Yet another right-wing conservative congressman turns against the war

No, not Domenici. Now it's a conservative war-supporter on the House side. He's had it. From E&P;

Rep. John Doolittle, a consevative California congressman, today joined others in his party rapidly deserting the president on the Iraq war.

At a town hall meeting in Rocklin and then in a meeting with the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee he questioned whether the conflict was worth the loss of more American lives. He said U.S. troops should be pulled back from the front lines "as soon as possible" and the fighting turned over to Iraqi forces.

A longtime supporter of the war, Doolittle called the situation in Iraq a "quagmire" on Thursday. "We've got to get off the front lines as soon as possible," Doolittle said at Rocklin City Hall. "And in my mind that means something like the end of the year. We just can't continue to tolerate these kinds of losses."

Talk is cheap. What's he plan on doing about it? Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Chat away. Read the rest of this post...

General Odom's prescription for supporting the troops: withdraw; cut off funds; and impeach

General Odom was the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) under Reagan (think "Minority Report," and you have the NSA). They're the super-duper secret spy agency that's way more top secret than even the CIA. This guy's credentials are beyond stellar. Here is an excerpt of his recent essay:

If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.

The public is ahead of the both branches of government in grasping this reality, but political leaders and opinion makers in the media must give them greater voice....

The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

Read the rest of this post...

Harry Reid tells Republicans to put up or shut up over Iraq

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today in response to Senator Pete Domenici's call for a new U.S. military strategy in Iraq:

"Senator Domenici is correct to assess that the Administration's war strategy is misguided. But we will not see a much-needed change of course in Iraq until Republicans like Senators Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich are willing to stand up to President Bush and his stubborn clinging to a failed policy – and more importantly, back up their words with action. Beginning with the Defense Authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way too so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve.

"As evidence mounts that the 'surge' is failing to make Iraq more secure, we cannot wait until the Administration's September report before we change course. President Bush and the Iraqis must move now to finally accept a measure of accountability for this war, implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations, transition the mission for our combat troops and start bringing them home from an intractable civil war."

UPDATE: Pelosi weighs in too. Read the rest of this post...

Romney embroiled in pornography scandal

I live for headlines like that. More from AP:

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who rails against the "cesspool" of pornography, is being criticized by social conservatives who argue that he should have tried to halt hardcore hotel movie offerings during his near-decade on the Marriott board.

Two anti-pornography crusaders, as well as two conservative activists of the type Romney is courting, say the distribution of such graphic adult movies runs counter to the family image cultivated by Romney, the Marriotts and their shared Mormon faith.

"Marriott is a major pornographer. And even though he may have fought it, everyone on that board is a hypocrite for presenting themselves as family values when their hotels offer 70 different types of hardcore pornography," said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an anti-pornography group based on Ohio.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading conservative group in Washington, said: "They have to assume some responsibility. It's their hotels, it's their television sets."

Wait, so you're saying that Romney is a hypocrite? Noooooooo. Read the rest of this post...

Another GOP Senator breaks with Bush on Iraq

New Mexico's Republican Senator, Pete Domenici, publicly broke with George Bush over Iraq today. He wants a new strategy immediately. Like Dick Lugar who broke with Bush last week, Domenici is one of the Republican old-timers:

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici Thursday joined a growing chorus of Republicans who are calling for a change in course in U.S. military strategy in Iraq sooner rather than later.

The New Mexico Republican says he supports a bipartisan Senate bill that would create conditions that could allow for a drawdown of U.S. combat forces in Iraq by next March.

Domenici says he does not want to wait until September, when military commanders are to give an assessment. He says things are getting worse, not better, in Iraq.

Bush wants to push back the September time-frame. He'll never make the right decisions about Iraq. Never has, never will. Now, even Republicans are saying enough.

Just yesterday, Bush was playing politics with the Iraq war again according to The Hill:

President Bush Wednesday used his Independence Day speech to take a thinly veiled swipe at Democratic leaders, saying withdrawing troops from Iraq based on politics “would not be in our national interest.”

That's an interesting spin because Democrats have been trying to force a new policy, while Bush continues to engage in politics. That's been the whole strategy of the Bush administration for year. Politics over policy. But, the GOPers on the Hill are suffering the political consequences so, increasingly, Bush's Iraq problem is with members of his own party. Read the rest of this post...

