Olbermania

Keith Olbermann has something important to say about Rumsfeld's speechifying.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

And then, as if we needed a reminder of just how badly the media has failed us, he invokes Edward R Murrow in closing and leaves us longing for a press corps with integrity:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.

Emphasis mine.

Reading up on Iran

Ali Ansari... someone who actually knows of what he speaks (bio).

Ansari on Iran's status quo.

Ansari talks about the Iran reformists.

Ansari on Ahmadinejad's Jew hate.

Michael Rubin on the Iranian revolution (past is prologue?).

Will post more as I find things of interest. I don't think I can tolerate any more uninformed rhetoric (even my own). Time to go on a fact finding mission.

More on Iran

Matthew Yglesias challenges the conventional wisdom on Iran over at TPM.

It is curious to me that Iran, especially after having been invaded by Iraq in 1980, has not sought to more aggressively build up its military capability. This is a country that has seven national borders: Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It must take a great deal of diplomacy to manage relationships with seven bordering neighbors when you're not the one carrying the biggest stick. I have to say, if I were an Iranian I'd want a much bigger posture in the region.

I still think Ahmadinejad poses a threat -- not so much for the power he wields (widely disputed among those who are more familiar with Iran's government hierarchy) but rather for his rhetoric and growing charasmatic influence among the peoples of the region. From the Chatham House Report:

The ideology of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The sudden emergence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of the Islamic Republic and successor to the moderate Mohammed Khatami in June 2005 proved a considerable shock to the political community, not least within Iran itself. The new president appeared similarly surprised by his election and immediately interpreted it as part of his manifest destiny. According to this, his role was to create the ‘Third Islamic Revolution’, the Second Islamic Revolution having been represented by the seizure of the US embassy in 1979 which allowed the Islamists to consolidate their power after the initial overthrow of the Shah in 1978. Much like the original, the development and success of this revolutionary era had less to do with practical political measures, strategies and manipulation, and more to do with divine providence.

For Ahmadinejad and his closest supporters, his election was an empowering moment which served to cement his political and ideological convictions.

For his opponents, many of whom are part of the traditional and largely conservative elite,
Ahmadinejad’s election was the worst of all possible worlds. Not only has he threatened their
political and economic interests, but his ideological convictions and lack of flexibility have made him difficult to bend to their views, and well-nigh impossible to accommodate. His rhetoric has tended to inflame tensions and unsettle the domestic economy and private sector, while the wide-reaching changes he has introduced to official and ministerial appointments have upset the continuity of the public administration, even where – as in appointing a new oil minister the autumn of 2005 – he failed to gain acceptance for his preferred candidates.

Far more serious in terms of Iran’s external status has been Ahmadinejad’s attitude towards the international community, and the West in particular. In contrast to the broadly accommodating tone of Khatami, Ahmadinejad’s whole philosophy has favoured and promoted confrontation. His rationale is that there is nothing to be gained through any form of compromise that the West would exploit as weakness. Many of his opponents have grown concerned that this policy of confrontation is bereft of any underlying strategy other than being an end in itself.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly the most ideological president to occupy the post since the revolution of 1979. Both previous incumbents (Hashemi Rafsanjani, 1989–1997 and Mohammed Khatami, 1997–2005) tended to follow a pragmatic policy of détente, combined with a gentle easing of revolutionary fervour, especially in the international sphere. Ahmadinejad has openly condemned this approach and derided the period since 1989 as one in which the values and morals of the revolution were perverted and polluted by material corruption. While he has reserved most of his venom for the presidency of Khatami, his comments have also led to a serious deterioration of relations with Hashemi Rafsanjani, his main rival in the presidential campaign of 2005.

The source of Ahmadinejad’s ideological fervour can be traced to a large extent to his own personal experience as a member of the pasdaran, or Revolutionary Guards. Like many of his supporters and closest associates who are now in their forties, Ahmadinejad is a child of the revolution and the war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988. His experience of war was the high moment of the first postrevolutionary years, when morality superseded material gain and Iranians were truly fraternal Muslims. For him, the war was far from being an event to be regretted and avoided, but was, for all its pain, a purifying moment which cleansed the corruption which had accrued during the previous regime. In this sense, Ahmadinejad came to see himself in effect as a literal adherent of Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolutionary rhetoric.

