What Is A Good Yardstick For Success In Iraq?

Answer? The W, Rove and Co. hasn't a clue:

Q On the measure of success in Iraq, the President has been focusing on other fronts -- I mean, political progress, energy, electricity. How much does reducing the level of violence and the strength of the insurgency remain an important part of that, or have we gotten to a point where even this level of violence might just be a reality, and success could be declared if there's progress in other ways?

MR. SNOW: Well, David, I think at this point -- clearly, the government in Iraq is not satisfied. That's why you've got Operation Forward Together, which began yesterday, that involves the deployment of roughly 50,000 Iraqi police and army forces within five different areas of Baghdad and 7,200 coalition forces, as well.

What the President has said is you can't -- if you want an absence of violence to be your benchmark, you'll never get there because it allows the terrorists to define success or failure by a simple act of violence. But on the other hand, I don't think anybody takes -- wants to take for granted the kind of violence we have right now. The question a lot of you have raised about a President having to go in the way we went into Baghdad the other day, that obviously is not -- what you want is an end state, that's not what you would accept.

The problem with trying to come up with a measure, it's a very difficult thing to come up with a proper metric for that. I mean, if you start taking a look at murder rates in major American cities, people would say, it's scary to be there. But it's -- this is a different situation. You have random violence where Americans are going to be targeted and members of the Iraqi government and people who are on the side of the democracy, and I think, obviously, that is a real concern.

What the President was talking about is -- and this gets to David's questions earlier -- is you have violence. You also have people saying, well, what about the other part of the picture? And I think one of the things that we will have to be measured by -- the efforts will have to be measured by is progress in those humanitarian areas. You know, what does happen with electricity? If electricity doesn't improve, that's bad. If you don't have oil production improving, that's going to be bad -- if you don't have sanitation and water.

So those are at least easier to measure benchmarks than sort of a violence standard. But is violence -- the present level of violence acceptable? Of course not.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Okay, thank you.

So, what exactly does standing up and standing down mean other than nice rhetoric to deflect the curiousity of a growing pissed off American people? The title of this post may make a good dialog for those in the blogisphere interested in bringing the troops home at some point. How do we know when the time is right?

Uncle Karl's Off The Hook, But Tony's Still Dodging Questions About Him: But Should Cheney Be Indicted After Libby?

Didn't expect the whitehouse to get off the "it's-an-ongoing-investigation-so-we-can't-comment" excuse, did you? Even so, this was an interesting line of questioning with some foreboding about Cheney laced in there:

Q Tony, the investigation of Karl Rove is now over. Why is it, then, inappropriate for the President of the White House, three years later, to finally give us some sort of explanation or assessment, judgment, of Karl Rove's actions when it had nothing to do with the Libby trial?

MR. SNOW: Because, as you know, there is -- well, they may have. There is talk that he may be called --

Q Scott McClellan has nothing to do with the Libby trial, his conversation with ABC News has nothing to do with the Libby trial.

MR. SNOW: Well, that's fine. I will continue my statement first. I can't give you any texture or background on the Scott/Karl stuff, because I wasn't here. But the President made it pretty clear that a lot of this stuff -- and as you know, Peter, once you get up on the stand, and Karl may be called to the stand -- they can ask about anything.

And so it is our view that we're simply not going to get involved in making comments on something that may be brought to trial, when Scooter Libby is still under indictment and is going to go to trial with the special prosecutor. The other thing is that Karl, apparently, the prosecutor found nothing untoward in what Karl has done, there is no indictment. But we're just not going to go into it. You could go at it 58 different angles, I'm still not going to give you an answer.

Q Let me ask a general question then. In 2000, the President said it wasn't enough to simply not be indicted in the White House, that he had a higher ethical standard. Is that, in fact, still the ethical standard --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q -- or, in fact, should we interpret from his comments yesterday that as long as you're not indicted, everything is fine?

MR. SNOW: Apparently, you've indicted Karl.

Q No, I'm asking a question.

MR. SNOW: And yes, the answer is, the ethical standard still applies.

Q And what is the ethical standard?

MR. SNOW: You tell me. I mean, the President said the higher ethical standard -- you were reciting a thing. You know what the President says is, you serve honorably, you serve well, you obey the law.

Q And the reality is --

Q Did Karl Rove serve honorably and serve --

MR. SNOW: Like I said, don't try to get me to bite on it because I'm not going to do it.

Jim.

Q Oh -- (laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Oh, I'm sorry, okay, never mind --

Q Now you still have an upcoming Cheney trial, so --

MR. SNOW: Libby trial. Libby trial.

Q But are you worried about what that may -- is the Vice President's office worried about what that may -- how intrusive that could be, in terms of the inner operations of his office?

MR. SNOW: I don't have any idea. You'll have to deal with his office on that.

Ethics, schmethics. Those are for youse guys who have to obey that laws. For the President and the rest of the Rove and Co, we've got signing statements and such to fuck the American six ways to Sunday.

A little later in the breifing, the Rove thing comes back to haunt Tony, and he says it's not his battle to fight, so, essentially, we are not going to get answers about Rove, now are we? Still, aren't you just a little bit curious to know what got him off the hook when he was on it for a while?

