There Will Be NO Victory In Iraq For The W, Rove and Co.

If you read between the lines, you will notice the tacit admission of defeat echoing around the Whitehouse and with in the whole of the W, Rove and Co.

Overtly, you will notice that the talk a good game saying things like, non-binding resolutions do not support the troops, or that suggesting we bring the troops home is tantamount to aiding and abetting the terrorists.

But really, you need only look so far to see how we should all know that "victory" in Iraq is neither going to be realized in the near term, nor will it be possible to proceed as is if we are to retain a modicum of face in this matter.

Exhibit 1: The W, Rove and Co is setting up the next administration to carry on:

Q Tony, I just wanted to follow on what you were saying before, about the President -- with the resolutions flying around the Hill, what the President is doing. He's focused on trying to, you said, leave tools in place to fight the war on terror for the next President.

MR. SNOW: Correct.

But to what end?

Even his advisors suggest that W is simply putting off the declaration of defeat. The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

So, the bigger questions remain. If things are so bad, why does the W, Rove and Co. insist on it's flag waving, patriotic rhetoric in the face of opposition to their current plans?

Would it be wrong to declare defeat and move on, not unlike declaring chapter 11, and retool the whole operation? Given how much the W, Rove and Co has been wrong about Iraq so far, might they also be wrong about what would happen if we pull out the troops?

Harvard Gets With It

You may already know that Harvard smartened up and followed Larry Summer's controversial tenure with a female selection for President of the storied institution. Faust (ironic name aside) may be a good choice. Of course, leading such academic institutions is a lot like herding cats with giant egos. Thus, the jury is out.

The selection of the first female president at Harvard is merely interesting only in that there hasn't been one. Women have been leading institutions of higher education for a great long while. That it can be done is not the question. As to why it took so long for an institution that suggests it's on the cutting edge of scientific and social knowledge generation to come around may be a better question. After all, Harvard was founded in 1634. That's a long wait.

Even so, if you can't successfully lead an institution with the largest endowment on the planet, with a stable of overly pedigreed faculty, what does that say about a person? Larry Summers really screwed the pooch, but without him, there may not have been room at the top for Faust. I think she is going to do a fine job.

A more reasonable question might be to ask her, not if she will be up to the task, but why it is that a Harvard education is only offered to a small slice of the privileged few? With many billions in the foundation coffers, they could afford to broaden the delivery to reach a bigger audience. Might we not all benefit from better access to a Harvard degree?

Do You Get The Impression The President Ignores The Will Of The People He Serves?

I love Helen Thomas. At Thursday's whitehouse press briefing, she delivers another fatal swing of her cast iron frying pan to the head of Tony the Snow job.

The thrust of the issue: Does the President Ignore the will of the people? Of course, Tony's on full denial mode here.

Have a look:

Q Does the President think that the role of the Commander-in-Chief is so powerful that he can ignore the will of the people as manifested in the election and also in Congress?

MR. SNOW: Helen, if you can find somebody who says that they want us to fail in Iraq, then perhaps --

Q That's not the question. I --

MR. SNOW: No, what you asked was a very vague question about the will of the people.

Q It's not vague.

MR. SNOW: Yes, it is, because if you want to talk --

Q I want you to -- do you think the power of a Commander-in-Chief is so all powerful that he can ignore the people?

MR. SNOW: The President never ignores the people. And that's why it's a tendentious assumption on your part that somehow the President runs roughshod over the will of the people. But he does have an obligation to keep the people safe --

Q -- ignored --

MR. SNOW: No, he doesn't -- if you get a non-binding resolution, he certainly is not going to ignore it. But on the other hand, he's going to do what it takes to keep you safe, and everybody in this room safe.

Q That's not the question.

MR. SNOW: Oh, yes, it is. Au contraire, Helen.

Q It is, is he going to ignore --

MR. SNOW: I got to tell you, you've got to understand in this particular case, when the President is thinking about national security, he understands the importance of opinion. He shares people's opinion that what's going on is --

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. SNOW: What do you think --

Q -- responded to it?

MR. SNOW: He's responded to it. He's responded to it by laying out a new way forward --

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. SNOW: Well, it will be interesting. Let's see how the debate unfolds and let's also see how facts on the ground unfold in Baghdad.

Well, let's see if I can't get my signing statement pen out and change the course of the will of the people one more time...

Boo Hoo

I don't mean to sound overly callous, but the MSM is a buzz with Anna Nichol Smith keeling over. For fuck sake, like she did anything important? In direct contrast, how much attention is paid to the latest GI fatalities?

Four U.S. Marines were killed in combat in two separate attacks in western Anbar province, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

Wednesday's deaths took to at least 11 the number of U.S. servicemen killed in
Iraq in the last two days.

All seven crew members and passengers aboard a U.S. Marine transport helicopter were killed on Wednesday after their aircraft crashed in Anbar province. The cause of the crash is under investigation.

The vast desert province of Anbar west of Baghdad is a stronghold of the Sunni Arab insurgency, and the deadliest place for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Is this media blitzkrieg-style attention paid to celebrity over people that have been placed needlessly in harms way by the W, Rove and Co. symptomatic of all that is wrong with America? Methinks, yes.

AMT: Any One Else Out There Petrified By Bush's Push Toward It?

There are a number of concerns that we should raise when W states outright that he will "balance the budget without raising taxes."

One of them legitimately would be: What about the debt he is lacing around our necks for the Iraq war so that at any moment our lenders can tighten up that noose?

Another would be to question the "Alternative Minimum Tax." I haven't done much research in this area, but it sure sounds fishy to me.

Even President Bush acknowledges that he can't balance the budget without raising taxes.

The president would never put it that way, of course. In fact, his message is exactly the opposite. But the coming tax increase is the unavoidable, unstated subtext of his supposedly balanced-by-2012 budget.

The reason is the governmental cash cow known as the alternative minimum tax.

What say you blogisphere?

No Wonder The W, Rove And Co Wasn't Interested In Finding The "Leakers"

If you remember, a long while back when the Valarie Plame case broke, the W of the W, Rove and Co promised to find and punish all involved in the leak - and any leak of secrets, for that matter. Those of you who have watched the case know that the W, Rove and Co, as a whole, has not done much beyond assign a special prosecutor to investigate - and even then they did that begrudgingly and rather perfunctorily.

As it turns out, we now know why punishment was not meted out more swiftly. Moreover, any one who has lost their job because of it was only pushed out only after they were caught by Fitzgerald doing something egregious - like lying to the grand jury.

Well, you ask, why didn't the W, Rove and Co. follow through with their promise to swiftly act and punish all those associated with the leaks (of the Plame and other varieties)? Well, silly, it's because the leak started at the top.

What's that old saw: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Hmmm:

Former White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury in 2004 that Vice President Dick Cheney was upset by an ambassador's public questioning of the Iraq war and that President Bush, Cheney and Libby were involved in a plan — kept secret from other senior White House officials — to leak previously classified intelligence to reporters to counter the criticism.

Of course; they are not interested in punishing themselves. They always think that their way is the "right" way. Might we suggest that they are dead wrong here, yet again?

You would think that years of "service" to America proclaimed by Cheney in particular would prevent them from making such blundering, preposterous, and catastrophic mistakes. Perhaps in Aught Eight, it's time to elect some one without the same pedigree.

Winning Hearts And Minds

If I were working for the W, Rove and Co, I'd be just about ready to toss in the towel for winning the hearts and minds of the American people, but that's the least of their worries. If we are to prevail in Iraq, they are going to have to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Trouble is, that ain't going to happen.

Have a look:

The camouflaged American soldiers, weary from hours of struggling to talk with Iraqis during a patrol in eastern Baghdad, laughed with relief after an Iraqi army major's wife met them at her door. The soldiers had no interpreter. She had a master's degree in English translation.

"Do you want to work for the Americans?" asked U.S. Army Lt. Anthony Slamar, 26. "Do you want a job as a translator?"

The woman stepped back into her darkened doorway.

"With you? No. Not with you. Do I want to die?" she said. "I am afraid of you, I'm sorry."

If our GIs can't get the wife of an Iraqi Major with a Master's Degree in English Translation to help them, we are SO screwed. She is supposed to be on our side, no? No doubt, she is holding out for a lucrative contract with the US Government at 10 to 100 times what they would pay her as a civilian employee. Even then, the job is not worth getting killed over, now is it?

This is a symptom of the larger problem caused by the illegal and illegitimate invasion of Iraq perpetrated by the W, Rove and Co. Any chance the bumbling idiots in the W, Rove and Co will be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity after they are out in 2009? Don't hold your breath.

