A Presidency's Mortal Wound and The Rise of Iran

The Bush presidency and legacy was dealt a pretty big hit by the unambiguous voter repudiation of Iraq in 2006. The rise of Iran, however, is the final blow to any hope for a Bush legacy.

On tonight's Situation Room CNN's Brian Todd reported:

"[Iranian President] Ahmadi-Nejad's hand may in fact have never been stronger. With an ambitions nuclear program, the world's third largest oil reserves, a massive army and ballistic missile arsenal he's also gained huge popularity on the so called Arab street by supporting Hezbollah's recent fight against Israel.
...
Either way Tehran is now clearly a necessary destination for key players in the Middle East. "

Excuse me? Instead of isolating Iran, we're now seeing their rise as a regional power - a "necessary destination" in the Middle East. That's how weak George Bush has made America. We're now so pathetically weak we're considering talking to Iran for the first time in twenty-six years - not on our terms and only if the Iraqis will let us. Suzanne Malveaux later reported on the upcoming summit between Bush and Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki:

"Now National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley aboard Air Force One already gave somewhat of a preview of this meeting. Saying that first the two leaders would discuss the possibility and the appropriateness of the United States reaching out to its nemesis Iran in discussing the situation in Iraq.
...
Now both these leaders, their credibility, their legacies on the line. the stakes are very high. That is one reason in part Bush administration officials setting the bar very low for these discussions, in case the situation gets worse in Iraq before it gets better."

While you could argue that many presidents face a six-year slump, has one ever included having to turn to the "Axis of Evil" for help? The best part was the conclusion has pretty much already been reached - Maliki said Iraq should talk to Iran directly leaving the US on the sidelines. Thanks but no thanks George, you've done quite enough.

I don't know what Hadley thinks people are expecting, I'm pretty sure the bar has already been set pretty low. Leaving any doubt behind that Iraq is now a complete failure - a place worse off for our having gotten involved - Wolf later began a segment:

"We'll warn you now, this next report contains some graphic images. As President Bush prepares for top level talks aimed at finding answers to the Iraq crisis, death squads stalk the streets of Iraqi cities leaving bodies behind. Day in day out the killing continues for both Sunnis and Shia alike. Is it already a civil war?"

Whatever you call it call it by its real title - the end of George Bush's legacy.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

US cannot stop insurgency in Anbar province where Al Qaeda is major force

A report from Marine Corps intelligence paints a very disturbing and bleak portrait of Iraq's Anbar province. It's a disaster. And, Al Qaeda has been the beneficiary:

Devlin suggested that without the deployment of an additional U.S. military division -- 15,000 to 20,000 troops -- plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, "there is nothing" U.S. troops "can do to influence" the insurgency.

He described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the "dominate organization of influence in al-Anbar," surpassing all other groups, the Iraqi government and U.S. troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."

Al-Qaeda itself, now an "integral part of the social fabric of western Iraq," has become so entrenched, autonomous and financially independent that U.S. forces no longer have the option "for a decapitating strike that would cripple the organization," the report says. That is why, it says, the death of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi in June "had so little impact on the structure and capabilities of al-Qaeda," especially in Anbar province.

So all that celebrating about the death of al-Zarqawi was premature. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but Al Qaeda, the organization that attacked America on 9/11/01, wasn't a factor in Iraq before we invaded.

Just when you think things can't get much worse in Iraq, they're worse. Way worse.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Newsweek: We like McCain because he lies to us, and that's okay

From Eleanor Clift's piece about McCain:

McCain was clearly squirming when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed him on "This Week" last weekend about whether he supports civil unions, a loaded term among social conservatives who see it as a fig leaf for gay marriage. McCain avoided the phrase but said he supported various partnerships to facilitate hospital visits and the like. His home state of Arizona just voted down an anti-gay marriage initiative that also would have banned domestic partnerships even among heterosexual couples....

McCain gets more latitude on this subject because we sense that in his heart, he’s a Goldwater libertarian. Social issues are not what drive him in public life. He’s playing to his party’s conservative base as newly defined by the religious right, but if elected president, he’s not going to be beholden to them the way Bush has been...The voters may be less inclined to give Romney a pass if he goes overboard with his fealty to the right.

You see, McCain is simply lying to us. So it's okay. Get it?

