From National Passions To Rational Nations

A change is in the wind.

Perhaps it is the Information Age that for the first time lets everyone see and judge the results of their acts. Perhaps it is the knowledge that truth must be spoken, if one is not to be found a liar. Perhaps because truth can be known universally, while passion can only be felt locally, truth and knowledge are replacing passion and faith.

Aging geezers remember the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Harmony and understanding. A rational humanism clears our path to mystic crystal revelation.

The Age of Pisces is at an end. Two thousand years of people who put fish stickers on the back of their car. By the power of faith, they can decide what to believe and make it stick. But why?

Why make up things anymore, when the truth is plain to see: the love we feel for one another is what is real.

Not everyone is yet loving. Some have suffered far too much. Some are still learning.

My neighbor is just another self. Every life I meet is just another one of my incarnations.

All most charmingly unique.

A New Strategy For Iraq

First, fulfill the pledge that we would never abandon Kurdish Iraq. They were abandoned before and suffered terribly. Fulfill the pledge by building housing resources in Kurdish Iraq that would allow us some withdrawal space from Southern Iraq if it really erupts. Nurture relations with the leaders. Honor their ways. Buy ourselves space and time. Learn their language.

Involve the State Department. Let our embassy in Turkey help carry messages between the Turkish leadership and the Kurdish leadership. Become of value to each side. At present they are at odds over oil in the Kurdish areas. There could be lots of negotiating to do, and there is a possibility of regional collaborations if we could help them begin to connect.

Similarly, from a vantage point in Kurdish Iraq we can develop a network of emissaries and connections that would let us communicate between any conflicting parties in Iraq. We would provide continuing connectedness. We would be the back door through which deals are worked out. We would know everything.

By being reconcilers, we would become friends to all concerned.

We would do the work of The Reconciler.

Are We Already Fighting China For Iran?

We have threatened Iran publicly. We have gotten the UN to sanction them. We have assembled a massive army in the country next door. We have moved aircraft carriers within striking range. Iran has oil.

We have made it in Iran's interest to keep us tied down in Iraq as long as possible. So long as our troops are kept busy there, they will be less likely to set foot in Iran.

Iran recently signed a big oil deal with China. Hundreds of billions of dollars. If we do anything that affects that deal, we will hear from China.

They are already selling down their large stash of American dollars. If we give them reason to sell it down faster, the dollar would drop through the floor and even the cheap stuff in Walmart would cost a mint.

If that doesn't keep our ravenous paws off their oil partner, Iran, they can start shooting down our spy satellites when they fly over Chinese airspace. As they have just now shown by shooting down one of their own.

Are we already encouraging China to keep us so busy in Iraq that it takes our minds off Iran and its oil?

Are we already fighting China for Iran?

As The World Twirls

Many good stories never make the evening news.


Mr. Bush is being excoriated on the right for acceding to the demands for court supervision of his"warrantless" wiretap program. He has not seen the need for warrants, but a court reminded him that the law does require it. Even then, he remarkably found a judge who issued him a blanket warrant for all his wiretaps. From the NYT, via TPM, from an interview with New Mexico representative Heather Wilson:

"Administration officials “have convinced a single judge in a secret session, in a nonadversarial session, to issue a court order to cover the president’s terrorism surveillance program,” Ms. Wilson said in a telephone interview. She said Congress needed to investigate further to determine how the program is run."

The world can only think that Bush has got something on the judge. He wiretapped all the judges' phones until he found one with a weakness. It's so obvious. That judge may be terribly embarrassed some day soon, as intrepid newshounds discover what weakness left him so vulnerable as to throw away his responsibility to judge each case on its merits.

It will probably turn out that the warrantless wiretap program was totally unwarranted.


Egyptians are watching a video of their police sodomizing a victim with a wooden pole. Aghast at what the camera sees. They have known all along. (Yahoo News)

Did we send prisoners to Egypt for interrogation? Oh yes, we did. Us. You and me.


In a virtualized interview session at the world economic summit at Davos, Switzerland, a protestor with a placard - in virtual form, as an "avatar" - strolled into the virtual auditorium and sat down in the computer image of the front row, holding his message. (New York Times)

Today, Saturday, January 28th 2007, tens of thousands of actual people demonstrated for real in Washington. For peace. The 2008 campaigns are gearing up. Multitudes of people versus multitudes of bucks. People vote. Bucks buy time.


The battle line between our government and ourselves over what is true and what is false came into sharp focus this week when individuals from NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, edited a Wikipedia entry about NIDA to remove criticisms of their organization. Wikipedia thought it was vandalism, so they restored the article. NIDA defaced it again, more slowly this time so as not to set off alarms. Wikipedia restored it again. And on and on for several more rounds. At this point, the government appears to have retreated in the face of continuing popular opposition. See for yourself.