The Very Definition Of "Setting Artificial Time Lines"

Might not the president have stepped into his own rhetorical trap today?

Let's have a quick look at the ceremonial cabinet meeting where W took two questions. In W's unscripted answers, he reveals himself one more time as the Emperor with no clothes.

Q Mr. President, thank you. You oppose setting time lines for withdrawal in Iraq, yet your new budget plan assumes that war spending will be down to $50 billion by 2009 and none beyond that. Are you, in effect, sir, setting a time line for the end of the war?

THE PRESIDENT: Ben, we've had years of projections in the past. We've said to the Congress, here's what our anticipated expenditure is in the short-term. And we've been able to manage our budgets with five years of war behind us, and we'll manage the budgets in the out-years. There will be no timetable set. And the reason why is, is because we don't want to send mixed signals to an enemy, or to a struggling democracy, or to our troops.

Interesting. Very interesting.

Q Mr. President, how do you respond to some criticism from the Iraqis that the reason for the recent escalation of violence in Iraq is because the United States has been too slow to implement its new strategy?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, General Petraeus is heading to Iraq this week, early this -- tomorrow. And my message is, is that both of us, the Iraqis and the U.S. and coalition forces, have got to get this plan in place as quickly as possible. Of course, we want the plan to work, and we want to make sure that the strategy we've implemented -- or the strategy we've outlined is implemented properly.

I appreciate the fact that the Iraqi government is anxious to get security inside the capital of the country. That's a good sign. It's a good sign that there's a sense of concern and anxiety. It means that the governments understands they have a responsibility to protect their people. And we want to help them.

What we're trying to do with this reinforcement of our troops is to provide enough space so that the Iraqi government can meet certain benchmarks or certain requirements for a unity government to survive and for the country to be strong.

I had to make a decision as to whether or not we were going to allow the status quo to continue. And the status quo wasn't acceptable. I listened to a lot of people in Congress as to whether or not we ought to slowly withdraw and redeploy troops. My worry about that was that the capital would get worse, and out of that chaos would come grave danger to the United States. And so I listened to a lot of other folks, including our military, and said, look, we got to take care and help these Iraqis take care of the violence inside of Baghdad.

And that's why I made the decision I made, and we're in the process of implementing that plan. We'd like to do it as quickly as possible. The success of that plan is going to depend upon the capacity and willingness of the Iraqis to do hard work, and we want to help them do that work. And the fact that government officials are now saying that it's time to start implementing the plan is a good sign. It shows that they understand that now is the time to do the things necessary to protect their people.

Well, perhaps it's not the new strategy that is the problem. Perhaps it's the situation on the ground that is causing the problem? What other explanation is there?

Here's the piece W didn't want us to know:

Q Why the $50 billion figure in '09? Is that just a place holder, or it's something that's going to happen that's going to cut the war costs by $95 billion?

DIRECTOR PORTMAN: I think we call it an allowance, and it's a notion that we believe there will still be war costs in 2009. We have no idea what those costs will be.

Lest We Get Sidetracked By Sports

I found three interesting bits in the MSM today to remind us not to succumb to the antiseptic theatre that is the Super Bowl. Have a gander:

A dump truck hauling a ton of explosives hidden beneath boxes of food exploded in the center of a crowded Baghdad market Saturday, killing at least 130 people and injuring more than 300 in one of the deadliest blasts since the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The attack, carried out by a suicide bomber, was designed to inflict a massive physical as well as psychological toll on a population haunted by a string of devastating strikes on other markets, including one Thursday that killed 73 people in the southern city of Hillah, and another in Baghdad last month that killed more than 80.

What do our deferred tax dollars borrowed from China get us in Iraq? More corrupt contractors:

Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.

:Lastly, there's a snazzy Vietnam style graphic to remind us that things aren't going swimmingly in Iraq.

Super Bowl Sunday: Anesthesia For The Masses or Antidote For What Ails America?

I'm felling a little bit like Charlie Brown in the Halloween episode. You remember the one. Every one gets fantastic treats and when it comes down to answering the question, "What'd you get Charlie Brown," he answers, "I got a rock."

When given the Super Bowl Sunday slot for a BIO Feature post, I felt like I had another rock dropped in my bag. Really, aside from the sports blogaholics, how many people will be turning on their computers Sunday to surf political blogs as they tune in to the Annual event that draws more viewers than people who vote in presidential primaries?

Meanwhile, as the president trumpets all the "good" news he can spin, he proves once again, that he is not open to real and true negotiation:

Another important tool for eliminating wasteful spending is the line-item veto.

Sure, right. For a man who only issued one veto in his entire career as president and still couldn't get anything positive done, and manages our government like he managed his baseball team, he's asking for this like there is going to only be republican presidents for the foreseeable future?

Of course, the President is full of the usual W, Rove and Co suggestions. Watch out middle class, you're an endangered species:

Controlling spending also requires us to address the unsustainable growth of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Excuse me, but didn't W sign the legislation to substantially increase costs of Medicare and Medicaid by means of a drug benefit? In hind sight, might we not have spent the money on Iraq instead of cutting programs that the American people already pay into?

Seriously, can you trust the man who perpetrated the largest bait and switch (WMD in Iraq) in political history on the American people? Let's have one last look:

I look forward to working with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to address these challenges. Together, we can pass a budget that keeps our economy strong, keeps America safe, and makes deficit spending a thing of the past.

Really, I don't buy it. When you ask for the line item veto, it doesn't suggest that you are willing to work with people on either side of the aisle to fix what ails America. It says exactly what W has said over and over again in the face of great questioning regarding his "surge." "I'm still the decider:" fuck you, America.

But I got off on a rant. I'm really here to pose a question for today's feature. That is, as we face global warming, things worsening in Iraq that lead to more GIs KIA who won't be watching the Super Bowl with us, we have to ask ourselves a very serious question. Let's call this...drum roll please...

Windspike's Super Bowl Super Query

• Is the Super Bowl anesthesia for the masses or an antidote for what ails America?

Leave a comment and chip in your two cents.

Blog on friends. Blog on all

Selling Fear The W, Rove and Co Way: "Showing Us The Same Person Twice And Calling Them Twins"

The audacity of the W, Rove and Co fear mongers will not relent.


Keith Olbermann spells it out quite plainly. The trouble is the American people don't question much out of the mouth of the president. As the old folk lore says, "you will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

But, as I have written numerous times, simply because the President says something doesn’t make it true – despite how strongly he believes he’s telling the truth (e.g. WMD in Iraq).

Blog on friends, blog on all.

How Small We Are: Windspike's Wednesday Surfing Diversion

Maverick’s this time of year gets big. Reminds us how small we are.

Enjoy the trailer for 100ft Wednesday DVD put out by mavfilms.com.

When you ask a Mav’s rider what they eat for breakfast, no doubt the answer is nails mixed with sea salt, followed by a briny cocktail chaser.

Btw, if you search on Youtube or some other video provider, you will find large quantities of other Mav's shots. Here's one for fun:

Government Is Not A Faith-Based Organization

I don't care what your religious creed is. Nor do I care if your moral code comes out of a crackerjack box or the Koran. Government in the USA is not, nor has ever been, a faith based organization.

But with the introduction of the W, Rove and Co to our beloved and treasured institution known as the Executive Branch, there has been a systematic deconstruction of the supposed, albeit theoretical, wall between Church and State. This degradation of the system our forefathers so bravely interdicted into the Constitution is neither righteous nor appropriate. But how did I get on this rant?

Turns out, Mr. Bush is asking us once again to lead by faith alone and trust him that his way is the "right" way. I don't know about you, but I'm getting dramatically tired of people suggesting that I swallow leadership by faith over fact and public policy set in the ether rather than driven by real concrete evidence and proper planning. How about you?

...But all Mr. Bush really asked for was the authority to set mileage standards in a different way. Rather than requiring companies to meet an average fuel-efficiency standard, balancing gas savers against gas guzzlers, he would assign targets model by model, based on factors like size and weight.

As for what those new targets might be, Mr. Bush would leave it to his secretary of transportation to decide. And he asked the country to take it on faith that this new measurement system, combined with technological advances, would lead to annual mileage improvements of 4 percent a year.

Follow the money and you will find who benefits from increased CAFE standards - middle class Americans or Big Oil and Auto interests? Funny, I seem to remember that the Model T used to get about 25 mpg. Why are we not getting 100 mpg these days?

When Laughter Is Not The Best Medicine

The Whitehouse web location reveals that The Big Dick Cheney just gave yet another interview to the MSM.

