Alternative approaches to Syria begin cropping up

Washington Post: A draft resolution being circulated by two moderate Democratic senators would give the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban or face the threat of “all elements” of U.S. military power.

Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) are working on the alternative proposal, which would delay the immediate use of military force and compel the Obama administration to build more international and American political support for striking the Assad government, according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

The resolution would give the Assad government 45 days to sign the chemical weapons ban and require President Obama to present lawmakers with a plan to end the violence in Syria through diplomatic means, according to a draft copy of the resolution obtained by The Post from Senate aides.

Oddly enough, to the left of this solution is Republican Rep. Chris Smith’s plan, which would forgo military action entirely and instead would “call for an immediate ceasefire in Syria and direct the president to work with the United Nations to set up a tribunal to investigate war crimes committed by both the Syrian government and rebel groups in the country.” It’s not the greatest idea — if you find Assad guilty of war crimes, then what? — but give the guy credit for trying.

What’s bothered me about this all along is that, as far as the media was concerned, there has been no middle ground here. The voices speaking have been intensely polarized between “We gotta blow shit up right now” and “Yeah Sarin gas is terrible — but really, is it any of our business?” There’s plenty of room between those opinions for alternate solutions. Seriously, there has to be a more rational and serious approach than either “kill ‘em all!” or “who gives a fuck?”

And the way things are going right now, the White House would probably be smart to start demanding solutions from the naysayers; “‘No’ isn’t good enough. What’s your idea?”

They might just be able to draw people out to craft a serious bipartisan solution to a problem that would be immoral to completely ignore. As it is, “who gives a fuck?” is winning and, while that’s an alternative to war, it’s not an alternative to justice. Our choices aren’t just between going in guns ablazin’ or shrugging our shoulders and turning our backs. We should be working on finding the best alternative to the two.

[photo by Corey Templeton]

In Senate draft resolution on Syria, McCain finally meets a military action he doesn’t like

Talking Points Memo: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said Wednesday that he doesn’t support the Senate’s version of the resolution to authorize force in Syria, MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt reported on air.

According to Hunt, McCain said that he’s opposed to the resolution because it “doesn’t make any reference to changing the momentum on the ground in Syria” and it also fails to arm the Free Syrian Army, a rebel group fighting the Assad regime there. The Arizona Republican indicated that several other senators share his misgivings about the resolution.

Although he left the door open to voting against the Syria resolution, McCain suggested Tuesday at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that it would send a "seriously bad message" if Congress voted against taking military action. On Monday, McCain said it would be "catastrophic" if Congress failed to pass the resolution.

Ah yes, this is the old John McCain that all of us know and few of us love. If I were to boil this position down to one cogent point, it would be that McCain opposes this resolution precisely because it’s carefully drafted to avoid mission creep and escalation into all-out war. The resolution deals strictly with chemical weapons and McCain desperately wants us to join in the fighting with the rebels because that’s what John McCain does — if there’s a war going someplace without American involvement, McCain feels sad and left out, like the only kid not invited to a birthday party.

Of course, McCain’s dissatisfaction is the equivalent of the Peace-Lover’s Seal of Approval. Greg Sargent points out that “McCain refusing to support limited use of force resolution makes it easier for liberals and Dems to support it.” Politics is much more the art of the kneejerk contrarian than the art of the possible these days.

It’s tempting to suspect that this is McCain’s strategy to get more people on board with military action, but his reported unhappiness with the resolution is just so John McCain. He’s opposing the current draft because it’s not an open declaration of all-out war, not because he’s playing chess. He’s wanted to join in with the rebels for a very long time and if any action isn’t specifically designed to aid the rebels and topple Assad, McCain has no use for it.

McCain probably will vote for this in the end, but only because he’s settling for what, in his eyes, is the only possible alternative to doing nothing.

[photo via NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan]

JFK on war

“War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.”
—John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States and  recipient of the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for “outstanding courage, endurance and leadership” in the Pacific theater in WWII.

[photo via Wikimedia Commons]

Eisenhower on War

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.  This world in arms is not spending money alone.  It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.  This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.  Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
—Dwight David Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, WWII.
[photo via Wikimedia Commons]

The Moment Operation Iraqi Freedom Ended

A story I'm unwilling to let go overlooked by this blog.

That's it folks, Operation Iraqi Freedom has officially gone out of business. Peace out, y'all.

Not This Crap Again...

