaves us with only one plan — the only one that matters — the kagan plan, more fondly known as "the surge".

and what makes this one plan oh-so irresistible to the commander-in-chief?

frederick kagan, 36, is the author of choosing victory, a blueprint for the surge adopted by president george w bush. just as everybody had begun writing off the influence of the neocons at the white house, genial, chubby-faced frederick gave the muscular intellectuals a lease of life. it was at camp david last june that kagan, a military historian and fellow of the american enterprise institute, outlined his plans for pouring more troops into iraq to bush and his war cabinet. donald rumsfeld, the then defence secretary, was unimpressed, but kagan's views got another hearing when bush was searching for ways to ditch the seemingly defeatist recommendations of james baker's iraq study group. "wow, you mean we can still win this war?" a grateful bush reportedly said. — "... bush's final baghdad gamble"

calling captain kirk

oregon congressman david wu on the floor of the house rebuking bush's plan to escalate our adventure in the middle east:

now, this president has listened to some people, the so-called vulcans in the white house, the ideologues. but unlike the vulcans of star trek, who made the decisions based on logic and fact, these guys make it on ideology. these aren't vulcans. there are klingons in the white house. but unlike the real klingons of star trek, these klingons have never fought a battle of their own. don't let faux klingons send real americans to war. it is wrong.

wu, a democrat, is chairman of the technology and innovation subcommittee of the house science and technology committee, and apparently an avid star trek fan:

he admitted friday that while recovering from a recent back injury, he watched "a whole basket of star trek tapes" lent to him by a neighbor. which star trek series or movie is his favorite? "i watch them all," wu said. "a terrible confession."

we don't do backup

secretary of state condoleeza rice, speaking at today's senate foreign relations committee hearings on bush's plan to send more troops to iraq:

it's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work.

ah ... so that explains the last three years.

it's official

3000 ^{1, 2} deaths confirmed by the department of defense.

---

¹ 3006 reported deaths at iraq coalition casualy count

² 3013 reported deaths at globalsecurity.org

how to make a martyr

nir rosen @ iraqslogger:

hijacking eid and hanging saddam the important muslim holiday of eid al adha was due to begin over the weekend. for sunnis it began on saturday the 30th of december. for shias it begins on sunday the 31st. according to tradition in mecca, battles are suspended during the hajj period so that pilgrims can safely march to mecca. this practice even predated islam and muslims preserved this tradition, calling this period 'al ashur al hurm,' or the months of truce. by hanging saddam on the sunni eid the americans and the iraqi government were in effect saying that only the shia eid had legitimacy. sunnis were irate that shia traditions were given primacy (as they are more and more in iraq these days) and that shias disrespected the tradition and killed saddam on this day. because the iraqi constitution itself prohibits executions from being carried out on eid, the iraqi government had to officially declare that eid did not begin until sunday the 31st. it was a striking decision, virtually declaring that iraq is now a shia state. eid al adha is the festival of the sacrifice of the sheep. some may perceive it as the day saddam was sacrificed. ... although the shia dominated iraqi media claimed saddam was terrified prior to his execution and fought with his hangmen, saddam's on screen visage was one of aplomb, for he was conscious of the image he was displaying and wanted to go down as the grand historic leader he believed himself to be.

the new york times:

u.s. questioned iraq on the rush to hang hussein none of the iraqi officials were able to explain why mr. maliki had been unwilling to allow the execution to wait. nor would any explain why those who conducted it had allowed it to deteriorate into a sectarian free-for-all that had the effect, on the video recordings, of making mr. hussein, a mass murderer, appear dignified and restrained, and his executioners, representing shiites who were his principal victims, seem like bullying street thugs. but the explanation may have lain in something that bassam al-husseini, a maliki aide closely involved in arrangements for the hanging, said to the bbc later. mr. husseini, who has american citizenship, described the hanging as "an id gift to the iraqi people."

nir rosen @ iraqslogger:

saddam had been in american custody and was handed over to iraqis just before his execution. it is therefore hard to dismiss the perception that the americans could have waited, because in the end it is they who have the final say over such events in iraq. iraqi officials have consistently publicly complained that they have no authority and the americans control the iraqi police and the army. it is therefore unusual that iraqis would suddenly regain sovereignty for this important event.