Here's another window into the soul of Cheney and the whole of the W, Rove and Co. Too bad the Newsweek reporter didn't go after him with some Helen Thomas style questions.

Even so, I think that Cheney's answers give us a broad sense that this man only really cares for himself and his friends.

Have a look:

Q So you don't think Senator Hagel -- and now you dodged completely responding to his comments -- but they're not helpful to the cause and to the mission?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Let's say I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But it's very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved.

Oh, and if you think this is an administration that will take care of the messes they made, guess again. Regarding Iraq:

It's a problem that I. think will occupy our successors maybe for two or three or four administrations to come

Well, that's just fine and dandy. This Iraq mess has cost us over a trillion dollars in debt to China - a hidden tax on future generations.

But of course, The Big Dick Cheney is going to want to hide behind Nine Eleven and flog that monkey one more time:

...There might have been a time when we could retreat behind our oceans and feel safe and secure and not worry about what was happening in other parts of the globe. But that day passed on 9/11....

Excuse me, but when we have caused more innocent Iraqi Civilian deaths than the Nine Eleven terrorists - who are mostly dead, except for OBL, btw - we lose that marker to the house as a justification to prove the need to proceed in the wrong direction. But The Big Dick has been playing those same cards for a great long while, so he is going to be reluctant to fold the bad Iraqi hand.

What do you think of our Vice President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- or the newspapers. If you've been around -- by the time I leave here, it will have been over 40 years since I arrived in Washington, and I've been praised when I didn't deserve it, and probably criticized when I didn't deserve it. And there aren't enough hours in the day for me to spend a lot of time worrying about my image....

The converse is true as well, Mr. Veep. No?

But here's an interesting dodge:

Q One other question. Bob Woodward reported that President Ford thought you had justified the war wrongly, and that he agreed with Colin Powell that you developed a fever, I think was the word, about Saddam Hussein, about terrorism. Did you feel that was accurate? Did it surprise you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I've never heard that from anybody but Bob Woodward.

President Ford was simply posthumously joining a growing list of people that don't think this Iraq thing is correct, proper, or being executed well:

Q And other comments that -- criticism from Scowcroft about not knowing you anymore -- people have got quite personal, people you worked with before. You wouldn't be human if it didn't have some reaction.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm Vice President and they're not. (Laughter.) ...

The laughter speaks volumes to me. What say you blogisphere?

Guilty As Sin

Slate this in the things that make you go hmmmm category:

A former aide testified Thursday that Cheney personally directed the effort to discredit an administration critic by having calls made to reporters in 2003.

Looks Like Some Of The GOP Are Finally Comin' To Jesus re: Iraq Suggesting "There Is No Plan!"

While many of us have been saying this a great long while, looks like some of the GOP faithful are finally setting aside the W, Rove and Co crack pipe and suggesting the emperor is indeed naked.

This is rather interesting from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel:
Looks like "trust us," just ain't goin' to work for the W, Rove and Co much longer.

Can You Stomach Another Post About The State Of The Union

No doubt,along with the MSM, the blogisphere is abuzz and atwitter about last night's State of the Union address by Mr. Bush.

I don't have much to thrash him over the coals about here because this week has been a particular busy at work, and I was at the office until about 9:00 PM last evening. I missed the thing entirely.

However, I did bump into some one who did hear the speechifying and had this short quip:

Well, there's just one thing the whole state of the union speech proved: That there is no such thing as white supremacy. And Bush is clearly a prime illustration of that fact.

Truth Is A Slippery Beast

Truth is
A slippery beast
Slave to perception

Minus perception’s laces
It’s dangerous
To seek

Will it
Set you free or
Kill you first

Some may argue
That truth
Is the key, but

Truth is
More than the
Pathway to freedom

It is
The backdoor
Home to power

Be wary of
Those who would
Subtract

The truth
And substitute
Their own reality

That
In turn becomes
The new and only truth

Perfunctory Speeches: "Like A Drawer Full Of Diamonds?"

Every day we blog away, it's rare that I have nothing to say. Just when you think there is nothing fun to poke at the W, Rove and Co. they roll out the red carpet out for you.

Of course the whole of the W, Rove and Co would have you believe that everyone's aghast in anticipation of the W's forthcoming "State of the Union" speechifying.

Okay admit it. Raise your hands high out there: how many of you are planning your SotU speech party? Picked up your wide screen 1080 HD flat panel monster screen television just for the occasion?

Roll out the invitations. Invite your friends over. Bust out the cold cuts, chips & dip. Get that 30 pack of brews for your pals and belly up. The W, Rove and Co never disappoints. Why, they are about to roll out a whole "drawer full of diamonds" for us, and you are not going to want to miss it.

Q Have you seen it?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Is it any good?

MR. SNOW: Yes, of course it's good. (Laughter.)

Q Does it have anything new in it?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it does.

Q What's the best part?

Q Really? I mean --

MR. SNOW: You know, it's difficult to say. It's like looking in a drawer full of diamonds. (Laughter.)

Ah, a drawer full of diamonds. The laughter is telling, no?

Americans: "As Stupid As The Russians?"

With more American GIs spilling their blood in the sand for no real justifiable reason, one wonders why we are not winning this "global war on terror."

I found a very interesting article in today's Sunday paper. Here are three paragraphs that may answer the above question.

Have a look:

...The fighters are confident about the conflict's outcome. "The American troops move slowly, they carry pounds of body armor and equipment," Hamid said. "You can't win if you can't move on these mountains. Their helicopters are the only real danger for us, but we have learned how to hit them, even without Stingers..."

Didn't David conquer Goliath with a simple stone and sling?

..."You must understand," Musa Khan said, "that one Arab is worth 10 Afghans in terms of religious zeal. They truly hate the West and all Westerners, without exception. They would never allow the press on these mountains. They are not fighting our war, but their own personal jihad. Protecting their own people and achieving martyrdom are their first priority..."

When the W, Rove and Co. suggests that we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, really, we are fighting wealthy Saudis who would rather die than surrender. Shall we nuke Saudi Arabia along with Iraq and Afghanistan to solve this problem?

..."It's just a matter of how many corpses the American public will need before realizing that 'Enduring Freedom' was definitely a bad idea. It took 10 years for the Russians, and you are already halfway through. Do you really want to be as stupid as the Russians?"

In five years, when we are still stuck in this quagmire, will we be considered as stupid as the Russians? Perhaps, perhaps...

Presidential Egos Need Big Libraries

Rather than the usual political diatribe, I thought I'd take a stab at something fun. For those of you who don't know, SMU is in the market to host the GWB presidential library.

Whether one supports or opposes the Bush policies, there is no question that they have been momentous for the country and the world. Precisely because of the controversial nature of this presidency, the question of how George W. Bush made his decisions begs for scholarly research and discourse. The library will be a gold mine for scholars, and its location on a university campus symbolizes the need for study.

Really? In the past several years since the W, Rove and Co were selected to lead our country, the egos have become immeasurable, for sure. I have several questions for the blogisphere. Call this

Windspike's Weekend Presidential Bibliotheca Query:

1. How big should the GWB library be?


2. Will GW's Ego fit through the front door or will it need an airplane hanger door?


3. What will be contained in the library?


4. If you were to study the contents, what will be your most shocking discovery?

Catapulting The Fear

The Republicans have been, at least, very good at one thing: Catapulting the fear. Those of us that swing left in the blogisphere have been saying this for a long while. In harmony with the terrorists, the W, Rove and Co. has been able to leverage fear to their own advantage. Have a look at this BBC documentary and see what you think (be warned it’s near an hour long).



In the end, all the republican fear mongering has lead to the demise of some very hard fought and won freedoms here at home. More importantly, it has severely diminished and the American Sprit and exacerbated our will to be hopeful, optimistic and positive.

Fortunately, with the Dems in charge of Congress, we see a small trickle of optimism seeping over the deep chasm and the wedge that the W, Rove and Co has worked so diligently at cleaving a divided America. We have Nancy Pelosi leading that change:

In the past two weeks, we have delivered on change. We have shown that the House is not a place where good ideas go to die.

In the next few months, perhaps we will see a nation that sneaks closer together rather than amplifying the polarization that the Republicans have so deliberately been rubbing to push people apart. But that may be just me being slightly optimistic here. Should we be waiting for the other shoe to drop (but as you can see, the fear of it is difficult to resist)?

Bush's Impossible Challenge Places Us In A Rhetorical Stalemate

In true W, Rove and Co fashion, W sets up another rhetorical stalemate that serves to do nothing more than divide us further.