Did NIDA think they were rewriting history? They were only adding their attempt to rewrite history to the history books. (The Politico)


Mr. Bush knows his new troop expansion plan is going to work! Why is he so sure? "Because I told them it had to, " he tells Nancy Pelosi. (DailyKos)


John Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, January 31st at 10:15 AM will be looking into Bush's use of presidential signing statements to contradict the intent of laws given him to be enforced. (OpEdNews)


Then there's Attorney General Gonzales testifying before Congress that he believes that the Constitution does not grant the right of habeas corpus. It just says when it can't be taken away.

Never mind that habeas corpus has been a right in English law since the year 1215. (Smirking Chimp)

He seems to think that we don't have rights unless the Constitution grants them. It's quite the opposite - we don't LOSE rights unless the Constitution takes them away.

Someone should tell him.

Iran Beckons

Iran, with nuclear Israel to the west and nuclear Pakistan to the east, has decided that they need to have a nuclear program as well and perhaps to build their own bomb.

We threaten them more loudly every day. We could bomb them, but we could not put boots on the ground. Moreover, Iran has electoral democracy. We could not engage them on the premise that we are building democracy. Iran had democracy under Mossadegh and we took it away, implanting the Shah. Khomeni's crowd restored it after downing the Shah. We could threaten to take it away again, but an implant would probably not succeed this time.

Iran can ensure that any ground war for Iran takes place in Iraq.

What's more, we could get stuck with the bill for our bull-in-a-china-shop diplomacy. You break it, you buy it. We have already broken too much. The bills for what we have already broken will be coming due for centuries.

Perhaps we can spend money in a different way?

The Tar Pit

With sunken eyes and hang-dog mouth, looking downer than he's ever looked before, the President of the United States yesterday insisted that this country must plant its foot ever more firmly in the tar pit that is Iraq.

We cannot pull it out. We do not dare. Iraq would fall apart into three nations if we did. The Turkish prime minister has claimed that Turkey has the right to invade Iraq to suppress Kurdish rebels. After all, the U.S. did it. Iran is eying southern Iraq. Saudi Arabia would extend friendship to its brother Sunnis in Anbar province. Iraq could split three ways.

So our boots on the ground are stuck in a tar pit. Like dinosaurs trapped in the La Brea tar pits, we may be there a while.

The Race Is On, The Mousetrap Sprung

Even before Mr. Bush has had a chance to deliver his views on the state of the Union, candidates for his office in the 2008 election are madly throwing their hats into the ring - 17 so far - and dominating the news. "It's all about issues and answers," said one candidate last night. Surely, Mr. Bush will be impelled to consider some of these issues in what he has to say tomorrow.

His actions in attempting to construct an imperial presidency are on the table, about to be dissected.

The results of his actions - 75 Iraqis killed yesterday, 300 so far today, and they could as easily have been American soldiers - are bloodying the screens of America. 27 American soldiers died over the weekend.

China has just shot down one of its own satellites, implying that it could shoot down our spy satellites as they fly over its land any time that it doesn't like how we are using them elsewhere. We use them to guide the war in Iraq. A US helicopter in Iraq has just been downed, probably by a shoulder-fired missile. A Chinese Silkworm?

China recently signed a $100 billion dollar oil and gas deal with Iran. Our threats to invade Iran may have persuaded them to harden their defenses. Given our stated invasive intent, it would be natural for them to want to extend their security perimeter to include satellite areas in Shiite Iraq, just as Russia cushioned itself with satellites. That way, any ground battle for Iran can take place in southern Iraq. Entrusting their neighbors with a few Silkworms to send the message of their new capabilities may have been Iran's first step. If they can fight the war over there in Iraq, they don't need to fight it on their home front.

Ground-to-air missiles in the hands of the Iraqi insurgents could bring down airplanes as they descend into the Baghdad airport. Condi Rice, our Secretary of State, has said that the war would be won on the streets of Baghdad, bringing up visions of a final defense of the road from the Green Zone to the airport. But if planes taking off are at risk of being taken down, then the mousetrap has sprung.

A kill zone has been constructed, and we are in it.

Tell us what you will do about that, Mr. Bush.

The Children Are The Future

At one point in her swearing-in as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi surrounded herself with children for a photo-op. Message: "The Children Are The Future."

We do it all for the kids. What future would we like them to have?

A better than good education. Ability to compete successfully. Ability to lose gracefully when success doesn't happen. Support for any crippledness that hinders their ability to compete.