Iraqi government hanging on by a thread

Over at DemocracyArsenal, Ilan Goldenberg rightly points out that the Iraqi government is faltering, to say the least. There is basically a rotating boycott of parliament, with Sadrists and Sunnis taking turns at being aggrieved. Currently, the major Sunni party is boycotting both parliament and the cabinet because a member of the party was arrested for his alleged role in a 2005 assassination attempt. Never a good sign.

Ilan notes that a recent cabinet meeting drew only 24 of the 37 ministers, but the Post article he cites did not really explain that fully. The article reports that "several" Sadrist ministers boycotted the meeting, but to the best of my understanding, those ministers have resigned, leaving the positions unfilled. Maliki put forth a list of replacements, which did not get approval from parliament, and he has not yet proposed other candidates. Six other ministers were from the boycotting Sunni group, which strongly opposes the oil law that administration officials (and news reports) keep claiming is just about to pass.

Now Maliki is talking about restructuring the entire government, but it is not clear where his support will come from. Sadrists are chronically unhappy with him, Sunnis are boycotting, the Kurds are wary of the new oil law and support the federalist leanings of the Shia SIIC party (formerly SCIRI) more than Maliki's Dawa group, and the U.S. has already toppled one prime minister (Jaafari) for failing to meet expectations.

This idea that we need to train forces to support the central government is based on a complete fallacy. There is no functioning central government; the "national unity government" hailed by war supporters in early 2006, which never really existed in the first place, is a demonstrated failure. The only think keeping Maliki in power is the complete lack of alternative candidates who could unite enough parliament members to form a ruling coalition, and in the meantime, no progress occurs. Read the rest of this post...

Not dead yet

Read the rest of this post...

Fireworks videos from last night

I posted some video of last night's DC fireworks (unfortunately, I shot the video from like 2 miles away), and someone posted some vid of the Columbus, Ohio display. Oh my God. It looks like it puts us to shame. You can watch it here.



Then I thought it might be fun to look around YouTube and see who else posted videos of last night's fireworks around the country. Here's a sampling...

New York City



Disneyworld:



Boston, Mass.



Pasadena, CA



Austin, TX



Seattle



North Port, Florida



Greenfield, Wisconsin



Albany, NY



Salt Lake City, Utah



Liberty Lake, WA

Read the rest of this post...

Dear Washington Post, please stop calling me a 'homosexual'

The Washington Post published a pro-gay editorial today about marriage. And that's great. But they called us "homosexuals" throughout the piece, and that's not great. It's degrading and offensive and archaic.

I've written about this before, and some have disagreed. But I'd argue that those who disagree don't understand the nuance of language or of this particular phrase. Ask any gay person, regardless of whether they agree or disagree that the word "homosexual" is archaic and offensive, whether they use the term "gay" or "homosexual" to described themselves. I.e., "I'm gay" or "I'm a homosexual." Just ask them. Unless they're living under a rock, gay people rarely if ever use the word homosexual. (My gay-friendly straight friends, however, use the term all the time. In the same way that I still hear friends use the word "oriental.")

Why? First, because it's become archaic. Usage changes, and just as Negro and colored changed to black and African-American, just as oriental gave way to Asian, homosexual has become gay. But second, and more importantly, the word homosexual is offensive in the same manner as negro and oriental. Sometimes archaic words sting. In the case of homosexual, I think the main problem is three-fold. First, the clinical nature of the term. It's a scientific word that mildly dehumanizes gay people by suggesting that they have a medical or psychological condition. Second, the words "homo" and "sex." Both words connote something negative, or at least something that shouldn't be spoken out loud, to a lot of Americans. Third, and most importantly, homosexual is the word the religious right uses expressly and uniquely in an effort to dehumanize gays. Anti-gay religious right activists have said publicly that they will not use the word "gay" - rather, they insist on using "homosexual." Why? Because for some reason or another they figure that the word homosexual helps their cause. And while I don't agree with the religious right on many things, their ability to gay-bash swiftly and effectively is unqestioned. If they think the word gay helps us and the word homosexual hurts us, who am I to argue?