Q Tony, yesterday the President said that he's made the comments he's going to make about the Karl Rove matter, and now he's going to move forward. A year ago, he told us at least twice that he would be more than happy to comment further once the situation, the investigation was completed. Does this mean that despite telling us that he would comment further that now he isn't going to? Or does it mean that he will comment further and be happy to at a later date?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm going to let his comments yesterday suffice. I'm not going to get beyond what he said yesterday, and we'll see what happens. That would be a why-don't-I-figure-it-out -- what the President said yesterday is he's not going to comment because the Libby trial is upcoming. I don't know if he has any plans --

Q Has he made the comments he's going to make?

MR. SNOW: Victoria, I don't know if he has any plans. I just don't know. I can't give you an answer.

Q Will that include appeals? How far can we stretch this?

MR. SNOW: I don't know, Peter. But I'll tell you what. It's obviously really important to you guys. I'll try to find out.

Q I have one other one.

MR. SNOW: Okay, come on. Does Jim want to get called on? (Laughter.) That's okay.

Q I have one other one on Karl Rove working in the White House, and the "honorable standard" question, which is that he's not being indicted, apparently. But three years ago -- I say "apparently" because I don't think anyone has seen the letter yet -- but three years ago he was asked about whether he has spoken to any reporter about whether Valerie Plame was --

MR. SNOW: Okay, I'm not going to -- I can't get back into that question, because, frankly, I'm totally incompetent on it, and I'm not going to get in the middle of the Karl Rove thing. That all predates me.

Q I can't even finish the question?

MR. SNOW: You can finish the question. I'll give you the same answer.

Q Okay, but he was asked whether -- Scott McClellan was asked whether in fact he had spoken to any reporter about whether Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. And the reply was that he had assured Scott McClellen that he wasn't involved in any of this.

MR. SNOW: Right. As I said, thank you for getting me in the middle of an old fight that I have no part in and I'm not -- I'm just not going to play on it. But thank --

Q It seems clear, however that he spoke with Matt Cooper, Judith Miller and Robert Novak, so it would seem that the two answers don't match.

MR. SNOW: Okay, thank you.

Preaching From The Whitehouse Press Pool Or Asking Legitimate Questions? Subtitle: Permanent US Basis In Iraq Likely.

You be the judge, but I have to admit, I love Helen Thomas and it seems to me that she is one person who often speaks for my brand of American, those skeptical of anything the W, Rove and Co does:

Helen.

Q Would you like to reaffirm what you said earlier today, that the U.S. wants no permanent bases in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think -- let me -- because -- can you define what a permanent base is?

Q No, I can't.

MR. SNOW: Well, then how can I get a question --

Q Except into infinity -- no, no, no, you're dancing around already.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not dancing around. I'm actually trying to get a specific question answered.

Q Okay, say flatly, does the United States want bases in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: It has bases in Iraq, and the United States will have bases -- look, the United States, Secretary Rice has said -- well, number one, it's premature to talk about how long they're going to be there. Number two, Ambassador Khalilzad has said we have no desire for permanent bases. Number three, when it comes to a permanent base, that is not the call of the United States. As you know, Iraq has a sovereign government. So the issue of --

Q It's about as sovereign as the President being able to go into Iraq and not even tell the President.

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, obviously, Helen, you're preaching and not asking. Let's go to you.

From the looks of it, they seem to be lacking in parental supervision over at the whitehouse, if you ask me. Some one has to play the parental role with the W, Rove and Co and Helen is duly suited to the task.

Tony Trapped: One Smart Reporter And a Facile Press Secretary

I love this interchange where one pool reporter eventually traps Tony the Snow-job in the political hucksterism that has become the GOP modus operandi and the political parlor tricks that have become the very hallmark of the W, Rove and Co:

Q The President said yesterday, as you remember, that he and Republicans have a record to run on. With regard to Iraq, if you look at our recent poll, the public has in fact rendered judgment about that record. They think the war is a mistake. They trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle the situation in Iraq, and they don't think things are going to get better. So does the President have to answer for that record?

MR. SNOW: The President will always -- people will have to answer for the records when voters render their judgments, of course. But on the other hand, one thing as you look at the poll data, people want to win the war. They do not want the -- and the President wants to win the war.

The President understands fully what public opinion is, but he also understands what his obligations are as Commander-in-Chief, and he's said that all along. If you allow the polls to dictate, you're not always going to do your job, and what the President is doing is leading as Commander-in-Chief. And he knows that some of these things are unpopular, but he also knows that they are the right things to do.

Q But is it a matter of unpopularity and people not -- because people don't understand the gravity of the mission, or is it that they have looked at his record of how he has conducted the war and disapproved of how he's done his job?

SECRETARY SNOW: I think -- we live in a nation of 300 million people, and there's no single characterization that's going to cover every opinion.

I think what you have also seen is a little bit of movement because people saw -- for instance, the death of Zarqawi, for a lot people, said, oh, wait a minute. That's an important victory. It's certainly not going to determine everything but it's an important victory.