We would like for children to know the fullness of life. To be all they can be. To know the universe.

We would like to give them all that we can.

We have hurt the children lately, hurt their future, cut the music and the art classes out of their curriculum so we could have money for the war. Now the money has been spent and the war has been lost and maybe we could get back to taking care of the children.

We could give health care to all children with what we spend on war.

We could pay teachers rightly and so ensure that we only hire the best.

We could do this, not only for our own, but for all the children in the world.

With the world's help. If we try.

We are the world.

Cornered Rats On A Sinking Ship

Several blog commenters (not on this blog, which has no readers) have noted that members of the Bush administration are beginning to behave like cornered rats.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Of Defense For Detainee Affairs Charles Stimson, the man who rules Guantanamo, recently called for the business community to put pressure on the law firms - and he listed them - who provide volunteers to represent the prisoners detained in his prison. But his statements didn't represent his core beliefs, he later said. He didn't go into detail about his core beliefs or whether they include fair trials.

At least it's nice knowing he has core beliefs, even though he contradicts them in his daily life. Since he has sworn to uphold the Constitution, his actively seeking to deny prisoners legal counsel may not end well for him.

Here are some comments:

"What Stimson did in the radio interview was far worse than "question the integrity" of lawyers attempting to defend Guantanamo prisoners. In fact, Stimson urged Americans to punish these attorneys by threatening their income. Without income, few attorneys can afford to take on pro bono work. Who, then, will ensure that the prisoners' rights are upheld? Who will ensure that our system of government is -- and is perceived as being -- just?

The issue of integrity is a red herring. The real issue is whether the Executive branch believes in the rule of law. Stimson clearly does not." - DonQ

"He apologizes for making it seem that he questions their integrity. But that is the least of the problems with his original comments. The rule of law in the United States is based on the notion of a confrontational process, where both sides work diligently to establish their case in the hope that truth and justice will emerge from that crucible (yeah, reality may be far from the poetic theory, but still...) Stimson is basically saying that if we "know" some people are guilty, then nobody should defend them, or at least, not beyond a pro forma defense. In other words, let us get back to the years where guilt or innocence was decided by royal fiat and mob mentality. While we hear that every so often from the mob itself in emotionally charged cases, to have an official from the government say it... The "apology" is exactly the same as the kind of defense he is advocating for those the administration accuses: weak, pro forma, and worthless." -Arturo.

"what you have reported leaves out the KEY point in this entire episode: THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE.

the most important thing in all this is the fact that stimson LISTED NO LESS THAN SIX FIRMS IN THE INTERVIEW! he read all these firms out loud for the world to hear! you can't leave that part out of your reporting here!

this was hitting below the belt, and i have no doubt it was orchestrated. along with the firings of all those US prosecutors this week.

they're cornered rats, folks, and they know it, and they're going to be on the no-holds-barred offensive for the duration.

read glenn greenwald's reasons why we should be very worried about what these folks will do as bush's house of cards collapses." - Dr. Elsewhere.

"Any lawyers out there?

Are there any legal rules against what he said? could he be disbarred for this? i.e.,interfering with another lawyers client? Retailiating against another law firm?" - braim122.

"Sure, the ABA can certainly pursue a number of actions against Stimson for any number of ethical violations: calling into question the integrity of fellow Bar members absent any justification; failing to maintain decorum in the legal profession; attempting to subvert justice by intimidation; seeking to subvert the attorny/client relationship by suggesting that corporate counsel should fire their lawyers; seeking economic reprisals against members in good standing of the Bar, for merely zealously representing their clients, as is their DUTY to do so; etc. etc.

He has revealed himself to be a partisan rat with no appreciation for the integrity of the legal profession, the constitution, other members of the bar, etc. - which he SWORE to uphold when he was admitted. He sought nothing more than to improve his own position by threatening lawyers in good standing vis a vis their corporate clients.

The best outcome is for this snake to be exposed to public scrutiny and held to account for his actions - they really hate that." -Legalize.

Herewith, this snake is exposed to one more drop of scrutiny.

Finally, to put it in context, a historically knowledgeable commentator notes:

"Historical trivia: Not only did John Adams volunteer to defend the British soldiers who were prosecuted for the Boston Massacre, he won them accquitals!" - Dasher

Here are the rest of the comments. Many thanks to Josh Marshall.

The Empire And The Insurgency

The word "insurgency" is now being used to describe the struggle against central rule in Afghanistan. The struggle against the government we have put in place. Not the same insurgency as in Iraq, but with much the same intent.

Are we the Empire?