..........................

In his return to the founding principles of the Islamic Republic, Ahmadinejad can best be described as emblematic of Iran’s neo-conservative movement. His reliance on the power of divine providence can be seen in his description of Israel and the United States as ungodly and unjust states that will inevitably collapse. Contrary to some external perceptions, Ahmadinejad does not believe he needs to do anything to encourage this collapse but, since it is inevitable, there is no need to talk to or engage with these states either.

Such religious convictions blend well with the other streams of nationalist and anti-colonial thought which also pervade Iranian politics. Indeed arguably, for all Ahmadinejad’s overt religious convictions, he has had to present himself as a defender of Iran’s national rights and has used the nuclear crisis to good effect in this regard. How well this has been received within broader Iranian opinion is a matter of debate, but the exploitation of nationalist sentiment, and the view that Iranians have a durable (and unchanging) history, as well as an inherently imperial role in the region, have undoubtedly landed on receptive ground.

r

Remembering Iran

My introduction to Iran came in 1979 when I had just turned 12. Although I was mostly uninterested in anything not named Mike Leahy, I was cognizant (from a 12 year old's perspective) of the Iran Hostage Crisis. I remember the nightly TV news coverage and flipping past the entry in the local newspaper (on my way to the funnies) that noted the number of days the hostages had been held. I remember the tragic, failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 that brought my pre-teen patriotic euphoria down from its February U.S. Olympic hockey victory high.

I also remember being puzzled that anyone who was "evil" enough to capture and keep 66 hostages would be "good" enough to release the women and the sickly, and then "good" enough to let the rest go, relatively unharmed, after 444 days. "Evil" should have held them all indiscriminately, abused them all, killed them all. It was the first time that my child brain struggled to integrate concepts beyond good and evil. It was probably the first time I thought in terms of relativity... to question the "why".

Modern Iran fell off my radar for many years after except for a peripheral awareness of the long Iran-Iraq War and its membership in OPEC. It resurfaced in my consciousness after its induction into the now infamous Axis of Evil club but it wasn't until recently that I thought to go back and educate myself beyond my primitive knowledge of the country.

As is usually the case, what I didn't know is so much more interesting than what I thought I knew. The hostage crisis wiki above did a nice job of providing the context that escaped my understanding in 1981. I also didn't know this or this. I've also recently read this Chatham House Report, which I'll comment on more extensively later.

Interested in other more in-depth sources of Iran info -- feel free to recommend your favorites.

Contrition

Ok -- despite feminazi tone of previous post, I just watched 6 straight hours of romantic comedies and I'm feeling rather girlish again and in need of red wine. And lamb, maybe. Baklava would be good. Some light jazz. And a lovely city skyline view...

Ode to "It's All About Him"

When I read this little Forbes spin on the risks a man assumes by marrying a career woman -- real documented risks, people!! -- I was immediately ready to go into mock-overdrive.

Then I read this response from Feministe and realized she pretty much captured my thoughts perfectly... and with the perfect amount of incredulous snark, too.

A more humorous reply from Pinko Feminist Hellcat.

NAFTA Super Highway and the Trans-Texas Corridor

This one bears watching.

The US NAFTA Super Highway is a planned mega-road (on a path 4 football fields wide) that will span from Mexico to Canada. TXSharon over at DailyKos wrote a superb diary on the topic a while back and continues to hold a grassroots vigil over the project in Texas (TXSharon and I once traded online barbs at dKos over the supposed 'divinity' of Cindy Sheehan but she is all over this topic and I simply must give her credit for her indepth knowledge and relentless enthusiasm for educating others).

Jerome Corsi, he of Kerry Swiftboating fame, has taken on the topic in the conservative weekly, Human Events Online.

Texas has become the first battleground as campaigning politicians bring the debate out of the backrooms and into the public forum, creating a growing election year stampede. It's an emotional topic in Texas where the 10 lane Trans-Texas Corridor will become a giant land grab for road, 'ports', and concessions -- probably a sign of things to come for this country's heartland as land use is determined. Cintra, the Spanish company that will fund and manage the TTC, blurs the line between public use and privatization.

Kelo, anyone?

