Freedom Means: To Be Able To Make Your Own Mistakes, Learn From Them, And Fix Them Too

I thought this was an interesting quote from today's NYTimes:

The nature of the American military is that they won’t let go. I understand it because they do it much better than we do. But we have to stand alone. We have to wean ourselves off the coalition and make our own mistakes and learn from our own mistakes. - MOWAFFAK AL-RUBAIE, Iraq’s national security adviser.

As of late, I don't see a lot of standing down while the Iraqis stand up as promised by the W, Rove and Co, do you?

President Set To Increase Troops In Iraq? Subtitle: Will Tony's Statement Prove to Be Yet Another Politically Motivated Lie?

The President wanted to launch the propaganda catapult regarding the Iraq situation some time before Christmas, but his staff won't let him. Of course, there is a tremendous amount of speculation as to why that might be.

One reason might be that the man has no clue which direction to go. As was articulated by a number of people, the situation in Iraq has no good options, only bad choices.

Another reason is that, perhaps, the American people "don't have the stomach for it" given that we are in full blown holiday season gorging ourselves in capitalistic abandon. May be some truth to that, eh?

Here's one more:

Q So just to get this clear, the reason for the delay is, number one, the complexity of the Iraq issue, and not because the President learned something in the last week that changed his mind?

MR. SNOW: That is correct. There are also even other considerations that I've not yet mentioned. For instance, we'll be swearing in a new Secretary of Defense next Monday. The Secretary of Defense is in the process not only of getting his arms around what's going on within the Department of Defense proper -- and now, as you know, Bob Gates did attend today's SVTS, and he will be shadowing meetings from now until the time he does assume office -- but also he has made it clear that he plans to visit the region and to, as one of my colleagues put it, kick the tires, to get a sense of what's going on. All those things are necessary, too, because his input is not only going to be valuable, but necessary as a man who is going to be responsible for implementing a large part of this.

That is not the single factor that is influencing this. But again, there has not been a single development, it's not Baker-Hamilton-driven. It is simply driven by the fact that as the President moves toward a decision on this, he still has facts that he wants people to examine. He wants policies that he wants people to take a look at, and he has assigned tasks to try to make sure that things are feasible, that everything is lined up in the proper way, that it meets the conditions of being able to work with the Iraqis, that we've addressed all of the regional concerns, that he's tried to take care of every possible consideration and concern before announcing the way forward.

Q Is it possible that the President does not want to announce the deployment of thousands of more U.S. troops to Iraq before the holidays?

MR. SNOW: No, it has nothing to do with that. Cynical, but false.

Here's where I think Mr. Snow is getting himself tangled in yet another politically motivated lie. Certainly, as I have suggested before, as well as other bloggers, the solution to Iraq may mean substantial increases in troop presence. In fact, the only way out of Iraq may be to saturate the country with US troops - particularly given that our "coalition of the willing" is becoming less a coalition and less willing.

One thing is for sure, the hand of the devil is involved in these kinds of decisions:

Q Tony, could you tell us specifically what the Vice President's role, as well as Karl Rove's role, are involved in this listening tour, as well as gathering information --

MR. SNOW: Well, number one, it's not a listening tour. And number two, we don't discuss internal deliberations.

Q -- tell us if the Vice President is involved?

MR. SNOW: As I've said, you've seen -- the Vice President has been in meetings and we have announced people who have been in the meetings. And I'm not going to get -- I'm just not going to get into --

Is Any Blog Going To Be Worth 52 Bucks A Year To Read?

Get this: Tom DeLay thinks he has something new to offer the bogisphere. And for 52 bucks a year, you can glad hand him over the internet.

No doubt, he will get some suckers. My bet is that there is a giant sucking sound around his URL as there is a void of clicks his way.

Check out the name of his "new" blog:

Now, he's back with a revamped Web site, a new blog and a "Grassroots Action and Information Network" that he pledges will shape politics in federal, state and local races and help Republicans reclaim their lost majority in Congress.

"If the past two election cycles have taught us anything, it's that a strong, focused and activated grassroots network is key to achieving victory," DeLay said in a statement Monday. "This entire operation is designed around finding conservative individuals in each congressional district and motivating them to act on behalf of our principles."