Again, I don't mean to opinionated about it, but if you don't hear the negative nuance in the word homosexual, it's either because you're not listening, or more likely, you don't have an ear for language. There's a reason that colored and Negro and oriental weren't offensive terms years ago, yet are today. The nuance of words changes over time. And while gays were once thought to be mentally disturbed - that all changed in 1973 - the language has not changed since that time.

It's time it did.

PS Don't believe me? Read what a communications professional has to say about this. (Actually, I hadn't read his piece until after I wrote mine, but the logic is remarkably similar.) Also, check out this recent editorial in the lead gay newspaper in the US. Read the rest of this post...

Fred Thompson not ready for prime time

As Fred Thompson prepares to finally announce that he's actually running for president, he gets smacked around by AP's Liz Sidoti. The headline of her piece is "Thompson lacking substance." True -- and while they GOPers want to compare him to Reagan, he's more like George W. Bush:

Top candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain mix it up daily, taking questions from voters and fleshing out their presidential agendas.

Not Thompson.

His stump speech consists of broad conservative themes, talk of bipartisanship and commentary on issues of the day, but it largely lacks any vision for the future of the country. He deflects questions on what a Thompson presidency would look like and demurs when pressed for specific proposals for how to fix the nation's ills. He opines on hot topics, from taxes to terrorism, in online columns and on his Web site, usually without being challenged.

There's no meat on the bones. And, there won't be.

UPDATE: The title now reads, "Thompson Strong on Style, Not Substance." Huh. How did that happen? Read the rest of this post...

41% more dead bodies on streets of Baghdad in June than January

Hard to imagine how Bush, Lieberman and McCain will view this as progress:

Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January, according to unofficial Health Ministry statistics.

During the month of June, 453 unidentified corpses, some bound, blindfolded, and bearing signs of torture, were found in Baghdad, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

In January, 321 corpses were discovered in the capital, a total that fell steadily until April but then rose sharply over the last two months, the statistics show.

Overall, the level of violent civilian deaths in Iraq is declining, according to the U.S. military and Health Ministry statistics, and there has been a steady drop in fatalities from mass-casualty bombings that have torn through outdoor markets, university bus stops and crowds assembled to collect food rations.

But the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets is considered a key indicator of the malignancy of sectarian strife. While the declining number of bombing victims suggests that efforts to control violence are showing some success, the daily slayings of individuals, in aggregate, speak to an enduring level of aggression.

"That's the cancer that keeps eating the neighborhoods," Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, said at a meeting with reporters Saturday. "It never stops. It's a tit for tat. It's a cycle of violence that has to be broken."

Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

We've had the holiday, now back to regular programming. What we do we need to know? Read the rest of this post...

US cable companies living in fear of competition

The FCC has mandated change with the cable TV industry and this is an industry that hates change. For years companies such as Comcast have grown fat and lazy, charging customers top dollar while delivering miserable service and doing everything possible to prevent any competition. Every time I talk with someone in the US about their cable TV rates I have to brace myself for some horrendous story about cost, which is always much higher in the US than here in "socialist" France. US cable operators will find any excuse - the latest being the set top boxes with a removable chip, like we have here - to charge more. The bloated fees have helped the cable operators maintain a healthy lobbying presence in Washington to fight off competition but now they are bashing heads with another bloated industry, telcos, who also want a piece of the action.

As mentioned before, in Paris customers can choose from a number of options for cable/telecom/internet and mobile options (using free wifi) at costs dramatically lower than what can be found in the US. The current rate is still about 30 euro/month for unlimited internet, 100+ cable channels, video on demand, phone calls to roughly 50 countries in the world and various options for running your mobile phone over your wifi network. Even with the weak dollar we're still talking about $40, though 30 euro in local buying terms is like $30 in US buying terms.

All of the crying and now additional $2 and $3 charges to customers is absolute rubbish. The American cable TV industry has done a great job of protecting themselves from competition but sooner or later Congress is going to wake up and see that it's painfully anti-consumer in all ways possible. What ever happened to the long lost spirit of competition in America? Interesting how much of that disappeared during the GOP congress years, isn't it? Read the rest of this post...

Australia on Iraq: it's all about the oil

Two points for honesty? It's repulsive, misguided and in contradiction with previous statements but at least he's not preaching the false reasons that we've heard so often out of other capitals. Whatever the story today, let's hope Australian voters don't provide the Howard government with another opportunity to extend the madness. Read the rest of this post...