digby @ hullaballoo:

bush's law: if it's possible to make things worse, he will. saddam hussein is the the man i would have thought was least likely to be turned into a martyr, but damned if they didn't manage to do it. bush's law. and here's the great thing about it — the us, which claims rather unconvincingly that it had no say in this because iraq is a sovereign country, gets blamed for this right along with the shi'a government and moqtada al sadr. terrific. lose, lose for us — as usual. heckuva job, bushie.

christopher hitchens @ slate: (hitchens has been called "the gold standard for leftwingers who had adopted the neocon stance on iraq", so his post represents something of an ongoing epiphany)

lynching the dictator ... in spite of his mad invective against "the persians" and other traitors, the only character with a rag of dignity in the whole scene is the father of all hangmen, saddam hussein himself. ... the said chief perpetrator was snatched from the dock — in the very middle of his trial — and thrown as a morsel to one of the militias. this sort of improvised "offing" is not even a parody of the serious tribunal that history demands. ... did our envoys and representatives ask for any sort of assurances before turning over a prisoner who was being held under the geneva conventions? ... we have helped to officiate at a human sacrifice. for shame. ... to have made the butcher saddam into a martyr, to have gratified one sect, and to have cheated millions of iraqis and kurds of the chance for a full accounting — what a fine day's work!

p.z. myers @ science blog pharyngula:

how can they screw up this badly? why is it that i, nasty ol' atheist who is completely ignorant of theology and religious history, can see the parallels in the execution of hussein, but our theocracy-sympathizing leaders bumble along, failing to see the damning errors of their position? ... you know, foreign occupying power, powerful religious group agitating for the execution of a hated, charismatic competitor, promises of who will bear the guilt for the deed, metaphorical washing of the hands ... jebus, if i know what a counterproductive pr disaster that was for the pharisees and the romans, what's the matter with the american leadership in iraq? don't they read the bibles they thump? add to that that they've apparently done the execution at a time when it is "religiously unacceptable", and we've got a situation that makes pontius pilate look good.

the new york times:

at the burial, several mourners threw themselves on the closed casket. one, a young man convulsed with sobs, cried: "he has not died. i can hear him speaking to me." another shouted, "saddam is dead! instead of weeping for him, think of ways we can take revenge on the iranian enemy," sunni parlance for the shiites now in power.

the los angeles times:

sunni grief, anger flow at funeral "today they proved themselves that the trial and the execution were mere retaliation and not justice," said a mourner from tikrit, near al auja, who gave his name only as abu mohammed, a customary nickname. "it is clear now against whom we should retaliate."

booman @ the booman tribune:

shrine desecration and other happy news the execution of saddam was handled very badly. there were many errors, but allowing footage of the executioners yelling 'moqtada, moqtada, moqtada' was perhaps the worst mistake. the sunni response, breaking into the samarra shrine and parading around a faux-coffin of saddam the martyr-hero, is about the worst sacrilege imaginable. imagine a bunch protestants blowing the dome off of st. peter's cathedral. then imagine them breaking into the church and parading around pictures of hitler and mussolini. there is not going to be any end in the cycle of sectarian violence.

and to start off the year ...

3002.^{1, 2}

---

¹ according to the iraq coalition casualty count, "two task force lightning soldiers assigned to 3rd brigade combat team, 1st cavalry division, were killed sunday as a result of an explosion while conducting operations in diyala province."
² the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002.

happy new year, mr. president

3000.^{1, 2, 3}

---

¹ according to the iraq coalition casualty count.
² the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002.
³ thinkprogress.org identifies the 3000th casualty as "specialist dustin r. donica, 22, of spring, texas, killed thursday by small arms fire in baghdad."

minus one

2999.¹

---

¹ (the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002)

minus two

2998.¹

that didn't take very long.