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

People really don't like John Kerry

Quinnupiac survey of Americans' feelings towards politicians, on a scale of 0 to 100, gauging the "warmth" people feel towards each (and the number in parens is the percentage of people who don't know enough about the person to say either way). Also, Harry Reid's low numbers are because people simply don't know him - note that 61% say they don't know him well enough to judge.

The survey, taken the week after the Democrats won back Congress, asks voters to rate the warmth of their feelings for leaders on a scale of 0 - 100.

1) Rudolph Giuliani - 64.2. (9)
2) Sen. Barack Obama - 58.8 (41)
3) Sen. John McCain - 57.7 (12)
4) Condoleezza Rice - 56.1 (7)
5) Bill Clinton - 55.8 (1)
6) Sen. Joseph Lieberman - 52.7 (16)
7) NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg - 51.1 (44)
8) John Edwards - 49.9 (20)
9) Sen. Hillary Clinton - 49 (1)
10) N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson - 47.7 (65)
11) Sen. Joseph Biden 47 (52)
12) Nancy Pelosi 46.9 (34)
13) Gov. Mitt Romney - 45.9 (64)
14) Former VP Al Gore - 44.9 (3)
15) President George Bush - 43.8 (1)
16) Sen. Evan Bayh - 43.3 (75)
17) Newt Gingrich - 42 (15)
18) Sen. Bill Frist - 41.5 (53)
19) Sen. Harry Reid - 41.2 (61)
20) Sen. John Kerry - 39.6 (5)

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Reverend Ted's Big Gay Adventure

From Dan Savage:

What I really wondered, after reading about the long, hard road in front Ted Haggard was this: Are they paying him? Haggard has a wife and a family—six hungry mouths to, uh, feed. If he spends all his time having the gay beat out of him, how is Haggard going to support his wife and kids? How will he keep a roof over their heads?

Which makes me wonder…

Is Ted Haggard drawing some sort of salary while he’s on his big ex-gay adventure? And if he is, how are we supposed to view it as something other than hush money? Haggard embarrassed the hell out of his evangelical buddies; Dobson seems beside himself with less-than-Christian rage. What really annoys them about Haggard’s fall from grace is how neatly it gives the lie to their whole ex-gay argument. Again, if Jesus didn’t make Haggard straight, and if it’s going to take five years for the top evangelical ministers in the country to pray the gay out of him—again—what “hope” is there for the rest of us? Why should we bother?

So.

Being a cynic and a fag that believes that male homosexuality is innate and fixed, I can’t help but wonder if Big Gay Ted is being bought off.

Read the rest of this post...

In face of concerns about their safety, Bush twins snub US embassy officials in Argentina

I've defended these girls before because, well, they're (or they were) teenagers. And you know, teenagers like to go out drinking, and I get that. But at some point, you put aside your tiara as most powerful brat in the world and start acting like an adult. But not in the Bush family. Oh no. The US embassy warned that they could not provide adequate security for the Bush twins during their current visit, and the Bush twins basically told the embassy to go to hell. They're staying anyway.

Let me repeat that. George Bush's daughters are in a developing country where American officials cannot guarantee their safety. What does George Bush do? Absolutely nothing And before anyone says this is his daughters and not Bush, bull. He is the president of the United States. These are his children. They are traveling as representatives of the US whether they like it or not. They are traveling with American Secret Service protection, whether they like it or not. They are tying up the resources of the US Embassy whether they like it or not. And if they get shot and killed, or kidnapped, or drugged while they are in Argentina, that will directly affect the national security of the United States because our president will be subject to blackmail or worse.

Then again, this is the man who kept riding his bicycle while he wife was being rushed to a secure location in the face of a possible threat on her life. So it's no surprise that George Bush couldn't give a damn about the safety of his daughters either.

Never tell the king (or queen) how to conduct their business. Oh they are their father's daughters.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Florida's voting problems are a national disgrace

USA Today editorializes on the latest Florida voting scandal. We know that we can't count on Florida to solve this problem. This requires a national solution:

Officials in Sarasota County, the largest county in Florida's 13th congressional district, are at a loss to explain why more than 13% of the voters there — about 18,000 people — did not register a vote in the House race. Only 1.8% of county voters using paper absentee ballots didn't vote for a member of Congress. And in adjoining counties, the percentage of people not voting in the race was also in the low single digits.