Greg Sargent supplies us with the DNC response to Michael Steele's statements on Afghanistan:

RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE BETS AGAINST OUR TROOPS, ROOTS FOR FAILURE

"Here goes Michael Steele setting policy for the GOP again. The likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be interested to hear that the Republican Party position is that we should walk away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job. They'd also be interested to hear that the Chairman of the Republican Party thinks we have no business in Afghanistan notwithstanding the fact that we are there because we were attacked by terrorists on 9-11.

"And, the American people will be interested to hear that the leader of the Republican Party thinks recent events related to the war are 'comical' and that he is betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan. It's simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement. Michael Steele would do well to remember that we are not in Afghanistan by our own choosing, that we were attacked and that his words have consequences."

This statement is getting some pushback from the left -- specifically, in regards to it's Bush-like neocon tone. For example, "undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement" is pretty much the same argument the Bush administration and the Republican Party used against Democrats and liberals committed to ending the war in Iraq. Worse, "his words have consequences" echoes back to Bush's first press secretary Ari Fleischer's ominous warning; "all Americans... need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

"Clearly, Dems are opting for strong language to break through on a Friday before a holiday weekend in the belief that this does raise real questions about Steele's candor," Sargent wrote. "But this is Karl Rove's playbook. I don't care how often Republicans do it -- this blog is not on board with this kind of thing from either party."

"I haven't forgotten the Bush/Cheney years," Steve Benen agreed, "and the disgusting rhetoric Republicans used to attack any American who voiced disagreement over the war(s). Dissent was equated with disloyalty. Words like 'treason,' 'traitor,' and 'fifth columnists,' weren't just thrown around casually, they were literally a daily part of the public discourse.

"But Republicans were wrong at the time, and such tactics are still wrong now. If the DNC wants to exploit Steele's remarkable comments for all their worth, that's more than fair. But once the DNC starts equating opposition to the war with 'rooting for failure' and 'undermining the morale of our troops,' the party is reading from the wrong script."

Democrats could've focused on the idiocy of saying that Afghanistan was "Obama's war of choice" and been fine. They could've even written the same hyperbolic statement they released -- after adding appropriate irony by sticking the words "Republicans under Bush would've said..." in there someplace.

But they didn't. They opted for the same idiotic "Shut up or you hate America!!" rhetoric that's brought our country to a level of stupidity that fosters teabaggers. Our national dialogue has been poisoned enough with phony flag-waving and militant grandstanding, thank you very much, we really don't need any more. Leave the "hate America!" stuff to bloggers like me, who wield it as a tool of poetic justice (and do the people who find themselves on the other end of that tool ever deserve it) and a source of humor. We're able to make it clear we don't really mean it or -- in the cases where we fail on that point -- it doesn't matter anyway.

One party having lost its mind through a sort of zealotry of military worship is plenty, I think. Someone's got to stay sober enough to drive this country.

Griper Blade: Expecting More of Obama

Big night last night. The president's announcement of an escalation of the Afghanistan war managed to make few people happy. On the right, this can be explained -- to a large extent, anyway -- by kneejerk partisanship. For them, Barack Obama can do no right. They don't like that the president set a 18-month timeline to begin withdrawal. But it's not hard to imagine that, had he gone with an Bush-like open-ended commitment, they would be criticizing him for not having an exit strategy.

With the media stuck in the 2008 presidential campaign, it should be less surprising that they keep running to John McCain for reactions to Obama's actions. They don't seem to realize that there is now no way that McCain/Palin can still win it (it's over, guys). But they keep doing it and I keep wondering why. Still, McCain gives what we can call the unofficial Republican response on ABC's Good Morning America today:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the leading Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said while he agrees with the president's decision to up the number of troops, setting a timeline for withdrawal will only allow the Taliban to regroup and emerge stronger when U.S. forces leave Afghanistan.

"I support the president's decision to have a properly resourced counter insurgency strategy," McCain told "Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts today. "My only difference... is setting a date for return... Dates should be determined by success on the ground not by the calendar."

Remember that whole "commanders in the field" thing Bush used to pull? He'd basically argue that the president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and, as such, he couldn't do anything that the Pentagon didn't agree with. It didn't make any sense then and it doesn't now, but McCain seemed to buy it at the time. You wonder why he doesn't buy it now... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: 'The Only Solution Given is Pills'

The Army has a bit of a problem. Despite efforts to curb suicide among troops, Army suicides continue to rise. "One week after the U.S. Army announced record suicide rates among its soldiers last year, the service is worried about a spike in possible suicides in the new year," CNN reported yesterday. "The Army said it already has confirmed seven suicides, with 17 additional cases pending that it believes investigators will confirm as suicides for January.