I think for a long time, and this is worth pointing out, people's perceptions of the war have been shaped by car bombs and not by the actual efforts of men and women in the field. And David, I know you have gotten emails and everybody in this room has probably gotten emails at one time or another from people who have been in the theater who say, "I don't know what war they're covering, but it's different than the one I'm fighting in."

And it's very easy -- as a matter of fact, the document that Iraqi authorities released earlier today, where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said that using these images was a way of shaping opinion in the West, because it's a powerful image. And the President has said that he is not going to let terrorists dictate the terms of victory or defeat, or the definitions of each in Iraq. And when it comes to public opinion, I think it is perfectly understandable that seeing these horrific images day after day is going to make people say, please make it stop. And the President wants it to stop, but he wants it to end with a free, democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, protect itself, and serve as an ally in the war on terror.

Q Just one more on this, because you keep coming back to what seems to be kind of a facile explanation about car bombs obscuring real successes in Iraq. If that were the case, you wouldn't have had two governments fail, by the President's own admission. Isn't it a bit of a simplification to say that terrorists' car bombs are obscuring the real picture?

MR. SNOW: No, I don't. And I don't think it's facile, either --

Q You don't think that's a misrepresentation? After three years, Baghdad can't be secured yet?

MR. SNOW: No. The President has said all along -- what you're expecting is facile, which is a snap victory, things easy. It's not easy. This is a country where there have been factional disputes that go back a very long time. And people on the ground know that it's not easy. No, they're not facile at all in their approach to how they fight the war. I would also pose that to the people who are in theater. It's not a facile explanation. It's a true explanation: a car bomb is more vivid than getting an extra hundred kilowatts out of an electrical generation facility.

Q Well, since they haven't done that either --

MR. SNOW: There has been progress in those areas. So, the other thing is -- you talk about three failed governments. It has always been the aim of the United States to create a democratic government. This is a first. This is a first constitutional parliamentary-elected government. And you've heard repeatedly the President say, this is what we're aiming for. So give these guys a chance. They've been in office for two weeks; they've had a Defense and Interior Minister for one week. The President will be judged on this, absolutely right. But he's also -- and he's willing to take that judgment because he's doing what he thinks is right, David.

If you were judge and jury, what say you on the President's Record?

2500 GIs KIA in Iraq & The President Gets "Choked Up" Over What?

How should we feel about the general lack of remorse and grief exhibited by the President now that the number of GIs KIA in Iraq has hit 2500?

Q Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that?

MR. SNOW: It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something. The President would like the war to be over now. Everybody would like the war to be over now. And the one thing that we saw in Iraq this week is further testimony to the quality of the men and the women who are doing that, and the dedication and determination to try to ensure that the people of Iraq really do live in a free, effective democracy of their own creation and design.

Any President who goes through a time of war feels very deeply the responsibility for sending men and women into harm's way, and feels very deeply the pain that the families feel. And this President is no different. You've seen it many times. You saw it, you saw it when he was in that ballroom, Terry, and you had this crowd of servicemen and women who were cheering loudly for the President, and he got choked up. So it's always a sad benchmark, and one of the things the President has said is that these people will not die in vain.

And part of what happened this very week when the President went to Baghdad, and he sat down with the Prime Minister and he sat down with the cabinet, and he sat down with the President and Vice President, he sat down with the national security team, and he sat down with the leaders of all the major political parties, what he saw now is that after all of this, what you have in Iraq is a freestanding government that has been elected by the Iraqi people. It has a Prime Minister who is going to be there for four years, who is determined to act as a Prime Minister, who is determined to lead, who is setting priorities, and he's somebody we can work with. You have a Minister of Defense who has significant experience and is already working with his colleagues, not only here at the Pentagon, but also General Casey and others in the field. The President understands that those deaths cannot be in vain, and you've got a government now that can help ensure that that is not the case.

Q Was he told about the benchmark, the President?

MR. SNOW: I don't know. I'm sure he will hear about it.

Even though the President has repeatedly said, "it was worth it," I still charge that the ROI in Iraq is not worth the outlay.

The Prior Presidential-Sized Bait and Switch Leads To More Bait and Possibly Another Switch

So, those of us who bought the WMD terrorist threat and the link to Nine Eleven as reason enough to support the president way back when to invade Iraq aught to feel like giant suckers now. That was the first bait and switch.

But when the President says things like this, in reference to the raids being conducted today after the W's very expensive and giant waste of taxpayer dollars PR Junket to Iraq:

Obviously, the raids aren't going to end terrorism.

I have got to think that the "regime change" rhetoric is another piece of bait. So, the larger question today is, what will the W, Rove and Co switch to when they realize stopping terrorism is not going to be as easy as invading a country that had nothing to do with it before we got there?

Let's see if there is a hint as to what that might be in the latter portions of W's "press availability. Could it be...Oil?:

Q Is the tide turning in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?