Also of interest will be the coastal impact of replacing the ports and hubs in the US with cheaper, less rigorously controlled ports in Mexico. Not just a labor issue but one of national security as well, I'd say.

There will be tradeoffs, of course, and living with the Super Highway may not be all bad. I must say that I noted in true "what's in it for me?" style that the highway will cut just south of where I live, toward Chicago. As the Midwest industries that have always sustained my corner of the world begin to fade away -- agriculture, manufacturing, machineries -- I've been wondering what will replace it. The highway will not be an industry, per se, it may likely become a regional economic mainstay.

Like I said, this bears watching. A project of this magnitude and with this many social and economic implications needs to be well thought out and it's not wise for us to give over the planning to those who would do it with secret meetings and backroom agreements.

Israel's pragmatic peace movement

Michael Totten does a fabulous interview with two Israeli members of Peace Now. What's striking to me is their pragmatism... completely absent is the more blissful idealism generally associated with the peace movement in the U.S.

As a side note, I find it interesting that Israelis have been so calmly self-critical of their government, while in the U.S. there's such an extreme right-wing political correctness issued against speaking critically of Israel at all. I've always thought that one of the great Jewish gifts to itself was its appreciation, and expectation, of critical thought. To offer an answer is good; to ask a question is great.

"Liberal" is not a dirty word

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

lib·er·al·ism (lĭb'ər-ə-lĭz'əm, lĭb'rə-)
n.

1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2. 1. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
   2. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
   1. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
   2. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
      

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

liberalism

Political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government. Liberalism originated as a defensive reaction to the horrors of the European wars of religion of the 16th century (see Thirty Years' War). Its basic ideas were given formal expression in works by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both of whom argued that the power of the sovereign is ultimately justified by the consent of the governed, given in a hypothetical social contract rather than by divine right (see divine kingship). In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled. In response to the great inequalities of wealth and other social problems created by the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America, liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries advocated limited state intervention in the market and the creation of state-funded social services, such as free public education and health insurance. In the U.S. the New Deal program undertaken by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt typified modern liberalism in its vast expansion of the scope of governmental activities and its increased regulation of business. After World War II a further expansion of social welfare programs occurred in Britain, Scandinavia, and the U.S. Economic stagnation beginning in the late 1970s led to a revival of classical liberal positions favouring free markets, especially among political conservatives in Britain and the U.S. Contemporary liberalism remains committed to social reform, including reducing inequality and expanding individual rights. See also conservatism; individualism.

Get over it, people. I'll buy conservatism as a legitimate check to liberalism (see below) but on its own merit it's an empty idiology. So let's not pretend that liberalism is some great evil in this country that must be quashed, and let's not buy into the rhetoric that liberals in this country are somehow antithetical to American values. Quit bashing "liberal schools", "liberal media", and "liberal judges." The opposite would be what, exactly?

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

con·ser·va·tism (kən-sûr'və-tĭz'əm)
n.

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

conservatism

Political attitude or ideology denoting a preference for institutions and practices that have evolved historically and are thus manifestations of continuity and stability. It was first expressed in the modern era through the works of Edmund Burke in reaction to the French Revolution, which Burke believed tarnished its ideals through its excesses. Conservatives believe that the implementation of change should be minimal and gradual; they appreciate history and are more realistic than idealistic. Well-known conservative parties include the British Conservative Party, the German Christian Democratic Union, the U.S. Republican Party, and the Japanese Liberal-Democratic Party. See also Christian Democracy; liberalism.

'Rescue Me'

I can't believe they killed off Johnny. I put up with 4 consecutive rape episodes so they could kill off Johnny?

*grrrrrrrrrrr

Liar

You almost have to feel sorry for a party that must choose between accusing their president of lying or incompetence. Very interesting, by the way, that they identified lying as the less damaging charge.

Realism Vs Bushism

I got a kick out of Joe Scarborough's "Is Bush an Idiot" segment last week on MSNBC. Since I've mostly given up Pundit TV in order to preserve what remains of my dignity and sanity, I didn't catch it until a day or so later when I found the clip and transcript posted over on Crooks and Liars. I can only surmise that the people who believe this man is intellectually qualified to be president have incredibly low expectations for their elected officials. But I digress...