"If those prove true, more soldiers will have killed themselves than died in combat last month. According to Pentagon statistics, there were 16 U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq in January."

In fact, the Army has seen a rise in suicide every year for the past four years. To combat the problem, the service has created a "battle-buddy" program, which is basically the buddy system for suicide, but this has turned out to be as ineffective as you might have thought it would be.

In 2005, in testimony to a House Appropriations subcommittee, the Army’s surgeon general placed the blame squarely on the troops. "That’s still part of our culture: Real men don’t see [mental health counselors]…" said Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley. "I would like to see a culture that resets the force mentally." Macho, tough guy culture was killing troops, but it seems a pretty safe assumption that this culture had been with the Army longer than its suicide problem. I don't remember the Army having a previous reputation as being a place for sharing and emotional support. Clearly, this "real men" culture -- which, of course, includes real women -- may be aggravating the problem, but it couldn't possibly be the cause.

For their part, the Army seems at a loss to explain the real cause of the suicides. "This is terrifying," Col. Kathy Platoni, chief clinical psychologist for the Army Reserve and National Guard told CNN. "We do not know what is going on." She speculated that maybe it was winter blahs.

"There is more hopelessness and helplessness because everything is so dreary and cold," she said.

"But Platoni said she sees the multiple deployments, stigma associated with seeking treatment and the excessive use of anti-depressants as ongoing concerns for mental-health professionals who work with soldiers," CNN reported.

Now we're getting someplace... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Republicans, Iraq, and Santa Claus

A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste.
Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., on the $888 billion economic stimulus package.

Wicker's statement represents the Republican view of the stimulus package. Sadly for him, he's typical of a GOP senator; how he feels about spending depends entirely on which party is doing it. Like most of the remaining Republicans in the Senate, Wicker voted with Bush every time a bill dealing with the occupation of Iraq came up.

$1,000,000,000,000 may be a terrible thing to waste, but $3,000,000,000,000 is just fine. That three trillion dollar price tag is what the invasion and occupation of Iraq will have cost us before we're done -- and that's the conservative figure. Talk about your shovel-ready projects -- we've been shoveling money down a hole in Iraq, while Republicans in Washington shoveled BS on the American people. The difference here is that all that money does nothing for the US, let alone Iraq. It's just a big money-pile we've lit on fire. If it's changed American and Iraqi lives at all, it's changed them for the worse.

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Jim DeMint debated the merits of the stimulus, with DeMint arguing in favor of tax cuts. Because eight years of tax cuts have been so good for the economy. To listen to DeMint, the stimulus is spending money to spend money... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Firing Blackwater USA

A few days ago, Blackwater USA CEO Erik Prince wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. The gist of it is that the mercenary corporation is absolutely wonderful and we should just go ahead and ignore the fact that five guards were charged in an atrocity that left 17 unarmed Iraqis dead and involved a rocket-propelled grenade fired into a girls' school. These guys face a possible 47 years in prison for crimes ranging from weapons charges to voluntary manslaughter.

We're told Blackwater employees are "putting their lives at risk each day to protect U.S. Department of State officials and other civilians working in the country. Yet somehow that role and the part they play in this war have been grossly misunderstood." Unfortunately, Prince doesn't really explain why Blackwater is protecting that diplomatic corps. And no one else can either. Before the Bush administration, State Department employees were guarded by US Marines and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security -- an agency similar to the Secret Service. After Bush, Marines and federal cops were somehow not good enough anymore -- we had to hire rent-a-cops with machine guns. But it's the Bush administration, it doesn't have to make any sense. It just is. The fact that Prince and his family were significant donors to the Republican party and Bush's campaigns probably had nothing at all to do with it. Replacing US Marines with Blackwater employees was absolutely necessary because... Well, just because. Remember, if there's any possible way to privatize something, then Bushies go ahead and privatize it. The idea that government is hopelessly incompetent and wasteful extends even to the US Marine Corps. Way to support the troops, George.

