Read this article, and you'll understand why Iraq is lost

From the NYT:

Iraq’s Shiite prime minister and Sunni lawmakers hurled insults at one another during a raucous session of Parliament on Thursday, with the prime minister threatening a Sunni lawmaker with arrest and the Sunni speaker of Parliament threatening to quit.

It goes on and on and on about just how insane the day in parliament was. These people hate each other.

Then there was today's violence:

The car bomb attack occurred just outside the Green Zone, ripping apart a market area in the heavily Shiite neighborhood of Karrada.

Um Mohammed, a woman who lives across the street from the site of the bombing, said she saw two buses full of people burn with the passengers trapped inside, dying agonizing deaths.

The attack occurred as people were leaving work, the streets crowded with traffic and local clothes stores packed with customers.

Her neighbor had just sent her 9-year-old boy, Amar Ali Habib, out to play with friends, she said.

“He took his ball and left the house.”

Moments later, he was dead.

We did this to them. Read More......

Maine takes a stand for privacy -- wants repeal of Real ID law

Oh those Mainers know how to stand up for privacy:

Maine lawmakers on Thursday became the first in the nation to demand repeal of a federal law tightening identification requirements for drivers' licenses, a post-September 11 security measure that states say will cost them billions of dollars to administer.

Maine lawmakers passed a resolution urging repeal of the Real ID Act, which would create a national digital identification system by 2008. The lawmakers said it would cost Maine about $185 million, fail to boost security and put people at greater risk of identity theft.

Maine's resolution is the strongest stand yet by a state against the law, which Congress passed in May 2004 and gave states three years to implement. Similar repeal measures are pending in eight other states.

This invasive federal law was the brainchild of Rep. James "Tex" Sensenbrenner who was doing the bidding of the Bush administration. Those Republicans are obsessed with destroying the privacy of Americans. Check out the ACLU's site, www.RealNightmare.org. It is a real nightmare.

Of note, there were no Senate hearings on this critical issue. The chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affair committee at the time was the utterly useless Senator from Maine: Susan Collins. So, Mainers can thank Susan for that extra $185 million it will cost to implement this massive program that will make them more vulnerable to ID theft. Nice work, Susan. Read More......

From the mobile phone rich Finland

The text message novel. Read More......

It's even better than Kos reports

Markos reports the following, then read on because I have more and it's good:

In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

"He's tried this two times — it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "

Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

Oh, it's better than that. When I was on the Hill on Tuesday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) told us (on the record) the rest of the story. Apparently, Pelosi's final come-back to the president was the following:

PELOSI: He's tried this two times — it's failed twice. I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?'

BUSH: Because I told them it had to.

PELOSI: Why didn't you tell them that the other two times?

Read More......

Open thread

News? Read More......

Bush White House official says she was uncomfortable with Bush's release of classified information in 2003 to rebut Iraq critics

An honest official in the Bush White House. Should we start a pool as to when she enters civilian life? From Reuters:

President George W. Bush's 2003 decision to declassify an intelligence report to rebut an Iraq war critic stirred unease even in the White House, an administration official said on Thursday in the perjury trial of a vice presidential aide.

White House official Cathie Martin said she was "not comfortable" in July of that year when her boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, told her to use the information to counter charges that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for invading Iraq.

"I wasn't sure if I could use that point because it was related to the NIE," Martin said, referring to a classified National Intelligence Estimate report that said Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium from Niger....

With her husband FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin watching from the front row of the courtroom, Martin said she was "still not comfortable about the NIE" even as Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, began sharing the information with reporters.

Read More......

New Army commercial urges kids to forget college, and suggests they may not see combat any time soon, if at all

Yes, we have a recruiting crisis in America because we're fighting too many wars at once, and the wars we are fighting are going terribly. That is no excuse for the Bush administration running TV commercials that try to convince kids to forget about college, and worse, that imply that recruits to the Army Reserves may not even see battle at all. This appeared on local TV in DC on January 23, 2007.



Transcript:

Young guy: I can still go to college.

Dad: It's the Army.

Young guy: I'm gonna be part of something that's important. And it's the reserve [editor's note: he says this dismissively, as if it's not the REAL army, so not to fear], so they'll train me around here until they need me.

They'll train you UNTIL they need you? No, they need you NOW and they'll train you until you're ready, then they'll immediately ship you out to Iraq. They won't keep you near your dad "until" they need you. That's an outright lie, and it's intended to convince kids that there's a chance they won't have to leave home at all.

Again, I get the need for more troops - though I don't support giving Bush any more troops at this point - but do we really need to suggest to kids that they should forget college AND that they'll be able to hang out at home "until" they're needed?