Stay The Course Harder

Hollow-cheeked and somber, Mr. Bush has just ordered an increase in the troop level in Iraq.

He will use the extra troops to sequester the various Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods that are fighting each other. Our soldiers will be a cushion between the warring factions. It is possible that, unable to fight each other, they will turn their guns on us, but we will deal with that problem when the time comes.

The war broadens.

Bush has sent troops to Sudan to support the Ethiopians. The in turn are supporting the tottering Sudanese government in its fight against Islamist populist radicals.

In Kurdish Iraq, he has just captured an Iranian consulate and their rolodexes. Some think he may discover cause therein to directly attack Iran and perhaps Syria. Pre-emptively because we're fighting terrorists.

Most likely, Bush will torture the arrested Iranians into admissions, then order a blockade of Iranian oil shipments out of the Persian gulf. This will be in order to force the Iran government to the bargaining table to get them to stop their non-governmental organizations from supporting the Iraq insurgency. Iran, with their financial lifeline blocked by this extreme act of bullying, is sure to strike out against us. It's practically a slam-dunk. We can only defend ourselves.

Iran may respond by blocking everybody else's oil shipments out of the gulf.

Needless to say, if we get into fighting on two more fronts, we will need lots of soldiers. Lots and lots. And lots more equipment. The vet rehab facilities are going to need to be enlarged many-fold. To recruit so many soldiers, we may need to offer foreign volunteers an American citizenship.

Shock and awe becomes shock and trauma. If you haven't been wounded yet, you get sent back to the front until you are. Then you retire to a nice rehab facility, an American citizen.

And those caissons keep rollin' along, to the benefit of war industries everywhere.


The Iraq government is a day or two away from signing agreements with western oil producers to develop and exploit their oil fields. These agreements are very generous to the oil producers, but then, Iraq is in a time of need and will sign anything proffered by the occupying powers.

They need to pass their oil law first, though. This is the law that governs what they will do with the profit. It is much more generous to the oil companies than these laws usually are. (Tip of the hat to Juan Cole.) But some of the profit is supposed to go directly to individual citizens, as in Norway and Alaska. This law will end 30 years of nationalized oil production in Iraq. The oil fields are owned by the government, but now they will be leased to operators and developers, just like the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

We're getting nervous because they're so slow. Perhaps they are looking at it carefully?

As teetery as the Iraq government is, our continuing presence will undoubtedly be needed to enforce these very generous contracts. This positions the US military as the enforcement arm of the western petroleum industry.

If anything can give the artfully conflicted people of Iraq a common ground, it will be a royalty check in the mail for their investment in their government, as has been promised in this law. Although poor as we have made these people, they may topple a government or two to get a better deal, this establishment of trickle-up economics may be the key to stability.


Mr. Bush, proving once again that acquiring cheap oil rights trumps chasing terrorists, is actually pulling soldiers out of the terror war in Afghanistan to increase the oil war troop count in Iraq:

"Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.

"We anticipate significant events there next spring," said Tata."

Meanwhile, Republicans are defecting from their support of the war. The decisions surrounding Mr. Bush's new surge in manpower give them a chance to say "Enough is enough". It is possible that before long the exit faction will have a veto-proof majority in Congress.

Some say that the War Powers Act which authorized Bush to fight terrorists does not cover a separate war against Iran. That war will have to be declared separately, once he has bullied them into attacking us. If we think we can afford it.

The price of Texas oil can only go higher.

The Trap

Mr. Bush has less wiggle room every day.

The US military's choices diminish one by one. The army of panzer invaders is dying from a war of attrition.

The military option is less and less useful. A paper tiger gathers no meat.

What to do, what to do...

Detumescence Follows A Surge

Well, that's what many people experience. There probably is some combination of drugs that could keep a person rabbitting away forever, but generally, if one is planning for a surge, one should plan for detumescence afterwards.

There should also be snuggling and love talk.

Good night, George.

Will Bush Be Sacrificed?

Rumor has it that Mr. Bush, the current occupant of the presidency, will soon be calling on Americans to sacrifice more in Iraq.

He will not be able to point to gains that previous sacrifices have produced.

He will not be able to say with certainty that more sacrifice will bring gains.

By making a sacrifice, one buys the hope for success, only the hope. Sacrifices don't buy guarantees.

If he does call for further sacrifice, he frames the history of this war as a sacrifice we have already made for nought. Back when we thought we were winning, we were sacrificing, throwing our men away. It has been all for nought and he asks for more.

We have given at this altar. The gods did not respond. He calls for more?

His departure from government may be the better sacrifice. And more easily done than war.