But it turns out that Prince realized he had a bit of a public relations problem on his hand. Blackwater employees -- who have been regularly described as "thugs" -- didn't have the shiniest public reputation and that rep needed a little buffing. "What he says is less important that the fact that he's saying it at all," wrote Daniel Schuman for Mother Jones. Erik Prince, normally willing to shut up and let the Bush administration to all the Blackwater apologism, was forced to make his own case. Bush administration officials weren't rushing to the company's defense... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Those Ungrateful Iraqis

It may turn out to be one of the most lasting images of the Bush presidency. The leader of the free world ducks as an angry journalist throws a shoe at him. President Bush was in Iraq to sign an agreement that would require -- by Iraqi and international law -- that occupying US forces withdraw. Shoes were thrown, things went haywire, and we had the Iraq war in miniature -- a nearly perfect metaphor for the whole thing. While Bush was talking about how wonderful things are in Iraq, Iraqis hate him for how awful things are in Iraq. Telling that lie here, where we're protected from the truth by a play-along media, is one thing. Telling that lie there, where they live with the truth every day, is another thing entirely.

Middle east expert Juan Cole tells us that the shoe-thrower, Muntazir al-Zaidi, was reacting to the things he had witnessed in his country, calling out, "Killer of Iraqis, killer of children!" as the guards took him down.

[Zaidi] had covered the US bombing of Sadr City last spring, in support of PM Nuri al-Maliki's incursion into this stronghold of the Sadr Movement and its Mahdi Army, and is said to have been emotionally affected by the sight of that destruction

The frequent US bombing of civilian Iraqi cities that are already under US military occupation has been one of the most under-reported stories of the Iraq War.

Raining death from above tends to make people angry, I guess. As an American, I wouldn't know -- that's just something that happens in other places. Places we invade. It's the sort of thing that we do to other countries, so I wouldn't have any idea what it feels like, what it looks like, what it smells like, or how it the memories wake you up in a cold sweat. Never having been on the receiving end of aerial bombings, I'm not in a position to know these sort of things. Living within the empire has its privileges... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Shinseki the Realist

I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about posthostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground-force presence.
-General Eric Shinseki to Sen. Carl Levin of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the size of the force required to invade Iraq, 2003.

That got Shinseki fired. Then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had long argued that the US needed to use a lighter force, with the emphasis on speed, and that anything else was fighting a 21st century war from a cold war mindset. Needless to say, Shinseki was right. Rumsfeld's strategy was shortsighted and simpleminded. When we invaded Iraq, our forces were too few to defend gains. We'd chase fighters off, declare victory, then roll of in a triumphant cloud of dust. Then the fighters would return and we'd be gone. This boneheaded "strategy" of Rumsfeld's had entirely predictable results. We'd chase off Iraqi guards from munitions stores, roll off in our big American cloud, and leave these ammo dumps completely unguarded, because we didn't have enough personnel to leave behind. Munitions captured by militias and terrorists are probably still being used as IEDs to this day. Donald Rumsfeld's brilliant plan for a light, fast fighting force was just as idiotic as it seemed to be.

But before all that happened, before Shinseki was proven right, the general was forced into retirement for not buying the neocon line. Rumsfeld said Shinseki's estimate in senate testimony "will prove to be high." Deputy SecDef Paul Wolfowitz said his numbers were "way off the mark."

It wasn't until 2006 that anyone admitted that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had bet on the wrong horse. "General Shinseki was right," Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told that same committee three years later. Bush's "surge," while coming too late to correct the neocon vision for the military of the future, was basically an admission -- three years after the fact -- that Shinseki was right and the Rumsfeldian's side of the argument was as wrong as any ten year-old could've told them they were. As a result, Bush wound up claiming success for his surge, although the decrease in violence was due more to successful ethnic cleansing campaigns by militias and insurgents that might have been avoided. Violence had died down not because of an increased military presence, but because the killers had run out of people to kill. Rumsfeld's brilliant new strategy not only cost him his own job, but also countless lives. Entire neighborhoods went dark, the residents either dead or refugees...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: KBR, a Typical Privatization Story

Today, our service men and women continue to inspire and strengthen our Nation, going above and beyond the call of duty as part of the greatest military the world has ever known. Americans are grateful to all those who have put on our Nation's uniform and to their families, and we will always remember their service and sacrifice for our freedoms.
- George W. Bush, Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 2008

There's "above and beyond" and then there's "above and way beyond." Bush, in his "prayer for peace," neglects to tell us just what America's fighting forces are expected to face. We know about the nuts with guns and RPG rounds. We know about the roadside bombs and sectarian violence. We even know about the heat. What we don't get a lot of coverage of is how they're expected to live. Turns out, that's a really big story. And, despite having broken yesterday, it's still not getting a lot of press.