---

¹ (the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002)

minus three

2997.^{1, 2}

---

¹ (december is now the deadliest month of 2006)
² (the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002)

the nth man?

globalsecurity.org is now reporting that 3002 u.s. servicemen have been killed in iraq.

for my countdown i have been tracking the numbers at the iraq coalition casuality count, which, since my last update and for the first time that i have noticed, have been reduced by one for a current total of 2995.

minus four

2996.¹

---

¹ (now tied with october as the deadliest month of 2006)

minus seven

2993.

minus eight

2992.

countdown

2991.

blood on the shoulder of narcissus

2990.

as little as a week ago, it did not seem likely, but the number of u.s. deaths in iraq may pass 3000 before the year's end.

while december's deaths (101 so far) are still lower than october's high (106), the casualty rate (3.68/day¹) has picked up dramatically and has already surpassed october's (3.55/day²).

that number will sit like a vulture on bush's shoulder during his coming state of the union address.

---

^{1, 2} (includes all coalition deaths)

the most beautiful christmas ever

today iraq's highest appeals court upheld the conviction and death sentence of unrepentant deposed president saddam hussein. the court ruled that the verdict must be carried out anytime in the next thirty days. sic semper tyrannis.

sixteen years ago, caught in the debris of the dramatic collapse of the soviet union, romanian head-of-state and communist party leader nicolae ceausecu found himself in a hauntingly similar situation during the holiday season of 1990:

nicolae and elena ceausescu scoffed when a romanian military tribunal sentenced them to death, and even as they faced their executioners they believed that state security police would rescue them at the last minute, their attorney said in a published report yesterday. nicu teodorescu, in an interview printed in the times newspaper, said he tried to prevent the christmas day execution of the ceausescus by advising them to plead mental instability to charges of corruption, embezzlement and murder. "when i suggested it, elena in particular said it was an outrageous setup," said teodorescu, who was hastily-summoned to a military barracks to conduct the ceausescus' defense. "they felt deeply insulted, unable or unwilling to grasp their only lifeline. they rejected my help after that." teodorescu, one of bucharest's most prominent lawyers, told the times that nicolae ceausescu showed "absolutely nothing but contempt" when the tribunal delivered its verdict of death, telling the prosecutor, "'when this is all over, i'll have you put on trial.' we all laughed." about 15 minutes after sentencing, soldiers marched the couple out of the barracks and into a yard, he said. the ceausescus believed that they were being taken to a cell but instead were hastily gunned down by a rabble of soldiers, and not an organized firing squad, he said. "the first they knew they were about to die was when the bullets hit them," said teodorescu, who said he was about 90 feet from the site. "elena and nicolae fell head to head. as they fell their bodies spun slightly around and they fell close to each other, about 30 centimeters apart." his account differed from that of film shown on state-run television, which showed the blood-splattered couple propped up against a wall. the newspaper said it was possible that the bodies were moved for the benefit of the camera. "ceausescu was convinced all along his securitate [secret police] would rescue him," teodorescu was quoted as saying. "i always thought that elena was the dominant force in the partnership, but i soon came to realize nicolae was in command. they complemented each other perfectly, like a monster with two heads." the lawyer said he agreed to defend the ceausescus because "it seemed an interesting challenge." the tribunal comprised three civilians, five judges and assessors, two prosecutors, two defense lawyers and a cameraman, reported teodorescu, the only member to give a public account. "when i saw [the ceausescus] dead, as a lawyer i didn't feel anything at all," he said. "but as a citizen, i, like everybody, rejoiced. it was the most beautiful christmas in my whole life."

as much as hussein justly deserves his fate, in the wake of the ever-spiralling death and chaos his ouster precipitated, there can be little doubt that many in both washington and baghdad quietly regret the impetuous decision to invade. as the only living person known to have been able to contain iraq's violent passions, the idea of turning back the clock, however utterly fantastic, must be sorely tempting.

---

from the bonus trivia corner: hussein's november 5th death sentence is not his first such conviction. for his role in the 1959 cia-supported attempted ouster of iraqi prime minister abdul karim qassim — who had himself come to power the previous year in a military coup that deposed and executed iraq's last royal family — saddam hussein was sentenced to death in absentia while he lived in exile in cairo on the largesse of the cia.

a very substantial revolution in thinking

(updated below)