NB for YouTube's lawyers. This is only a 12 second snippet, clearly fair use for commentary sake. And it's a product of the federal government - the feds can't copyright their work-product. Let's not undercut established law. Read More......

Senator Voinovich (R-OH) is the latest confused Republican

From AP:

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said he believed the resolution could be viewed as a political attack on Bush and misinterpreted "by our enemies as abandoning Iraq." But, he added, he remained skeptical that additional troops in Baghdad would be successful.

"I have been waiting for the administration to extend an olive branch in an attempt to forge a compromise" that would make clear "we stand united as a nation," he said. "I obviously have been disappointed since that has not happened."

But the article goes on to say that Voinovich has indicated that he might sign on to John Warner's (R-VA) resolution, which specifically states that "the Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our forces by 21,500," i.e., Bush's escalation plan.

So Voinovich doesn't want to send the wrong message to our enemies or the Iraqis, but then at the same time he says outright that he is skeptical of the Bush plan and may even vote to voice his opposition to the plan. But that vote, somehow, magically, won't tell our enemies, the Iraqis, or the troops that Voinovich doesn't support their mission.

The Republicans are trying to play it both ways. They oppose Bush's escalation, are willing to say so publicly, but then won't vote to oppose it, even in a token resolution, because somehow that resolution, but not their own words already stated publicly, will harm the war effort and undermine our troops. Do they think our troops, the Iraqis, and our enemies are deaf or dumb? Read More......

Bush v. Webb, the tag cloud wars

UPDATE: I went back and did one more analysis, telling the software to only look at the top 10 words used by Bush in his State of the Union addresses from 2001 (which was really a budget address) to 2007. The results are at the end of this post.



Fascinating. A computer representation of Bush's State of the Union and Senator Jim Webb's (D-VA) Democratic response. Andy Towle explains what this is and why it matters, also a big hat tip to blogger Jason Griffey.

All of this then got me thinking - let's compare all of Bush's State of the Union addresses against each other. So here, they are, 2001 to 2007, and then afterwards I try to pick out the keywords.



I then went back and told the software to only look for the top 10 words used in each State of the Union, and the frequency of the use of those words. I think these results are more interesting and telling.



I think this tells us more. What I see happening is the first SOTU, 2001, being a litany of programs and goals, from taxes to the budget, to social security. Then 2002, since it was 3 months after September 11, is all about patriotism and security. 2003, the year the Iraq war began, is about patriotism and war in Iraq. 2004, interestingly, is about taxes, there is no talk of war or security at all - almost an attempt to shift attention away from the Iraq war (and keep in mind, this was the presidential election year SOTU, so the Republicans went back to their old standard bearer, talking about taxes). 2005, three months after the presidential elections, it's back to SECURITY and freedom and Iraq - it's also the only year in which the word AMERICA disappears completely from the top 10. 2006, America is back with a vengeance, and the speech appears to be fluffier and more about America and the world. 2007, the one that just took place, is still about security and terrorists, but health care pops in as well. Read More......

Two helicopters down in a week

It is extremely worrisome to see two helicopters go down in Iraq in just the past week. Although the cause of both crashes is still under investigation, militants have claimed responsibility for shooting them down. One crash killed a dozen soldiers, the other resulted in the deaths of five American security contractors, four of whom were reportedly shot execution-style after surviving the initial impact.

Helicopters are to a large extent the last (relatively) safe way to travel in Iraq. As we said when I was there, no IEDs in the sky. Whereas convoys are attacked nonstop, helicopters have largely escaped unscathed. It may turn out that these two went down due to mechanical or pilot error, or even just lucky rifle fire, which would make the deaths tragic. If, however, the crashes resulted from Stinger attacks (or from a similar MANPAD shoulder-fired system), the deaths would be tragic and strategically ominous. There are reportedly sophisticated MANPAD systems floating around, some left over from Afghanistan, some on the black market, and others apparently produced by Iran (reverse-engineered from Stingers we gave to the anti-Soviet mujahadeen, of course). If they make it to Iraq in any significant number, we will have tremendous defensive issues.

Which brings us to a point that does not get made nearly enough: part of the cost of occupation is a gradual leveling of the military playing field. The enemy is learning while our government forces our troops to remain with no objective, no coherent plan, and no exit strategy. Without our operations in Iraq, it would take anti-American fighters years, perhaps decades, to try different tactics against our forces and technology. Instead they're getting those opportunities in days or weeks.