Military Times:

A Georgia man has filed a lawsuit against contractor KBR and its former parent company, Halliburton, saying the companies exposed everyone at Joint Base Balad in Iraq to unsafe water, food and hazardous fumes from the burn pit there.

Joshua Eller, who worked as a civilian computer-aided drafting technician with the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing, said military personnel, contractors and third-country nationals may have been sickened by contamination at the largest U.S. installation in Iraq, home to more than 30,000 service members, Defense Department civilians and contractors.

“Defendants promised the United States government that they would supply safe water for hygienic and recreational uses, safe food supplies and properly operate base incinerators to dispose of medical waste safely,” according to the lawsuit, filed Nov. 26 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “Defendants utterly failed to perform their promised duties.”

The details are horrific.We're told about suffering from "skin lesions that subsequently spread, filled with fluid and burst," about "vomiting, cramping and diarrhea," about "severe abdominal pain." Worse, the lawsuit tells the story of "a wild dog running around base with a human arm in its mouth. The human arm had been dumped on the open air burn pit by KBR."

KBR also reused ice from mortuary trucks. Troops were served ice that "still had traces of body fluids and putrefied remains in them..." That's above and beyond the call of duty. That's way beyond anything that should be expected of anyone...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: The Price Tag

There's a popular myth out there that jobs and wealth are created by businesses. This isn't true. Jobs and wealth are created by demand. I could open a business selling something for which there is zero demand and all the people I hired would be out of work again as soon as I went under. Consumers create jobs and wealth, not suppliers. It always gets me when people talk about business owners and CEOs as "job creators" -- they're not.

Likewise, Wall Street doesn't create wealth. Wall Street trades on wealth. Wealth comes from the creation of objects for which there is a demand. These objects can be solid and tangible, like a boat or a hamburger, or they can be more conceptual, like a newspaper column or a novel. But it has to be a noun. Value is added to things that already exist by labor. The dead cow becomes the hamburger, the blank page becomes the novel. No one pays money for something they could easily find lying around. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

In the bailout debate, we're left arguing over whether the product of labor is worth more than the business of capital. Granted, the auto industry has pulled a lot of boneheaded maneuvers, but the fact is that the root of their problem is identical to the banking industry's problem -- a credit crunch. Car sales are just as dependent on loans as Wall Street. When it's hard to get a loan, it's hard to buy a car...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: The Exit Interview

Some have called it the "exit interview." President Bush sat down with ABC News' Charles Gibson for an interview, to be broadcast during the nightly news. A few moments are getting all the coverage and they probably should. Bush continues to live in a world all his own, completely isolated from the facts and reality. Still, there are cracks in the bubble and reality seeps in in small quantities. Asked by Gibson, "Was the election in any way a repudiation of the Bush administration?" Bush answered:

I think it was a repudiation of Republicans. And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me. I think most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next four years explaining policy. In other words, they made a conscious choice to put him in as President.

I like that last sentence. That ought to kill all that speculation that we elected Barack Obama by accident. We made a conscious choice. Good to know. You ever notice how Bush will say something obvious, then say "in other words" and say something just as obvious? Sometimes the "other words" aren't even other words, just the same words in a different order and in a different tense. It's like he's thinking he's got to say more, so he pads his word count. In other words, he's padding his word count because he thinks he needs to use more words...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Remember Iraqi Refugees

Today, the President and the President-Elect will meet at the White House to discuss the bloodless change of government that is the genius of democracy. Viva la Revolución Pacífica! The economy is said to be the primary focus, but you imagine the discussion will be pretty broad in its range. Barack Obama has been getting daily intelligence briefings, so we can assume he's up to speed on world events and the status of different "situations" around the globe. He's probably not going to be too interested in advice, although you assume he'll take it graciously. Normally, free advice is worth only what you paid for it, but from a failed presidency, it's worth even less than that. Obama just wants to know if you have to dial 9 to get an outside line. This is about running the physical machinery of the White House and a smooth transition from failure to promise.

There are many problems that President Obama will have to address and many of those are problems that President Bush let fester. In fact, many of these crises were caused by Bush, who's now busy pretending they don't exist. A big reason for the failures of the Bush administration is their addiction to BS; they seem to have a belief that there is no problem that isn't a PR problem. It doesn't matter whether something's going well, what's important is the perception that it's going well. If everyone thinks there isn't a problem, then there isn't a problem. Crisis management, for this crew, consists almost solely of press conferences. There is no problem that can't be talked to death.