For $52 a year, members of the network will have access to the latest intelligence in the conservative movement and a chance to build an alliance that will flex its muscle in all 435 congressional districts, DeLay says...

"So now, he wants to save conservatives from what he set in motion?" Ornstein asked. "I don't know if there is a Texas word for 'chutzpah,' but whatever it is, he's got it."

Chutzpah, indeed!

Perhaps Some GOP Members Are Starting To See The Light: Iraq "May Even Be Criminal"

A friend sent me this link and I thought I would share it:

"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal," declared Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), a 10-year veteran of the Senate, in a speech last night.

The link provides another link where you can listen to Senator Smith's speech. Here's a slice from the same link above:

The Iraq Study Group has given us some ideas. I don't know if they are good or not. It does seem to me that it is a recipe for retreat. It is not cut and run, but it is cut and walk. I don't know that that is any more honorable than cutting and running, because cutting and walking involves greater expenditure of our treasure, greater loss of American lives.

Many things have been attributed to George Bush. I have heard him on this floor blamed for every ill, even the weather. But I do not believe him to be a liar. I do not believe him to be a traitor, nor do I believe all the bravado and the statements and the accusations made against him. I believe him to be a very idealistic man. I believe him to have a stubborn backbone. He is not guilty of perfidy, but I do believe he is guilty of believing bad intelligence and giving us the same.

In case you were thinking, huh, maybe a republican can talk some sense in to the W, Rove and co, have a look at what Tony the Snow Job has to say about this speechifying by the Senator:

Q Okay. Republican Senator Gordon Smith, last week, said, "Our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day, it's absurd. It may even be criminal," and that he can no longer support this. What is your reaction to a Republican senator saying that what's going on right now in Iraq is criminal?

MR. SNOW: Well, we dispute the "criminal" part, obviously, and at the same time, understand the senator's concern. We share the concern about not doing well enough fast enough. But do not assume that people are simply being blown up. They are on missions. And as General Chiarelli said last week, "There's not an engagement our people have lost, but it is still important to continue the work of building greater capability and capacity on the part of the Iraqi government and helping them out."

People on both sides are going to have disagreements, much as Joe Lieberman, formerly a Democrat, apparently run out of his party for disagreeing with what was seen as orthodoxy at that time, but Gordon --

Q Republican Senator Smith is challenging the strategy. What he basically said yesterday, as well, was, when you do the same thing over and over again without a clear strategy for victory, that is dereliction, that is deeply immoral. Such is the dispute. He's saying what the President is doing is immoral.

MR. SNOW: Well, then we disagree.

Q Tony, first of all, the --

Q You're just going to blow it off? A Republican senator is saying the President's policy may be criminal and it's immoral, and you're just saying, we just disagree?

MR. SNOW: And what would you like me to say? Should I do duels at 10 paces?

Q Don't you think you should answer for that? You're saying -- you've said from this podium over and over that the strategy is a victory, right? And you have a Republican senator is saying there is no clear strategy, that you don't have a strategy.

MR. SNOW: Well, let's let Senator Smith hear what the President has to say. We understand that this is a time where politics are emotional in the wake of an election. And you know what? Senator Smith is entitled to his opinion. But I'm not sure exactly what you would like --

Q Well, how about answering the central thrust about the strategy, not about, like, politics --

MR. SNOW: Okay, the strategy is pretty simple. If you take a look, for instance -- if you take a look at the Baker-Hamilton commission report, what do they talk about? They talk about building greater capability on the part of the Iraqis so that you can have an Iraqi government that governs itself, sustains itself, defends itself, who's ally in the war on terror is a democracy.

I don't think it's immoral to be a democracy. I don't think it's immoral to have a state that is able to stand up and defend itself against acts of terror. I don't think it's immoral to defend the Iraqi people against acts of terrorism aimed at Muslims.

Q The Senator is not saying that's immoral. He's saying that the U.S. -- he's saying, of course democracy is a great goal --

MR. SNOW: You know what, Ed? Ed, I'll tell you what. You're engaging in an argument and you're trying to fill in the gaps in a --

Q It's not an argument. It's a Republican senator saying it, not me. It's a Republican senator saying it, and he's not --

MR. SNOW: Then tell me exactly what --

Q -- of course he's in favor of democracy.

MR. SNOW: Tell me --

Q Are you saying Republican Senator Smith is not in favor of democracy?

