Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Is No Stranger To Writing Open Letters

I wonder if Mahmoud writes his own letters, or does he have the same kind of crack propagandists employed and paid for by his people like the W, Rove and Co.

Certainly, Mahmoud is no stranger to writing open letters. Today reveals another missive addressed to us, the American People. Shall we pay attention or not?

Here's a slice for you:

You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed “war on terror.” But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.

The US administration's illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of “the war on terror,” civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death.

I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.

The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.

The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices.

Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.

My questions are the following:

Is there not a better approach to governance?

Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.

But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?

If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved?

The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.

Yes, indeed, the sad experience of invading Iraq is laid out before us. The truth of the matter is, for Americans, the true nature of the calamity is not entirely real as it is on the whole other side of the globe - too far removed for those who don't have family fighting over there - too far removed to be considered above the din of the overbearing capitalistic push toward Christmas.

Tight Lips Sink Loose Ships

Here's an interesting quote from Tuesday's press briefing:

Q I was just going to ask whether you can give a readout from the meeting the Vice President had with King Abdullah. We understood that King Abdullah had actually requested the Vice President's presence. And did he have a specific message, and did we carry a message through the Vice President to him about what's going on?

MR. HADLEY: Obviously that was a very confidential conversation. The Vice President has shared it with the President. And it would not be in the interest of our relations with Saudi for me to talk about that conversation here.

Helloooo...THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT OIL AND GIGANTIC PROFITS FOR THEIR FRIENDS! It's a no brainer, eh? Or am I saddly mistaken. Some one please correct me if I am wrong.

When Will The President Bite The Iraqi Civil War Bullet?

I love the euphemisms the W, Rove and Co have generated to cloak their very real problem that Civil War seems to be erupting in their little Iraqi freedom spreading Petri dish.

Let's see: there's "Sectarian Violence."

Or, how about another good modification of that tired phrase: "Foment sectarian violence."

Let's have a look at a very honest and concrete question posed Tuesday in the "Joint Press Availability" executed on foreign soil at great taxpayer expense. Does Deb get a good answer?

You be the judge:

Q Mr. President, thank you, sir. What is the difference between what we're seeing now in Iraq and civil war? And do you worry that calling it a civil war would make it difficult to argue that we're fighting the central front of the war on terror there?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, the plans of Mr. Zarqawi was to foment sectarian violence. That's what he said he wanted to do. The Samarra bombing that took place last winter was intended to create sectarian violence, and it has. The recent bombings were to perpetuate the sectarian violence. In other words, we've been in this phase for a while. And the fundamental objective is to work with the Iraqis to create conditions so that the vast majority of the people will be able to see that there's a peaceful way forward.

The bombings that took place recently was a part of a pattern that has been going on for about nine months. I'm going to bring this subject up, of course, with Prime Minister Maliki when I visit with him in Jordan on Thursday. My questions to him will be: What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence? I will assure him that we will continue to pursue al Qaeda to make sure that they do not establish a safe haven in Iraq.

I will ask him: What is required and what is your strategy to be a country which can govern itself and sustain itself? And it's going to be an important meeting, and I'm looking forward to it.

Q -- are saying that we're moving forward to full --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Deb, there's all kinds of speculation about what may be or not happening. What you're seeing on TV has started last February. It was an attempt by people to foment sectarian violence, and no -- no question it's dangerous there, and violent. And the Maliki government is going to have to deal with that violence, and we want to help them do so. It's in our interest that we succeed. A democracy in the heart of the Middle East is an important part of defeating the radicals and totalitarians that can't stand the emergence of a democracy.

One of the interesting things that's taking place -- and people have got to understand what's happening -- is when you see a young democracy beginning to emerge in the Middle East, the extremists try to defeat its emergence.

That's why you see violence in Lebanon. There's a young democracy in Lebanon, run by Prime Minister Siniora. And that government is being undermined, in my opinion, by extremist forces encouraged out of Syria and Iran. Why? Because a democracy will be a major defeat for those who articulate extremist points of view.

We're trying to help get a democracy started in the Palestinian Territory. Prime Minister Olmert has reached out at one point to Prime Minister Abbas -- President Abbas. And you know what happens as soon as he does that? Extremists attack, because they can't stand the thought of a democracy. And the same thing is happening in Iraq. And it's in our mutual interest that we help this government succeed.

And no question it's tough, Deb. No question about it. There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented, in my opinion, because of these attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal. And we will work with the Maliki government to defeat these elements.