Q (Inaudible) --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I probably ought to then reflect on those words and think that -- I sense something different happening in Iraq. The progress will be steady toward a goal that has clearly been defined. In other words, I hope there's not an expectation from people that, all of a sudden, there's going to be zero violence -- in other words, it's just not going to be the case. On the other hand, I do think we'll be able to measure progress. You can measure progress in capacity of Iraqi units. You can measure progress in megawatts of electricity delivered. You can measure progress in terms of oil sold on the market on behalf of the Iraqi people. There's ways to determine whether or not this government's plans are succeeding.

"The Ideology of Light" Direct To You Live Via The Green Zone, Baghdad, Iraq!

Lots of folks have commented on the President's secretive PR junket to Iraq. I won't bore you with overly lengthy rhetorical argument to convince you that W has executed yet another in a long list of useless expenditures of American Taxpayer dollars to say exactly what he said the day or two before. Let's see if he has anything original to say that was worth flying around the globe to do. First, he talks to the troops:

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a central front on that war, and when Iraq succeeds in having a government of and by and for the people of Iraq, you will have dealt a serious blow to those who have a vision of darkness, who don't believe in liberty, who are willing to kill the innocent in order to achieve a political objective.

Two questions for Mr. President: A) Who made Iraq the "central front," in the first place? And B) How many innocent Iraqi civilians have we killed in order to achieve the "regime change" political objective, which incidentally is the switch part of the grand WMD bait and switch executed on the American people?

He keeps going with more dualistic thinking/speaking that proves the W, Rove and Co specializes in oversimplification, misunderestimating the intelligence of the American people yet again.

The stakes are high, and what happens here in Iraq reaches far beyond the borders of Iraq. The war on terror really will be addressed by strong actions by our intelligence and military services to bring to justice those who would do us harm. I've told the American people, we will defeat the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

Really, here's the problem. What about terrorist cells already operating on our soil? If they are going to argue that we are fighting "the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home." how can they justify illegal domestic wiretapping? So, how misleading/untruthful is the President here? Very, in my book. Is he downright lying? Perhaps.

And he keeps on going - to a place that I have not seen him go yet, but I may be missing something as the morass of political parlor tricks and hucksterism is so deep and thick with the W, Rove and Co., it is possible to not catch all the rhetorical nonsense they launch at us via the presidential propaganda catapult. But really, what indeed is this "ideology of light?"

Ultimately, the victory in the war on terror, the victory in a struggle against those who have no ideology -- well, they've got an ideology, but it's an ideology that is dark and dismal. It's one that doesn't respect human dignity. It's an ideology that doesn't believe in the freedom to worship. It's an ideology that doesn't respect the role and rights of women in society. It's an ideology that has no hope. The way to defeat that ideology is with an ideology of light. I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe deep in everybody's soul is the desire to be free.

So, what we have here is perfect example of someone using troops as a political backdrop (yet again) to deliver an ideological message to the terrorists. Essentially, the W, Rove and Co has sunk to the Al Qaeda’s level unleashing this "ideology of light" as a rhetorical weapon in an ideological war, not unlike the fundamentalist ideologues that he so despises. Who is right depends mainly on your perspective and which side of the 500 lb bomb you are, doesn't it?

And then W does it all over again while trying to predict the future in front of the new Iraqi Prime Minister:

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a central front on that war, and when Iraq succeeds in having a government of and by and for the people of Iraq, you will have dealt a serious blow to those who have a vision of darkness, who don't believe in liberty, who are willing to kill the innocent in order to achieve a political objective.

I wonder...what does the existing example of Israel prove about the grandiose prediction that blows to terrorists are meted out by installation of "democratic" governments?

Dualism, The President And A Few Philosophical Questions For You

Here's an interesting non-answer from the President as to what we should do about the threat of terrorism in Iraq:

Q Mr. President, what do you think of the successor to Zarqawi that was named by al Qaeda? And how do you stop an insurgency that is still able to recruit people and continue to threaten attacks?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the successor to Zarqawi is going to be on our list to bring to justice.

What was the second part of your question?

Q How do you stop an insurgency that continues to be able to recruit people and continues to threaten attacks and carry them out?

THE PRESIDENT: The best way to win this war against an insurgency is to stand up a unity government which is capable of defending itself, but also providing tangible benefits to the people. The Iraqis have got some wonderful assets: They've got energy, which they can use to benefit their people; they're entrepreneurial; they've got a stable currency; they've got a small business sector that's growing. And, ultimately, the Iraqi people are going to have to make up their mind, do they want to live in terror, or do they want to live in peace. And the United States and our coalition will help them realize their ambitions if they choose to live in peace and hope, which we believe they will.

Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that 12 million people went to the polls and said, we want to live in a free society. No question, the fighting is tough. No question, the enemy is violent and mean. But the enemy doesn't stand for anything. They have no message of hope. They have no positive philosophy. All they can do is kill and hope that the government splits up, or that the American people lose their will. And I keep reminding the American people that the stakes are worth it. It is worth it to help Iraq succeed. It is worth it to have a democracy in the Middle East. It is worth it to show other reformers and people who want to live in a free society what is possible.

Not unlike the mythical multi-headed snake that grows a new head to replace the on that gets cut off, there are many terrorist willing to take a stab at the "American Devil."