An analysis by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune found that if those 18,000 people had voted proportionally to the county's overall vote, Democrat Christine Jennings would have won by about 600 votes. As it is, Republican Vern Buchanan has a 369-vote victory.

The bigger issue here, the one that transcends Florida, is the inadequacy of touch-screen machines that don't leave any sort of paper trail. Without a paper record of each vote cast, it's impossible to figure out what, if anything, went wrong. Perhaps people tried to vote but a computer glitch caused their votes cast to go uncounted. Or perhaps they simply didn't see the House race the way it was arranged on the screen.

Voting systems are never going to be perfect. But they should have one thing going for them. They should inspire confidence. That's not likely to happen unless there's a way of closely examining the way votes were cast in instances when questions arise.

This problem has to be addressed by Congress. The mistakes were blatant in Florida. Those mistakes undermine our democracy. And, if this can happen in one congressional district in Florida (the one represented by Katherine Harris no less), it can -- and does happen elsewhere.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

China disappears top AIDS activist

But with all due respect to AIDS activist China has now disappeared, this doesn't appear any different than what the US government now does to those it suspects of being a threat to our way of life, so what's the difference? I can't stand the Chinese government - they're one of the most vile regimes on the planet - but how do we criticize their actions when the Bush administration does the same thing? Gonna complain that China is ignoring international law? Domestic law? Any Chinese version of habeas corpus? That they're refusing to let the disappeared see a lawyer? That they're refusing to make the charges public, to hold a public trial? These are all things the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have now dispensed with in America - and the American people didn't give a damn. So what right do we have to demand more of China than ourselves?

And, you conservatives out there, spare me the "because we're right and they're wrong" logic. Republicans in America no longer believe in the rule of law, so what right do we have to criticize China for simply following our lead?

None. Anymore. And it's the fault of every American who voted Republican - every single one of you. You get the government you deserve, and now the Chinese have the government you deserve. I hope all of you conservatives out there feel real proud - you're now no better than the communist Chinese.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Britain may start pulling out of Iraq

Coalition of the unwilling. When Bush's poodle abandons him, it's over.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Automatic recount mandated in Ohio's 15th CD as Pryce claims win

The full vote count is finally in for another close race . The gap tightened significantly -- enough to require an automatic recount:

Republican Deborah Pryce was declared the winner this morning of a central Ohio congressional race that remained too close to call until 20 days after the Nov. 7 election.

The four-member Franklin County Board of Elections certified final vote totals that gave Pryce the victory in the 15th Congressional District over Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy by 1,055 votes, a net loss of 2,482 from Pryce's unofficial election-night count.

The tighter margin is within the half-percent required to trigger an automatic recount, director Matthew Damschroder said.

Don't forget that the GOP still controls Ohio's state government for a few more weeks. Read the rest of this post...

Supreme Court upholds Maine law that prevents vouchers for religious schools

Big loss today for theocrats and politicians like George and Jeb Bush who are trying to undermine public education in America. The Supreme Court refused to hear their case against a Maine law that prevents public funding for religious schools:

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up the issue of school choice in Maine, where a state law bars the use of public funds to send students to private religious schools.

The case could have provided a platform for a court battle over school choice and the separation of church and state.

In Maine, school districts in 145 small towns with no high schools offer tuition for 17,000 students to attend high schools of their choice, public or private, in-state or out-of-state. But religious schools are no longer on the list.

Asking the court to take the case, a conservative group, the Institute for Justice, is representing eight Maine families who would receive public tuition funds but for the fact that their children attend religious schools.

It's interesting how all these anti-tax types always want tax dollars for their own pet projects like vouchers. At least for today, the separation of church and state was able to survive yet another attack.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Examining Bush's prospects for the next two years -- conciliatory or not

Both the New York Times and The Washington Post take a look at Bush's prospects for the next two years. The respective articles have very different starting points when it comes to Bush's approach so far.

The Times finds that Bush's initial steps toward Democrats have been confrontational:

If anything, Democrats have taken Mr. Bush’s first moves since this month’s election as more provocative than conciliatory. He plans to use the lame-duck Republican Congress to push domestic wiretapping legislation that Democrats overwhelmingly oppose; he is pushing for the confirmation of his ambassador to the United Nations, John R. Bolton, whose continued service most Democrats, not to mention some Republicans, oppose; and he has resubmitted the names of several conservative justices for the federal bench whom Democrats have rejected once already.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post seems to think that Bush has been much more open and willing to work with the Democrats. The premise of the Post article is that Bush can redeem his failed presidency:

Bush's opening message since the election has been one of conciliation, in firing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, as many critics had urged, and in reaching out to incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.). "Let's let the election go," White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove said in a recent interview. "Let's say, 'Okay, where are some places where we can work together?' "

Does anyone really believe Karl Rove means that? Bush will have a hard time moderating. His base -- and Karl Rove -- won't allow that.