1968 secretary of defense clark clifford, speaking in the oscar award-winning 1974 documentary "hearts and minds":

in the beginning of 1968 general westmoreland needed 206,000 more troops. we met hour after hour after hour in the pentagon, and i started in and asked the joint chiefs of staff: how long do you think that we'll still be in the war? none of them knew. do you think that the 206,000 men will be enough? nobody knew. well, uh, might we have to send more men? well, possibly. well, in six months? we don't know. a year? eighteen months? i couldn't get answers to these questions. by the end of that four day interrogation i was getting down by the end of it, into very serious questions. like: do any of you men, as you look at it objectively, do you find any diminution in the will of the enemy to fight? well, they said, no, we guess we don't. are they sending the same number of men down through the ho chi minh trail? well, yes, and even there might be a little more. and, how about our bombing? we've placed great reliance on our bombing, is our bombing stopping them? no. well, what is the amount of attrition that our bombing has caused? well, maybe ten to fifteen percent. i remember asking one question: well, if a north vietnamese field commander in south vietnam needed 1000 men, [ inaudible ], if he asked for say, 1200 men, 1000 would get through? well, that's right. well, then he'd have the 1000 he really needed. well yes, that's so. well, this type of interrogation — finally, by the end of four or five days, i must say that my thinking had undergone a very substantial revolution.

at that moment in 1968 it was the joint chiefs who were pushing to further escalate the war — today, in a curious historical reversal of roles, it's only the white house and their dwindling enablers who are trying to justify a "surge" in iraq, to the unanimous consternation of the chiefs and a very disapproving public.

if the iraq study group report did nothing to impede the prosecution of the occupation — much less revolutionize the thinking of the president — at the very least it seems to have finally taken any talk of "victory" from his smirking lips.

(hat tip to steve gilliard and in particular to his commenter bohica for the life cover.)

update (12/20/06): president bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the united states is not winning the war in iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" u.s. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists. as he searches for a new strategy for iraq, bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "we're not winning, we're not losing," bush said in an interview with the washington post. the assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the november elections, declared, "absolutely, we're winning."

na ga ha pen

for those of you going all a-twitter (or for others, going all a-slaver) at the prospect of the stillborn loss of next year's democratic senate majority:

take a deep breath.

it ain't that easy, according to jonathan singer @ mydd:

little to no precedent for forcibly unseating incapacitated senators: the only way the senate can remove a member is by a vote to expel, and there has never been any desire to do that for a health-related cause. sen. karl mundt (r-s.d.) suffered a debilitating stroke in 1969 but refused to resign and stayed in office until his term expired in january 1973 — although he never showed up for work following his infirmity. republicans pressured mundt to step down shortly before the 1970 elections, when it appeared the gop was going to lose the governorship, and with it their ability to appoint a senate successor. there was never talk of a motion to expel, though the republican conference eventually did strip him of his committee assignments. in november of that year, a democrat was elected governor, so the republicans who were urging mundt's resignation turned to hoping he would serve until his term expired. there were other, similar situations. rep. john grotberg (r-ill.) lapsed into a coma in january 1986 after participation in an experimental program for his colon cancer caused him to have a heart seizure. his family and staff refused to consider resignation, and the house took no action. he even won re-nomination to the house in the march gop primary that year, but his family finally relented and announced he would not run again. he remained a member of the house until his death in november 1986. in the spring of 1964, sen. clair engle (d-calif.) was dying of brain cancer, but refused democratic entreaties to resign. in june, when the senate voted to break the filibuster that had stymied the civil rights bill, the dying engle was wheeled onto the senate floor to vote for cloture by motioning with his hand. he died a month later. in the spring of 1943, sen. carter glass (d-va.) was 85 years old, in poor health and simply stopped coming to work. he died in may of 1946, still a senator but no longer a visitor to capitol hill. and according to sen. robert byrd's (d-w.va.) invaluable book of senate historical statistics, sen. james grimes (r-iowa) suffered a stroke in 1869 and remained in office as an invalid until his death in february of 1872. but there was no move in the senate to declare any of the aforementioned seats vacant. the only instance i can think of where lawmakers took action involved gladys spellman of maryland. the democratic house member suffered a massive heart attack in october of 1980 while campaigning that left her in a semi-conscious, coma-like state from which she never emerged. she won re-election with ease, but once it was determined that there was no prospect for recovery, the house voted to declare the seat vacant in february 1981.