But the President's answer to a rather complex question leads me to a number of philosophical questions for the blogisphere. What do you think is the proper answer to the president's dualistic proposition - terror or peace...hmmm, what about us the American people? Which do we choose? I think we all choose peace. The problem is that the terrorists don't. Who controls whether we live in terror? The reduction of multifaceted, complex problems in to dualistic propositions where one side is completely implausible or untenable as an option is the President's specialty. Don't fall for this political parlor trick.

But let's look a bit further. The dualistic nature of the President is also obviated in the latter portion of his answer where he doesn't have to state the other side of the position. Here's the "it's worth it," argument regurgitated for all to see. What's the other option? It's not worth it? Like he is going to say that? But I have to ask, are the American people suckers for this kind of political hucksterism?

Moreover, I wonder, since the president still suggests that the Iraq Conflagration (regardless that there were no real ties to 9/11 or WMD) was and is "worth it," if he has a conscience and has discussed that with any relatives of GIs who are now short one because a family member was KIA in Iraq, and if those people would concur.

Oh, and incidentally, perhaps you should ask some of the troops that are plus-up-ed (what ever that means) if they think it's worth it:

Q Dan, if you take some of the things you said together, you talked about various possible deployments similar to the 3,000 troop movement from Kuwait to Anbar, and you said, the plan has been all along what Casey said, gradual reductions in coming time. When you put those together, a lot of these meetings will be focusing on various deployment decisions with a goal of gradually reducing -- is that overstepping?

MR. BARTLETT: Well, actually, that would contradict yourself, because the 3,000 troops shows that it's conditions-based, meaning there will be -- there are instances where you're going to want to plus-up troops and --

Q But it's discussions with a goal of doing what Casey mentioned --

MR. BARTLETT: Well, as the President said, of course, the goal is to accomplish our mission as quickly as possible so our troops can come home. That's a fundamental premise of all of our conversations. That's what the President has pledged to the American people. But I don't think the American people want us to do it in a premature way in which we don't complete the mission. And what the conversation here is about is how do we help the Iraqi people and this Maliki government succeed in implementing its plan.

Ah, I see, so the new Press Secretary's Office is not above speaking for the American people either. This is something that Scotty used to do on a regular basis. Do these folks speak for you? Not me. I wish they would stop pretending that they do.

General Apathy and Political Atrophy Of The American People

I've been having some very interesting off net, but on-line conversations with various folks - okay, mainly blogger types - that may be of interest to regular readers here. One theme tends to be a general disgust and contempt for the apathy of the American public, looking at the whole forest rather than singular branches or trees.

The disgust stems from a heightened awareness of the general corruptness and disastrous leadership of our government that pushes us to ask why more people don't care more to do something about it. This past primary vote is a prime example. With more voters caring to pitch in their two cents about who will become the next American Idol versus who will run for their parties in November, it is fair to conclude that this general apathy can lead to atrophy. That is, if you don't exercise your rights, you may loose full functionality as they are slowly sucked away by nefarious bills (patriot act), signing statements (of all stripe), and down right illegal, and unconstitutional acts committed by sitting presidents (NSA wiretapping of American people with out a single warrant).

Here's my email reply to a fellow blogger that prompted this prior paragraph.

To me, it's completely astonishing that not more people care about how the W, Rove and Co is tearing the world apart while tearing us a new asshole with no new toilets to collect the crap they are spewing...it's the streets that end up filthy for it, but we tend to like to wallow in the crap instead of clean it up. It's human nature to want to take the easy way...like lightning. The fastest and easiest path down to the ground at the tallest target is the way to go - Zap, and it's done. If the American people don't have to the will to get out of their armchairs to change a channel, what makes you think they will want to lift a finger to stop the criminals in charge? It's too much work, and the result is not fixed and the odds are against us. But we do have to remember Margaret Meed: Never underestimate the power of a small group of likeminded individuals to change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has.

Where Was Zarqawi Before He Seeped Into Iraq? More Questions For Than Answers From The President

Just a small question for today: Where was Zarqawi before we invaded Iraq? Mr. President?

Before September the 11th, 2001, he ran a camp in Afghanistan that trained terrorists -- until Coalition forces destroyed that camp. He fled to Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with terrorist associates.

Okay, I lied. I've got more than one small question. Many more in fact; that crop up for me even only after two sentences from W because, as usual, here's where the presidential propaganda catapult manipulates the American public with a very fuzzy timeline. Ah, you remember "fuzzy math" introduced by Bush Sr, way back when he was running for president. Now we have "fuzzy logic" designed by the W, Rove and Co. to play "political parlor tricks" (which the W, Rove and Co. publicly ironically claim to have disdain for) with the minds of American people. Don't you have a few questions? Here are mine:

When was Zarqawi's Afghanistan camp destroyed? Was it before or after we invaded Iraq under the false rouse of the WMD intelligence bait and switch? When did Zarqawi enter Iraq for medical treatment? Why does the president always spank the Nine Eleven monkey for political gain? Does any one ever listen to the presidential radio address, and if so, why?

I have more questions, but for now let's have another dose of W's purposefully fuzzy logic. In the ensuing paragraph W and his team of propagandists lump together all the dastardly deeds theoretically perpetrated by Zarqawi to make us, the "good guys," seem less stained by the whole Iraq Attack.