Both articles about Bush's immediate future virtually ignored the issue that will dominate his legacy: Iraq. There were passing references, but no analysis about how that will impact the President's relationship with Congress or his standing with the American people.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Apparently majority opinion in the public and in Congress is "extremist"

A funny thing happened during this past election cycle: the quality of the national debate about Iraq actually improved.

Candidates, especially Republicans, had to recognize and reflect, to a much greater extent than was true before campaigns heated up, the views of the public. On Iraq, the country has long been ahead of its politicians, and it took an election for politicians to follow the lead of their constituents. Dems were mostly there, and were rewarded for it; Republicans, conversely, had to contort to deal with the ground truth and were punished for being so far outside the mainstream for so long.

A majority of the American public realizes that Iraq is a disaster, and, recognizing that U.S. troops are not improving things, want redeployment to begin. A majority of the U.S. House and Senate shares that view, and virtually all Middle East and military experts (not pundits, but actual experts in the relevant fields) believe the situation requires significant changes in U.S. policy.

So why did I have to read an article yesterday about how the Iraq Study Group "was deliberately skewed toward a centrist course for Iraq, participants said. Organizers avoided experts with extreme views on either side of the Iraq war debate"? At this point, I don't even know what an "extreme" view is, and the article doesn't specify, but it seems to imply that near-term redeployment fits in that category.

To me, the McCain plan -- adding 20,000 troops, which has support from, for example, Senator Cornyn (R-TX) -- is the most extreme option being considered. You wouldn't know it from the professional pundit commentary, but a whopping ... eight percent of Americans support sending more U.S. troops to Iraq (and that was six months ago! I couldn't find a more recent poll number on increasing forces).

As for plans that actually have mainstream support, the numbers couldn't be any more clear: a majority of Americans want all U.S. forces out within a year. Now, whether that's good policy can be debated by reasonable people -- but it's not an "extreme" position! It's not a "liberal" position, and it's certainly not a position that should have been dismissed out of hand by the Iraq Study Group in its effort to be "centrist." Why the ISG is even concerned with being centrist, rather than, y'know, being honest and productive, is beyond me, but it wouldn't be quite so bad if the idea of what centrism is hadn't been so perverted and misapplied by the punditry class. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Well, it's official. Iraq is in a civil war. That's the determination of NBC and the Today Show. The Bush White House staff spends a lot of time disputing that designation. But, the media has finally, finally clued in to the fact that the Bush administration has been lying about Iraq for years. Starting a civil war in Iraq is quite a legacy for Bush.

So, it's a civil war. Now what? Read the rest of this post...

Has Karl Rove taken over US foreign policy?

Bush tries once again to go on the offensive against everyone else to cover up his own reality. The US and allies went to Afghanistan in response to 9/11 which was ultimately a response to an attack on US soil. Our allies stood by and helped but no, that's just not enough in the eyes of Bush. Why? Because the budget was busted on the distraction in Iraq that had nothing to do at all with 9/11. So Bush goes to his old faithful Rove policy of attacking everyone else, hoping that nobody will notice the real source of the problem. Let's remember that it was Bush who decided to pull back from Afghanistan so he could have his war in Iraq so he can pull out any statistics that he likes and criticize allies all day long, but it still does not change the fact that the problems today in Afghanistan have everything to do with Iraq.

President Bush's agenda at a NATO summit this week will include pressing alliance members to increase defense spending. Aides say many U.S. allies are ill-equipped for modern military operations.

The defense outlays of some NATO partners are less than half those of the United States as a percentage of gross domestic product.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Peace is so offensive

How can the neighbors even stand looking at such a disgusting thing? It's just so hateful and terrifying and it is certainly not what the world needs at this time. Please round up the angry mobs, grab your pitchforks and stand up for freedom. Doesn't this woman understand the spirit of the holiday? Heathen.

digg this! Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Bedtime in America. Read the rest of this post...