still, what this inquiring mind wants to know is: if johnson should fall into a "persistent vegetative state" (though, according to his most recent diagnoses, johnson is thankfully "recovering without complications", making this outcome increasingly unlikely), like the now-famous terry schiavo, for whom the republicans brought congress to a standstill, should we expect the republicans to agree to allow him to take his seat?

the young person's guide to net neutrality

a public service brought to you by henry rollins of the independent film channel's the henry rollins show:

freedom is under attack — under attack by hysterical and well-funded christian psychotics. intellectually undernourished leaders who lie and manipulate information. overfed baby huey coward bitch motherfuckers like karl rove and their suck-up weakling apologists like sean hannity. to question authority is to be somehow unpatriotic, un-american and in league with terrorists worldwide? fuck you! with even election results becoming more and more questionable, the constitution a thing to be manipulated, ignored and frivolously amended, even democracy itself seems to be on the run. so where's the one place you can go and tell your version of the truth, rail against liars, fakes and propagandists with your own unique propaganda, sign your name to it and let the whole world know how you feel? that's right. the internet. perhaps responsible for the most substantial shifts in culture in the last several decades. there's so much freedom and potential on the worldwide web that one is barely able to get one's head around it. who in their right mind would dare to regulate or charge websites to be on the internet? who would dare to rain on a parade so fantastic that many of us would not know what to do without our high-speed connection and our lives on the internet? actually, some very powerful forces. telco companies want to make you pay for your site to be carried on the internet. if you can't afford to pay, guess what? that's right, you're cyber-history, pal! the bush administration wants major internet and phone companies to keep track of where their customers surf, all in the name of the "war on terror", don't you know. how much do you wanna bet they want the internet regulated, contained and thrown into a cell at guantanamo bay? for a country that talks so much about freedom being on the march, seems to me that some people want anything but! if they come for your freedom, you must not only resist, you must strike back with a vengeance that will stun them. on this front, if your anger and outrage are not at the forefront, then you're already dead! dead to me, anyway. fuck these cowards! these traitors! these ENEMIES of democracy! thanks for watching the show this season. never relent.

note: in an otherwise solid introduction to the developing struggle over net neutrality, henry mistakely mischaracterizes the telcos' plan as wanting to burden the end user with excess access fees.

what the telcos really want is to get their fees directly from the access providers, who in response would create segregated tiers of access, rewarding the affluent with state-of-the-art high speed high bandwidth content while relegating the rest of the population to the equivalent of the internet ghetto.

today msnbc.com competes for your attention on the same playing field as glad-you-asked.blogspot.com, but the telcos want to apply the corporate television model to the internet, which rewards institutional media outlets with disproportionate impact, benefits and profits relative to their resource-starved public-access brethen.

mission creep

for those of you who haven't been paying attention, jim henley @ unqualified offerings has been keeping score:

defining catastrophe up a rhetorical change i'm noticing since the isg [iraq study group] report came out is that we have to stay in iraq "to prevent a wider regional war," aka "the new thirty years' war" and so on. that suggests that our mission is no longer preventing "full-blown civil war," which used to be what we had to prevent, or "increased sectarian strife," which is what we had to prevent before that, or "increasing insurgent violence" which is what we had to prevent before that. the pattern has always been: declare that we must stay in iraq to prevent some bad thing from happening. bad thing happens anyway. declare that we must stay in iraq to prevent some worse thing from happening. worse thing happens anyway. reiterate sequence. at no point does the "sensible center" consider that the previous failures implicate our ability to fulfill the new mission, which is always paradoxically grander in scale while being a retreat from previous ambitions.

henley did leave out a crucial step, however, one that the administration has never missed — signaling its utmost importance — the step that falls between the last bad thing happening and the next declaration of commitment:

• launch a grandiose speaking tour to roll out our minty fresh new war slogan!

a special holiday rebroadcast

beyond the fact that my non-blogging duties have reduced my output to a minimum during the last two months, it's actually getting harder to come up with original material, given that so many events have evolved so predictably over the still-short lifespan of this blog. (though not predictably enough for the mainstream press.)

i've never been particularly fond of listening to myself repeat myself, but given the denouments of this month, the midterm elections and the violence in iraq, i thought it was safe to indulge in a few classic reruns, with only the mildest hint of schaudenfreude.

regarding the midterms, i present first this graphic from my march post "karl rove: super-genius":

is there really anything more that needs be said?