After the fall of Saddam, Zarqawi went underground and declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, who called him the "Prince of al Qaida in Iraq" and instructed terrorists around the world to "listen to him and obey him." Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostages and other civilians in Iraq; he masterminded the destruction of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad; and he was responsible for the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan and the bombing of hotels in Amman. His goals in Iraq were clear: He wanted to stop the rise of democracy, drive coalition forces out, incite a civil war, and turn that country into a safe haven from which al Qaida could launch new attacks on America and other free nations. Instead, Zarqawi died in the free and democratic Iraq that he fought so hard to prevent, and the world is better off because this violent man will never kill again.

Sure, there is no doubt about it Zarqawi was a nasty man and is probably not presently getting stroked by several heavenly virgins any more than Hitler is, but no one can predict that we will better off for his killing, no matter how concretely dualistic your thinking is. Thus, more questions:

How long after the fall of Saddam did Zarqawi "go underground" and what/when do you constitute the "fall of Saddam?" Saddam is still alive and kicking, now isn't he? Declaring allegiance to OBL is meaningful in what way? When OBL talks to "terrorists around the world," how many people are we talking about? And if we can count them, why can't we round them up? What about OBL in the first place? Where is he and why has he not been "brought to justice?" It looks like Zarqawi had a broad reach but again the timelines are fuzzy. When these things happened is important, no?

What W claims were Zarqawi's goals for Iraq are pretty much a tall order. Shouldn't we look in the mirror? How much are we responsible for and what have we done to incite civil war in Iraq? Who is responsible for the bulk of terrorists being in Iraq in the first place? Sure, Zarqawi won't kill again, but how many more people will be motivated to kill because of his death? Did we really win that small skirmish or did we ignite another conflagration?

As history has proven, martyrdom is a very powerful driver to push people into action. We all know and remember Pearl Harbor, don't we? We fought hard and long to snuff the Japanese for doing that - Just ask the good folk of Nagasaki and Hiroshima what they learned. Fuck, the real reason the W, Rove and Co. spends so much time spanking the Nine Eleven Monkey is because they are trying to push the martyrdom of those unfortunate victims as far as they can to gain support for their industrial and imperialistic "war" on terror. And that "war" really only benefits those war-time profiteers in related businesses (read, friends of the W, Rove Co such as those in Halliburton, etc...).

Forgive me for not being in a terribly salubrious mood about the killing of Zarqawi, and not jumping on the "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead" ship of the republican faithful and faith-based followers of a faith-rather-than-fact driven leadership. Really it all comes down to this: Do you feel more or less safe because of, or completely unaffected by the killing of Zarqawi? Do you feel more or less safe than you did five years ago?

In the final analysis, what does the perpetration of war get us? More war, me thinks. In the end, the killing of Zarqawi may hurt us more than help us and it's the unknown unknowns that may be our undoing.

Blog on all, blog on. I have to get to work.

Windspike's Scary Questions For An Otherwise Sedate Weekend

7:23 PM Update: Just heard on the news (NPR) this evening, that we won't be paying out the 25 Million reward on Zarqawi's head. Alas, that makes these questions below moot. On my behalf, at the time I wrote this post it was unclear as to who would be awarded the cash, and they administration was not talking. Such is the danger of posting in advance of more information - no harm done, unlike the W, Rove and Co starting the Iraqi Conflagration based on false intelligence...but I don't wish to digress here.

So, I'll pose another question should you choose to respond to either, be my guest. But, I stand by my original questions, however rhetorical they may be, as good ones to consider...perhaps for the time when some one tries to collect on the OBL offer.

With out further ado, here's a substitute question for the weekend:

• Is the Rerturn on Investment - the killing of Zarqawi - worth the outlay (Count KIA GIs, Dead Civilians, bribes paid out, whatever you like...), given that the end result is unknown (bear in mind that it may be the unknown unknows that eventually kill us)?

Earlier post is below for your reference:

After blogging a bit myself and reviewing some of the writing on the killing of Zarqawi, it occurred to me it would be interesting to hear what others might think of a couple of related scary questions. So, I thought I would pose them to the blogisphere over the weekend so y'all could have at it. Let's call this....drum roll, please:

Windspike's Scary Questions for an Otherwise Sedate Weekend

1. What will the W, Rove and Co. do when the person who wins the 25 million dollar reward for going Benedict Arnold on Zarqawi starts using that cash to build better IEDs to aim at our troops, or us on American soil for that matter?
2. Where did that cash reward come from in the first place, and how much will it ultimately cost the American Taxpayer?
   
3. Was this reward some kind of grand ploy to seed more insurgents to keep the "war on terror" going...ramping up to just before the November elections?

All Bluff And No Stuff: W's Got No Spine For A Veto

Thanks to the fiscal conservatives of the W, Rove and Co, we have another budget buster bill about to get the Presidential Okey Dokey. All that jabber about vetoing a bill that was over 92 billion turns out was hog wash - or designed to get him some sway in the move to approve a presidential line-item veto. Which, would you give him line-item veto if he's proven time and again that he can't even deploy the regular veto in the first place?