Today, David Weigel, who is filling in for a vacationing Andrew Sullivan, picked up on a WaPo feature that mentions the Scarborough country segment in the context of pundits abandoning Bush over Iraq. Like David, what really caught my eye from the article is the White House response about realism:

Bush aides were bothered by a George F. Will column last week mocking neoconservative desires to transform the Middle East: "Foreign policy 'realists' considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists' critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved."

The White House responded with a 2,432-word rebuttal -- three times as long as the column -- e-mailed to supporters and journalists. "Mr. Will's kind of 'stability' and 'realism' -- a kind of world-weary belief that nothing can be done and so nothing should be tried -- would eventually lead to death and destruction on a scale that is almost unimaginable," wrote White House strategic initiatives director Peter H. Wehner.

It seems to me that three schools of thought prevailed after 9/11. One group of folks began hyperventilating in recognition of their own vulnerability and demanded that the government do something, anything, to make them feel safer. I know a lot of really smart people who fall into this category and while I empathize with their fear, I've always sort of thought of them as Wilma and Betty types screaming for a clueless Fred and Barney to DON'T JUST STAND THERE, DO SOMETHING! in the face of some situational danger. This is the neocon base -- willing to chuck the constitution on a whim, support the twisting logic of a foreign policy based on shifting objectives, and engage in a war they hope will make them feel strong and victorious again.

The second school ranges from ridiculously cavalier about 9/11 to harboring an insane belief that it was all just a government conspiracy.

The third school are the realists who acknowledge that evil people exist and have always existed, that terrorism is as old as asymmetrical warfare itself, that every action has consequences and unintended consequences, that risks need to be identified, analyzed, and mitigated, that small actions do not equate to weakness, and that sound strategy means outplaying your opponent 10 moves ahead. The idea that only big, bold moves will achieve an objective is dangerous. Big, bold moves are not inherently bad but they do tend to carry big, bold risks and if those risks aren't well understood then you're likely going to create a situation worse than the one you're trying to resolve in the first place.

Which brings us back to Scarborough's original question -- is Bush an idiot? I'm sure Bush is a great guy to have a beer with and share funny, embellished stories about characters with nicknames like "Brownie", "Turdblossom", and "Pootie Poot". I'm sure he loves his family, his God, and his country. But Bush isn't just a guy to have a beer with... he is the leader of the free world and he has applied some neocon theories that, judging by the outcomes, have been tempered with very little critical thought. This makes him worse than an idiot in my book... this makes him dangerous.

9 Years and 2 hours

Happy Birthday, Ryan! It was a great day at the Winnebago County fair... riding all the rides (especially Blue Lightening, our fav) and watching our first demolition derby together. Hope you like your new bike!
Love,
Mom
P.S. This self-portrait picture still makes me laugh - you're such a dramatic little Leo!

The Tossers

The Tossers played last night at Mary's Place (the oldest bar in Rockford, we're told). They're an extremely talented 7 instrument Irish band from Chicago with growing national popularity. The Psychobilly Kadillacs opened (think: Johnny Cash with an Irish brogue). It was a truly awesome show and truly awesome to find the Tossers playing in such an unusual venue. From the Mary's Place website:

The story of how this huge live event is happening at the oldest bar in Rockford is a good one. Clay Hansen, who performs with the The Psychobilly Kadillaks and The Tossers, made his first appearance on the Mary's live scene at a Tuesday night Open Stage many years ago. Clay was an immediate stand out drinking heavily and taking command of the stage alone with nothing more than an old beat down guitar and a live microphone. The Mary's audience was instantly drawn to Clay's super high energy performances fueled by alcohol and songs about drinking. Not long after that Clay came back and booked The Psychobilly Kadillaks, a band that has helped anchor the Mary's live scene ever since. After a wildly successful Psychobilly show a few months ago Mary's regular, Mark Sweeney, in anticipation of his annual birthday bash, asked Clay if The Tossers would play live at Mary's. The rest is history, which leaves us with The Psychobilly Kadillaks and The Tossers live at Mary's Place this Saturday night for local Irishman Mark Sweeney's birthday bash. The seven dollar cover is less than half of what it costs to see The Tossers in Chicago.