---

also from march, i present "cry uncle", my death knell for the republican majority:

so much for the radical conservative plan for a permanent republican majority. it doesn't appear to have had any more staying power than the "thousand-year" reich. i guess a taste of absolute power — or as much as could be had within our system — over both the government and the media will do that to a movement as morally bankrupt as this one proved to be. if i could isolate the hamartia, the single critical flaw responsible for the downfall of the conservative agenda i would point to its rampant cronyism. cronyism is of course nothing unique to this administration, nor is it inherently evil; it is quite natural for people to want to extend their largess to those whom they like, a characteristic that makes cronyism impossible to eradicate. cronyism is typically harmless when its beneficiaries are rewarded with positions that exist in title only, even if those positions do contribute to administrative bloat. but tangible harm looms when qualified people are prevented from assuming or are forced out of positions where their expertise is mandated. people like former treasury secretary paul o'neill, who disagreed with bush on his tax cuts. people like former counter-terrorism advisor richard clarke, who disagreed with bush on the threat of al quaeda. people like retired generals anthony zinni and eric shinseki, who disagreed with bush on invading iraq. cronyism breeds incompetence when it elevates unqualified and untalented people into positions of importance and influence. people like former nasa press director george deutsch, who attempted to turn the science agency into a propaganda organ. people like former fema director michael brown, whose incompetence in the face of hurricane katrina delivered fatal consequences. people like president george walker bush, who of course needs no further introduction. the bush administration is a potemkin government: by virtue of their elevation of politics over policy and appearance over substance, they eventually and inevitably reveal themselves to be completely inept in every instance where actual governance is required. disaster follows them like a love-sick dog. it is actually quite amazing the speed with which the hard-line conservatives have burned through their so-called "capital". after forty years in the wilderness, they blew their gains in just ten years. so it looks like it's back to the desert for this sorry crew. the lesson has become painfully obvious to all, even to the members of a party so practiced in the art of denial: time.com: former speaker of the house newt gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way washington is run, told time that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: "had enough?"

---

lastly, regarding iraq, i present, in condensed form, another march post, "can't stand up for standing down", an examination of bush's "strategy for victory in iraq":

while efforts to recruit and train iraqis into a competent, independent and professional fighting force have been purportedly ongoing, with halting progress, since the overthrow of saddam hussein, at the end of last november the president officially declared these efforts to be one of the linchpins of his exit strategy, during his "strategy for victory in iraq" tour, a series of speeches aimed at once again shoring up his dying support among increasingly skeptical americans... his strategy has been compared to "vietnamization", nixon's handing over of military operations to the south vietnamese army — a comparison the administration understandably has ignored, not wanting to evoke unsettling images of the fall of saigon. ... meanwhile, either because of or in spite of the explosion of full-blown chaos after the bombing of golden dome, the newly-elected iraqi government remains stillborn amid intense sectarian disagreements, among them ibrahim jaafari's re-nomination to prime minister. it seems incapable of forming a "unity" government ... and the non-"civil war" rages on unabated with its clearly ethnic bombings, reprisals and executions, with the continuing participation of iraq's security forces ... can "iraqization" succeed under these conditions? not bloody likely. in at least one crucial aspect it is a very different process from "vietnamization". the government of south vietnam, corrupt and unpopular as it was, was not wracked to the core by sectarianism. the south vietnamese government could reasonably count on the loyalty of its troops, if not their strength. there has been almost no reportage whatsoever on the issue of troop loyalties. to me it seems to be one of the elephants in the room regarding bush's exit strategery. in order for "iraqization" to succeed, first, the mutually antagonistic elements of the duly elected iraqi government must come together as one and begin governing. until then it is a government in name only. second, the mutually antagonistic elements of the iraqi military and police forces will have to put loyalty to the government and its laws above loyalty to their particular family, tribe and imam. unfortunately, i don't see that happening with the current generation, certainly not while ethic violence continues in a self-consuming orgy. loyalty to the government cannot be taught in eight weeks of boot camp. what the bush administration calls "standing up", i call building american-trained and american-armed death squads. if american troops are going home anytime soon, it won't be because the iraqi army is ready to "stand up". (image courtesy of get your war on.)