MR. SNOW: Well, I don't know. You just said he said it's immoral; when I listed the elements of the policy, you said that's not what he was talking about. So please tell me what he was talking about.

Q He's saying that day after day, that now U.S. soldiers are patrolling the same streets, that they're caught up in the middle of a civil war -- not about the government there --

MR. SNOW: Okay, here's what's immoral: the killing of American soldiers. We agree.

Nice...but wait, there's more. I particularly enjoy the line "republicans feeding on rebulicans:"

Q I just wanted to ask you, I'm trying to get at the central point. Senator Smith also said, in his speech, yesterday on ABC, "Let's cut and run or cut and walk, but let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have." He's also saying you're not fighting the war on terror smartly.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm just not sure what he's saying, because I don't know what the specific proposals are. What you have given me -- the blanket use of the term "immoral" tells me nothing because when I outlined both the stated aims and the procedures, you said that wasn't what he was talking about. So I'm not sure exactly what he is talking about, other than the fact that Americans are dying, which I think if you want to talk about the targeting of Americans, you bet that's immoral, and furthermore, so is the targeting of Iraqis.

But there is -- look, the President has made it pretty clear, he's not satisfied with the tactics that have been employed, and therefore we're taking a close look at it. So here's what we ought to do: Let's go ahead and go through this period -- because Senator Smith has said what he's going to say for now -- let's take a look at the review, and let's see if we can have more specific critiques if he wishes to give them.

But on the other hand, this is also -- as tantalizing as it is to see Republicans feeding on Republicans, the more important challenge right now is to build a consensus around success. Now I think you've accepted democracy is -- of course I don't want to make you speak for Gordon Smith -- if democracy is a goal, if an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself is a goal, if turning power over to the Iraqis and building capacity is a goal, and all of those are acceptable, then the question is, how do we work together as a nation to achieve those so that in the end we can be proud of an Iraq that has achieved democracy in the face of terror strikes aimed at citizens regardless of their backgrounds, designed to blow up the country so that terrorism may in fact continue to afflict the lives of people throughout the Middle East and suppress their democratic desires?

And if succeeding in that noble aim becomes a national mission, which we think it should and is, and is thoroughly consistent with American traditions and values, then there's an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together to achieve this in a way that American people can support.

Nice tap dance Tony.

When You Use The Same Politicians That Your Father Did, All You Get Is More Of The Same

Here's an editorial by Daniel Pearl, confirming that bad intelligence is followed by more bad intelligence:

THINGS that start badly seldom end well. And the Baker-Hamilton findings start badly, with the commission’s wholly unproven assertion that Iran and Syria have an “interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.”

It is astonishing that not a shred of evidence is advanced to support this seminal statement. That may be because all the evidence is to the contrary: from the beginning, Iran and Syria have been undermining American and Iraqi efforts to bring order and stability to Iraq.

The matter is important, because an approach to the dictators in Iran and Syria would be seen throughout the region, and especially in Iraq itself, as a sign of American weakness and resignation. A hat-in-hand plea for help from our adversaries will only confirm their belief that a policy of fueling the insurgency with weapons, money, intelligence and foreign fighters is working.

Missing from the report is any serious reflection on the president’s goal of encouraging the development of representative government in the despotic Arab world, an objective that would be scuttled by the report’s proposed “diplomatic offensive.”

President Bush has said to the world, “If you stand for freedom, we stand with you.” In pushing for deals with the dictators in Iran and Syria, the study group has said to Mr. Bush, as James Baker once shamefully said to those pleading for intervention in Bosnia to stop the genocide of defenseless Muslims, “We don’t have a dog in that fight.”

Who Paid For Rummy's Secret Trek To Iraq, And What Was It For?

Believe it or not, some one thinks that Rummy needed to take a farewell tour of Iraq this weekend. The not so secret trek to Iraq, "leaked" to the press.

Wondering two things:

1- Did the American Taxpayers foot the bill for that trek?

2- What the hell was it for?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a secret farewell trip to Iraq, a senior Pentagon official confirmed on Saturday.

Rumsfeld's trip, first reported by ABC News, was his 13th unannounced visit to the country. It came one day after he gave a farewell address at the Pentagon and nine days before he is replaced by Robert Gates.