During Saturday's Presidential Radio Address (admit it, you listen in a closet so no one else knows you do), we see W, present yet another rouse designed to deflate his political adversaries, and leave no wiggle room for opponents of his "new way forward (which, incidentally, it is arguable that this plan really isn't a new way forward at all, but simply more of the same)."

Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.

Look, the President of the United States usually operates with better intel (baring a few outstanding and outrageous intel failures like WMD in Iraq), more information, and complete access to the big picture. To suggest that those without equal access to that kind of information come up with a better plan in a "put up or shut up" rhetorical argument is to effectively shut down any one with a viable alternative.

But really, are there no other alternatives? Didn't the President spend the better part of the last month or so listening to alternatives? Aren't most of the Democrats in Congress presenting alternatives? Really, the argument presented by the President is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to lead again by faith over fact.

The President's weekly radio address proves once again that he, and the whole of the W, Rove and Co, is not listening (to those with better ideas and true new ways forward, and the American people in general).

Thank you for the stalemate Mr. President: Are you satisfied?

Tap Dancing With Tony

Here's a fun question from one of Tony the Snow job's press briefings this past week.
Enjoy:

Q Tony, we haven't talked about Jack Abramoff in a long time, and there's a new photo showing him with the President.

MR. SNOW: The President said he didn't know Abramoff, wasn't buds, and my guess is there are plenty of photos around town with Jack Abramoff and Democrats and Republicans.

Q What about the change in interpreting entrance records to the White House as being the property of the White House and not of the Secret Service?

MR. SNOW: That is a fairly abstruse issue, and I will see if I can get you guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel. I don't want to tap dance around that. I'll try and get you a straight answer.

Thank you.

It's Time To Move From Accepting Leadership by Faith to Holding The Administration Accountable For The Facts

Given the mixed reaction, well slightly skewed (toward outright rejection) reaction, by many (of all political stripe) to the President’s “new way forward” for Iraq, I thought it might be interesting to ask ourselves a few questions here. After all, vibrant debate and erudite commentary is what built this country.

Certainly, with the volume of speechifying amplified by the presidential propaganda catapult (read Condi et al.), we have every reason to carry forward with an objective and serious look at what the W, Rove and Co spokes models are saying with a critical eye. Over the last few days, I’ve had a chance to do just that. This is a long post, so bear with me.

Why, just Tuesday, Tony the Snow job asked us to wait and see what the president has to say regarding "the way forward" for Iraq. We Americans are a patient people. However, our patients are wearing thin, no?

Q Tony, this goes to your previous acknowledgment that the President is aware of public anxiety about the situation in Iraq. What would your guidance be to a public that has seen the President stand under a "Mission Accomplished" banner, proclaim an end to major combat operations, the Vice President talking about the "last throes" -- how should the public go into viewing this speech tomorrow?

MR. SNOW: I think the public ought to just listen to what the President has to say. You know that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln. And the President, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn't he? He said it was the end of major combat operations, but he did not say it was the end of operations. Instead, he cautioned people at the time that there would be considerable continued violence in Iraq, and that there would be continued operations for a long period of time. That single episode has been more widely mischaracterized than just about any aspect of the war.

Q We can debate whether the sign should have been there, whether the White House should have not had it there, but the fact is he stood under it and made the speech.

MR. SNOW: You're right, after people had been on a 17-month deployment, and had said "Mission Accomplished" when they're finally able to get back to their loved ones, the President didn't say, take down the sign, it will be bad. Instead what he did is he talked about the mission. And I would direct you back to the speech he gave then, Peter, because the President --
Q No, I know --

And so we waited to be requited, listened, patiently, and with great anticipation for Wednesday's speechifying to lift the veil of concern about how the way forward might remedy the current Iraqi situation.

The trouble is, with the raft of errors and missteps that have been perpetrated by the W, Rove and Co over the last five or so years, their trustworthiness and credibility are shot to hell. One wonders if we should have ever had W installed as president given his pathetic history of running organizations like his baseball franchise.

Q I'd like to ask you a question -- we've danced around this a little bit -- the question here about "mission accomplished." Does the President worry at all about his own personal credibility as the messenger, as the person carrying this message? He has given a number of speeches, all of which were designed to tell the American people, I have a plan for victory. And I think that hasn't worked out the way he had hoped, and you're asking them to, again -- almost hear him again to say much the same thing.

MR. SNOW: Well, let me ask you -- I'll turn it at a different angle. If you had asked any other President in American history during a time of war whether they had a credibility problem because they had not foreseen changes on the battlefield, you probably would have had plenty of cause. I mean, Abraham Lincoln constantly guessed from Manassas straight through until the final months of the war. You had George Washington going from defeat to defeat to defeat to defeat to victory, and there was considerable consternation.

So there's the notion here that it is incumbent upon a President to have perfect knowledge of what the conditions on the battlefield are going to be. It's important for a President to have the determination to succeed. Winston Churchill -- was Winston Churchill responsible for the Blitz? What Winston Churchill did was talk about the conditions for victory. And the President, adjusting to constant changes on the battlefield, is adjusting and talking about conditions for victory, and that's the most important thing to do.

Really, is there any one else out there getting tired of Tony trying to equate Bush with such historically heroic and substantially and substantively different figures?

Oddly, the W, Rove and Co. plan is to increase troops that we don't have, and in a tragic mistake we see them inviting dead GIs to re-up:

Q The AP reports that the U.S. Army sent letters to 75 officers who were killed in action encouraging them to reconsider -- to consider returning to active duty. And while General Richard Cody has apologized for this computer error, there's no report of anyone being disciplined for this. And my question: What does the Commander-in-Chief of the Army have to say about this horrendous error, and about what else such computer errors could do?

MR. SNOW: I'd refer that to the Pentagon, Les.

Sure, that's a computer glitch but emblematic of the troubles with trying to generate over 20K more bodies to occupy the Iraqi space.

We would all be justified in asking for more detail and why the President and his cronies deserve another shot to fix the mess they will no doubt be leaving to another president to remedy. But ask yourself as you read this next spin a couple of questions:

• Do you have faith that the W, Rove and Co way is the right way forward in Iraq?


• Will we get an opportunity to actually look at the plan to make a qualified judgment, or is it more leadership by faith over fact being requested of the American people?

Q Tony, were you, were other senior White House officials dismayed about the plan's reception on Capitol Hill yesterday and today? What's the reaction, the feeling behind closed doors?

MR. SNOW: I don't think we're terribly surprised. I mean, you knew going in that there was going to be opposition, and you knew that a lot of people had made public statements about the commitment of additional forces to Iraq. But on the other hand, what we now expect is people actually look at the plan.

Americans -- I think if you say, if things have been going along as before and you just put more troops into the situation and into a strategy that we said wasn't working, we wouldn't support it. But, instead, the President's proposal involves a whole series of changes that are designed to make the Iraqi efforts not only more effective, but also more prominent, so that Americans are going to have confidence that the Iraqis themselves are stepping up and taking lead roles in everything from combat operations to reconstruction to diplomatic outreach. That has to happen, and Americans want to see it -- and if there wasn't some doctrinal change in the way in which we conducted counter-insurgency efforts, but there is. So now comes a time when members of Congress are going to have an opportunity to look at it.

Let me also add, Bret, that funding for the forces and to dispatch them to the region, it's already in the budget. So we're going to proceed with those plans. And what's going to be interesting is the members of Congress are going to have an opportunity to see how things are working in the next months ahead. And at that point, they'll also be able to make judgments as we get closer to the time to look at some real legislative effort.

Q Well, on that point, Secretary Gates was asked repeatedly yesterday and today, when will we know whether this is working. And his answer was, in about two months we should know whether the Iraqis are really meeting up with their commitments. So in two months' time, will this administration kind of do another review to see if what they've done is actually working?

MR. SNOW: I think we've tried to make the point that we continue to do reviews all the time. And so there is constant monitoring of the situation. It's not as if you say, okay, we're going to sit back and just wait for two months. We talk every day with the embassy in Baghdad, there is constant interaction with the commanding general and others on the ground. So I think it's important to realize that there is consistent and constant monitoring of the situation, and we'll continue to make adjustments.

And let me also reiterate what we've been saying all along with members of Congress. Most members of Congress come to the White House and said, we think it's vital to succeed in Iraq. They understand what the stakes are. And they also say, we want there to be success for the Iraqi government. If they don't think is the best way to do it, we do want to hear what they have to say. We have listened to and analyzed proposals throughout the entire range of possibilities. And we will continue to listen to people, because the chief objective here is to succeed in Iraq. And if people are proposing things in the spirit of good will and constructively, that's going to be an important addition. And those who think they have a better way, I think have an obligation to step up and share it.