The band was quite friendly despite the claustrophobia-inducing size of the bar and the drunken, exuberant crowd. My husband even got the entire band to sign a tshirt for our oldest daughter who, being only 17, was disappointed to miss the big event. Special thanks to my brother, a long time Tossers fan, for getting the rest of us together for the show.

The Shia divide

WaPo has an article today on the intra-Shia skirmishes between the Iranian supported Shiite faction and the anti-Iranian, anti-American Shiite faction.

Juan Cole, a professor of the modern Middle East at the University of Michigan, said the recriminations toward Iran were directed at two of the largest Shiite blocs in parliament, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa party. The Supreme Council was founded in Iran during Saddam Hussein's rule, and it and Dawa retain strong ties to Iran.

"Those groups are often coded as Iranian puppets," said Cole, the author of the book "Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture, and History of Shiite Islam." He said many Iraqis believe that the Supreme Council and its militia, the Badr Organization, receive substantial monetary support from Tehran. "It's obviously in the interest of Iran that parties that are friendly to it remain in power in Iraq," Cole said.

He said the hostility among Shiite factions can be traced to the gap between wealthy members of parties tied to Iran, such as the Supreme Council and Dawa, and impoverished cadres of groups critical of Iran, such as followers of Hassani.

"The Shia-on-Shia violence is, in my view, to some extent a class conflict," he said.

Classism? The dynamics at play in this region are so extraordinarily complex. I suppose this was all to be expected as the various players scramble to fill the power void left by Saddam's deposal. As they say, "Nature abhors a vacuum."

Blogging heads

I spent some time this morning exploring Bloggingheads.tv, which I've been peripherally aware of but have never tuned in to before. Turns out to be a forum I really enjoy and a good discussion format for debating, exploring, and evolving ideas.

I especially enjoyed the Marshall vs Kaus diavlog. Reading Kausfiles is a force of habit for me but it's not something I actually enjoy... his writing is pithy but not particularly enlightening. It was interesting to hear his ideas expanded via actual dialog. I still find him to be argumentative and generally disagreeable but he's less of an enigma to me than he was.

TGIF

Are you in the mood for some Friday tunes? Oh, I know that you are.

Court says warrentless eavesdropping illegal

I'm not well versed in the law so I'll leave the elegant interpretation of the legal ruling to the lawyers. As a simple layman, I'm going to reduce my take on the whole thing down to four simple layman sentences:

1. Wireless eavesdropping isn't illegal... Warrentless wireless eavesdropping is illegal.
2. If eavesdropping is required for the sake of national security, get a warrent.
   
3. If technological advances have outgrown the law, it is the President's duty to lobby congress to change the law.
4. Until then, the law is still the law and every excuse for bypassing it is just so much bullshit.

Some 220 years ago, a group of patriots gave birth to the democratic principles on which this country is founded. They understood that all men are equal under the law and that no man is above the law. They envisioned a government of checks and balances that would ensure that the government remained responsible to the people and that its power would be limited. Many men were willing to die -- and have died -- for those ideas rather than see them compromised.

The pants wetting weenies who are so willing to excuse this blatant disregard for our constitution in the hope that Big Daddy is gonna use his unchecked power to keep them safer should be ashamed.

Update: The Editors makes me smile again, as usual. Founding Idiots, indeed!

Lieberman polls best among Republicans

This is priceless: Lieberman polls best among Republican voters in Connecticut at 75%!

If it walks like a Republican, talks like a Republican, and gets Republican votes, then it's probably a Republican. The Connecticut Democrats want an actual Democrat to be their candidate -- no sin there. If Connecticut chooses Lieberman to be their Senator -- no sin there, either.

Get over the indignation and outrage, people... it's called democracy.

I *heart* Obama

What a great idea.

Musings on Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran

• Why did Olmert change his mind about taking out Hezbollah? It seems he was preparing for a full scale occupation of Southern Lebanon when he started taking out the infrastructure -- ports, airports, major highways/bridges from Syria in the north. He had already paid the price of destabilizing the Lebanese government, economy, etc, when he decided to limit Israel's attack to a blanket of airstrikes instead of facing a ground/guerrilla war. Why? I don't for a minute believe it was political pressure or "media bias" in reporting... since when does Israel not do what Israel needs to do despite world opinion? Were they surprised by Hezbollah's ability to fight back? Hezbollah was able to lob missiles clumsily into Israel, not with any real accuracy but far enough over the border to ensure that an occupied zone in the South would need to be wide and well controlled to keep Israel safe. Did they determine that there was no longer a benefit to occupation? Did they fear a pro-Syrian government coup in Lebanon that would result in Lebanon/Syria joining forces against them? This seems unlikely, too, as Syria itself is not an undefeatable military presence and doesn't bring much to the table.