No other details of Rumsfeld's trip or whether he was still in Iraq were immediately available.

Does Every Secret Need A Leak, And Is Ignorance Really Bliss?

Out on the morning run, you never know when inspiration will hit. Mid-stride bounding over a pile of dog shit. Jumping another homeless man rolling up his bed on the trail he decided to camp on last evening. Plowing down the usual sidewalks dodging early AM commuters on a rush to jobs they hate. Avoiding the SUV driver who insists that she has the right of way even though the walk signal is brightly luminescent with the walking figure; and she attempts to flip you off but fumbles her phone in the process as she had it clamped to her ear with her shoulder, one hand on the wheel, and the other reaching to the back seat trying to stuff a binky into the mouth of her wailing child stuffed into the five point safety seat.

But the truth of the matter is that I’ve been ruminating on the following questions for a good while. The W, Rove and Co, if nothing else, have presented us with a fair number of deeply philosophical conundrums. I’ve jumped into a few of these from time to time. For example, my discussion of the problematical surrogate for debate the propaganda masters created that effectively eliminated debate by presenting only two dualistically opposing sides where one is their position and the other is as palatable as those fresh red capped mushrooms pulled by your neighbor and cooked up as a delicacy.

It comes to this: A fundamental discussion about why the W, Rove and Co insists on having so many secrets and then relying on leaks to disseminate information. It appears to be a backdoor method for information dissemination where the subliminal message is that they just don’t trust the American people enough to fill them in on the details; like we can’t handle the truth. This is not unlike the evangelical minister not wanting to expose the reality of their indiscretions for fear that they may do harm to the flock.

Like many a deposed or defrocked minister, we may find that the reality is not going to be fun for the W, Rove and Co because, when we actually pull back the curtain, the truth is going to be ugly, but not for the right reasons. Indeed, if the W, Rove and Co. had been upfront and honest about numerous things, we might have a distaste them (Abu Ghraib) or may be morally offended and disgusted that such things would be perpetrated by the administration. But, had they actually opened the door and freely discussed the realities of what we were facing, perhaps they might have more support for their position.

I would like to pose a few questions – to amplify those in the title of this post – that have been percolating in my brain and see what the rest of the blogisphere has to say about them. I’ll present this as a quasi-logic proof for fans of high school geometry problems.

1. Given: The terrorists know what they are planning to do.
2. Given: The terrorist may even know, or have some idea about what the US and others will be doing to counter those plans.


3. Given: The W, Rove and Co. claim they have intelligence that suggest they know what the terrorists are planning.


4. Given: The W, Rove and co thinks it knows what it is doing will work to mitigate the threats


5. Given: The American people are left in the dark about all of the above.

This boils down to a hand full of questions:

• Why is it that a steady stream of leaks from the Whitehouse is used to alleviate this pressure created by the dissonance between what they know and what they want us to know about terrorist activities and mitigation strategies?


• Is the W, Rove and Co afraid that

1. we cannot handle the facts?


2. they don’t really know the facts (WMD) and want us to think otherwise?


3. Or are they ashamed of what would be discovered once the facts were revealed?

If the truth about how the W, Rove and Co has been operating over the last, almost 6 years, were to come out, will we be appalled or ally ourselves around them embracing them as global saviors?

Certainly, you could argue that it’s not the known unknowns, but the unknown unknowns that will come back and bite us in the ass. Even so, don’t you think the American people can handle the truth, work through it together, and come together to solve the situation when they are presented with the details rather than sheltered for what might be considered for our own good?

It's time to peel back the curtain and see what's behind the smoke and mirrors. I, for one, believe we as a people are strong and able to confront any evil that resides beneath shroud woven by the W, Rove and Co and rise through it even stronger than we are today.

Who Is Doing What To "Foment Hatred?"

In my opinion, "fomenting hatred" is in the eye of the beholder. W and his pals suggest he is "spreading freedom," and it's the "terrorists, sectarianist, sadamist, and whatever sundry -ists you can tack a suffix on to.

The violence is not ... an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists -- al Qaeda with [the] Sunni insurgents, [and Iran with] Shia militia -- to foment hatred and thus throttle at birth the possibility of non-sectarian democracy.

Certainly, those on the other side of our rifles can make the same case against us. This is the fundamental problem of using violence to subdue violence - it begets more violence. The painful lessons are unfolding before us in Iraq.