This leads us to another pressing question. Given the history of how the Iraq conflagration has been fueled by the W, Rove and Co, should we trust them in the Iran and Syrian fronts as well?

Q And one more, on urban myth number one. You're not saying that there are not currently battle plans available to the Pentagon for Syria and Iran?

MR. SNOW: I just don't know. There's lots of war gaming. What I'm saying is that this notion that somehow what the President was announcing was a precursor to planned military action -- a planned war against Iran, that's just not the case.

Helen.

Q In that connection, did the President give orders to invade the offices of the Iranians and to go into Somalia? And what right do we have to do that?

MR. SNOW: Number one, we don't comment about ongoing military operations. There have been --

Q Is it ongoing, or is it over?

MR. SNOW: You're talking about where?

Q In the case of Iran.

MR. SNOW: Well, I think what you have was -- what has been reported are actions -- and I'm not going to comment beyond what's been reported publicly -- there have been actions in the northern part of Iraq against something that was originally misreported as an official government facility for the Iranians, and it was not.

Q What was it?

MR. SNOW: It apparently was sort of a liaison place where some Iranians would occasionally come.

Q Well, if it was official liaison for Iran --

MR. SNOW: No, it was not an official office, and that at least has been the characterization we've gotten out of Iraq.

Q Aren't you splitting hairs?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so. There's a big difference.

Q And what right do we have to do this?

MR. SNOW: Well, the real question, Helen, is, do you want somebody to intercept those who are trying to kill Americans in Iraq?

Q I'm asking you, what right do we have to be there --

MR. SNOW: I've just answered your question.

Q -- and I don't think it's right for you to turn around --

MR. SNOW: Okay. Then I'll answer the question. It's important to go after people who are trying to kill Americans.

Q Is that their purpose? I mean, or are they in Iraq to help Iraqis?

MR. SNOW: People have made considered judgments about this, and apparently --

Q Why do you keep saying everybody wants to go kill everybody.

MR. SNOW: I think you're the one -- what do you mean, everybody wants to kill everybody? We're not saying that. But we are saying that when somebody gets intelligence that there are efforts to place in jeopardy the lives of Americans, the lives of Iraqis and destabilize the government, that's an important consideration.

Q How about the Somalia announcement?

MR. SNOW: That I can't comment on.

Really? I’m not surprised by these statements. Are you?

Certainly, the debate about whether the President's way forward is really moot.

Q Tony, by pointing out that the money is already in the budget and you're going to go ahead, it seems to be saying, we're just going to go ahead with our plan for the rest of the year. So what relevance does the administration attach to the congressional debate and the public debate?

MR. SNOW: Oh, we think it's very important, and we welcome the debate. Look, if you take a look at the congressional debate, there actually is a substantial amount of agreement. It seems to me that the locus of this agreement is, do you put 20,000, 21,500, do you put the troops in or not. If you ask the question, do you need to succeed, the answer is yes. If you ask the question, should the Iraqis be taking the lead, the answer is yes. Should the Iraqis be pushing for greater political reconciliation, in terms of the hydrocarbon law, de-Baathification reforms, parliamentary reforms, the answer is, yes, we're pursuing that.

The W, Rove and Co, it seems, is continuing business as usual. That they suggest there is room for debate and critique is only a political ploy to make us feel like we have a say in the way forward. In reality, they have continually and still to this day ask us to follow them based on faith over fact.

Unfortunately, the facts tip the scale, and it's the Iraqi and American people that will be paying a heavy price. And, it will be the new GIs, and their families, they suggest they will be recruiting that will eventually pay the ultimate dues.

Q Thank you. Tony, Defense Secretary Gates wants 92,000 more soldiers and Marines. Where is he going to get them? And is there any desire to bring back the draft?

MR. SNOW: The answer to the second is no. And the answer to the first is, you recruit them.

Will the Bush twins finally pony up, enlist and then become the face of the new Army by posing in uniform on recruitment posters? How many of you will be signing up for this? Don't worry. I’m not holding my breath.

Windspike's Wednesday Pre-Presidential Planning Announcement Question Du Jour

I was surfing about my blog roll, as I am want to do from time to time, and this question popped into my brain and thought I would pose it here:

When the new Iraq counterinsurgency plans run counter to the original W, Rove and Co plan of action, does that not counter the notion that the plan to begin with was a winning strategy?

More Or Less Safe: You Be The Judge

Today's Whitehouse press briefing was more of the same: Press members trying to wring details about the President's forthcoming announcement out of Tony the Snow job. For the most part, Tony remained frozen, refusing to speculate.

But again, we see the audacity of the W, Rove and Co willingness to predict the future when it comes to leveraging political gain. Bear in mind that when ever it is not politically advantageous to do so, the W, Rove and Co will suggest that you are crazy for asking them to talk about hypotheticals.

Have a look at today's example:

Q The results have been more deaths. We went in supposedly to stop the war on terror -- I mean, to stop terrorism around the world, as a result which stemmed from the 9/11 issue. And everyone is saying now, look, you have more people dying than they did in 9/11, and you have more U.S. soldiers dying and the world is not as safe.

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure the world is less safe. The world is -- I guarantee you the world is less safe if the United States withdraws and leaves a vacuum in Iraq. I guarantee it. And I guarantee everybody in this room is going to be less safe, and everybody in this country is going to be less safe. And that is the challenge the President faces, and it is worth explaining that to the American people.

You see, I think Americans believe in liberty, believe in this nation's destiny as a country that does advance the boundaries of liberty not simply because it is a good and noble thing, but because it is good for us and it is good for future generations. And the President will talk about how this advances that not only noble goal, but one that is of great interest to everybody who worried about their kids on September 11th, as you and I did, and who worries about how our families are going to be secure in the future.

This again proves that Tony's making guarantees that he can't prove. What's to say that it doesn't go the opposite way? Or even worse, the terrorists follow the US troops no matter where they retreat to?

So you be the judge. Are we more or less safe today than we were before we invaded Iraq? Explain.

Are Stupid Questions Allowable In the Whitehouse Press Briefing?

Press briefings are always interesting. You never know if some Whitehouse Beat Reporter has a hidden (well, somewhat hidden) agenda when posing particular questions. Monday was no different.

Sometimes there are good questions, some times not. Here we have perfectly foolish question that Tony the Snow job pastes with the usual veneer.

If I were voting, I'd put this question at the top of the useless question list. Of course, you may think differently.

Q I guess the challenge would be who besides the President thinks that the war is winnable at this stage?

MR. SNOW: I think millions of Americans believe that this war is winnable, and I think, furthermore, that it's important to rebuild the sense of political unity. One of the things the President has often said is, the only way we lose if we lose our will. And it is clear that there have been political debates in this country.

And it's also interesting because, again, I've heard a lot of Democrats saying, we want to succeed in Iraq. And, therefore, the question for them is, that's great, we agree, so let's find out what your ideas are, if you think you've got a different or a better idea; let's find out how you'll support the military in this endeavor. That's worth doing. And, frankly, done the right way will reassure the American people that all of Washington is serious about doing the right thing and doing it in the right way. And so we've got an opportunity here I think of getting thoughtful debate.

Further into Monday's press briefing, we actual find a decent question. In the answer we see obviated one more time which way the W, Rove and Co leans when interpreting political events: to their benefit.

Can it always be that a political turn of events, no matter the outcome, works in your favor? Have a look:

Q The President, obviously, though, did not read what happened November 7th as a mandate to start bringing troops home.

MR. SNOW: The President believes that -- if you take a look, Jim, at the elections, you can read any number of messages -- I mean, when people were asked in exit interviews what was their top concern, Iraq was number four, corruption was number one. And guess what? You had 10 members of the Republican caucus who had problems, and they all lost. So you can read a lot of results. There is an understandable -- people don't want to be at war; we don't want to be at war, the President doesn't want to be at war. But the fact is you've got a situation where terrorists and a terror network is determined to try to do whatever it can to destabilize this country and other parts of the world --

Q But the President is comfortable, then, with saying to the American people, I saw what happened November 7th -- actually, you're upset about corruption?

MR. SNOW: No, I think, Jim, people would be a lot less upset if he didn't take seriously his obligations as Commander-in-Chief.

Does The W, Rove and Co Know What Direction Is The Proper "Way Forward?"