And that's the problem with Iraq. While Bush singlemindedly pursues what he calls "victory," he ignores the problems he's caused with his boneheaded invasion of that country. Many will tell you that things are better there than they have been, but few will tell you its better now than it's ever been. Iraq is still a nation defined by instability, violence, and want. The current President wants you to think otherwise, because that's how he solves problems. The President-Elect will have to do better. Contrary to what George W. Bush seems to believe, you can't deny reality forever.

"Many Iraqis tell me that America broke this country and it is still shattered. When they look at their lives they see the lack of electricity, the corruption, the lack of clean water and much more," writes McClatchy Baghdad Bureau Chief Leila Fadel. "Security has improved but everything here is tenuous and violence, which has dropped but not disappeared, may come back."



[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Creating a New Mandate

I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.
-Franklin Roosevelt, comment to reformers

Yesterday, I wrote that the winners of the 2008 election were the people and that the winners shouldn't go home. We can count on Obama to work on the agenda he spelled out on the campaign trail, but there is still a place for activism after your guy wins. While the right is trying to launch an "Obama doesn't have a mandate" narrative, this seems doomed to failure to me, since it requires you to believe BS about what it is you want. I kind of think you're the expert there. You really don't need some jerk explaining to you what you think. As spin jobs go, this one seems a little pointless.

But Obama only has a mandate to do what he proposed in his presidential campaign; restoring tax fairness, reforming health care, rebuilding the economy, getting out of Iraq, investing in infrastructure and green energy, etc. These are the things we can expect the new president to address in his first term.

But there are issues that weren't brought up on the campaign trail. In discussing the president-elect, we tend to forget the sitting president. George W. Bush hid out during the campaign, an invisible president who avoided the public spotlight the way a vampire avoids sunlight. One big issue was fairly successfully avoided by John McCain and that was what the hell to do about George W. Bush and company...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

As Iraqi Refugees Return, So Does Ethnic Cleansing

clipped from www.mcclatchydc.com Many Iraqi families have returned to their old homes in peace, but a disturbing trend already is emerging: They're being targeted and attacked, and in some cases killed, for trying to go home. Some have been threatened. Others have found explosives tied to their front doors. Some have had their homes blown up. Corinne Reilly / MCT A young girl and her brother have lived in an abandoned building in Karrada for five years. | View larger image The trend, along with an uptick in sectarian and ethnic violence in northern Iraq and growing tensions among rival Shiite factions in the south, is a worrisome development for American political and military leaders who're increasingly eager to declare victory in Iraq so more U.S. troops can be sent to Afghanistan. Sectarian cleansing has helped to reduce the violence in Iraq to a four-year low, but the small number of returnees who've been targeted so far could be a warning that the violence could return, too.

So much for the "the surge worked" triumphalism. Still, as the single-issue media focuses on the election, don't look for stories like this to go very far. Bush and McCain and the rest of the pro-war pols will be able to repeat their lie with almost complete impunity.

Griper Blade: Obama's Night

It’s a dangerous road, but we have no choice. If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose.
-McCain campaign aide, on the campaign's choice of focusing on negative campaigning rather than the economy.

If you ever needed proof of that assessment, you only need to look at the second presidential debate. It's bad news for McCain, since the economy hasn't just become the top issue in people's minds, but the only issue.

McCain, whose negative campaigning was largely -- but not entirely -- missing last night, seemed to have lacked the courage to do his "let's all hate Obama" schtick in front of anything other than an entirely friendly audience. No William Ayers, no Rev. Wright, no claim that Obama wants to kill babies and teach sex ed in kindergarten. Maybe McCain is ashamed of his own campaign and tried to hide it from the audience last night. Here I thought that Baghdad Johnny had sold so far out that he was beyond shame. I thought he'd entered into the Bushian version of enlightenment, where shame and conscience are shed the way a Zen master sheds material attachments. Maybe there's still a shred of decency left in John McCain.

Then again, he probably calculated that it wouldn't work in that hall -- not that it's working anywhere else. If McCain's campaign has decided they can't win if the conversation's about the economy, then they're quickly learning that they can't win by ignoring it either. McCain's losing that argument badly...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

John McCain on The First Amendment

A blast from the past. The video is from September of last year.

Typical of Republicans who tend to see the Second Amendment as the only thing worth a damn in the Bill of Rights. Long story short, he's against freedom of speech and says people who use it should be thrown out of the country.

clipped from www.reddit.com