Vietnam - Sub Title: Lessons for Iraq

Lessons, painful or not, are only useful if gleaned and heeded. Unfortunately, Vietnam has become some what of a taboo subject, or effectively used as a way to shut down discourse rather than a tool for learning. In particular, when discussing exit strategies (which by the way, the W, Rove and Co are not forthcoming with such plans), we have a thing or two to learn that gets lost in the palpable pain that was wrought in Vietnam.

I was born in the 1960s, so I don't have as strong memory as those who were already adults or may have even protested or fought the war there. Fortunately, we can learn from those who have a stronger recollection of it. Melvin R. Laird has a thing or two to share. I suggest you review the whole article before making comments here in:

...The Vietnam War that I saw, first from my seat in Congress and then as secretary of defense, cannot be wrapped in a tidy package and tagged "bad idea." It was far more complex than that: a mixture of good and evil from which there are many valuable lessons to be learned. Yet the only lesson that seems to have endured is the one that begins and ends with "Don't go there." The war in Iraq is not "another Vietnam." But it could become one if we continue to use Vietnam as a sound bite while ignoring its true lessons...

...It is time for a reasonable look at both Vietnam and Iraq -- and at what the former can teach us about the latter. My perspective comes from military service in the Pacific in World War II (I still carry shrapnel in my body from a kamikaze attack on my destroyer, the U.S.S. Maddox), nine terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and four years as secretary of defense to Nixon.

[A -] ...There are no guarantees of continuity in a partisan democracy. We are making commitments as to the future of Iraq on an almost daily basis. These commitments must be understood now so they can be honored later. Every skirmish on the home front that betrays a lack of solidarity on Iraq gives the insurgents more hope and ultimately endangers the men and women we have sent to Iraq to fight in this war for us. We are now committed to a favorable outcome in Iraq, but it must be understood that this will require long-term assistance or our efforts will be in vain.

[B-] ...In those four years of Vietnamization, I never once publicly promised a troop number for withdrawal that I couldn't deliver. President Bush should move ahead with the same certainty. I also did not announce what our quantitative standards for readiness among the South Vietnamese troops were, just as Bush should not make public his specific standards for determining when Iraqi troops are ready to go it alone. In a report to Congress in July 2005, the Pentagon hinted that those measurable standards are in place. However, it would be a mistake for the president to rely solely on the numbers. Instead, his top commander in the field should have the final say on how many U.S. troops can come home, commensurate with the readiness of Iraqi forces. If Bush does not trust his commander's judgment, as I trusted General Abrams, Bush should replace him with someone he does trust. That trust must be conveyed to the American people, too, if they are to be patient with an orderly withdrawal of our troops.

[C-] ...In this business of trust, President Bush got off to a bad start. Nixon had the same problem. Both the Vietnam War and the Iraq war were launched based on intelligence failures and possibly outright deception. The issue was much more egregious in the case of Vietnam, where the intelligence lapses were born of our failure to understand what motivated Ho Chi Minh in the 1950s. Had we understood the depth of his nationalism, we might have been able to derail his communism early on...

...In Iraq, the intelligence blunder concerned Saddam's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, which in the end may or may not have been Bush's real motivation for going to war. My view is that it was better to find that Saddam had not progressed as far as we thought in his WMD development than to discover belatedly that he had. Whatever the truth about WMD in Iraq, it cannot be said that the United States slipped gradually, covertly, or carelessly into Iraq, as we did into Vietnam.

[D-] ...The mistake on the question of WMD in Iraq has led many to complain that the United States was drawn into the war under false pretenses, that what began as self-defense has morphed into nation building. Welcome to the reality of war. It is neither predictable nor tidy. This generation of Americans was spoiled by the quick-and-clean Operation Desert Storm, in 1991, when the first President Bush adhered to the mission, freed Kuwait, and brought home the troops. How would Iraq look today if George H.W. Bush had changed that mission on the fly and ordered a march to Baghdad and the overthrow of Saddam? The truth is, wars are fluid things and missions change. This is more the rule than the exception. It was true in Vietnam, and it is true in Iraq today...

...The current President Bush was persuaded that we would find WMD in Iraq and did what he felt he had to do with the information he was given. When we did not find the smoking gun, it would have been unconscionable to pack up our tanks and go home. Thus, there is now a new mission, to transform Iraq, and it is not a bad plan. Bush sees Iraq as the frontline in the war on terror -- not because terrorists dominate there, but because of the opportunity to displace militant extremists' Islamist rule throughout the region. Bush's greatest strength is that terrorists believe he is in this fight to the end. I have no patience for those who can't see that big picture and who continue to view Iraq as a failed attempt to find WMD. Now, because Iraq has been set on a new course, Bush has an opportunity to reshape the region. "Nation building" is not an epithet or a slogan. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is our duty.

[E-] ...In hindsight, we can look at the Vietnam War as a success story -- albeit a costly one -- in nation building, even though the democracy we sought halfheartedly to build failed. Three decades ago, Asia really was threatened by the spread of communism. The Korean War was a fresh memory. In Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and even India, communist movements were gaining a foothold. They failed in large part because the United States drew a line at Vietnam that distracted and sucked resources away from its Cold War nemesis, the Soviet Union. Similarly, the effect of our stand in Iraq is already being felt around the Middle East. Opposition parties are demanding to be heard. Veiled women are insisting on a voice. Syrian troops have left Lebanon. Egypt has held an election. Iran is being pressured by the United States and Europe alike on its development of nuclear weapons. The voices for change are building in Saudi Arabia. The movement even has a name: Kifaya -- "Enough!" The parasites who have made themselves fat by promoting ignorance, fear, and repression in the region are squirming. These are baby steps, but that is where running begin...

[F-] ...Insurgents were and are the enemy in both wars, and insurgencies fail without outside funding. In Vietnam, the insurgents were heavily funded and well equipped by the Soviet Union. They followed a powerful and charismatic leader, Ho Chi Minh, who nurtured their passionate nationalist goals. In Iraq, the insurgency is fragmented, with no identifiable central leadership and no unifying theology, strategy, or vision other than to get the United States out of the region. If that goal were accomplished now, they would turn on each other, as they already have done in numerous skirmishes. Although they do rely on outside funding, their benefactors are fickle and without deep pockets....

[G-] ...For me, the alleged prison scandals reported to have occurred in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at Guantánamo Bay have been a disturbing reminder of the mistreatment of our own POWs by North Vietnam. The conditions in our current prison camps are nowhere near as horrific as they were at the "Hanoi Hilton," but that is no reason to pat ourselves on the back. The minute we begin to deport prisoners to other nations where they can legally be tortured, when we hold people without charges or trial, when we move prisoners around to avoid the prying inspections of the Red Cross, when prisoners die inexplicably on our watch, we are on a slippery slope toward the inhumanity that we deplore. In Vietnam, I made sure we always took the high ground with regard to the treatment of enemy prisoners. I opened our prison camps wide to international inspectors, so that we could demand the same from Hanoi. In Iraq, there are no American POWs being held in camps by the insurgents. There are only murder victims whose decapitated bodies are left for us to find. But that does not give us license to be brutal in return...

[H-] ...In all, 2.8 million Americans served in and around Vietnam during the war, yet less than ten percent of them were in-line infantry units, the men we think of as our Vietnam veterans. Men were drafted and given a few weeks of training before being attached to a unit of strangers. With few exceptions, our all-volunteer military in Iraq is motivated, well trained, well equipped, and in cohesive units. This is not to say that any of these troops want to be there. They don't. Yet they are far more motivated to fight this war than were the average conscripts in Vietnam...

[I-] ...When President Nixon ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia, I protested vigorously. I did not oppose the bombing itself, as I believed the United States should fight the war as it needed to be fought -- wherever the enemy was hiding -- or not fight it at all. What I opposed was the deception. Behind closed doors, my opinion was so well known that when the secret was exposed, as I knew it would be, I was immediately and wrongly pinpointed as being the leak. The president approved Kissinger's order to the FBI to tap my military assistant's home phone, hoping to catch the two of us in a plot to leak secrets. Americans will not be lied to, and they will not tolerate secrets nor be sidelined in a war debate. As with the Vietnam War, if necessary they will take to the streets to be heard...

[J-] ...The greatest cost of war is human suffering. But every war has its monetary price tag, too, even if it is rarely felt in real time. As with Vietnam, the Iraq war is revealing chinks in our fiscal armor. Only after the Vietnam War ended did its drain on the U.S. economy become apparent. During the war, our military readiness to fight other conflicts was precarious. Billions of dollars were drained away from other missions to support the war. It became a juggling act to support our forces around the world. I reduced our contingent in Korea by 29,000 men, and I persuaded Japan to begin paying the bills for its post-World War II defense by our troops. In retrospect, those two steps were positive results from the financial drain that the Vietnam War caused. But there were plenty of other places where the belt-tightening suffocated good programs....

[K-] ...Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to reshape the army to be more mobile with fewer soldiers, in "units of action" built on the Special Forces model. But he is not being honest with himself or with Congress and the American people about how much money will be needed to make the transformation. Those specialized units will be more suited for urban guerrilla warfare, but light and lean is not the only way to maintain our military. Although guerrilla warfare looks like the wave of the future, we still face the specter of conventional divisional and corps warfare against other enemies. Both capabilities are expensive, but the downward trend of defense budgets does not recognize that. Except for bumps up in the Ronald Reagan years and during the Gulf War, the defense budget has been on a downward slide when viewed in constant dollars. We are coasting on the investments in research, development, and equipment made during earlier years.

[L-] ...

Three decades later, we have fallen into a pattern of neglecting our treaty alliances, such as NATO, and endangering the aid we can give our allies by throwing our resources into fights that our allies refuse to join. Vietnam was just such a fight, and Iraq is, too. If our treaty alliances were adequately tended to and shored up -- and here I include the UN -- we would not have so much trouble persuading others to join us when our cause is just. Still, as the only superpower, there will be times when we must go it alone.

President Bush does not have the luxury of waiting for the international community to validate his policies in Iraq. But we do have the lessons of Vietnam. In Vietnam, the voices of the "cut-and-run" crowd ultimately prevailed, and our allies were betrayed after all of our work to set them on their feet. Those same voices would now have us cut and run from Iraq, assuring the failure of the fledgling democracy there and damning the rest of the Islamic world to chaos fomented by extremists. Those who look only at the rosy side of what defeat did to help South Vietnam get to where it is today see a growing economy there and a warming of relations with the West. They forget the immediate costs of the United States' betrayal. Two million refugees were driven out of the country, 65,000 more were executed, and 250,000 were sent to "reeducation camps." Given the nature of the insurgents in Iraq and the catastrophic goals of militant Islam, we can expect no better there.

As one who orchestrated the end of our military role in Vietnam and then saw what had been a workable plan fall apart, I agree that we cannot allow "another Vietnam." For if we fail now, a new standard will have been set. The lessons of Vietnam will be forgotten, and our next global mission will be saddled with the fear of its becoming "another Iraq."

The Gay Plague

If you a bit tired of the usual political wonking going on, here's a fun vid over at crooks and liars. Enjoy.

Victory Comes in Different Packages

I found this image on the NYTimes web location. No, most of us weren't splitting our guts for victory this Sunday. But in NYC, some were. If you dig a bit deeper into the story, you will find the Marathon produces more heroes there than you can shake a stick at.

Unfortunately, becuase of the W, Rove and Co, there is a new brand of hero "running" and finishing the race.

Indeed, as Doc Sheehan used to say, "It is not that I finished, but that I had the courage to start."

Toby's Got a Good Question for the Prez

The press is alive today with the suggestion that "we do not torture." Do you believe Shrub? Anyone care to offer an interpretation of the following two paragraph answer?

Let's see here. Toby.

Q Mr. President, there has been a bit of an international outcry over reports of secret U.S. prisons in Europe for terrorism suspects. Will you let the Red Cross have access to them? And do you agree with Vice President Cheney that the CIA should be exempt from legislation to ban torture?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Our country is at war, and our government has the obligation to protect the American people. The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people; the legislative branch has the obligation to protect the American people. And we are aggressively doing that. We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture.

And, therefore, we're working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible -- more possible to do our job. There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans, and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet, we'll aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law. And that's why you're seeing members of my administration go and brief the Congress. We want to work together in this matter. We -- all of us have an obligation, and it's a solemn obligation and a solemn responsibility. And I'm confident that when people see the facts, that they'll recognize that we've -- they've got more work to do, and that we must protect ourselves in a way that is lawful.

The Foolishness of War

I found this sculpture and was moved to shoot. I'll have to return for the backside shot - equally powerful, but I was in a hurry as I had both boys in tow. Bonus points to those who are able to name the location. I call it "The Foolishness of War," but it has another name.

Everyone Understands Campaign Promises are to be Broken

But don't you just wish for once, an Administration would live up to the hype, even if they didn't win the 2K race fairly?

Q Back in October of 2000, Mr. President --

PRESIDENT BUSH: October of 2000?

Q Yes, sir. Back in October of 2000, this is what you said --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay. Whew.

Q "We will ask not only what is legal, but what is right; not what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves." [emphasis added] In the CIA leak case, has your administration lived up to this campaign promise?

PRESIDENT BUSH: In the -- pardon my -- I didn't hear you.

Q In the CIA leak case, has your administration lived up to this campaign promise?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, Deb, look, I said the other day to the press corps that was assembled in Argentina that there's still an ongoing investigation. We take this investigation very seriously, and we'll continue to cooperate during the investigation.

Experts?

Well, one thing is certain, the expert fear mongers of the W, Rove and Co know of which they speak. In today's speech given by W in Brazil, Shrub professes to know what style of government is good for our Latin American neighbors. The former reflects what he purports to be, and the latter, is what his administration is in reality:

One, he said, pursues representative government, integration into the world community and freedom's transformative power for individuals.

"The other seeks to roll back the democratic progress of the past two decades by playing to fear, pitting neighbor against neighbor and blaming others for their own failures to provide for the people," he said.

Am I on target of way off base?

The whole text can be found on the whitewashhouse web location. You may be curious enough to read the whole thing as I did. Here's the excerpt quoted in the article above and one more paragraph I found that was interesting; proving once again that it is much easier to give advice than to live the talk. Bullshit walks. I stand for integrity instead. Let's vote these bastards out.

Ensuring social justice for the Americas requires choosing between two competing visions. One offers a vision of hope -- it is founded on representative government, integration into the world community, and a faith in the transformative power of freedom in individual lives. The other seeks to roll back the democratic progress of the past two decades by playing to fear, pitting neighbor against neighbor -- and blaming others for their own failures to provide for their people. The choices we make will determine which vision will define the Americas our children inherit --and we must make tough decisions today to ensure a better tomorrow.

...The citizens of the Americas look to us, the elected leaders, to make his dream a reality -- and to lead by example. Governments across this hemisphere must be strong, must listen to the people, and must not squander their money. Governments across this hemisphere must be free of corruption. Governments across this hemisphere must be accountable -- and we must live by the same standard we set for others. By making the blessings of freedom real in our hemisphere, we will advance the cause of social justice and set a shining example for the rest of the world.

Veterans Day

Given that Veterans day is coming up and we should be celebrate any and every vet, I thought I would point out that not all vets are for the Iraq conflagration. I like this group's slogan: Not one more death. Not one more dollar.

Incidentially, here's a nice little forthcoming video that Jena and Barbara should view when they decide their Daddy's war was worth joining up for, but I don't think they will enlist since they know what a debacle it really is.

More Poblems for the Big Dick

If you haven't seen this article, or listened to the tapes, doing so may place more blame (yes, as in the blame game the W, Rove and Co. is not going to slip out of) directly on the Big Dick Cheney:

Another shocking accusation by former administration insider Lawrence Wilkerson appears to be going under the media radar today.

On NPR yesterday, the former chief of staff to the secretary of state said that he had uncovered a "visible audit trail" tracing the practice of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers directly back to Vice President Cheney's office.

Here's the audio of Wilkerson's interview with Steve Inskeep. The transcript is not publicly available, but here are the relevant excerpts:

"..Mr. WILKERSON: I'm privy to the paperwork, both classified and unclassified, that the secretary of State asked me to assemble on how this all got started, what the audit trail was, and when I began to assemble this paperwork, which I no longer have access to, it was clear to me that there was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field that in carefully couched terms -- I'll give you that -- that to a soldier in the field meant two things: We're not getting enough good intelligence and you need to get that evidence, and, oh, by the way, here's some ways you probably can get it. And even some of the ways that they detailed were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war.

Whoops. I hope that Fitzy has a handle on this paper trail. Could mean bad things for the W, Rove and Co, but good things for the American People.

Gee, Ya Think?

Don't misunderestimate the W. This quote fits squarely in the, "Gee, you really think so? I wonder why that would be" category.

"It's not easy to host all these countries. It's particularly not easy to host, perhaps, me." PRESIDENT BUSH, to Argentina's president, Néstor Kirchner, the host of an international summit.

Karl Rove Has Cooties

Every so often, another blogger comes up with a winning sentence that can be boiled down to a terse cliche - and in the end, its quite fun to read. Dr. Forbush wins today. Here's a delightful set of sentences that begins an interesting post. Enjoy:

In thinking about Karl Roves continuation at the White House I say go for it. Actually when a tainted person remains in contact with the sacred the taint tend to contaminate and convert the sacred to the profane.

OK, let me translate that into schoolyard lingo. Karl Rove has cooties. And, if he stays at the White House everyone there will soon get cooties. What could be better for the opposition to the White House?

Viva Rove. Viva Doc Forbush!

Bam, Bam, Bam: Deflect, Deflect, Deflect

Looks like W is just as good at not answering questions as his tool, Scotty. Three very juicy questions get the usual rhetorical deflection. Have a look at today's "Semi-Press Briefing" Down in Argentina:

That's what I've done so far today. Nedra.

[BAM 1]-Q Hi, Mr. President. Thank you. Did Karl Rove tell you the truth about his role in the CIA leak case? And do you owe the American people an apology for your administration's assertations that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby weren't involved?

[Deflect 1]THE PRESIDENT: We're going through a very serious investigation. And I will -- have told you before that I'm not going to discuss the investigation until it's completed. And we have got a -- my obligation is to set an agenda, and I've done that. And the agenda is fighting and winning the war on terror, and keeping the economic vitality and growth alive, dealing with the energy problem, nominating people to the Supreme Court that adhere to the philosophy that I can depend on -- Judge Alito being such a person. I noticed today that they've got a date. I'm disappointed in the date, but happy they do have a firm date for his confirmation hearing. We've got to recover from the hurricanes. So I've got a lot to do, and will continue to focus on the people's business.

Steve.

[BAM 2]Q You've taken a beating in recent weeks, sir. What are you going to do for a fresh start? Are there going to be any staff changes? Would it help if the special prosecutor would wrap up his probe quickly?

[Deflect 2]THE PRESIDENT: Well, again, you're trying to get me to comment on the investigation, which I'm not going to do. And I hope you understand that. It's a serious investigation, and it's an important investigation. But it's not yet over.

I think it's important for the American people to know that I understand my job is to set clear goals and deal with the problems we face. Now, look, we've got an ongoing war on terror. And my administration is working with friends and allies to find these terrorists and bring them to justice before they strike us again. We're fighting the terrorists in Iraq. And, as you know, we've got a two-pronged strategy, an important strategy, that one -- on the one hand, has a political solution to it, on the other hand has a security solution to it. And we're working hard to achieve those objectives. We're laying what I have called the foundation for peace, because democratic nations don't war; democratic nations will be allies with each other in fighting off an ideology that is dark and grim in its vision, and is willing to use murder as its tool.

Elisabeth.

Q Okay, this is not a question about the investigation, but it's about Karl.

THE PRESIDENT: It sounds like one, though.

[Bam 2b] Q Are there discussions in the White House about whether or not Karl will remain in his job?

[Deflect 2b]THE PRESIDENT: Elisabeth, the investigation on Karl, as you know, is not complete. And, therefore, I will not comment upon -- about him and/or the investigation. Again, I understand the anxiety and angst by the press corps to talk about this. On the other hand, it is a serious investigation and we take it seriously and we're cooperating to the extent that the special prosecutor wants us to cooperate.

[Bam 3] Q The American people, though -- sir, the American people, though, are beginning to question your honesty, according to the polls, 58 percent. And your approval rating is at an all-time low, primarily because, it seems, of this investigation. They are wondering whether you can keep on track and whether to believe you, sir.

[Deflect 3]THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, I understand there is a preoccupation by polls and by some. I think this may be -- I think we've got -- this is maybe the fourth or fifth consecutive semi-press conference -- press conference or semi-press conference that I've been asked about polls. The way you earn credibility with the American people is to declare an agenda that everybody can understand, an agenda that relates to their lives, and get the job done. And the agenda that I'm working on now is one that is important to the American people.

Shrub does a lot of spewing about what he thinks the American People want. I flash to the sceen in the Princess Bride that occurs between Indigo and one of the other characters who continuously uses the word "inconceivable." When W says, "the American People," my head echos the phrase, "you keep using those words; but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean." Certainly, many bloggers out there have an opinion. What do you think the American People want?

P.S. Crooks and Liars has a video clip of the latter portion of the Q & A. If you ask me, W looks and sounds nervous, but that's just me: or is it?

Time to Fire Up the Tivo

Aaron McGruder's wonderfully witty comic strip - the Boondocks - is about to have an animated premier. Sunday. Watch it, if you can stay up late. Tivo it if you can't. I am going to record these regularly because you never know how long The Man is going to let these guys get away with telling the truth (in a humorous way).

I still think we need to push the West/McGruder ticket for 2008. I'd vote for these guys if they would run.

Here's a taste of what's in store for you on Sunday:

Less than a minute into the long-awaited premiere of Aaron McGruder's the Boondocks as a TV series on Cartoon Network (as opposed to a mere comic strip in newspapers), 10-year-old Huey -- black and proud and about as fed up with white people as any self-aware kid could be -- has a dream about, well, a garden party.

Full of white people.

He goes to a microphone and makes an announcement: "Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil and the government is lying about 9/11."

Moments later he's slapped out of his dream by his grandfather, who knows all too well what occupies Huey's mind. "You better not even dream about telling white people the truth."

Eleanor Roosevelt Has More Advice for the W, Rove and Co

Still reading and enjoying my copy of Eleanor Roosevelt's "This I Remember." Here's another nice reminder that many, I'm sure, wish the republicans affiliated with the W, Rove and Co would have headed [from page 148 of my copy]:

When we went back to Washington in 1936, Franklin was received with great acclaim, and his second term of office began very auspiciously. He had carried with him a big Democratic majority in the Congress, and the party members felt so secure that they began to believe they could do anything they wanted to. That is a bad attitude for any group of people to adopt, particularly when they are responsible for smooth running of a country that has only just become stabilized after a great depression.

We've Had Our Iraq Attack, Now Let's Have Solutions

Ken over at Common Sense has a fine post that is centered on generating solutions to the Iraq debacle. It is worth replicating some of his post and linking up for those who are interested in a dialog about fixing our Iraq problem. Two paragraphs I liked from Ken's post follow:

To end this conflict we must first come clean about why we went in to Iraq and what we hoped to achieve. Without honestly enunciated goals, how can we be sure we are making progress? If we look at the situation on the ground, the results of the war could lead us to believe that our goals were (a) to destroy infrastructure and create profitable rebuilding contracts for American multi-national corporations; (b) to establish a pro-western government; (c) to renew access to oil reserves; (d) to distract the American public from the fact that their own freedoms were being abridged as their government sought to consolidate power and wealth for themselves and their benefactors.

If these were the goals, then success is still only partially won. We have shoveled tons of tax dollars into multi-nationals like Halliburton, and we have been distracted from all sorts of domestic trickery. But we certainly don’t have better access to oil, at least not in any way that affects the consumer. And the new Iraqi Constitution is hardly a document that embraces the West. But I don’t remember hearing any of this used as rationale for war. I do remember talk of imminent danger from WMD’s. I recall claims of collaboration with the terrorists who actually did attack America on multiple occasions. I even think I heard “spreading democracy” as a justification for war, an opportunity to help release an oppressed people from the iron grip of a dictator. So how are we doing there? Well, still no real evidence of WMD’s, no solid ties between the government of Saddam and al-Qaeda, and not quite the democracy we’d hoped for. Democracy based in Islamic law? That will be interesting to see...

...Step five would be to return to the actual business of hunting down terrorists instead of wrecking societies at random, which coincidentally, is what the terrorists do. We should lead the way in the formation of an international anti-terrorist force that is comprised of troops and resources from all nations that support the fight against radical religious terror. The war on terror, though greater in scope than other violent acts, is still primarily a task of hunting down small groups and removing them much as a doctor excises a tumor. In the rare case where another government actively harbors and supports terrorist activities, this force could be increased in size and scope to marginalize and isolate that country until the threat was removed. Such a force could only be successful if a consistent definition of terrorist is agreed upon, say one that focuses on the actions rather than the ideology behind them. For starters, any act that targets a large group of civilians for no reason other than to make a political point would be an obvious act to include in that definition.

Here's my comment in response to the post. I would encourage you all to either post solutions in the comments here or over at Ken's location:

This is where I like President Carter and his ideas on how to render a solution. The first step, I think is for the W, Rove and Co. to come clean. He mentioned on Larry King Live the other day that this is the one thing Reagan did well with Iran Contra - he stepped up and took the heat. This is unlikely as the W, Rove and Co seem to be dead set to deny their culpability to their graves - and even beyond on down to hell if you believe in it.

Even so, I like your grassroots approach to identifying the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Actions speak louder than words indeed.

I would have to disagree with you on an entire pull out - I think the bases we have in Iraq now, may prove valuable in the future - but like we have bases in Europe, we don't need to be executing military exercises on the citizenry simply because we can. It could serve the misson of the US to return most or a majority of the troops, but to pull out completely may be folly. These bases were hard fought and won, and could be worth keeping long term.

Of course, I don't think we should have gone in at the outset, but now that we are there and given the damage we have done we must own the solution.

President Carter also mentioned one other solution I liked a lot. How about opening up the rebuilding efforts to the global community - you know, a competitive bidding processes - much unlike Halliburton is used to - and let the world benefit from the very necessary infrastructure contracts, and the like. We don't need to close out our allies in this matter - in fact, it would produce buckets of good will if we were to allow for competitive bidding and open processes so that it is not just the US of A that wins here. It's about sharing the wealth, no?

Blog on All.

Not Guilty or Burnt Toast - Sub Title: Alley-Oop!

Libby may plead not guilty. It's his right to foul up the judicial process and expend taxpayer dollars in his quest for due process (incidentally, which is being denied numerous ordinary people right now). But then again, the man may be left gasping for air (if he lives through this - who knows what covert NSA op will be put in motion here). Like burnt toast, no amount of butter will make it taste better. The W, Rove and Co. have burned it, indeed:

He hedged a bit. Here's my transcription of what Chris Matthews told me:

"Well, let me just tell you this, without getting into that, because I know the answer generally to your question, is that, because all of this involves testimony that Russert is probably going to have to make, and let me just tell you this, that those people in the White House, especially Libby and the vice president, working as a team, "connected as a root," to use Libby's favorite phrase, basically pulled off an alley-oop play to get us into war in Iraq by feeding to the New York Times stories about nuclear potential in the hands of Saddam Hussein, to get it into the Sunday paper, and then deploying the vice president on "Meet the Press" and other administration officials like Condi Rice on the other Sunday talk shows in a kinda alley-oop play.

"So they put the ball in the air, and then on Sunday mornings, these guys put it in the basket, and then all of a sudden we're at war over Iraq because a lot of Americans in the middle politically say, 'I don't know how we're getting into that mess or why we're getting in it, but I guess we have to protect ourselves against a mushroom cloud,' that is Condi's phrase.

"So, having pulled this masterful move of moving the undecided middle into the war, they then became very sensitive to the charge by Joseph Wilson that they had done the very thing, pushed the nuclear button and then covered up any threat to that nuclear button, and Wilson was that threat, and then, going volcanic against anybody including me, who dared to say, 'Wait a minute, there is a pattern here of how we got into the war, and how they promoted the nuclear case and how they protected the nuclear case against Wilson.'

"They didn't like me doing that. I know that a number of administration officials were screaming at my network at all levels about me raising this issue, the very points I've just made. They don't like hearing it, Libby is in trouble now because he doesn't like hearing it, the vice president is very much a part of this, and the answer to your question is that you are on the right trail, Michael."

What does all that mean? To me, that Russert may not have called Matthews immediately after hanging up with Libby, but he did tell his colleague of that call, which doesn't bode well for Libby.

Lies Drip Like Molassas Into a Deepening Morass

Good question in the Editorial at NYTimes today:

It's maddening. Why does the Bush administration keep forcing policies on the United States military that endanger Americans wearing the nation's uniform - policies that the military does not want, that do not work and that violate standards upheld by the civilized world for decades?

Moreover, why is this so when those running these operations are concerned about them:

It's a terrifying thing when the people who devote their lives to protecting our national security feel that the civilians who oversee their operations are out of control. Dana Priest reports in The Washington Post that even the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine operators are getting nervous about the network of secret prisons they have around the world - including, of all places, at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe.

But, have no fear - the Big Dick Cheney is going to help us here:

Like so many of the most distressing stories these days - the outing of Valerie Wilson and questions about the intelligence on Iraq also come to mind - this one circles right back to Vice President Dick Cheneyoffice.

Mr. Cheney, a prime mover behind the attempts to legalize torture, is now leading a back-room fight to block a measure passed by the Senate, 90 to 9, that would impose international standards and American laws on the treatment of prisoners. Mr. Cheney wants a different version, one that would make the C.I.A.'s camps legal, although still hidden, and authorize the use of torture by intelligence agents. Mr. Bush is threatening to veto the entire military budget over this issue.

Calling All Pots: You're Black. Signed, Your Friend, the Kettle

Okay, I challenge anyone to find a more blatent display of hypocrisy while blogging today:

"He's not the right judge for this case," DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said after the ruling. "It's not personal; it's not about him. It's about the appearance of impropriety."

Excuse me? Impropriety? Holy Shit, these people must wish to be playing with their own stacked deck on a fixed table or they think they are not going to get a fair shake.

Good News from New Orleans

Got an email update from the proprietors of our favorite B & B in New Orleans. Looks like things are shaping back up in the Big Easy. If you need a place to hang your hat, I highly recommend these folks (and no, I am not getting paid to place this post). They are off the beaten trail, but close to everything worth seeing there. I found them when I had a conference to attend and was looking for something bettter than the affiliated hotel:

Thanks to all of our guests and other friends who have expressed concern about the Benachi House and Esplanade Villa after Katrina.

Both buildings fared pretty well, with flood damage only to the heating and A/C systems under the houses. All the rooms and suites were untouched by Katrina.

Electricity was restored to the Villa about 10 days ago, and to the Benachi House only yesterday. We still have no gas for heating or cooking.

Roof and other repairs are under way. The properties are all cleaned up though the gardens are brown from salt water, and some trees have been dismembered.

I have decided to offer our rooms and suites on a monthly basis to New Orleanians who need a place to stay while they work in the City or during repairs to their homes. This reduces our costs, administrative responsibilities and serves the community.

We should resume normal B&B operations next year. Our office remains open. Amanda Hendrick has taken over from Heidi, who moved back to Boise just before the storm. After thirteen years as my Housekeeper, Marta has moved with her husband to Florida where she is working as a nanny.

Give us a call, or drop us an e-mail.

In the meantime, I thought you might enjoy reading the short piece about us that appeared in the New York Times this past Sunday. Just click on the link, below.

James G. Derbes, Proprietor
Cotton Brokers' Houses
Benachi House & Esplanade Villa
2257 Bayou Rd. @ Esplanade Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70119

Reservations (800) 308-7040

FAX (504) 525-9760

cotton@nolabb.com

www.nolabb.com

Two Billion Dollars A Week Means They Have to Answer the Hard Questions

Crooks and liars has Reid's press conference on a link. Have a look. I think the W, Rove and Co need to answer the hard questions given that the outlay is two billion a week. Moreover, they need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions. Criminal proceedings must be started if there has been violation of any laws.

Who's the Puppet and Who's the Master?

I love the last sentence out of Scotty's mouth at today's press briefing. Makes me wonder who is in charge in the Whitehouse. Do you?

Q If it were raining inside the White House would that somehow affect your ability to carry on the briefing? I know it's a hypothetical, but come on.

MR. McCLELLAN: Come on, John. The point is that this process was set up by the President. He appointed a bipartisan advisory panel. Maybe you can't understand that, but they were set out to look at all these issues, and to make their recommendations. We appreciate greatly their work. And what we're going to do is let those go to the Treasury Secretary as it was laid out to you all a long time ago. Maybe you want to jump ahead of that process. But I'm not going to do it from here. The President is going to make the decisions in due course. But that's after the Treasury Secretary sends him recommendations. And that's the way we're going to proceed.

I'm not going to try -- I'm not going to try to limit the President's options or predict what he may or may not propose. We will do that in due course[Emphasis Added].

Of course, taken in context with the preceeding sentence, it leads me to the title of this post.

Don't Ask and Rove Won't Tell

Looks like W has his hands poised like "See, Hear, and Speak No Evil" when it comes to Uncle Karl. Big question is, has Uncle Karl come clean or has W not had the guts to demand the truth? Or, does W know and fear legal action?

Q But whether or not it was a crime, does the President feel that Karl Rove acted appropriately in this matter, given what he knows about his involvement?

MR. McCLELLAN: See, you're asking that context -- asking that question in the context of an ongoing investigation and an ongoing legal proceeding. And as I indicated to you all on Friday, our Counsel's Office has directed us not to discuss any issues related to that, whether they're factual circumstances or legal issues relating to the investigation. That's the policy that's been in place for some time, and that's the policy that we're following.

Damn right we are asking about the context. When is Rove going to come out and tell us? Iquiring minds want to know, and the American People deserve the truth - really, we can handle it.

Slap Them Harder

Has the Democratic leadership in Congress sprouted a spine?

Republicans were outraged.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said. "Never have I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution."

Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the indictment of Lewis Libby, who was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, "provides a window into what this is really about: how the administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions."

I say it's time to slap them a little harder as the current "leadership" has been taking us the wrong direction for too many years, and lying to get us there. Indict them all.

Quote for the Day

You either love him or hate him, but Woody's (soon to turn 70) got some wisdom to share:

All the crap that they tell you about ... getting joy, and having a kind of wisdom in your golden years -- it's all tripe.

The War On Terror

Much like the largely unmitigating "war on drugs," we are loosing the "war on terror." Frankly, I can't see how it is a winning proposition. Terrorist action can take on too many novel forms, and with a little bit of planning, creative and devious thinking, improvised, unexpected actions may in fact prove to spark unspeakable terror (the whole point of terrorism).

It seems that to successfully defend our nation against any and all forms of terrorism would require further erosion of the civil liberties we hold so dear and be quite costly, not to mention presenting a game that is impossible to win. Much like the war on drugs, the war on terror has become a machine for generating great profit by syphoning giant sums of cash from the people and delivering it to a small number of war-time capitalists. Thank you W, Rove and Co - more social welfare for friends of the Bush Administration.

Rather than further contributing to the hemorrhaging of the National Treasury to the detriment of our collective future, perhaps there is only one way to actually win a war on terror. That is, we must insist that we live our lives as normally as possible, and we do not allow the sacrifice of our personal liberties in the name of defending our freedom. When terrorist actions affect and impede our daily behaviors, detract from our liberties and personal freedoms, they - the terrorist - have in fact, won.

Meanwhile, The Grim Reaper is Still Working in Iraq

Seven more GIs won't be able to vote because they were killed in Iraq.

The Bastard has a new video called Tears, should you need further education on the folly of war.

Like Charlie Brown

Judge Alito must certainly be feeling a bit like Charlie Brown as of late, last pick among the bunch. Third string, if you will. Here's a good point raised by one of the press at today's briefing:

Q Scott, on the subject of rude, my apologies for my unfortunate choice of words this morning to you, but I think the question bears asking again, and that is that the President said repeatedly when he nominated Harriet Miers that she is the best person for the job. Does that in any way indicate that while Sam Alito may be well-qualified for the Supreme Court, he is not, as was described of Harriet Miers, the best person?...

...Q -- why did the President think John Roberts and Harriet Miers were better choices than Judge Alito to replace Justice O'Connor?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think you can look at it that way. Judge Alito is someone that the President interviewed when Justice O'Connor announced that she was going to be retiring. He is someone they interviewed, he met with at length. The President has always been very impressed by Judge Alito because of what he said in his remarks about him today. And the President was pleased to nominate him to the bench.

Q He determined twice that there were people better than him. What --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think you have to -- well, look back at what we said. Again, when he selected Harriet Miers, look at what he was looking for. And he felt that she was the best one to fill that vacancy based on what he thought was important to have on the Court at that time. But we all recognize now, very well, the culture of today's confirmation process. And --

Given that today is Halloween, it reminds me of one of my favorite Peanuts shows - involving the Great Pumpkin. All the kids are out trick-or-treating and after each house the examine eachother's booty. One after the other, the gang excitedly reports their treat but for Charlie Brown who, invariable says, "I got a rock." I wouldn't want to be Judge Alito today, yesterday, tomorrow, or the next...you get the idea.

No Longer an Investigation

So, the Plame affair is no longer an "on-going investigation," but a legal procedure. Still, Scotty's still not going to talk about it. Enjoy this snappy and snippy exchange from today's Halloween press briefing:

Q Let me just follow up on an aspect of this and try it again here. On October 7, 2003, you were asked about a couple of the key players here, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, as well as another administration official who has not figured in the investigation, so far as we know. And you said the following, "There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made, and that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals," including Rove and Libby. "They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved." You were wrong then, weren't you?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, it's not a question of whether or not I'd like to talk more about this. I think I've indicated to you all that I'd be glad to talk about this once this process is complete, and I look forward to that opportunity. But, again, we have been directed by the White House Counsel's Office not to discuss this matter or respond to questions about it.

Q That was a public representation that was made to the American people.

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. We can have this conversation, but let me respond.

Q No, no, no, because it's such an artful dodge. Whether there's a question of legality --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree with you.

Q Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's accurate.

Q So aside from the question of legality here, you were wrong, weren't you?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, if I were to get into commenting from this podium while this legal proceeding continues, I might be prejudicing the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial. And I'm just not going to do that. I know very --

Q You speak for the President. Your credibility and his credibility is not on criminal trial. But it may very well be on trial with the American public, don't you agree?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm very confident in the relationship that we have in this room, and the trust that has been established between us. This relationship --

Q See those cameras? It's not about us. It's about what the American people --

MR. McCLELLAN: This relationship is built on trust, and you know very well that I have worked hard to earn the trust of the people in this room, and I think I've earned it --

Q Is the President -- let me just follow up on one more thing.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and I think I've earned it with the American people.