With all this talk about a "new way forward," and the President turning out the folks who have gotten us thus far, can we trust that the W, Rove and Co knows how to get us out of the Iraq mess that they got us into in the first place?

have a look at this reply from Friday's Whitehouse Press briefing and see if you think the W, Rove and Co has a firm handle on the Iraqi Bull or are we going to be eaten alive by the Bedouin camel?

Q Tony, Senator Reid this afternoon said that the President needs to hear from people who tell him something that he wants to hear; obviously Generals Abizaid and Casey are not telling him what he wants to hear, and they're out. Can you respond to that?

MR. SNOW: That's inaccurate. That's just flat inaccurate. General Casey is now going to be the Chairman -- I mean, he's going to be the Army Chief, the Chief of Staff for the United States Army. General Abizaid is somebody whose counsel we will continue to value and will listen to.

What you do have is a situation where, as you develop a new way forward, you had the situation in which you also had a couple of guys whose billets were going to come up within a period of time. And the answer is, once you're started on a new way forward, do you change then, or do you change now? And it makes sense to go ahead and make sure that you're going to have your command team that is going to be in place as you're working on this new way forward and enacting it. And I think there's -- he has found very able and capable individuals. Secretary Gates and the President are very happy with the people they are now going to be proposing.

"You're doin' a heckuva job" is not the accolade I'd like the president to hoist upon me, given the track record of folks he's fed that line.

Have they got a real clue how to get us out of this mess is a legit question. Even more revealing is this: Do you trust the W, Rove and Co to lead us out of the Iraq conflagration they started?

Q Has he nailed down which way he's going?

MR. SNOW: Not entirely. If he had, we wouldn't be doing consultations. Again, the President has some notions about where he wants to end up, but he's made it clear to everybody he has not made a final decision. And you often hear him and others referring to it in the course of meetings.

Is the man lost? He needs a new compass (of the real and moral variety).

Here's A Disturbing Statistic

Nary a concern peeped out of the W, Rove and Co about a very disturbing ratio. Both the numerator and the denomenator are troubling, no?

THE NEW YEAR brought with it the 3,000th American death in Iraq. But what's equally alarming — and far less well known — is that for every fatality in Iraq, there are 16 injuries. That's an unprecedented casualty level. In the Vietnam and Korean wars, by contrast, there were fewer than three people wounded for each fatality. In World Wars I and II, there were less than two.

Are We Comparing Apples To Oranges Or Can We Contrast Civilians Killed By Saddam To Civilians Killed Since George W. Bush's Invasion Of Iraq?

Well, I'm certain that by posting this, some will suggest I'm comparing apples to oranges, but what the heck; here it goes.

When asked, Thursday, about his personal reaction to the taunting of Saddam on the gallows here's what the W said:

Q Sir, do you have a personal reaction, though --

PRESIDENT BUSH: My personal reaction is, is that Saddam Hussein was given a trial that he was unwilling to give the thousands of people he killed. He was given a fair trial -- something he was unwilling to give thousands of Iraqi citizens, who he brutalized. I wish, obviously, that the proceedings had been done in a more dignified way. But, nevertheless, he was given justice; the thousands of people he killed were not.

My next question would have been, were I the reporter:

• Q Mr. President. You suggest that Saddam never gave justice to the people he killed. Why do you not hold yourself to that same standard in regards to the number of Iraqi civilians that have been killed by American weapons and caused by your war in Iraq? Moreover, do you feel that you should receive the same punishment?

When Laughter Hurts

I don't know about you, but I'm offended by this interchange that occurred between one Whitehouse beat reporter and Tony the Snow job, W's presidential spokes model.

This Q & A closed Thursday’s briefing. Have a look and tell me what you think:

Q Is this nation ready for a black or female President, be it Democrat or Republican?

MR. SNOW: Of course. (Laughter.)

It's the laughter that screws with my inner psyche. True, sarcasm is hard to read in textual form, but sarcasm is never funny if there is no truth buried in the joke. Beneath the veneer, there is nothing but pure racism.

Why Do You Suppose GW Fired His Lawyer?

With all the fuss and hoopla in the form of praise and support raised by the W, Rove and Co. during the supreme court nomination revolving around Harriet Meyers, why do you think she's taking leave (as in probably getting the boot)?

MR. SNOW: Hello. A couple of business items before I take your questions.

As you now know from wire reports, Harriet Miers has tendered her resignation as White House Legal Counsel, effective the 31st of this month. She informed the President yesterday, and he has regretfully accepted her resignation. We have copies of her letter available in lower press if you need to get copies.

Q Why is she leaving?

MR. SNOW: She's been here for six years. It's hard duty. Yes, it really is.

No Shit. Being legal counsel for GWB has to be like an ethical rollercoaster ride to Hell with no return ticket paid for.

Let's see how deep a pile of manure Tony the Snow job shovels during Thursday's Whitehouse Press Washing of the news:

Q So have some other people.

MR. SNOW: I know. Well, as I told you guys, one of the things that -- look, Harriet is a very special person in this White House. She is beloved not only because she is a really good human being, she's an extraordinarily wonderful human being, but also somebody who is a very careful and scrupulous lawyer, a ferocious defender of the Constitution, and somebody who was also deeply loyal to the President, and just somebody who is a delight to work with. So it is one of these things where everybody really -- it's very bittersweet, and you can get that from the tenure of the -- tenor of her note. She has decided that it's time to move on. She and Josh Bolten have had a series of conversations in recent days about this, and she made her decision yesterday.

Harriet, with great regret, and a lot of people are going to miss her -- we are fortunate that she's going to be around until the end of the month. We do not have a successor. The search is, obviously, on. And one of the things that she has cited -- she told senior staff today that she wants to stay around until the 31st to make sure that she can do everything in her power to make sure that the transition within the office is smooth.

Let me also add, I have nothing further to add today in the way of personnel announcements. No details. And for those who are speculating about any others within the White House proper, I am aware of none and expect none. So just trying to take care of those questions before they arise.

You know what they say about lawyers that can be described as "scrupulous?"

Well...I'll let you fill in the punch line for your version of that quip.

Q Is it White House burnout? Is that what you're just clearly saying, White House burnout, after six years?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just -- I'm not going to do a shorthand for it. I just think, again, Harriet has decided it's time to move on. And I'll let you -- her letter is pretty eloquent, and I'll let you read it. And if you have further questions, call me on it.

So, is this another rat jumping the ship or this a termination by any other euphemism?

Padilla: Terrorist or Emblematic of All That Is Wrong With The War on Terror?

I haven't spent much time thinking about Jose Padilla, or even doing research on his case. Even so, Jose Padilla has been in the news as of late because his "trial" is coming up. I just have one question for the blogisphere today:

Is Jose Padilla a terrorist or emblematic of all that is wrong with the W, Rove and Co's "war on terror?"

Have a gander at one snip from a local Valley rag:

To understand the difficulty of identifying a singular truth, look at the case of alleged terrorist and U.S. citizen Jose Padilla. As I drove to work this morning, his story was profiled his story on NPR. In 2002, Padilla was arrested in Chicago and transferred to a jail in Miami after being identified as a potential terrorist by federal investigators. Meanwhile, Padilla's mental state, due to his solitary confinement and other treatment, began to break down. Now, according to the NPR report, there is progress towards a trial, but Padilla is as passive as a piece of furniture. He is too scared and paranoid to assist lawyers in his own defense (he thinks they work for the government) and psychologists have compared his condition to Stockholm Syndrome (when a hostage sympathizes with a captor).

At the same time, the federal government has changed their story at every possible turn, first accusing Padilla of planning to detonate a dirty bomb and now saying that he was trying to bomb apartment buildings. Where is the truth in this story? Is there one? Padilla is now so mentally damaged that he doesn't trust his own lawyers. Is that justice? Was he even planning a terrorist attack or was he the victim of a post-911 witch hunt? Hearing about Padilla's plight this morning, made me realize that truth is a journey, not a destination.

The New York Times has an editorial on the subject today as well:

His criminal trial, scheduled to begin late this month, will feature none of the initial claims about violent plotting with Al Qaeda that the government cited as justification for detaining Mr. Padilla without formal charges for three and a half years. Those claims came from the government’s overseas interrogations of terrorism suspects, like Abu Zubaydah, which, the government said, Mr. Padilla corroborated, in part, during his own questioning in a military brig in South Carolina.

But, constrained by strict federal rules of evidence that would prohibit or limit the use of information obtained during such interrogations, the government will make a far more circumscribed case against Mr. Padilla in court, effectily demoting him from Al Qaeda’s dirty bomber to foot soldier in a somewhat nebulous conspiracy.