Of course, just like the W, Rove and Co. issue signing statements affixing parameters around laws they have a distaste for, they are only articulating the parts of the Iraq Study Group's report that is politically advantageous.

If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

Certainly that is a rather wild predictive statement isn't it - this from an administration that suggest it is not up to prognosticating or discussing hypothetical situations. By the way, it pretty much looks like Iraq is in chaos while we are there, could it get worse? Sure, but will it most certainly gets worse?

What would be more troublesome would be to suggest that perhaps the opposite outcome is possible as well - that if we leave, might it also have a chance to go toward peacefulness? Wouldn't that outcome be like a giant egg on the face of the W, Rove and Co and their supposedly powerful pack of allies?

Whom Shall We Blame If Real Terrorists Must Be Cut Free?

I said this a long while back, but it seems as though the W, Rove and Co. has placed America at great legal peril.

What if, based on the very real actions of the W, Rove and Co, they were found in violation of the law, the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and who knows how many other laws that are out there? Would we then be forced to empty our jails because of it?

Really, I think Moxie Grrl was the first person I heard this phrase from, but because of very real Presidential malpractice, we could be forced to release real terrorists because they actually violated the rights of many innocents.

Rummy may be the first domino to fall in such a case:

A federal judge on Friday appeared reluctant to give Donald H. Rumsfeld immunity from torture allegations, yet said it would be unprecedented to let the departing defense secretary face a civil trial.

"What you're asking for has never been done before," U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan told lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The group is suing on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lawsuit contends the men were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.

If the suit were to go forward, it could force Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to disclose what officials knew about abuses at prisons such as Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and what was done to stop it.

So, you see: The folks who claim to have been doing all they can to "protect" the American people actually seem to be placing us deeper and deeper in jeopardy. As to why the

Oil For America: Profits For Whom?

So, they big oil interests are winning the right to drill off the Florida Coast. I'm wondering how much the Bush family and their pals stand to profit from this move. The article is not clear about the connectivity between individuals who support drilling off the coast of Florida and who stands to profit.

I have three questions:

1. Does the environment win?


2. Who really wins?


3. How much is this initiative really going to cost taxpayers in the long run?

Congress gave final approval this morning to legislation to open 8.3 million acres of federal waters west of the Florida coast to oil and gas drilling, a victory for business interests who lobbied for the bill and four Gulf Coast states that would receive billions in new oil and gas royalties.

But even drilling supporters admitted it was just a tiny fraction of the publicly owned area they had hoped to open during 12 years of Republican rule of Congress. Efforts to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts were defeated and are likely to be mothballed in the new Democratic Congress.

...Opponents said the measure would be a boondoggle for the Gulf Coast states, robbing as much as $170 billion over the next 60 years from the federal treasury, which could have paid for education, health care or cutting down the national debt.

"It's a great deal for these four states, and I can certainly understand why they would support it. But what I can't understand is why my colleagues from the other 46 states would agree to it," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara. "This country has record deficits as far as the eye can see, and it's simply irresponsible to add billions more in new debt."

Calling all editors: Fixing our Schools One Pro-Ball Player At A Time

Dear Editors,

The fact that Barry Bonds is getting 16 million dollars to swing a stick at a small ball for one year is emblematic of all that is wrong with our society. Certainly, this demonstrates that our value system is inverted, placing emphasis on entertainment over much of every thing else. Even more troubling is the fact that many of your readers believe that doing so is good for the Giants, and thus, good for everyone.

What if, one day, we turned the pay structures upside-down and paid our teachers like we do professional baseball players and gave professional baseball players the salaries we are currently giving to teachers? Might that kill two birds with one stone, turning our values system right-side up and improve one problem with our public schools?

13,000, Civil War, & "You Break It You Buy It"

Here's another fun Mark Fiore vid: Enjoy.

Why Is America Unwilling to Invest In High Quality Teaching?

High quality teachers that students duly deserve are not cheep, but you can't get better quality by paying teachers less than they get now. Like Iraq, a "stay-the-course" strategy only gets you more of the same.

It’s impossible to brand No Child Left Behind as a failure, because its agenda has never been carried out. The law was supposed to remake schools that serve poor and minority students by breaking with the age-old practice of staffing those schools with poorly trained and poorly educated teachers. States were supposed to provide students with highly qualified teachers in all core courses by the beginning of the current academic year. That didn’t happen.

Trouble is there is a gigantic gap between what people are willing to pay teachers, who do valuable work every day, and what others earn for less valuable work. Take for example how much people get paid to hit baseballs.

The deal, according to the Associated Press, includes performance bonuses that could push it to $20 million.

What if Barry Bonds and people like him - wage earners that make more than say five million a ear - would take his 16 million and use it to pay 15 new teachers a million bucks apiece and keep the other million for himself? Might that not attract better teachers for schools that deserve them?

"You Be W, I'll America"

Here's a cute RATED R political video a friend forwarded to me today. Enjoy:

DO NOT CLICK IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE SEXUAL INNUENDO OR ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18.

Be sure to turn down the volume if you are at work!

Expecting The Biggest Flip Flop Of All?

Don't hold your breath for a real change in Iraq policy from the W, Rove and Co. I just have one questions for the blogisphere today:

Which is worse, "Cut and Run," "Shuck and Jive," or the old political "Duck and Cover?"

"Presidents have been known to change their minds. He's been known to change his," Baker, who served as a top aide to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said in an interview with ABC News. "It may be that you will see some mind-changing, but you may not."

Will Recent Developments Provide A Solution For The Iraq SNAFU, or Provide More Opportunities For The W, Rove And Co To Ignore Reality?

Sometimes you have to wonder if the press in the Mainstream media is all about asking foolish questions.

Most certainly, we know the reason why the W, Rove and Co would want to mislead the American people: Because it is politically astute to do so.

Have a look from this exchange from a couple of days ago:

Q I have a question about the Rumsfeld memo. At the time when he was saying to the President, in this memo, that things aren't working in Iraq, the President was saying two things publicly: One, that we're winning in Iraq, absolutely; and he was also lashing Democrats, saying that criticism was not a plan for Iraq, and that we -- the administration -- have a plan for victory in Iraq. So why wasn't the President leveling with the American people?

MR. SNOW: Actually, at the time that this came --

Q Why wasn't he saying publicly what top members of this administration who were running the war were saying privately?

MR. SNOW: Well, there are a couple of things. First, at that very time, he was actually saying, things are not getting well enough fast enough. That was a formulation he was using at the time. If you take a look at the Rumsfeld memo that was printed in The New York Times, what you end up having is what the President I think has made it clear that he wants, which are people thinking creatively and exhaustively about ways of getting better results in Iraq.

And this is not -- other than at the very beginning, he says, clearly U.S. forces -- it's not working well enough or fast enough, what they're doing. That is a phrase that the President had adopted and had been using. And I don't know whether it comes from Secretary Rumsfeld or from the President. And then you have a list of options.
So I don't think you've got a case where the President was saying one thing and advisors were saying another.

What the President was saying is that you've got a sovereign government with the government of Prime Minister Maliki that is pursuing what it needs to pursue, but obviously needs to be doing so more effectively and more rapidly. And that would include security. It would include reconciliation. It would include economic measures. It would include things like the hydrocarbon law. So certainly we weren't trying to wrap it up into a neat little bundle, because it's a very complex situation.

Q But doesn't it strike you that at the same time that you and others in this administration were accusing the likes of John Murtha of cutting and running by suggesting redeployment of forces to the periphery of Iraq or to nearby Kuwait, that the Secretary of Defense is suggesting similar options?

MR. SNOW: What Mr. Murtha had suggested was -- he was never quite that specific, and I think I'd let him speak for himself, but I believe when he came on "Meet the Press," he was talking about redeploying to Okinawa. What you have in here is a description of possibly having forces --

Q But that's not the -- he talked about redeploying to Kuwait. You say you don't want to talk more, but you're not talking accurately.

MR. SNOW: No, here's what he says, is, "You can withdraw forces from vulnerable positions -- cities, patrolling, et cetera -- and move forces to a quick reaction force status operating from within Iraq and Kuwait." Now, it is one of many options that are described here. What it means is the administration is trying to take a look at every suggestion, as I think would be incumbent.

Q Wait a second. You're not really answering the question. You're trying to parse what Murtha's position was.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not --

Q Wait a second, let me just finish.