That's not an argument against military action in general, of course -- to effect necessary military operations, you have to show your hand to some extent. But they key word there is "necessary." In addition to the unconscionable and indefensible continued loss of American (and Iraqi) life, every day this war does long-term damage both tactically and strategically. The idea that things are as bad as they can get is sadly, egregiously mistaken, and I hope these helicopter crashes are tangential to that fact rather than reflective of it. Read More......

Ford reports record loss of $12.7 billion

Maybe it's time to put Ford (and GM) in a position to be successful for the future. Allowing them to stay in the dark ages and avoiding the realities of working in a global market which is demanding more environmentally friendly products, will not benefit anyone in the long run. Foot dragging and coddling by politicians - Democrats and Republicans - will only benefit the competition who already understands this.

Maybe hybrids are the future but maybe some other technology is even more advanced and environmentally friendly but we will not know if Washington stays the course on the environment. Pelosi is correct in her efforts to make this an important issue. Read More......

Senate Republicans are melting down over Iraq

All the Republicans, save one, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted against the resolution opposing Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Led by their chairman, the usually reasonable Dick Lugar (R-IN), they tried to spin this debate the way they always do - it would send a bad message to the terrorists if we disagree with Bush:

A vote for the resolution "will confirm to our friends and allies that we are divided and in disarray," [Lugar] said.

So, all the Republicans on the committee except Senator Hagel (R-NE) voted against the resolution.

Only problem? That didn't stop those same Republicans from making statements right before the vote confirming that they oppose Bush's escalation plan, and thus confirming to our allies and our enemies that we are divided and in disarray.

Lugar called the Bush strategy "dubious" even as he denounced the resolution as "the legislative equivalent of a sound bite." Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) said additional troops should not be deployed until the Iraqi government showed more resolve. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she opposed the president and was not afraid to tell him so. And Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) said he had delivered a tough message to the White House personally: "You are not listening."

"Congress has allowed this war to go on without anyone having a stake," said an exasperated Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). "We passed the debt on to future generations. Nobody has sacrificed but the military men and women and the families."

So, the Senate Republicans are opposed to the Bush escalation plan, are willing to voice that opposition publicly, but they feel that if they actually vote their opposition then somehow this will magically signal our allies, our troops, and our enemies that we are divided and in disarray over Iraq when their own public statements have already made clear to our allies, our troops, and our enemies that we are divided and in disarray.

Well, actually, scratch that. We're not divided at all. The overwhelming majority of Americans think this plan is insane. We are united in that. But by refusing to vote, the Republicans only prove what weak-kneed weasels they have become. The Republican party simply has no backbone to do anything to stop the madness of King George. If you thought 2006 was a tidal wave at the ballot box, just wait and see how the voters are going to treat these rubber-stamps in two years. Read More......

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Okay, I know it's a non-binding resolution -- and I know it was just a Senate committee that supported that resolution yesterday -- but it was very powerful to hear the morning news anchors reporting an actual repudiation of Bush over the Iraq war had passed somewhere on Capitol Hill -- finally a repudiation. That was the first time we heard that...and it won't be the last.

Start the threading. Read More......

What is the carbon footprint of the food we eat?

Tough question, but Tesco in the UK plans to give almost $10 million to Oxford to figure it out so they can include such data on food labels. Wow. As I read through the UK news sites I find it striking how much more discussion there is related to interesting news like this compared to US media outlets who simply provide pieces here and there. With the US leaving the largest carbon footprint, isn't it time our own media makes this a higher priority?

In principle, the concept is easy. A so-called "life-cycle analysis" tots up the energy used to extract raw materials and turn them into products. The greater the energy use, the greater the carbon footprint, and the worse for the environment a product is. Tesco says such information would allow consumers to shop according to their environmental conscience. As demand for more damaging products falls, the thinking goes, so will the stocking of that product. The supermarket is not alone in coveting carbon labels: Duchy Originals, the food company set up by Prince Charles, is among those investigating similar schemes.

The problems start in deciding exactly what emissions should be counted. Direct carbon use is easy to measure, but indirect emissions are far more difficult. Should supermarkets include the electricity used to refrigerate products in their stores? What about the fuel in the tractors on a farm thousands of miles away? And if you think the answer is obvious, what about the fuel in the cars the farmworkers drive to get to work? "Boundaries are hugely difficult and, of course, the boundaries may not be in this country," says Dr Boardman. Some experts even argue the audited supply chain should extend as far as the ultimate source of energy - the sun.

Could you even imagine Walmart funding such a program? Me neither. Read More......

Catholic church unable to promote bigotry with adoptions

Equal treatment for everyone or close. After investing a lot of personal energy on supporting the church and their desire to exclude gay couples from adopting, Blair is looking weaker by the minute. Read More......