By far, the vast majority of the people want to live in peace. Twelve million people voted. They said, we want to live under a constitution which we approved. And our objective must be to help them realize their dreams. This is the -- this is an important part of an ideological struggle that is taking place here in the beginning of the 21st century. And the interesting contribution that a country like Estonia is making is that, people shouldn't have to live under tyranny. We just did that; we don't like it. They understand that democracies yield peace. This President is a strong advocate for democracies, because he understands. He understands what it means to live under subjugation, and he understands the hope that democracy brings to regions of the world. And I appreciate your steadfast leadership.

Okay, as the W trots out the stock "twelve million people voted" rhetoric, we have to ask ourselves if the election matters all that much to all the newly dead Iraqis?

Any one out there care to discuss whether or not it matters how the W, Rove and Co chooses to define what is happening in Iraq?

Let's see how Steve Hadley amplifies the W, Rove Co confusion on the matter:

Q How can you say that we think the Maliki government is doing pretty well when, by all accounts, he would have no strength at all in parliament but for the bloc of votes that Sadr's party holds? It seems to be the majority view, in everything we read, that he has no power except the power which comes from his association with Sadr, who is inimical to U.S. interests.

MR. HADLEY: I don't think that's how it works. I think there are about 270 members, maybe 275 members in the legislature. Sadr has a block of 50. So this is a unity government, drawing from Kurds, Sunni and Shia. It has a broader base of support. Secondly, Sadr is in the government. Sadr has some ministers that are part of the government. And one of the things that Maliki has been very clear about is trying to keep Sadr in that government and get Sadr to recognize that he has a role as part of the government, he has a role as part of the government to ensure that the government is the exclusive source of authority and force within Iraq. And that means going after the extremes, whether Shia extremists or Sunni extremists, those elements that are standing outside the government and are willing to use force against the government. He is trying to unite moderates in Sunni, Shia and Kurd communities into his unity, and give them, through the training of security forces, the strength to go after those elements that refuse to become part of the political process. That's what he's trying to do.

He has said that the government needs to do better. We've said that the situation in Iraq is not proceeding well enough, fast enough. This is not -- I'm trying to give you a very candid assessment. But the question I got was, why isn't he doing better? And all I wanted to do was to remind everybody the situation which this unity government was presented, and the challenges with which they're having to deal. It is something one has to keep in mind when you evaluate what's going on in Iraq. That's my only point.

Sir.

Q Pretty well is relative, isn't it?

MR. HADLEY: Pardon me?

Q Pretty well, as you said, is pretty relative, isn't it?

MR. HADLEY: It's very relevant, and my point --

Q Relative.

MR. HADLEY: -- was not to -- I hope you don't sort of encapsulize what I've said by saying, Hadley says they're doing pretty well, because I think it would be unfair to what I've just described as a situation which is -- we're very concerned about, high levels of violence, sectarian violence that is a challenge for this new government, things proceeding not well enough or fast enough. All I'm saying is, they are not making the progress we would like, they are not making the progress they would like, and there's some reasons for that, because they face a very challenging situation. That's the best I can do, in terms of describing the challenge they face and where they are in that process.

Good News?

Here is an interesting headline: Iran says will do all it can to help Iraq

I have three questions for you:

1. Is this good news for the W, Rove and Co?


2. Is this good news for Iraq?


3. Is this good news for America?

And one more for fun: Does it look like the W, Rove and Co cares that the democratically elected government of Iraq is going to deal directly with Iran and Syria?

Q Is President Bush going to bring up the idea of embracing talks with Iran and Syria, with Maliki?

MR. HADLEY: I think you're going to find that Prime Minister Maliki is going to bring that up with the President. He has some strong views on that subject. As you know, the Iraqis have been talking to the Syrians, the Iraqis have been talking to the Iranians. Their view is that the future of Iraq, if it is a subject of conversation with Syrian and Iran, ought to be a conversation by Iraqis, not by others on the outside.

So this is a discussion that Iraqis have taken the lead on with both Iran and Syria, and want to take the lead on. And so I think it's a subject, actually, that Prime Minister Maliki is likely to bring up with the President.

Q So he'll say, basically, let us do this, don't you convene direct talks?

MR. HADLEY: I've said what he has said, I think, publicly. We'll see what else he says when the President and he get together.

Q Are you holding out --

Q But his point is he doesn't want the U.S. meddling in --

MR. HADLEY: I said what I said, which is what he said. And he's talked publicly about this, and I'll let his words speak for themselves.

Still Decidin' After All These Years...

Here's another fun Mark Fiore Vid. Enjoy.

I've Been Wondering This For A Long While

To borrow a phrase I learned in property law class: Is donating money to a law or business school really the "highest and best" use of one's charitable contributions? And, more generally, are income tax deductions for such donations leading to some perverse results, like subsidizing "endowment races"?

Really, the subtext of this questions is why is it that very wealthy people donate at all? Is it self-serving, afterall?

Juxtaposed Thanksgivings

Did you finally brush the crumbs off your belly, click off the remote on yet another football game, roll of the couch and click on the computer for a little bit of active blogging?

Perhaps you are dog tired from Friday's trek to the local mall to duke it out with your neighbors for some fine capitalistic hedonism, doing your part to churn the economy making more pennies per purchase for your favorite credit company?

Both fine exercises, no?

If you come out of the fog of your capitalistic induced frenzy, no doubt, you will notice that there seems to be two different types of Thanksgivings perpetrated this year; both of our making. The first is the one the president would wish us to have:

We're grateful to live in a land of plenty and during a time of great prosperity. And we're grateful to Almighty God for the freedom to enjoy all these gifts.

Perhaps it's the last bit of this phrase that is most troublesome: "the freedom to enjoy ALL these gifts." I thought Christianity taught charity, not excess, but I digress.

The message I get from the President is that it's our god given right to consume gigantic quantities of every thing. To hell with the hell we have propagated in other parts of the globe. Ignore Iraq, and spend, spend, spend. It's the best antidote to what's wrong with the world, no?

For blogging purposes, let's juxtapose these two Thanksgivings. Then, I'll step out of the way for folks to discuss in the comments. If you are appalled, I'm with you. If not, why not?

Here's one thanksgiving, commonplace across America this past weekend:

But bargain hunters competing for scarce quantities of “doorbuster” discounts have given this day an increasingly sharp-elbowed, close-fisted and purse-swinging edge.

Shortly after midnight yesterday, an estimated 15,000 shoppers pushed and shoved their way into the Fashion Place mall in Murray, Utah. Police soon joined them, responding to reports of nine skirmishes.

Once inside, shoppers ransacked stores, overturning piles of clothes as they looked for bargains. A retailer’s dream — too many customers! — quickly turned into a nightmare, forcing store clerks to shut their doors, and only let people in after others left. The mall even briefly closed its outside doors to avoid a fire hazard.

“It’s like a mosh pit,” said Lexie Dewegel, 19. “You get pushed everywhere.”

Now, let's turn to Iraq - a place that wouldn't be the way it is today if we never went there in the first place. Certainly, it is rather pointless to discuss the worthiness of the invasion at this time. What would be better is to discuss the present, and how we fix it.

BAGHDAD, Nov. 24 — Defying a government curfew, Shiite militiamen stormed Sunni mosques in Baghdad and a nearby city on Friday, shooting guards and burning down buildings in apparent retaliation for the devastating bombings that killed more than 200 people the day before in the capital’s largest Shiite district, residents and police officials said.

Militia fighters drove through neighborhoods in Baghdad and the provincial capital of Baquba, firing at mosques with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades on the Muslim day of prayer.

In juxtaposition with the mall scene presented above, I think it gives us a grave reminder of what is wrong with America. In one Thanksgiving, you are liable to be shot for your Playstation 3. In the other, you are liable to be shot for just being you. How nice.

Blog on friends, blog on all.

Thanksgiving By The Numbers

Did my usual pre-feasting AM run and got caught as usual counting. I ran through two city parks and found 27 homeless, one of which I had to nearly jump over on a particular trail as he was busy rolling up his sleeping bag. Two of these folks were high up in a tree, not unlike Snoopy in vulture mode. I didn't see any forty ouncers being hoisted unlike last year, but I did have four of these homeless folk wish me happy Thanksgiving, and I reciprocated.

I got to wondering, if we were not perpetrating some useless war in Iraq how many homes we could have erected and put some of these folk in instead. Sure, we'd have to provide drug treatment for some, counseling for others, but I don't think it would amount to the total cash the W, Rove and Co has put our stars and stripes into hock for over their illegitimate Iraq conflagration.

At breakfast I was reading the local rag to discover that there were nearly 1500 civilian deaths in Iraq this month. That was something like 120 killings per day. Moreover, nearly 2 million people have fled Iraq for places like Syria. Then I got to some more thinking that perhaps the "stay the course" strategy wouldn't be so bad. Sooner than later, there would be nothing but terrorists and military living in Iraq. We could then pull out our troops and nuke the place solving the problem once and for all. Now that's a pretty sober and somber thought on this Thanksgiving.

I do apologize, but I am sure you can find a few thousand blogs posting what they are thankful for and if that's what you are game for, I'd encourage you click some where else.

In the words of one famous Ebenezer Scrooge..."Bah, Humbug."

Which One Is the Turkey?

Calling All Bloggers, CQ Bloggers: I need a little help here. Which one of these is the turkey in dire need of a presidential pardon?


Picture grabbed from your taxpayer dollar sponsored Whitehouse web location

"It'sThe Economy," Stupid?

So, if it's all about economics, how's the W, Rove and Co Version of a "booming" economy workin' for you?


Image grabbed from here

Here's a slice from the article:

“The problem is that there’s all this wealth at this new strata that feels unrelated to merit or achievement,” Mr. Miller says. “When a C.E.O. whose leadership has caused a company’s stock price to fall gets a $100 million golden parachute, or when a guy’s running so much money that his commission — even if his picks are only getting an 8 or 10 percent return on his client’s money — is $100 million, that’s crazy.” He says that such compensation “goes against the notion of a meritocracy.”

Or maybe not. “A meritocracy increases inequality — by its very nature, it has to,” says Nicholas Lemann, whose book “The Big Test” explored the history of the SAT and the American meritocracy. “The goal was equality of opportunity, not equality of result.”

It Takes One To Know One: Lessons From The Vietnam Era

When folks like Henry Kissinger make comments like:

If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible

It strikes me that because Kissinger was a principal architect of the Vietnam strategy that he would know what failure in the military category looks like. Really, if people who have been through similar catastrophes are saying it's a catastrophe, then maybe Iraq is a catastrophe.

W Finally Makes It To Vietnam

For those of you paying attention to the latest PR junket, otherwise know as W's global farewell tour, by the W, Rove and Co designed to distract us from Iraq, you won't be the first to note that this is the first time the President has actually been to Vietnam. In fact, he spent a good deal of energy avoiding Vietnam long about 1972, didn't he? Is there irony there?

But this post is really about Iraq. I don't think we should fall prey to more diversionary treks as tricks sponsored by our tax dollars, particularly given how badly things are still going in Iraq.

A commentator in a prior post provide this link indicating the following: "You can't give people that which they do not want."

"A republic, if you can keep it."

-- Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, in answer to "What have we got?"

We have given the Iraqis a republic, and they do not appear able to keep it.

Americans flatter themselves that they are the root of all planetary evil. Nukes in North Korea? Poverty in Bolivia? Sectarian violence in Iraq? Breasts are beaten and fingers pointed as we try to somehow locate the root cause in America.

Our discourse on Iraq has followed the same pattern. Where did we go wrong? Too few troops? Too arrogant an occupation? Or too soft? Take your pick.

I have my own theories. In retrospect, I think we made several serious mistakes -- not shooting looters, not installing an Iraqi exile government right away, and not taking out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army in its infancy in 2004 -- that greatly compromised the occupation. Nonetheless, the root problem lies with Iraqis and their political culture.

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.

The first was relatively easy. But Iraq's first truly democratic government turned out to be hopelessly feeble and fractured, little more than a collection of ministries handed over to various parties, militias and strongmen.

The problem is not, as we endlessly argue about, the number of American troops. Or of Iraqi troops. The problem is the allegiance of the Iraqi troops. Some serve the abstraction called Iraq. But many swear fealty to political parties, religious sects or militia leaders.

Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the "realists" imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the past several decades. But the problem here is Iraq's particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Hussein's totalitarianism...

...Is this America's fault? No. It is a result of Iraq's first democratic election. The United States was not going to replace Saddam Hussein with another tyrant. We were trying to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East as the one conceivable antidote to extremism and terror -- and, in a country that is nearly two-thirds Shiite, that inevitably meant Shiite domination. It was never certain whether the long-oppressed Shiites would have enough sense of nation and sense of compromise to govern rather than rule. The answer is now clear: United in a dominating coalition, they do not.

Lame Duck Walking

When the US Taxpayers are paying for diplomatic ventures by various dignitaries, we expect some kind of action of varying degrees of import to be executed on our behalf. The President is no exception.

However, if you examine what he is actually doing on his trek to Singapore and the like, it looks a lot like the Lame Duck farewell tour where he is setting about to glad hand every one of his pals and have one last round of fetes on our dime.

If you ask me, it's a bit early for the president to begin his adios tour of the globe, but that sure is what it looks like.

Q Does Steve want to readout the meeting in Moscow?

MR. HADLEY: The President and Mrs. Bush met with President Putin and Mrs. Putina. It was a social meeting, as we said it would be. This was a refueling stop. The President and President Putin will have an opportunity to meet on the margins of the APEC meeting. So this was -- the Russians were kind enough to allow us to refuel here. Once they knew we were going to do that, President Putin decided he and Mrs. Putina wanted to come out and greet their friends, the Bushes, and they did. So it was a social meeting between the two, and there will be an opportunity for them to talk business when they meet together on the margins of the APEC meeting.

Q Did they get into any substantive issues?

MR. HADLEY: I don't think so. They talked a little bit about, sort of, proliferation, generally, as you might expect them to, with things about Iran and South Korea. But it really wasn't about business -- it was about social, it was about personal, and that was the subject of much of their conversation.

Proud To Be Repulican, and...

A friend of mine sent this snap of a friend with a creative mind. The front of the shirt says, "I'm proud to be Republican!"

There's Nothing "Willy-Nilly" About It

If you think that the W, Rove and Co looks remarkably like his father's administration you wouldn't be wrong. As to whether these folk are being recruited like knights on white horses to save the king's son, it's debatable.

Certainly, we have to agree with Tony the Snow Job here: there's nothing "willy-nilly" about it. It's quite intentional that we have some one vying for the Secretary of State gig that was wrapped up with Reagan and the Iran Contra affair all the way up to Ollie North's eyeballs.

Have a look at this interesting exchange from today's White house press briefing.

Q Next question for you. I saw a Newsweek cover story -- you see it all over the place -- that somehow all these veterans of Bush 41 are coming in and rescuing Bush 43.

MR. SNOW: As a veteran of Bush 41, I don't think that's the proper way to look at this. I mean, look, I know that it's one of these things where people think that the President -- let me just -- rather than trying even to get into characterizing it, no.

Q Has he directly or indirectly -- President Bush 41 --

Q What's "no"? What do you mean, "no"?

MR. SNOW: No, this is not a -- this is not bringing in people willy-nilly from the President's administration "to save him." Wrong.

Q And has the President -- 41 -- either directly or indirectly offered his advice to his son that perhaps people like Eagleburger or Secretary Baker or anybody else be involved and should be listened to?

MR. SNOW: I have absolutely no idea. But keep in mind, you just mentioned Secretary Baker and Secretary Eagleburger -- they are part of a congressionally-appointed committee.

Q Gates -- Dr. Gates?

MR. SNOW: The President picked Bob Gates because he figured that he would be an effective Secretary of Defense, a sentiment that's been echoed by people at the Pentagon and in both parties on Capitol Hill. He picked a guy that he thought would be able to do the job.

No Brainer Quote Of The Day

Q But you still think your strategy for victory is working?

MR. SNOW: The strategy for victory is working, but the strategy for victory also, as the President said and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, we're not -- it's not getting better fast enough. And so you need to find ways, militarily and otherwise, to try to improve the situation.

It's not getting better fast enough? Gee, ya think? My goodness, how many bodies need to pile up in the streets of Iraq before they admit it's getting worse, not better?

Did Tuesday's Vote Mean Most People Want Our Troops To Be Effectively Extracted From Iraq?

In the days before an election, politicians are aflame with rhetorical arguments that suggest the outcome will be a mandate from the people for action by their government. But the W, Rove and Co has always been about doing what it wants to do regardless of what a majority of the people think.

Have a look at this exchange in today's Whitehouse press briefing where Tony the Snow job lays it out clearly for us.

Q We hear a lot about the fact that the President believes we're not succeeding quickly enough. He has replaced the Defense Secretary, he is now awaiting not only ideas from Democrats, but from an Iraq Study Group, he's chosen a new Defense Secretary from this group. Is this not an acknowledgment -- and some straight talk here -- that the policy in Iraq is broken?

MR. SNOW: No, it's an acknowledgment that you've got a tough situation. What you've just -- what's interesting is that you tried to insinuate that Bob Gates was brought in by virtue of his membership in the Iraq Study Group, which isn't true. Furthermore, as we have -- furthermore --

So, basically, do you get the feeling that the W, Rove and Co is stalling on moving forward on a plan to withdrawal troops until it is actually recommended by people they appointed to tell them that rather than the Dems?

Q -- and all we hear is that we're not succeeding quickly enough. The question is, the American people spoke on this point about the war. Isn't, in fact, the policy broken? Is that not the concession?

MR. SNOW: You know what's interesting -- no. I think what it is -- no. What it is a concession of is, the war is hard. The war is very hard. And that the people who spend morning, noon, and night thinking about this, constantly do what they can to adjust and to get it right. The policy is to create an Iraq where the Iraqis have the ability to sustain, govern, and defend themselves so that they can stand up, so that they will have a democracy that can stand on its own two legs, can defend itself, will have the support of its public, will have an economy that offers opportunity, will have security, will have the ability to demonstrate to terrorists once and for all that despite all their best shots, it just wasn't going to work.

Yup, it looks like it to me. This idea for troop withdrawal has more legs on it than Tony suggests. But hey, what about the rationale they keep insisting was the real reason to invade Iraq expose facto?

Q You concede that we didn't go into Iraq for those reasons, don't you? And do you think the election had anything to do with us wanting to get out?

MR. SNOW: You know, it's interesting, Helen, if -- there are some polls that I've seen referred to, but I haven't seen today. I think -- well, let me back up. If you ask Americans, do you want to win, my guess is, the answer is going to be yes.

Q No, it isn't the point.

MR. SNOW: No, it is the point.

Q We went in for weapons --

MR. SNOW: No, you just asked -- you just asked if we want to get out. The answer is yes, we want to get out when we win. That's when we want to get out.

What's the prize when we win? How do we know we've won?

Q When we win -- but what do we win? I mean, you're going to have to --

MR. SNOW: What we win -- well, I'll tell you --

Q And how much slaughter? Every day we have slaughter.

MR. SNOW: Are you trying to place us in a morally equivalent position to the al Qaeda terrorists who deliberately are --

Q That's not an argument.

MR. SNOW: Sure it is. No --

Q I'm not saying --

MR. SNOW: No, you're accusing -- are you accusing the Americans of slaughter? Who are you accusing of slaughter?

Q I'm not accusing -- the best defense is offense. We understand your tactic here.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm just asking the question because you talked about slaughter, and it gave the impression that we're engaged in slaughter.

Q Well, how many people are dying every day?

MR. SNOW: It depends on what the -- does it not depend on -- well, let me put it this way, Helen, when people are dying because of car bombs it illustrates the difficulty of the situation and the nature of the people we are fighting.

Well, I don't know if we are the ones doing the slaughter, but you have to concede that there is a great deal of carnage going on in Iraq that wasn't happening before we got there.

Q But isn't our presence the cause of that?

MR. SNOW: No, no. As the President has pointed out many times, this stuff began long before September 11th. And, furthermore, it had been practiced throughout the Middle East long before September 11th. But these tactics --

Q In Iran?

MR. SNOW: And furthermore -- no, in Iraq. That's right. They're trying -- in Iraq you had a situation where you had a dictator who was contributing to the terror network, and who in the process was murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Q But the President said there was no tie-in with the terrorists.

MR. SNOW: No, he said there was no tie-in with September 11th. There's a difference.

Well, a little bit later we find ourselves getting lost in the rhetorical sauce. Have a look:

Q Tony, back on Iraq, a couple of questions. First, in an interview yesterday, Carl Levin said, "The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over, and that they are going to have to solve their own problems." Does the President believe that the United States needs to send a signal to the Iraqi government that the open-ended commitment is over?

MR. SNOW: No, because we've never had an open-ended commitment.

Q Our commitment now is not open-ended?

MR. SNOW: No, our commitment is to get to the point where we achieve victory.

Sounds open ended to me with the war mongering machinery set to become more and more profitable a business opportunity. Time to invest anew in Halliburton et al?

But let's leave you with the final analysis from Tony as to whether we are winning the war in Iraq or not:

Q Tony, with all the changes going on right now, and the President admitting that he's not happy with the situation in Iraq, can this White House still stand by the statement that we are winning in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: The fact is, April, we would like progress to be moving more quickly. That's obvious. But on the other hand, when you see what has been going on with the Prime Minister stepping up and assuming more responsibility, working now, shaking up the government, because he also wants to get better results, the fact is, yes, you're moving forward on this. And in the failure narrative that quite often gets written is one that, as you know, has been deeply distressing to many of the men and women who are fighting over there because they at least have a different picture. Some of it has been portrayed in recent days in press reports.

But this is hard. It's a war. And there are going to be time when you have a great deal of motion in the direction of victory, and there are going to be times when you have setbacks. And there's just no way to get around it.

Q You're not saying victory just for the sake of keeping morale up? You're saying victory because we are winning?

MR. SNOW: We're saying victory because we are -- we are winning, but on the other hand, we have not won.

Q Is it still the President's policy, though, that a democratic outcome in Iraq is the only acceptable outcome? Is that correct?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Sounds open ended to me. Too bad we issued them a blank check to execute this monstrosity.

What Will History Show?

The trouble with history is that you can't control the spin on how it will judge you. Nevertheless, that won't stop the president from trying, now will it.

Bob replaces the longest serving member of my Cabinet, Don Rumsfeld. History will record that on Secretary Rumsfeld's watch, the men and women of our military overthrew two terrorist regimes, brought justice to scores of senior al Qaeda operatives, and helped stop new terrorist attacks on our people. America is safer, and the world is more secure because of the leadership of Don Rumsfeld, and I am deeply grateful for his service.

I don't know about you, but if you ask me there is a reason why the people voted for Dems on 7 November, and one of those was because they are not nearly as impressed with Rummy as the W is.

But what about his possible successor? On the surface, it already looks like Gates is substantially better than Rummy ever was. Should we believe the president? It's not like we will have much of a choice given that we still must endure the congress we have for the next month or so.

In the meantime, I have made an important change to my national security team. On Wednesday, I accepted Don Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense, and announced my intent to nominate Bob Gates to replace him. Bob is a proven leader who has served six Presidents -- four Republicans and two Democrats. As a former CIA Director and the current President of Texas A&M University, he has experience leading large and complex organizations, and he has shown that he is an agent of change. As Secretary of Defense, he will provide a fresh outlook on our strategy in Iraq, and what we need to do to prevail.

So The Dems Win, But All They're Going To Get Is Sloppy Seconds

Sure, the title for this post is a little racy, but the Dems must know that their turn dealing with Iraq is going to be the worst case of sloppy seconds a political party could ask for. There's a lot to fix that the W, Rove and Co has mucked up in the last nearly six years. Moreover, the last Congress really hasn't been all that productive, sidetracked by scandals and the like.

I've already heard at least one fright winger projecting blame saying, "Now they [meaning Dems] won't have any excuses for Iraq." But the fact of the matter is that W is still the Commander-in-Chief, and we have had nearly four full years of the W, Rove and Co. "war" in Iraq.

With two years left of what is commonly referred to as a "lame duck" congress and presidency, we will see as history unfolds before us if we end up better off then than we are now. Interestingly, every so often we get a waft of bi-partisanship that percolates hope that we may actually get a change of course. But, then again, maybe not.

Let's have a look at some fun snips from the last two days of press briefings and see what direction we, the people, are going to be lead around by the nose ring toward:

First, you have a cowboy for president who only believes that there is a mandate from the people when it supports his team:

Q Also, why does he think this mandate from the voters doesn't mean to pull out?

MR. SNOW: Because I don't think that's a majority opinion. But furthermore --

Q You don't think so.

MR. SNOW: -- you know what, Helen, what he sees is, he was hired to be Commander-in-Chief, and it's his job to tend to national security. And he's willing -- and he's willing to take whatever political hits come if it means doing -- if he has to choose between doing his job properly and being popular, he's going to do the job properly to save American lives not only now, but for future generations, and also to make the Middle East a safer region and a more secure region, and one that is going to be more reliable, especially in terms of the ongoing battle and the conversation there about what is the proper way to proceed -- democracy or terror. And as you know --

Secondly, we have become a magnet to draw more terrorists to Iraq than were their in the first place:

Q Is every Iraqi a terrorist?

MR. SNOW: No, absolutely not. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of Iraqis are people who want to breathe free.

Q Who brought the terrorists in, so called, and why wouldn't the Iraqis protect themselves against terrorists?

MR. SNOW: Well, Iraqis -- there are a number of things going on, Helen, and some people are terrorists, and you also have sectarian factions within Iraq. But one thing is clear, al Qaeda had made it its known desire to try to foment friction between factions within Iraq, and Prime Minister Maliki is doing his very best to work on creating peace and shared interest, economic and otherwise, in the political system and economic system, between all different groups in Iraq. That is the challenge of democracy, and it's one we're going to meet.

And, we have an interesting development now that Rummy is toast. Did you know that by hiring Gates, the President has effectively compromised independence of the Baker driven Iraq Study Group:

Q Can I follow one more on that? Is there anything to be made of the fact that a member of the Iraq Study Group is now the nominee to be the Secretary of Defense?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Any coordination there at all?

MR. SNOW: No, and I'm glad you asked it. No. That's an important thing to note, because -- and I am told -- I was not party to the discussions -- that there was no conversation about conclusions or what the Iraq Study Group was going to come up with, this in the conversations with Bob Gates. The members of the Iraq Study Group --

Q He's never asked Bob Gates, so, what have you all been talking about?

MR. SNOW: I don't think so, and I'll tell you why. He's been very clear about the importance that that -- those deliberations and that advice remain confidential and independent. We've had this conversation before with regard to Jim Baker.

We still have a "Commander-in-Chief" who is an ideolog not much unlike the fanatics leading the charge against us. Is he in denial that there is another, better way?

Don Rumsfeld is one of the most extraordinary Defense Secretaries in American history. He not only worked on the tough business of transformation within the Pentagon, he did so during a time of war, and did so with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was in that office for six years, which may be six of the most trying years that any Defense Secretary has ever faced. And he did an exemplary job, and the President respects him and thanks him for the service...

Q What changed? What clicked, what changed? How did he get to this point from what seemed to be a very different point a couple months ago?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think the President has great confidence in Don Rumsfeld, but also, again, it's Don Rumsfeld and the President talking about the need for fresh eyes. If you want me to give you interior deliberations, A, we don't do that, and, B, even if we did, I don't have the insights you want.

And what about John Bolton?

Q Do you consider the John Bolton nomination dead?

MR. SNOW: No. Think of it this way: I know a lot of people had positions and old views about John Bolton, but in the spirit of trying to take a fresh look at things and trying to be fair-minded, it's probably worth reviewing his record as United Nations Ambassador, which has been highly successful.

John Bolton, in his tenure at the United Nations, has shepherded through two U.N. Security Council resolutions with regard to North Korea. He has been working aggressively and actively with our allies on the issue of Iran. He has put together a U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon. And I think he has demonstrated an ability to work effectively with other members and other U.N. delegations to move forward and show a leadership role in important business.

So, again, the President believes that John Bolton has done an exemplary job, and if people fairly will examine his record -- his real accomplishments, his record at the United Nations -- that he not only will have earned confirmation, but will receive it.

But should we gather a glimmer of hope when Tony the Snow job says things like this?

Q Okay. And then my second question, in this new, sort of, spirit of bipartisanship, how will the President react if Democrats during the lame duck session try to block or do succeed in blocking the Bolton confirmation, or legislation, for instance, on the domestic wiretapping?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I just think -- I think you owe it to everybody to see what happens in the lame duck. Rather than my giving you a reaction to something that hasn't happened, I will tell you what we hope happens, not only that John Bolton is confirmed, but -- look, what the President wants with the terrorist surveillance program is the ability, in a swift and effective manner, to be able to monitor conversations or communications between al Qaeda terror masters and al Qaeda members in the United States, or terrorists in the United States, especially fearing that if you have an ongoing operation, you're going to need the ability to move swiftly and effectively to get information and to move it into the hands of law enforcement or proper authorities. And --

Q Does the --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll finish. And we believe the Democrats certainly would share that interest.

And, again, one of the things now is the Democrats are going to be sharing responsibility and they'll be able to share credit for getting these things done in the right way. So let's see what happens.

Of course, the GOP is going to try and ramrod whatever extreme legislation they can manage between now and Jan...

Q Back to the lame duck for a second, there are six weeks -- five weeks, or so, more that Republicans are still in the majority on the Hill. Does the President see this period as a time when he should be pushing things like the surveillance measure and the Bolton nomination --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

But on the other hand, if you can restore a sense of mutual respect, that's a good thing. And I think it's overdue.

You first, Tony. You first.

Any Guesses As To If The President Is Lying About The Big Dick Cheney's Status As Well?

Before Tuesday, the president has said he was keeping Rummy on and we know now that he was fibbing in that case. Do you believe W when he says this:

Q This is a very competitive environment. No, but we asked you about the fate of Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney. Vice President Cheney, of course, has made -- takes many of the same positions that Secretary Rumsfeld did on the war. Does he still have your complete confidence?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he does.

Q Do you expect him to stay --

THE PRESIDENT: The campaign is over. Yes, he does.

Q And he'll be here for the remainder of your term?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he will. Thank you.

Any one taking bets as to when the Big Dick Cheney is asked to take the walk off the Whitehouse plank?