Q Will the President veto the $94 billion supplemental because it's above the $92 billion that he asked for?

MS. PERINO: Well, I understand that they've reached an agreement. We have not seen the details of the agreement. We're going to take a look at it. What the President had said was that there was the $92.2 billion limit, plus avian money. So we need to take a look at what the details are, and we'll hopefully be able to get you more this afternoon.

Q But the agreement is not for $92.2 billion?

MS. PERINO: Plus avian, which is what we need to look at it.

Q So there's a chance that he will accept the $94 billion?

MS. PERINO: If it fits those parameters of the avian money, we'll have to take a look at it, yes.

Zarqawi "Brought To Justice," But To What End?

Is it me, or is the W's profusive use of the phrase "brought to justice" to reference the killing of Zarqawi a political euphemism dreamed up by the whole team of propagandists at the W, Rove and Co to make the president sound less like the murderers they suggest they have saved us all from and have been condemning for so long? A better question would be, what end did the assassination by 500 lb bombs buy us, the American Taxpayers? Answer: W hasn't a fucking clue.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Your initial public comments on the death of Zarqawi have been described as more cautious than other developments, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein. Are you more cautious now? And, if so, why?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, let me make sure everybody understands, I'm thrilled that Zarqawi was brought to justice. And I am so proud of our troops and intelligence officers who brought him to justice. This man had a lot of blood on his hands. He killed a lot of people. And it's a big deal to have brought him to justice. Having said that, I don't want the American people to think that a war is won with the death of one person, that we have still more work to do.

I am confident that al Qaeda will try to regroup and kill other people in order to say, well, we haven't lost our -- we haven't lost our way. I believe that. I also know that there are criminal elements and irritated people inside of Iraq who will try to stop the progress of the government; they will continue to bomb.

Excuse me?!?..."they will continue to bomb..." The ROI in Iraq has never, ever been worth the outlay, Q.E.D. one more time.

PR Or Selling Soap? Politicizing The Killing Of Zarqawi

Here's an interesting stumble on the part of Mr. Tony the Snow-Job:

Q You've talked about the PR effect of this -- you talked that it sends a signal and a message --

MR. SNOW: Let me -- I want to be careful. This is not PR. PR is selling soap. This is trying to build a basis for democracy. I really wouldn't want to dismiss what has happened -- this was not a PR move. This was an important security move going after the guy who amounted to the top field general for terror in Iraq. Go ahead.

So, if the whole thing is not about the proper delivery of such dramatic propaganda, why would the president wait to deliver the message almost a full 12 hours to the American people?

Q Tony, so the news was learned by the President, I take it, at 9:20 p.m., but the White House doesn't announce it for several hours. Could you say what the thinking was about how to announce it? You could have broken in --

MR. SNOW: We could have, but we thought we'd let you sleep. No, it was decided that the Prime Minister of Iraq ought to announce this important development on Iraqi soil. And so you saw the press conference with the Prime Minister and General Casey where they announced it.

I see, because it's politically smarter to have the Iraqi Prime Minister deliver the message? So, isn't that a very political PR move, but you are calling it something else? One other question for us to mull over here - is it a dramatic sign of weakness that the PM of Iraq rather than the "leader" of the free world, GW Bush, was the first to deliver this message?

Interestingly, its the W, Rove and Co - the self-professed believers that is wrong to play politics - proving once again that they are not beneath the playing of politics with the killing Zarqawi. So, next time they suggest it is wrong to "play politics," we can just bring up this snazzy example of how they tried to sell us the killing of Zarqawi as something wonderful in their billions upon billions of dollars lost on a (not to mention real American lives lost because of the) "war on terror" game.

The Funny Thing About Dead Terrorists: Windspike's Sure Happy It's Thursday Question du Jour

It occurs to me that many on the reichwing will be in a salubrious mood given the news that an ugly terrorist is dead. But the funny thing about this brand of terrorists, it seems, is that they are like mushrooms: Cut one off at the head and more grow up around it. This leads me to...drum roll

Windspike's Sure Happy It's Thursday Question du Jour

Which one of these sentences in these three paragraphs by the president and his PR Propaganda team is most important? Explain:

Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again. Iraqis can be justly proud of their new government and its early steps to improve their security. And Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our armed forces, who worked tirelessly with their Iraqi counterparts to track down this brutal terrorist and put him out of business.

The operation against Zarqawi was conducted with courage and professionalism by the finest military in the world. Coalition and Iraqi forces persevered through years of near misses and false leads, and they never gave up. Last night their persistence and determination were rewarded. On behalf of all Americans, I congratulate our troops on this remarkable achievement.

Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue. Yet the ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders.

I also heard that Rummy was on the podium (audio report on NPR morning edition) touting this as a victory for the ideology of freedom for stopping some one with "the blood of many people" on his hands. Actually, he said "No man in recent years has the blood of more innocents on his hands than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." Of course they don't include themselves in the accounting, now do they?And so, I came up with a secondary question should you choose to answer it:

How much blood is too much blood spilled (GIs, Iraqi civilians, count it how you like)so that a man with so much blood on his hands can end up dead by our hands?

For Those Who Would Want To Take A Swing At San Francisco

Here's a funny, fun and political essay by Garrison Keillor. Enjoy:

People who want to take a swing at San Francisco should think twice. Yes, the Irish coffee at Fisherman's Wharf is overpriced, and the bus tour of Haight-Ashbury is disappointing (Where are the hippies?), but the Bay Area is the cradle of the computer and software industry, which continues to create jobs for our children. The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco, Texas. There may be a reason for this. Creative people thrive in a climate of openness and tolerance, since some great ideas start out sounding ridiculous. Creativity is a key to economic progress. Authoritarianism is stifling. I don't believe that Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard were gay, but what's important is: In San Francisco, it doesn't matter so much. When the cultural Sturmbannfuhrers try to marshal everyone into straight lines, it has consequences for the economic future of this country.

Meanwhile, the Current Occupant goes on impersonating a president. Somewhere in the quiet, leafy recesses of the Bush family, somebody is thinking, "Wrong son. Should've tried the smart one." Five years in office and he doesn't have a grip on it yet. You stand him up next to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at a news conference and the comparison is not kind to Our Guy. Historians are starting to place him at or near the bottom of the list. And one of the basic assumptions of American culture is falling apart: the competence of Republicans.

You might not have always liked Republicans, but you could count on them to manage the bank. They might be lousy tippers, act snooty, talk through their noses, wear spats and splash mud on you as they race their Pierce-Arrows through the village, but you knew they could do the math. To see them produce a ninny and then follow him loyally into the swamp for five years is disconcerting, like seeing the Rolling Stones take up lite jazz. So here we are at an uneasy point in our history, mired in a costly war, a supine Congress granting absolute power to a president who seems to get smaller and dimmer, and the best the Republicans can offer is San Franciscophobia? This is beyond pitiful. This is violently stupid.

It is painful to look at your father and realize the old man should not be allowed to manage his own money anymore. This is the discovery the country has made about the party in power. They are inept. The checkbook needs to be taken away. They will rant, they will screech, they will wave their canes at you and call you all sorts of names, but you have to do what you have to do.

The Funny Thing About Dead Terrorists: Windspike's Sure Happy It's Thursday Question du Jour

It occurs to me that many on the reichwing will be in a salubrious mood given the news that an ugly terrorist is dead. But the funny thing about this brand of terrorists, it seems, is that they are like mushrooms: Cut one off at the head and more grow up around it. This leads me to...drum roll

Windspike's Sure Happy It's Thursday Question du Jour

Which one of these sentences in these three paragraphs by the president and his PR Propaganda team is most important? Explain:

Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again. Iraqis can be justly proud of their new government and its early steps to improve their security. And Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our armed forces, who worked tirelessly with their Iraqi counterparts to track down this brutal terrorist and put him out of business.

The operation against Zarqawi was conducted with courage and professionalism by the finest military in the world. Coalition and Iraqi forces persevered through years of near misses and false leads, and they never gave up. Last night their persistence and determination were rewarded. On behalf of all Americans, I congratulate our troops on this remarkable achievement.

Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue. Yet the ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders.

I also heard that Rummy was on the podium (audio report on NPR morning edition) touting this as a victory for the ideology of freedom for stopping some one with "the blood of many people" on his hands. And I came up with a secondary question should you choose to answer it:

How much blood is too much blood spilled (GIs, Iraqi civilians, count it how you like)so that a man with so much blood on his hands can end up dead by our hands?

Vote Blocking: Another GOP Election Year Strategy Gem

If there was ever a sign of a ruling party in trouble, it is a game plan that calls for trying to win by discouraging voting.

No surprise, this is in Ohio...but will spread as November approaches, no doubt. If you can't win outright, block the vote. This sounds like good old-fashioned, culture-of-corruption-driven, election-year-politics as SOP for the GOP: "If you can't win, cheat to win."

Hey, What About The ERA, Mr. President?

Of course, the president is optimistic in his bigotry today, ever hopeful that another day the Congress will contain enough bigots to pass an amendment to define a word. A better question for the president today would be why doesn't he advocate for the ERA with as much fervor?

Today's Senate vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment marks the start of a new chapter in this important national debate. I thank the Senators who supported this Amendment, but I am disappointed the Senate did not achieve the necessary number of votes to move the amendment process forward. Our Nation's founders set a high bar for amending our Constitution - and history has shown us that it can take several tries before an Amendment builds the two-thirds support it needs in both houses of Congress. My position on this issue is clear: marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. The people must be heard on this issue. And as this debate continues, each American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity.

Talking out of both sides of his mouth again, eh? More of the SOP for the GOP.

Gone For The Past Weekend

Folks,

I must apologize for leaving with no notice for a weekend getaway to Yosemite NP. Enjoyed some time taking in the sights such as this pic.All Images Copyright Windspike (2006)

This is Bridal Veil Falls in Yosemite NP: I looked everwhere, but no where in the NP, near the falls especially, does it say for "straight lovers/brides only, FYI.