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q Isn't it striking that this administration was accusing the likes of John Murtha and other Democrats who suggested course correction, including phased withdrawal, of cutting and running --

MR. SNOW: No, let me --

Q -- at the same time that the Defense Secretary was suggesting just the same option?
MR. SNOW: No.

Q You don't see hypocrisy there?

MR. SNOW: No, because you're talking about apples and oranges. If you take a look at --
Q Really?

MR. SNOW: Yes, really -- because there is no suggestion in here that things be done without regard to developments on the ground. What the President has already said is, what you try to do is, obviously, we want U.S. forces to be withdrawing based on what is going on, on the ground in Iraq. And there is still a significant difference.

Now, I think what's interesting is that we have now gone from an election season, where there was some criticism of the White House, to one in which Democrats are going to have responsibility in the House and Senate. And as they take a serious look at the business of going ahead and building up a government of Iraq, so that you have a democracy, so that the United States has the kind of victory that the President has discussed -- which is an Iraq that can defend, sustain and govern itself, and can be an ally in the war on terror -- I think you're going to see people working more constructively. And a lot of the kind of rhetoric that got heated up during a political campaign, including those who had been saying some pretty tough stuff about the President. I think that's going to give way to what we hope will be constructive efforts to get the job done.

Q So this White House is playing it straight with the American people?
MR. SNOW: Yes.

Can we call bullshit here or what? We were misled for political reasons. This doesn't make lying to the public acceptable nor morally justified, but no one should be surprised as this is W, Rove and Co politics as usual. They want to have it both ways – when the Democrats to do it, it is wrong and reprehensible. When members of the GOP do it, it is right and proper. Typical.

Is there any remorse laden in this administration at all for the situation they have placed us in? Helen Thomas whips out the cast iron frying pan one more time:

Q Ten Americans were killed Sunday in Iraq, or on the weekend. Is there any impact on the President? Does it affect him at all that there's a growing consensus in Iraq and America to get out now?

MR. SNOW: Well, it's interesting -- I don't know if there's a growing -- what we hear from the Iraqis is, we want to have the capability so that the Iraqi security forces can assume the lead. And it is also the case that they say that they need more. And we are working with them --

Q You're hearing that from people who want to stay in power, believe me --

MR. SNOW: No, wait, look --

Q -- not the people.

MR. SNOW: I don't know, Helen. It's very difficult.

Today, we see that there are more of his pals that suggest things are not going well at all. Why did he have to wait to hear this bad news from people he likes instead of balking at similar sentiments from folks he doesn't like? Is he really listening?

Questions. Helen.

Q Is the President contemplating a way out of Iraq?

MR. SNOW: The way out of Iraq is to have an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself, to be an ally in the war on terror and also an example to the region that democracy can succeed. So that is the way out.

Q Does he really think he can achieve such a thing?

MR. SNOW: He believes the Iraqi people can achieve it, and it is our goal to help them develop the capacity to do so.

Q To follow on that for a second, it sounds like the job -- he's not leaving until the job is finished. And the job is defined as an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. Last week you said --

MR. SNOW: And be an ally in the war on terror.

Q And be an ally in the war on terror. Is the Baker report and the internal reviews that accompany the Baker report over the next couple of weeks an opportunity for the President to redefine what the job is?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. I think it's an opportunity to take advantage of the help of a number of people who are assessing the situation. But, no.

Well, whatever that may be, do we trust that the president won't just let this document collect dust on his nightstand?

I told the members that this report, called "The Way Forward," will be taken very seriously by this administration. This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq. It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion.

But, what about Murtha's and others? Why must it come from their friends?

The country, in my judgment, is tired of pure political bickering that happens in Washington, and they understand that on this important issue of war and peace, it is best for our country to work together. And I understand how difficult that is, but this report will give us all an opportunity to find common ground, for the good of the country -- not for the good of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but for the good of the country.

Well, it takes two sides to tango as well as to bicker. For the W, Rove and Co. it usually means "you change, we stay the same" and we can all get along better. There is never any ownership to their contributions to the divisiveness they fostered, now is there?

The clock ticks, the body count ratchets up, and are we getting a solution any time soon? Time will tell, and tempus fugit.

To Call It A Civil War Or Not Call It A Civil War, Either One Is A Political Position

I love it when the President or one of his propaganda shills suggests that there is only sectarian struggle versus full blown Civil war in their favorite sand filled Petry Dish, freedom spreading experiement called Iraq. It seems the Main Stream Media is finally catching up with the blogisphere and now calling a spade a spade, much to the chagrin of the the W, Rove and Co.

Even so, Steve Hadly is still blowing smoke up our skirts about how well it's going. Speaking in halftruths is a Rovian specialty.

Have a look:

"We have not failed in Iraq," Stephen Hadley said as he made the talk show rounds. "We will fail in Iraq if we pull out our troops before we're in a position to help the Iraqis succeed."

But he added: "The president understands that we need to have a way forward in Iraq that is more successful."

We have not failed? But it sure isn't going well. The second sentence is not really one hundred percent true, now is it? Can they really predict what will happen if we pull out in an intelligent and well though out way? Nope. And I thought the W, Rove and Co was unwilling to predict outcomes or the future based on hypotheticals.

Sure the above statements aren't completely true, but they aren't completely false as well. Even so, they don't get us to a solution about Iraq sooner than later. But what of the meeting between W and the Iraqi Primeminister?

"It's unconscionable," he said. "It's an effort to embarrass those two leaders. It could have cast a pall over this meeting."

Well, I don't think it is possible to cast a pall over anytying if the participants in some meeting aren't already doing so themselves.

But do you think that the Iraq Study Group is going to yield any concret changes and toward a more powerful and positive solution for Iraq?

"Nothing has changed," said Sen. Dianne Feinstei, D-Calif., about the president. "He said he'll continue to be flexible. But he hasn't been flexible. He doesn't listen. And that's just a fact."

How About We Export The W, Rove and CO to Iraq In 2009?

"I know there´s a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there´s going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq. This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever. We´re going to stay in Iraq to get the job done as long as the government wants us there."

Who's "We" white man? This quote doesn't bode well for a resolution to the Iraq conflagration any time soon.

Well, we know that the W, Rove and CO is totally committing us to staying in Iraq indefinitely. I suggest that if there is no resolution to the disaster before they leave office that we export our "leaders" to Iraq so they can be more closely linked to fixing the problem they built.

Who's with me? I vote we send GW and the whole of the W, Rove and Co over to Iraq in 2009, once they are removed from office so that they can finish the job they started. And, we should not let them return until there is peace in Iraq.

Interesting Snips From Today's Rags

I found a couple of interesting articles that may or may not make it to the AP wire and thus be spread as news at the usual watering holes.

Seems like there is a fair amount of agreement on this first point:

The administration has too often operated under vague legal guidelines, pursuant to secret legal opinions generated by few and vetted by almost none.

Certainly, the indiscretion of the W, Rove and Co has tarnished the reputation of America as a whole and sullied our nation to such a degree that we have lost face over and over again:

...The term 'war on terror' is a misnomer," Harman said. "Wars are fought and won with military power; but the era of terror will not be ended by military force alone. In addition, the very designation of the struggle against terror as a 'war' enables the president to invoke commander-in-chief authorities to circumvent Congress, legal precedent and many constitutional requirements."

She added: "How we treat people in U.S. custody says a lot about us and what we're fighting for. Holding detainees for years with no status determination, or using interrogation practices that go over the line, erodes our moral authority and ultimately harms our effort in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the moderate Arab and Muslim world."

There are those who would say, "Screw the Arab and Muslim world." And I would say that's a rather narrow focus for a shrinking global community. But if you need another reason to have a serious distaste for the W, Rove and Co, how about looking at their willingness to violate our rights:

Harman also took a parting jab at the National Security Agency's secret wiretapping program of suspected terrorists' phone calls, which she had defended in January as "essential to U.S. national security."

"Let me be clear," she said Friday. "I want the intelligence community to intercept the communications of terrorists. But it is not exempt from following the law and the Constitution."

In another article, we see that there are some in Congress that could be a beacon of hope and willing, starting in January, to make a stand:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

James Webb, Virginia Democratic senator-elect, says he's "not looking to simply be a renegade."

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

World AIDS day - Lighting the cyber candle

A friend of mine forwarded this link. I thought it was interesting and educational given that this is world AIDS day. Light a cyber candle if you have some time.