• Why did Bush change his tune so dramatically? He unabashedly gave the green light to Israel and publicly supported the attack... why the sudden about-face and frantic efforts toward ceasefire? Was it because he was left holding the bag politically once Olmert hesitated to move forward with a ground invasion? Or did Bush and Israel share a strategic change of heart when they better understood Hezbollah's military capability? I'm sure there wasn't much appeal in endless occupation and endless guerrilla warfare where neither of those things would leave Israel any safer than it already was. Whoa... deja vu!
  

• If the whole point of Hezbollah's existence is to kill Jews then why have they been operating so far below the radar? I mean, if they've been sitting on the missile capability to take out ships in the gulf and hit inside Israel, why have they been so relatively quiet over the past six years? Just a few forays over the border on isolated terror missions to keep up troop morale but not much else. It seems they were not expecting the response they got from Israel and weren't trying to provoke it. So why are they sitting quietly on all that weaponry, anyway? If the weapons are a gift from Iran for Jew killings, wouldn't they be expected to actually use them to kill Jews? Or are they playing a more complex role for Iran in the region?
  

• Hezbollah has been bankrolling huge social programs in the South and even now is committing large amounts of money to the reconstruction efforts in Lebanon and working with the residents directly. Unspecified funding... probably Iran, taking care of its own Shiite brotherhood, buying their support. Hearts and minds.

• We can't keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands forever. The genie has been out of the bottle since 1945 and too many countries share the secret recipe. My own personal theory is that Iran already has nukes. Not homemade... probably store-bought from the fallen Soviet Union. Iran's threat to us won't be nuclear. Just like every other country knows, there will be no winners in a nuclear war. They can take out Tel Aviv, they can take out Chicago, New York, Washington, and LA, they can take out London and Paris and Rome. They can hit directly with missiles or via a dirty bomb in a subway. But in the end, nothing will be left in the Middle East but a sheet of glass covering an oil swamp. I think they just want to be players and I think they're enjoying playing us.
  

• People should learn to be more interested in the Shia Crescent in general and less afraid of Iran's nuclear potential. Most Middle Eastern countries have a relatively sane government (albeit corrupt and/or dictatorial) and a relatively crazy population segment (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, etc). Governments are focused on their own self-preservation; the crazies are focused on their own disaffectedness. The disaffected Shiite populations stretching from Iran to Syria are starting to figure out that they have plenty in common among them. The Iraqi and Lebanon Shiite have their own militias and the Iranian Shiite have their own state (the Shia in Syria are still a minority). With someone charismatic to lead them they could begin to establish themselves as a powerhouse in the region. Would they seek legitimacy by changing borders to better align with their cultural identity? If so, would there be clashes within the Arab vs Persion Shiite factions first to establish dominance, and then with the regional non-Shiite populations? And then would they be ready to take on Israel or the West?
  

On manicures and spreadin' democracy.

Appeasers! French boot lickers! Saddam lovers! Got to admire the Fox News demographic for their insistent preoccupation with important things like John Kerry's hygene while the rest of us were trying to figure out how to avoid hitting the wall looming at the end of Bush's course in Iraq.

Bush administration officials now admit that Iraqi government’s original plan to rein in the violence in Baghdad, announced in June, has failed. The Pentagon has decided to rush more American troops into the capital, and the new military operation to restore security there is expected to begin in earnest next month.

Yet some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq’s democratically elected government might not survive.

“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

“Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,” the expert said, “but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

The Office

Season 3 premier is September 21... the countdown begins!

Random Thoughts

• Does anyone who is not a liberal actually understand the difference between anti-war and anti-Iraq-war? As someone who falls stridently in the second category I am growing a little irritated at those in the media who are unable to distinguish between the two. I am also growing a little irritated with Democrats who do not go immediately into auto-correct mode when they talk to someone (usually media or GOP) who insists on using the phrase "anti-war" to describe the Democratic position. I hang with lots of lefties here in the blogosphere and only a very tiny number of them are actually pacifists singing Kumbayah for world peace.

• Where is all the media coverage of the Chafee-Laffey primary in Rhode Island? Doesn't the media care about all those rabid, wild-eyed conservatives attempting to purge moderate Republicans from the party? Maybe they just exhausted themselves doing Lieberman coverage like a two year old child exhausts itself during a temper tantrum.

• While the Lieberman ouster didn't bother me much (he lost me on his Bankruptcy Bill vote for cloture, his Iraqi war position, his Schaivo position, privatization of social security, etc), it sure seems to have pissed my brother off. My brother is, naturally, a Republican (he would call himself an Independent but I've rarely heard him embrace an idea that would fall reasonably left of center). How dare those elitist Connecticut voters throw out one of the good guys!! That Lieberman is so appealing to Republicans should tell you a little something about his position on most any given issue. And anyway, if all those irate Republicans liked him so much then why didn't they vote for a Gore/Lieberman ticket instead of the national embarrasment that is Bush? I'd say they had a chance to show their support... now they can suck it up and watch that little thing called 'democracy' in action.
  

• Iran... Iran. Time to take out Iran. The people in the Middle East are tired of oppression, tired of their own tyrannical despots, tired of Israel, tired of occupation... they're ready for change. Problem is, I think that change is going to be a bit more radical than we had in mind. The Shia Crescent, with all that newly charged people energy, is ripe for a charasmatic leader to harness that energy and unite them in their hatred and fear. It's natural that an oppressed culture on the risk will revel in the power of their unity and seek to become the oppressors. I think the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knows this and is positioning himself to seize the day.

Gee, who could have seen this coming?

What staying the course means to the Iraqis.

An average of more than 110 Iraqis were killed each day in July, according to the figures. The total number of civilian deaths that month, 3,438, is a 9 percent increase over the tally in June and nearly double the toll in January.

The rising numbers indicate that sectarian violence is spiraling out of control and seem to bolster an assertion that many senior Iraqi officials and American military analysts have been making in recent months: that the country is already embroiled in a civil war, not just slipping toward one, and that the American-led forces are caught between Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias.

There are no good options left here. We squandered the small shot at success we had when we screwed around with the bare minimum number of troops required to keep the guerrillas at bay. At this point we can either 1) stick around until they kick us out and try to stay out of the crossfire, or 2) leave and let the Iraqis determine their own fate. I don't see much benefit in sticking around other than staying in the general vicinity of Iran.

Hammer. Nail. Greenwald.

It's OK if you're a Republican.

Ignorance is Strength

I was not entirely convinced that the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah was worth the trashing of Lebanon's fledgling democracy. Turns out that undoing the Cedar Revolution should have been the least of my concerns.

When Israel extended their assault beyond a few retaliatory volleys and started the systematic destruction of the country's infrastructure, it seemed like a cause for alarm. Tragic civilian casualties aside, the massive impact of the airstrikes all but guaranteed that the recovering, recent-civil-war-survivor country would be thrust back toward darkness for years with Syria and Iran only too happy to show them the light.

With a repeat of Israel's 16 year South Lebanon quagmire looming on the horizon, the US was forced into negotiating the same kind of cease-fire agreement Bush initially claimed not to want and Israel was backed into accepting it. Seems pretty clear at this point that we won't be putting a notch in our WOT belt with the results of this event and even these folks have come to the same conclusion -- Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria have emerged the victors.

Today, however, in a truly bizarre, Orwellian WAR IS PEACE... FREEDOM IS SLAVERY... IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH moment, Bush informed us that Hezbollah has been defeated.

" 'Hezbollah attacked Israel, Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis,' Bush said."

Um... yeah. Or maybe they're in their last throes.

Inaugural Blog Post

Welcome to my little corner of the internet -- a place where logic and brain cells collide. The results aren't always pretty but they say it's the thought that counts.

Do note that all commentary is welcome unless it invokes a sense of disgust, subject to my own personal taste, at which time it will be deleted with a great sanctimonious sigh and a roll of the eyes.