The initial dirty bomb accusation did not disappear. It quietly resurfaced in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The government filed the dirty bomb charges against Mr. Padilla’s supposed accomplice, an Ethiopian-born detainee, at about the same time it indicted Mr. Padilla on relatively lesser offenses in criminal court.

What troubles me is that we may be forced to let some real terrorists go becuase of the poor and downright illegal treatment of innocent people at the behest of W, Rove and Co.

3K, 22K, & 52K

These numbers sound like wonderful foot race distances don't they? How I wish that were the case.

3000 GIs KIA in Iraq.

22032 GIs wounded in Iraq.

52297 Civilians killed in Iraq.

And unfortunately, there appears to be no end in sight.

Meanwhile, W continues to feign grief for political reasons:

"The president believes that every life is precious and grieves for each one that is lost," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. "He will ensure their sacrifice was not made in vain."

Here, we see the standard propaganda catapult reply where the Whitehouse attempts to use dead GIs to lever their agenda. Moreover, simply because the latest presidential spokesmodel says the president grieves doesn't make it so, now does it?

Tears of the parents who have lost their son or daughter to the slaughter speaks volumes:

“It was the type of injury you rarely recover from; in past wars you wouldn’t have gotten out of theater,” said his father, Bill Hess, a Boeing engineer and retired Air Force man. “So that was a blessing, that he could talk to us. He mouthed words and we were able to say we loved him. There is a lot to be said for that.”

Unfortunately, I don't have a more uplifting post for the new year.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Swinging With Saddam

By now, you all know that Saddam was executed yesterday. The grim news really does not portend great things for Iraq, America or the rest of the world.

Although Hussein has been in captivity for a great while, there has been no let up in the extremist violence. It seems that much like the carnival whack-a-mole game , when you knock one down, several more extremists pop up in their place.

While Hussein was hung, we know that our illustrious President was busy clearing brush, avoiding tornados, and generally playing about his toy ranch in Crawford Tx.. The president, with irrepressible swagger, spills more of his dualistic rhetoric to peddle the fear he and his administration are want and capable experts at selling the American people:

"Many difficult choices and further sacrifices lie ahead," he said in a statement released Friday night from his Texas ranch. "Yet the safety and security of the American people require that we not relent in ensuring that Iraq's young democracy continues to progress."

The threat of violence comes at a time when Bush is completing his weeks-long effort to change U.S. policy in Iraq.

The president's statement had a sober, measured tone that contrasted with his offhand remark after U.S. troops found the deposed Iraqi dictator in an underground hideout in 2003.

"Good riddance," Bush said then. "The world is better off without you, Mr. Saddam Hussein."

Therein lies the irony: We are better off without you Saddam, but the threat of violence continues. So, the broader question remains, are we really better off now that Saddam is gone?

And we are left with an even more troublesome query: How much of and what parts of America swung with Saddam on the gallows yesterday?

There was a time, however, when the U.S. government tolerated, even facilitated, Hussein's inhumanity toward his neighbors and his own people -- most notably when Iraq was at war with Iran in the 1980s.

When Saddam Swings...

No doubt, you will be able to tell a great deal about a person based on her or his reaction during the first few moments after Saddam swings like a pendulum in the Poe's pit.

It is arguable as to whether Saddam's murder will be good for America. Time will tell, but I'm leaning toward not.

Do you think W is pushing for a particular day to let him swing? If so, why? What do you think your reaction will be?

Q On the timing of Saddam Hussein's execution, noting that it's within 30 days, is there any communication with the U.S. government and pressure to make it sooner rather than later?

MR. STANZEL: That is a matter for the Iraqi people, and we are observers to that process. They are a sovereign government, and they will make their own decisions regarding carrying out that justice.

All right, thank you all very much.

Who's War Are We Fighting?

Civil War Fun With the W, Rove and Co:

“I have come to the conclusion that this is no longer America’s war in Iraq, but the Iraqi civil war where America is fighting,” Major Voorhies said.

How nice.

The second instalment of the "Twelve Days of Whoopsmas"

Here's the second part of the Mark Fiore video: enjoy.

Just One Question

Is killing Saddam going to be good for America? Explain:

Q And there are some threats from Saddam's Baath party over in Iraq, related to Saddam's execution. Would Saddam's execution in any way complicate President Bush's formulation of the new Iraq policy, because if it leads to more violence or anything along those lines --

MR. STANZEL: Well, I think, Toby, the enemy has always used just about any excuse they could find to foment violence, and that is not new. As we said yesterday, the Iraqis deserve praise for continuing to utilize the institutions of democracy to administer and pursue justice.

But in terms of potential violence resulting from the carrying out of that justice, certainly that's something that the multinational forces are aware of and Iraqi forces are certainly aware of. So we've seen in the past that the enemies have worked to use any excuse to foment violence and that's something that we're monitoring, for sure.

Q So does that mean that you're expecting some -- you're anticipating, or the administration is anticipating some sort of breakout of violence as a result of the execution?

MR. STANZEL: I think we're always aware of the situation and we're always knowledgeable that terrorists and former Saddamists have used various excuses to foment violence, and certainly the goal of the multinational forces, the goal of the Iraqi security forces is to provide security for the Iraqi people, and they will do that going forward.

Q Let me follow up, then. Has the military made any preparations for anticipated violence --

MR. STANZEL: I'd refer you to the multinational forces in Iraq, in terms of any preparations that they may be making. But like I said, the enemies of freedom and the enemies of the institutions of democracy have used excuses before, and conversely, have not needed excuses to attack. So the security situation is something that is an ongoing concern in Iraq.

Just The Kind Of "Surge" The W, Rove And Co Needs

...To boost support for their "war" on drugs...

The amount of high-quality heroin available throughout the United States is surging because of an increasing supply from Afghanistan, and with it comes the fear that record-breaking poppy harvests after the U.S. invasion are fueling more addictions and overdose deaths back home.

Make that two wars we "not winning, but not losing," eh?

Meanwhile, It Sucks For The Families Of These GIs KIA On Christmas Eve

Happy Christmas to the Grinch in the Whitehouse. Can you hear his heart breaking?

Some 12,000 Iraqi policemen have been killed since the ouster of
Saddam Hussein, the country's interior minister said Sunday, as clashes, a suicide bomber and weekend explosions killed more than a dozen Iraqi officers and four American soldiers.

Fun Snaps From Yesterday: Enjoy

Use Your



Dust in the wind



Starburst



Pan



Dr. Suess Gone Awry


All Images Copyright Windspike (2006)

Christmas Wishes

Any good ones? Post away.

Have We Got The Terrorist Bull By The Horns, Or Is The Bedouin Camel Eating Us Alive?

It appears to me that the time is right to do a comparative analysis to settle a burning question that has been blogged about repeatedly on many an established or not-so established web location. Specifically, is the world a better place now that Saddam is set to be swing some time soon?

In scientific experiments, design dictates that there be a set of givens and hypothesis about a particular treatment. Then you set up a control group (one that gets no treatment or a placebo) and the experimental group (the one that gets the full treatment that you believe will cure the ill). Then you execute your experiment with the main purpose to prove that your hypothesis is either correct or incorrect.

In the case of Iraq, we know what the givens were and what the hypothesis was. Problematically, there is no control group because the experimental dose was applied wholesale. Even so, because we can look back in history, we can use Iraq before the invasion as the control and post invasion as the experimental group. So, let's set up the equation for analysis and have at it.

Oh, by the way, incase you are already thinking this, lets forget the facts that the givens at the time have now proven false. That's a subject for another post. What we want to do is set up the experiment so that we can conduct a fair analysis with the articulated givens of the day, before the experimental does was applied.

Pre-Invasion Givens:

• Given 1 - We were in eminent threat of danger of terrorist attack because Saddam was in power in Iraq.


• Given 2 - Saddam was accruing weapons of mass destruction.


• Given 3 - Stopping terrorism as a primary goal necessitated the war be broached on two fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq.

W, Rove and Co Hypothesis - Invading Iraq would remedy the Iraqi threat and nullify terrorism on a global basis.

Post-Invasion Givens:

• Given - A - We have been at war in Iraq for nearly 4 years.


• Given - B - Saddam is set to be executed and is in captivity.


• Given - C - The end to this engagement is no where in sight.

Questions:

• Question 1 - Has the hypothesis been proven false?


• Question 2 - Given what you know about pre- and post-invasion Iraq, is America better off?

Nearing 3K KIA in Iraq, Almost The Same Number Killed In the WTC: What's Wrong With The President?

Today, the President and his wife were busy trying to prove they care about the misery the W, Rove and Co has caused with their illegitimate war in Iraq.