Q Does the President think that Karl Rove did anything wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think it would be good for you to allow me the opportunity to respond to your questions without jumping in. I'm glad to do that. I look forward to the opportunity --

Q I haven't heard a response.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, I have been responding to you, David, and there's no need -- you're a good reporter, there's no need to be rude or disrespectful. We can have a conversation and respond to these questions, if you'll just give me the opportunity to respond. I'm glad to do that.

We need to let this legal process continue. The special counsel indicated the other day that it is ongoing. And that's what we're going to do from this White House. That's the policy that we have set for quite some time now.

Q In the year 2000, the President said the following: "In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal, but what is right; not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves." Doesn't the American public deserve some answers from this President about the role of his Vice President in this story and what he knew and when he knew it, and how he feels about the conduct of his administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: The American people deserve a White House that is committed to doing their work. We are focused on the priorities of the American people. As the President indicated Friday, we've got a job to do, and we're going to do it. We're going to continue to focus on our efforts to protect the American people and to spread prosperity here at home. We're going to move forward on the Supreme Court nomination.

People in this White House fully understand what's expected of them. We are expected to focus on the people's business, first and foremost, and that's what we always do. We're also expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards. People understand that in this White House. That's what the President expects, and that's what the American people expect. And we've got a great team here, and we'll continue to adhere to those standards.

Perhaps this is why the Veep, yes, the Big Dick Cheney, appointed his legal counsel to replace Libby! He's going to need all the legal help he can muster (which many shares of his Halliburton stock aught supply a large legal team).

Cause for War

Ken over at Common Sense has another fantastic post he titles, "What's the Fighting Really about?" I found myself, once again, commenting and thinking the comment would make a fine post. So, here are a couple of teaser paragraphs to get you over to Ken's space (he is prolific, so slice some time out to read the original and others there):

Unfortunately, the information government’s offer for war justification (other than clear cut defensive reasons) is anything but clear and reasoned and often inconsistent with other governmental claims or policies. Shifting reasoning for military action is a sure sign that something is amiss, for if the fight is indeed a just and right cause, there should never be a change in the rationale for the war. Any change in rationale belies the fact that either the public was not told the truth initially, or that the real reasons for the war are in no way acceptable to the public. People may be willing to die for their freedom. They may be willing to die for someone else’s right to freedom. But how many are willing to die over a political sleight, or to enrich multinational corporations who always maximize their profits during wartime? How many are willing to die for half-truths or outright lies?

...The War on Terror began with some semblance of clarity, at least among the general public. We had a good idea who attacked us, where they were, and we went after them. With near unanimous support among the citizenry and around the world, our act of war in Afghanistan was as justified as war ever can be. Sadly, this conflict came at a time when the leadership in place had not the temerity to finish the initial task and end the conflict. Instead, the current crop of political leaders chose to deflect the momentum and turn their sights towards another foe, one that was despicable, but at best only tangentially connected with the other, ongoing war. Iraq presented a diplomatic problem, a humanitarian problem, and a political problem that threatened the reputation of the mighty U.S. of A. For reasons best described as greed, revenge, and control of resources, Iraq was portrayed as a player in the attack on the U.S. They were portrayed as an imminent military threat, not only eager but capable of sending heinous weapons to our shores. We now know that these rationales are false, were false, and will always be false. That Iraq was in need of a new form of government, for the benefit of its citizens and its neighbors, is of no real dispute. Tyrannies are never acceptable to those who love freedom and long for peace. But just as war in Afghanistan was fought for a declared purpose, and almost achieved its stated goal before ramping down efforts, the war in Iraq is just the opposite. The goal is ever changing, the reasons ever morphing, the evidence increasingly underwhelming and even fabricated. The truth is starting to show through, and the reasons offered aren’t holding up so well anymore.

Here's my comment. Let us know what you think by posting a comment here or over at Common Sense.

swinging our emotional psyche toward thinking maybe we are wrong for not supporting the war.

In essence, every time a politician stands up and suggest that we should continue to fight the war to validate and honor those who have already died suggest a disrespect beyond compare. Reprehensible, to say the least, suggesting that we continue to toss good lives at an illegitmate war [Iraq] seems - well, a bit insane, if you ask me.

Loss of Quality, it Seems

I don't see Alito as equivalent or even remotely close to the stature of Sandy D. Looks like the whole Miers thing was a diversionary ploy. Also, the Alito nomination looks like a smoke screen to cloud our judgement and thinking about the Plame affair. Nothing like a toxic SCOTUS nomination to gum up the works and divert attention from criminal proceedings.

At least Alito has a record by which we can see how he may rule in particular forthcoming cases. Is anyone buying this whole "legislating from the bench" gambit? Isn't the whole purpose of the Supreme Court to make difficult decisions that affect the rule of law and the execution of it's enforcement? What do they think we are, stupid?

Ultimately, the real reason W was trying to get his personal laywer, and now, a conservative person on the SCOTUS is to help him survive the legal whipping he is about to take from any civil suit the Wilson/Plame's file.

Legal experts are already debating whether the Wilsons have a case. These are some of the same legal experts who thought Paula Jones' case was going to get laughed out of court. Who knows, they might be right this time.

But the Wilsons' case will not end quickly, however it goes. Win or lose, there will be lots and lots of motions, depositions and days in court. The Jones case wound its way all the way up to the US Supreme Court, leaving a trail of embarrassing disclosures every inch of the way.

Soon after the Wilsons' case is filed, subpoenas will start arriving at the homes and/or offices of the President, Vice President, Rove, Libby, Tenet, Rumsfeld and others involved in the cooking of intelligence justifying the war. Sworn depositions will follow as images of Bill Clinton dancing a mocking jig in their heads.

That's why I say, the worst -- or best -- may be yet to come.

Another Publicity Stunt

Condi attends Rosa Parks' funeral. Humm. Publicity stunt or disgrace? Certainly, she had no choice not to attend. She had to be there. Is she next in line to be Veep? It could go like this:

A - Libby = Prison - folds over on his chronies to shrink his sentence.

B - Official A = Rove = another indictment = another resignation.

C - Cheney = at the tip of the iceberg = resigns.

D - Ergo = W, in a bind, gives Condi a boost up to Veep.

The repubs have to be thinking this is the case, no? Are they scared yet?

What's Next?

There are several affirming compenents revolving around the Libby/Plame affair, whether or not Libby et. al. are found guilty of the counts in any indictment. More palpably, it means at least the following for the U.S. Government and the people of the United States of America:

1 - It proves that no one is above the law, even top whitehouse officials.
2 - The system of checks and balances works.
3 - Truth matters, and bending the truth to justify a war is wholly inappropriate and illegal.

Saddly, what it means for the citizens of Iraq is quite different. Are we supposed to all breath a collective, "Whoops! We're sorry. Our bad. Can we have a do-over?" No doubt, the folks living in the middle east are hardy people and will make lemonade out of the lemons we gave them. I can't say that I would blame them and they have a right not to ever trust the good people of the USA every again.

Unfortunately, the W, Rove and Co will continue to justify the invasion despite the illegal reasons manufactured for going in, and some citizens will thank them for it (let's call them the W, Rove and Co Apologists). GIs continue to die for the W, Rove and Co. But why?

As Fitzy does his job, it is looking more and more likely that the justification to put our troops inside Iraq was egregiously and maliciously designed to trick the American people. The question turns toward, "what's next?" No doubt, we cannot know history before it happens, but this story will be one for the books.

The unraveling of the W, Rove and Co may very well lead to the downfall of the republican party as we know it. And like a phoenix, we will rise from these ashes a more powerful America. But lets hope it is not before those responsible are made to pay for their mistakes as we hold them responsible and accountable for delibrate actions that mislead us to where we are.

The biggest question of all is why the American people were misled about the reasons for provoking a war that continues to take an intolerable toll in lives and dollars -- and the credibility of the Bush White House.

Perhaps an even bigger question would be what was the real reason for the war on Iraq? But, I think we all know the answer to that one...

Wisdom from Tennessee

Got some half price tix to see Tennessee William's "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" last eve. The play is fifty years old this year and never more salient. Here's a lesson that Mr. Williams might, should he rise from his grave, convey to the W, Rove and Co:

I think that deliberate, conscienceless mendacity, the acceptance of falsehood and hypocrisy, is the most dangerous of sins...I meant for the audience to discover how people erect false values by not facing what is true in their natures, by having to live a lie.

Long Odds

What is the probability that Libby will cut a deal with Fitzy for a plea deal to a lesser charge/sentence to bend the whitehouse over and screw them all by cooperating and spilling his guts open for all to see? Anyone taking the line on this?

Want to Talk to the Folks in Charge? Forgedaboudit

Meanwhile, the Vice President is sad as he is having a bad day. Yet, The Big Dick still insists on taking his ball and walking off the playground - refusing to talk about it:

Mr. Libby has informed me that he is resigning to fight the charges brought against him. I have accepted his decision with deep regret.

Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known. He has given many years of his life to public service and has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction.

In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts. Mr. Libby is entitled to that opportunity.

Because this is a pending legal proceeding, in fairness to all those involved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges or on any facts relating to the proceeding.

So, you remember when Scotty promised he would talk about it after the Grand Jury was finished? Don't hold your breath. There is no press briefing from today and it is past five o'clock in DC. Alternately, today the W,Rove and Co spectacle were busy ducking questions aboard Airforce One on the way to some PR Opportunity in Norfolk VA:

Q Will the President be prepared to talk once Mr. Fitzgerald has made his announcements?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let's see what the special prosecutor has to say, if he has something to say later today.

Q Were Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby in senior staff this morning?

MR. McCLELLAN: They were both at the White House this morning and participating in meetings.

Q But specifically in senior staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think Karl left his house a little bit later than normal, so he was in a little bit later. And Scooter did come to senior staff.

Q Has Karl informed anybody at the White House that he's been informed that he is not to be indicted today, as his lawyer is telling others?

MR. McCLELLAN: All I know, Geoff, is that there's a lot of speculation and I don't have anything to add beyond that.

Q Karl, we understand, met late last night with the President. Was that -- can you tell us if that was about the pending indictments, or was this on a regular business matter?

MR. McCLELLAN: I saw that report and I'm not sure what they were referring to. If you have more information I'll be glad to check into it.

Q Is that typical that Karl talks with the President outside of normal business hours?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. He's Deputy Chief of Staff to the President. We don't have normal business hours at the White House. But again, I don't know what the Associated Press is referring to, that Geoff was bringing up. If you find out more, let me know and I'll check into it. Obviously, there are a lot of meetings that go on, on a lot of important priorities that we're focused on, and so --

...Q One more thing on Karl. If he were to escape an indictment today, but be told he is still in legal jeopardy, still under investigation, could he continue on in his capacity in that mode?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into what-ifs at this point. If, as is reported in the media, the special prosecutor has more to say today, then we'll be ready to talk after that.

Stumbling

The bumbling idiots in the whitehouse show more audaciousness in light of new indictments and more on the horizon. Scotty McMessage McClellan sticks his foot in it agian revealing the truth rather in the guise of obfuscation about the company line regarding Harriet Miers:

Q Scott, what's the President's reaction? And what does he do now?

MR. McCLELLAN: He is deeply disappointed in the process. He will move forward in a timely manner to name a new nominee, as he indicated in his letter -- or as indicated in his statement.

Q Would that be Miers? Would she maintain her role as the person to seek out --

MR. McCLELLAN: She is going to continue as White House Counsel, and as she indicates in her letter to the President, she looks forward to continuing to help him select people to the bench that have a conservative judicial philosophy, so I fully expect her to be involved, as she was before.

Q Is he also deeply disappointed in the way some of his own allies have treated her and him?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've always been focused on the Senate, not on the outside commentary or outside groups. Our focus has always been on the United States Senate. And it was the discussions that we had had, and the meetings that Harriet Miers had had with senators that led us to the belief that this was simply a conflict that could not be resolved.

Q You can't ignore what the Bill Kristols, the Charles Krauthammers, people who were supportive of him on so many other things have said about this. Has it had -- are you just calling this background noise, has it not had any effect on this?

MR. McCLELLAN: The focus was always on the Senate. And it was Harriet Miers that came to this decision. She made a courageous decision, and the President has only grown deeper in his admiration and respect for her during this process.

Q Did he talk about this with her at all before?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sorry?

Q Did he talk about this at all --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this was a decision that she came to.

Q He never -- it never came up?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, she was not asked to -- this was a decision she came to.

Q Why is he disappointed with the process --

MR. McCLELLAN: And I think it shows the type of person that she is. She is someone who is very selfless and wise, and she recognized that it was more important to protect this important separation of powers and principle than it was to move forward on her personal ambition.

Q Scott, why is the President disappointed with the process? Because it's inconceivable that you could put forward a nominee whose background and expertise in constitutional law you can't illuminate to the people who have to confirm her.

MR. McCLELLAN: Harriet Miers is an extraordinarily well-qualified individual. And the President reiterated that in his statement that you all now have. And there have been people who have not previously served on the Court that have been confirmed to the nation's highest court. They --

Q Right -- can look into their background.

So, they are not really dissapointed in themselves, but the process. Humm, talk about Chutzpah. I suppose they are going to be dissapointed in the Grand Jury Process that resulted in at least one indictment (Scooter - I'll resign now, but I'm innocent until proven guilty - Libby). Batter up and Fitzy's going to toss nothing but hard, fastball strikes.

Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true. It was false," the prosecutor said. "He was at the beginning of the chain of the phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And he lied about it afterward, under oath, repeatedly."

Just for kicks, you can view the indictment - and it is snazzy - a matter now of public record, start on page 11 for what he is alledge to have done:

...defendant herein (Libby), did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due adminnistration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, Libby acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concering the employement of Valerie Wilson by the CIA...

If you ask me, Libby's Five Counts sounds substantially worse offense than recieving sexual gratification in the oval office from a willing intern - even if you are married. I still suggest that we exercise the portion of the Patriot Act that allows us to sequester Libby to a fine residence like Gitmo and keep him there indefinately, without trial, so he can no longer do any harm to these fine United States of America.

Bated Breath: A "Fitzmas" Contest

Every rumble from Fitzy is going to have journalists and bloggers at his/her keyboard with bated breath. Frothing is perhaps the best term I can think of to describe the blogisphere - Bloggers everywhere wait, media vultures starved to sink sharpened and sardonic talons into the affair akin to the Terry Schiavo, Katrina, Tsunami type tumult of blogposting. The only thing left is to figure out who may have the most intelligent post on the results.

So, rather than post the usual "I Told You So" statements lambasting reichwingers (or conversely smearing liberals) everywhere, what I'd like to do is have a little contests (no real reward, just bragging rights). After Fitzy makes the grand jury announcements and trots off for some well deserved rest, I want to know who has the most intelligent post regarding the outcome. It is not possible for me to read every blog there is, nor would I want to. What I want to know is, in your opinion, who has the most intelligent post. Here are the rules:

1. The post must be intelligent
2. It can't be your own (in other words this has to be another blogger, not just another one of your blogs - fess up, some bloggers out there have two, three or many more; as to why I don't know, but they do). In other words, you must nominate some one else's work.
3. Slap a one or two sentence teaser quote in a comment below this post, and
4. Be sure also place in the comment the URL link or provide a hot button so we can go see the full post for ourselves.

Thanks for playing and Blog on Y'all.

It's Begining To Look A Lot Like "Fitzmas."

The fever is catching. Many people are in a salubrious state wrought with antici...PATION (sorry, Mox:-). Bloggers around the globe are set to cream their shorts when the news leaks (ha, ha, pun intended). Fitzy has been extremely tight lipped - demonstrating exactly how to keep the trap shut unlike Kenny Starr who had looser lips than Linda Trip.

My bet is that Fitzy makes his announcements on Friday and has a nice laid back weekend in a personal retreat from the media spotlight. Moxie Grrrl has a post up for a day or so that has some nice commentary. Therein, I suggest an idea about how to actually save the U.S. Taxpayer some serious amounts of cash prosecuting these nut jobs:

... Oh, I just thought of a better option. Howzabout we let the justice system work magic by bypassing the usual due process in the name of the Patriot Act and send these folks down to Gitmo? Or, another option could be to enlist in the military to serve in a combat unit in Iraq? This would save the taxpayers a bundle of cash prosecuting the bastards, no?

The sad state of this whole situation is that our government is so rotten to the very core that we are becoming ecstatic about the possible demise of a reigning administration. How did it come to this? At least there is no armed coup d'etats, but really, the whole mess is an embarrassment - and in particular Republicans who voted for these nut jobs should give themselves some kind of self flagellation for voting for them.

2000 - And No End to the Death

Have a look at this to refresh our thinking on what we are doing in Iraq. Originally on DailyKOS. I have asked this many times: At what number KIA does it become no longer worth it?

Torture: It's Good For America

I love Helen Thomas. Check out this line of query in today's press tailsmacking of McMessage McClellan:

Q You've already said the President is going to veto anything that would exempt us from torture. You have -- this White House demeans --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not correct, that's --

Q -- you demean all Americans when you support torture. And your answer is so fuzzy --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, our answer is very clear, and that's flat-out wrong what you're suggesting, because this President has made it very clear what our policy is --

Q Didn't you say that he would veto any part of that legislation of defense spending?

MR. McCLELLAN: We did express our views on that legislation, but it is not the way you characterized it, because there are laws and treaty obligations that are on the books. We adhere to those laws and treaty obligations.

Q No, you don't. You are supporting torture.

MR. McCLELLAN: You are wrong. This is a -- the United States is a country that --

Q Is the story in the paper today wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- believes in adhering to our laws and our values. And we do. And this President believes in abiding by our laws and our treaty obligations.

Q Why do we keep reading about torture then?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, if you'll let me respond, I will. The President has made it very clear that he does not condone torture, nor would he ever authorize the use of torture --

Q Condone it, but does he allow it?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and our policy is to comply with our laws and our treaty obligations. That's what we expect everyone to do. If there are ever instances of wrongdoing, we investigate and we follow through and hold people accountable.

Q That's not the point. He should --

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure it is.

Q -- come out flatly and say he was against torture.

MR. McCLELLAN: He has.

So, which is it Scotty? Does the President not condone, but allow torture? I am sure he does.

Trust and the Rediculous

Can anyone trust this administration? If so, how? Take a gander:

Q Scott, a couple of years ago, you told us that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove had nothing to do with the CIA leak. It appears that you may have gotten bad information before you made that statement. Now, today, we learn through extrapolation that when the Vice President said in September of 2003 that he didn't know who said Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate the claims that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake, that he was not speaking the truth. My question is: Can we be confident that when we hear statements from the White House in public that they are truthful?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think you can because you know that our relationship is built on trust, and I have earned that trust with you all. As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I gave and I've talked to you about the assurances that I received on that.

In terms of the investigation, it is an ongoing investigation. The policy of this White House has been to carry out the direction of the President, which is to cooperate fully with the special prosecutor. That means not commenting on it publicly from here at the White House. There is a lot of speculation that is going on right now. There are many facts that are not known. The work of the special prosecutor continues, and we look forward to him successfully concluding his investigation.

Q But in terms of public trust, if it is true that Scooter Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from Vice President Cheney in June of 2003, would that not mean then that the Vice President made a false statement three months later when he said he didn't know who sent Wilson to Niger?

MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate that. A couple of things. One, the question you bring up is relating to a matter that is under investigation. And secondly, as I pointed out, there is a great deal of speculation that is going on right now, and I would urge you not to engage in that speculation. But certainly, you are pursuing this story as you should. We will wait to see what the special prosecutor does and learn more about the facts at that point.

Q Are you not commenting on whether this report is accurate or not? Will you comment?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I'm not going to comment because it's relating to an ongoing investigation; the story that you're referencing relates to an ongoing investigation.

Q Given the fact that the Vice President did say publicly in September of 2003 that he never knew about Joe Wilson or who sent him, as John points out, and now there appears to be information to contradict that, how do you explain that contradiction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there's an ongoing investigation. There are many facts that are not known. I would encourage you not to engage in speculation. And on top of that, if there's any additional information that the Vice President's Office wants to provide you, you can direct questions there. But the policy of this White House has been not to comment on this investigation while it's ongoing. And it has been that way for some time.

Q Does that mean that if you had information that could help clear this up and perhaps make it look like something other than what it is, which is a contradiction, would you provide that, or would you hold that just because you don't want to --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I said -- I mean, if you want to ask any more from the Vice President's Office, you're welcome to do that, but --

Q Have you done that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- our policy has been that this is an ongoing investigation, we're not going to comment on it. The special prosecutor is the one that has been gathering the facts related to it. But just because I'm not commenting on it doesn't mean you should read anything into that one way or the other.

Q Have you attempted to clarify it with the Vice President's Office?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is an ongoing investigation, and what the President directed us to do was to cooperate fully with the special prosecutor. And so, as part of doing that, we've been carrying out the President's direction from the White House. That means -- we're not doing that ourselves, the special prosecutor is doing that.

Q So that's, no, you have not sought clarification?

MR. McCLELLAN: So, no -- no.

Q Does Vice President always tell the truth to the American people?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q The President then stands by the Vice President's account in September of --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's a -- frankly, I think it's a ridiculous question, Terry, because --

Q Well, no, we now have reports that there are documents that directly contradict the public statement of the Vice President of the United States.

MR. McCLELLAN: Reports. The Vice President, like the President, is a straightforward, plainspoken person.

Liars can lie aboubt being truthful and trustworthy can't they? Where does that leave you in your decision to trust the W, Rove and Co?

Meanwhile, Back in DC

The rhetoric is getting thick as people distance themselves from the W, Rove and Co. Here's a handful of really interesting sentences:

Scowcroft, a close friend of former president George H.W. Bush, revealed in interviews with the New Yorker a deep disdain for the administration's foreign policy, according to an article published this week. He said he had once considered Vice President Cheney "a good friend," but "Dick Cheney I don't know anymore."

..."The case that I saw for four-plus years was a case I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process," Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Powell's former chief of staff and longtime confidant, said in a speech last week. "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

..."She says we're going to democratize Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty years and so on and so forth," he said. The article stated that with a "barely perceptible note of satisfaction," Scowcroft added: "But we've had fifty years of peace."

More Talk: "Spreading Freedom"

Is it me, or does anyone else gag when the president uses the phrase, "spreading freedom?" It might work to allow freedom to grow more organically than by use of force, no? Of course, the W, Rove and Co doesn't think so and cooked up numerous reasons to kill people in the name of "spreading freedom." While some are tricked into thinking this cause is noble, really the means don't seem to justify the end. Hell accepts all visitors: "You can check in any time you like..."

Bush's remarks were aimed at addressing criticism expected when the U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches the 2,000 milestone. It stood at 1,999 on Tuesday.

"This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," he said

The Front of the Bus Will Never Be the Same

Bon Voyage, Mrs. Parks. Bon Voyage. In the dictionary under courage, they should have a picture of Rosa Parks:

Mrs. Parks was 42 when she committed an act of defiance in 1955 that was to change the course of American history and earn her the title "mother of the civil rights movement."

..."At the time I was arrested I had no idea it would turn into this," Mrs. Parks said 30 years later. "It was just a day like any other day. The only thing that made it significant was that the masses of the people joined in."