We've also just come from Walter Reed. I got to tell you, it's a remarkable experience to go through the hospital. It's remarkable because of the unbelievable compassion and care of the people who work at Walter Reed. And it's also remarkable to me, these men and women who have volunteered to serve our country, who've received terrible wounds, but whose spirits are strong, their resolve is strong, and their dedication to our country remains strong.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, we are nearing the 3000 KIA mark, at which point the we will have hit the 1/1 ratio of number of those killed in the Trade Centers versus those killed in Iraq.

The deaths brought the U.S. toll in Iraq to 2,960, creeping closer to the 3,000 mark and adding more pressure on President Bush to find a strategy that will allow the eventual withdrawal of 135,000 U.S. troops.

Bear in mind that not everyone in the WTC were of US origin. Thus, this number is a bit spurious. You see, if we only count American GIs KIA versus American's killed in the WTC, we probably surpassed the 1/1 ratio and are now heavy in the numerator. Trouble with this equation is that there seems to be no end in sight, for very little return.

What's wrong with our President?

The First Half Dozen Days Of "Whoopsmas"

Here's another fun Mark Fiore vid: Enjoy.

President Caught In His New Clothes Again: Just Because You Say Your Heart Breaks Doesn't Make It So

I love it when the President decides to go in front of the press. Unscripted, he exposes himself for who he really is.

Let's have a serious look at some of the more troubling comments he raised today.

We will start with the scripted segment first:

This war on terror is the calling of a new generation; it is the calling of our generation.

Excuse me, but it's not my calling. If it really were a calling, might we not see volunteers running to recruiting stations like they did in WW II to stop Hitler? If it were a calling, might not his daughters head this call?

We have an obligation to ensure our military is capable of sustaining this war over the long haul, and in performing the many tasks that we ask of them.

Really? Then why didn't you do that from the outset? I believe that there are still some troops who need their Humvees plated and are absent appropriate body armor.

I've asked Secretary Gates to determine how such an increase could take place and report back to me as quickly as possible.

So, there's to be a "surge." How do they expect to come up with new troops when they can't outfit the existing troops?

And what of the troops?

We'll never lose sight that on the receiving end of the decisions I make is a private, a sergeant, a young lieutenant or a diplomat who risks his or her life to help the Iraqis realize a dream of a stable country that can defend, govern and sustain itself.

Do you believe him?

Let's see what the press gets out of him. First up, are we winning the war?

Q Mr. President, less than two months ago at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said, "Absolutely we're winning." Yesterday you said, "We're not winning, we're not losing." Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?

THE PRESIDENT: My comments -- the first comment was done in this spirit: I believe that we're going to win; I believe that -- and by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you got to know. We're going to succeed.

My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted when I said it at the time, and that conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad. And so we're conducting a review to make sure that our strategy helps us achieve that which I'm pretty confident we can do, and that is have a country which can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.

You know, I -- when I speak, like right now, for example -- I'm speaking to the American people, of course, and I want them to know that I know how tough it is, but I also want them to know that I'm going to work with the military and the political leaders to develop a plan that will help us achieve the objective. I also want our troops to understand that -- that we support them; that I believe that tough mission I've asked them to do is going to be accomplished, and that they're doing good work and necessary work.

I want the Iraqis to understand that we believe that if they stand up, step up and lead, and with our help we can accomplish the objective. And I want the enemy to understand that this is a tough task, but they can't run us out of the Middle East, that they can't intimidate America. They think they can. They think it's just a matter of time before America grows weary and leaves, abandons the people of Iraq, for example. And that's not going to happen.

What is going to happen is we're going to develop a strategy that helps the Iraqis achieve the objective that the 12 million people want them to achieve, which is a government that can -- a country that can sustain itself, govern itself, defend itself, a free country that will serve as an ally in this war against extremists and radicals.

If W, is not willing to predict what is going to happen in 2007, why is he so confident that we will win this thing? Because he has no other choice. It's such a gigantic sunk cost, he has to believe this. What's the alternative?

But for a man who suggests he doesn't speak in hypotheticals, we have to call him on this bluff, because it's simply not true. He speaks in hypotheticals when it's politically advantageous to do so. Have look:

...we're in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies -- a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq, or isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas.

How can he be so certain about what might happen? What happened when Brittan pulled out of India? What happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? There are cases where people have pulled their troops out of loosing situations and the countries have flourished. Why wouldn't this happen in the Iraq case?

This is the trouble with ideological struggles: You can't win them in the hypothetical. But W insists on trying:

But I also don't believe most Americans want us just to get out now. A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States. Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks.

Prove that this would be the case, Mr. Bush. Simply because you say something doesn't make it so. Are you not talking about hypotheticals, for which you purposefully suggest is wrong to do?

And here's the kicker for me, of today's speechifying. I heard it on NPR this AM and these words have been haunting me all day:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn't sleep during the Vietnam War, questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can't help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you as you, yourself, have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you can talk to us about that. Has it been a painful time?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. The most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I read about it every night. My heart breaks for a mother or father, or husband or wife, or son and daughter; it just does. And so when you ask about pain, that's pain.

I simply don't fucking believe him. If this man had a heart, he would have died of a broken heart about two years ago. Certainly, you cannot convince me that this man grieves for the losses he has created, not to mention the multitude of wounded walking about today.

And here is the bigger kicker - where he uses the families of those who have died in his war to amplify political support for the war that got their loved ones killed:

I reach out to a lot of the families, I spend time with them. I am always inspired by their spirit. Most people have asked me to do one thing, and that is to make sure that their child didn't die in vain -- and I agree with that -- that the sacrifice has been worth it.

We'll accomplish our objective; we've got to constantly adjust our tactics to do so. We've got to insist that the Iraqis take more responsibility more quickly in order to do so.

No remorse there - just leveraging the opportunity to make a political point. That's a fine how-do-you-do. But he adds emphasis to the lie:

But I -- look, my heart breaks for them, it just does, on a regular basis.

Bullshit or prove it! If you ask me if the man's heart aches or breaks, I would say he's got the heart of a Grinch, but two sizes smaller.

And here's how we know there is no remorse:

Q But beyond that, sir, do you question your own decisions?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out, nor have I questioned the necessity for the American people -- I mean, I've questioned it; I've come to the conclusion it's the right decision. But I also know it's the right decision for America to stay engaged, and to take the lead, and to deal with these radicals and extremists, and to help support young democracies. It's the calling of our time, Sheryl. And I firmly believe it is necessary.

And I believe the next President, whoever the person is, will have the same charge, the same obligations to deal with terrorists so they don't hurt us, and to help young democracies survive the threats of radicalism and extremism. It's in our nation's interest to do so. But the most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.

There is an underlying assumption laced in these paragraphs - that we are better off without Saddam in charge, but we now have a before and after comparison, and I think it looking more and more like I was better off with Saddam in charge, but this question is for another post.

In the end, why should we follow a man to the ends of the Earth when he gives up on his own administration? Remember, he pledged a long while back to find out who was causing leaks in his administration and punish them? Well, it looks like he's given up tying to find out:

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, did you or your Chief of Staff order an investigation of the leak of the Hadley memo before your meeting with Prime Minister al Maliki? And if the leak wasn't authorized, do you suspect someone in your administration is trying to undermine your Iraq policy or sabotage your meeting with Prime Minister al Maliki a few weeks back?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm trying to think back if I ordered an investigation. I don't recall ordering an investigation. I do recall expressing some angst about -- about ongoing leaks. You all work hard to find information and, of course, put it out for public consumption, and I understand that. But I don't appreciate those who leak classified documents. And it's an ongoing problem here, it really is -- not just for this administration, but it will be for any administration that is trying to put policy in place that affects the future of the country.

And we've had a lot of leaks, Mark, as you know, some of them out of the -- I don't know where they're from, and therefore I'm not going to speculate. It turns out you never can find the leaker. It's an advantage you have in doing your job. We can moan about it, but it's hard to find those inside the government that are willing to give, in this case, Hadley's document to newspapers.

You know, there may be an ongoing investigation of this, I just don't know. If there is -- if I knew about it, it's not fresh in my mind. But I do think that at some point in time it would be helpful if we can find somebody inside our government who is leaking materials, clearly against the law, that they be held to account. Perhaps the best way to make sure people don't leak classified documents is that there be a consequence for doing so.

Yes, and why have you not done so, when promised, is a good question?

While It Gets More Bloody In Iraq, The Whitehouse Has A Different Brand of Shenanigans

A friend sent me to the Wonkette for a preview, and I found this gem on youtube. Enjoy: