Tenet: Slam or Sham?

Tenet: Slam or Sham?

I hear George Tenet's writing a book and he says he will also provide "the real context" of his own now-famous "slam-dunk comment" about Saddam Hussein's suspected pre-war weapons of mass destruction. (This, according to his publisher).


Yawn......

I wonder if it will be as "meaningful" as the confessions made in fellow Medal of Freedom winner J. Paul Bremer's book.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be an attempt at a "startling revelation" (fake gasp here) from just another guy who's reputation was ruined when he decided that his loyalty to a figurehead meant more than doing all he could to stop Bush from steering our nation toward disaster. Do I sound bitter? Jaded? Sick of seeing these people rake in millions for lame admissions once we've been had?

You might be right.

Josh Marshall: The Headline You Haven't Seen

Josh Marshall on The Headline You Haven't Seen

Josh Marshall wants to know why a key part of the Abramoff story is not being investigated or talked about in the mainstream media.

The wunderkind blogger is all over the Jack Abramoff saga. If you want to stay 'in the know', be sure to read Josh - several times a day if possible.

Iran: Diplomacy and the UN Security Council

Iran: Diplomacy and the UN Security Council

From Reuters -

European powers began circulating a draft resolution on Wednesday that asks the U.N. nuclear watchdog to report Iran to the Security Council, though diplomats said any U.N. sanctions would be a long way off...

....The chief of France's defense staff said the idea of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon was "a real nightmare" but added that a negotiated solution remained possible and that any hasty resort to military action would be "completely mad."

"That would create a dreadful drama in the Middle East," General Henri Bentegeat told Europe 1 radio. "Maybe one day we will get to that point. But today it is exclusively the diplomats who are having their say."

The EU draft asks IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei to keep up inspections to try to provide "credible assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities in Iran."

The text, being circulated among key IAEA board members, may undergo changes as they discuss it. [Reuters]

from the Guardian UK -

.....diplomacy is the right way to respond. The Islamic Republic is within its rights to want to develop nuclear energy, like all signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). It is not entitled to build nuclear weapons, though despite denials there is circumstantial evidence that it may be trying to do just that. Past evasion and concealment do not inspire confidence. The CIA's best estimate is that Iran is 10 years from building a bomb, though with dual-use technical breakthroughs or black-market purchases it could be sooner. Intelligence though, as the Iraq war showed, is notoriously unreliable. If accurate - and not exaggerated by spies, spin doctors or exiles - it can pinpoint capabilities. Intentions are a different matter. [editorial Guardian UK]

The Washington Post gives you the key players in the game.

Janine Zacharia at Bloomberg is reporting that Russia's proposal to hold off on a formal referral of Iran to the United Nations' Security Counci suggests disharmony ahead of an emergency (Feb. 2) IAEA meeting. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said what action the IAEA will take may not be clear until the last minute. A majority vote by the 35-member board of the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, is required for a referral to the Security Council.

Russia has offered to allow Iran to enrich uranium in Russia. Iran rejected this request, insisting it has the "right" to carry out enrichment on its own soil, and resumed research, triggering calls Jan. 12 from France, Germany, Britain and the U.S. to refer Iran's nuclear program to the UN.

In other news..

Russia's foreign minister warned Tuesday that sanctions were not the best way to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis and urged all nations to keep non-proliferation as their goal. - CTV.ca

The Progressive website hosts an article by Amitabh Pal which points out that "the nuclear hypocrisy of the five established powers has been one of the major reasons that Iran’s nuclear program has widespread support among its populace."

Why was even Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi, who has never hesitated to fight for her principles, recently reluctant to outright condemn Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

Last August, I blogged about a comment that Mme. Ebadi had made:

Listen to the reasoning of Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi of Iran (quoted below-see LINK).

"Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi has said that while she, too, opposes nuclear weapons, the West would do more good by focusing not on Tehran's nuclear programme but on promoting democracy in the Islamic Republic.

"In a country or a society where people supervise decisions and everything else, like a democratic country, the existence of an atomic bomb cannot be dangerous," Ms Ebadi said."

There could be many possible geopolitical consequences, depending upon the outcome with the IAEA and/or the UN Security council - look at this article:

Syria and Iran, an axis of evil upheaval

Veteran Smears From the Right Will Cost Republicans

Veteran Smears From the Right Will Cost Republicans

The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.

A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line.

Rudyard Kipling summed up this syndrome quite neatly more than a century ago, writing about the frequent hypocrisy directed at the British soldiers of his day:

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

- James Webb, a secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, was a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam

[NYT Select]

Warren Buffet: Trade Deficit Threatens US Economy

Warren Buffet: Trade Deficit Threatens US Economy
AP-Scott Sonner -

The U.S. trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either the federal budget deficit or consumer debt and could lead to "political turmoil," billionaire investor Warren Buffett warned. "Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them," Buffett told business students and faculty Tuesday at the University of Nevada, Reno. "In my view, it will create political turmoil at some point. ...
...The U.S. trade deficit soared to a record $665.9 billion in 2004, and Buffett said he expects it to top $700 billion this year.

"That's $2 billion a day. We are like a super rich family that owns a farm the size of Texas. You sell off a little bit of the farm and you don't see it," he said. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. had no trade deficit with China, he said. "Now it's $200 billion. If we don't change the course, the rest of the world could own $15 trillion of us. That's pretty substantial. That's equal to the value of all American stock," Buffett said.

Forbes' Chris Noone says -

Fixing the trade deficit--which soared to a record $665.9 billion in 2004, and is expected to top $700 billion this year--is becoming rather like turning around an ocean liner by dipping a teaspoon in the water.

E.J. Dionne on Murtha Slander

E.J. Dionne on Murtha Slander

E.J. Dionne tells the bitter truth about the lengths the right wing will go to in order to politically protest (and destroy the reputation of) a veteran who dares to speak out.

"...there is no honor given to those who serve if they choose later to take on the powers that be."

Mr. Dionne says:

What's maddening here is the unblushing hypocrisy of the right wing and the way it circulates -- usually through Web sites or talk radio -- personal vilification to abort honest political debate. Murtha's views on withdrawing troops from Iraq are certainly the object of legitimate contention. Many in Murtha's party disagree with him. But Murtha's right-wing critics can't content themselves with going after his ideas. They have to try to discredit his service.

What's maddening, to me, is seeing the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray irresponsibly spreading the crap around without any objective investigation. They - and their editors - make it a piece of cake for the right-wing mouth machine to get hold of a megaphone.

War and politics may be a nasty business, but responsible mainstream journalism is supposed to be an objective business.

Lt. Gen. Vines Replaced After One-Year "Stint"

Lt. Gen. Vines Replaced After One-Year "Stint"

Hmmmm.....

Last week, I sensed a definite clash between Generals in the opinions about the state of civil war in Iraq. I'd quoted this NY Times piece:

Sectarian rivalries and inefficient Iraqi ministries could turn the Iraqi security forces into "militias or armed gangs," Lt. General John Vines, the senior US operational commander in Iraq, said in an interview....In the weeks leading up to the December election, however, General Vines differed with his boss, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. over how and where to assign troops to ensure a peaceful and successful balloting.

At the time, I had asked this question, not realizing that Lt Gen Vines was already being replaced:

"Which opinion will be gagged and muffled? If this public split in philosophy does not die down, who will back down? Is it a civil war in Iraq or not?"

Lt. General Vines will be replaced by Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli - and I'll bet he'll be a lot more careful about keeping his message in line with General Casey's.
Now....

Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli replaces Army Lt. Gen. John Vines on Thursday as the No. 2 general in the U.S. command, said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Baghdad. Vines, who last week forecast continuing violence in Iraq, is ending a year-long stint as the U.S. operational commander amid a bloody and continuing fight with insurgents. His departure is part of the regular rotation of senior U.S. commanders in the war, which began in March 2003.

Casey will stay - doing "terrific job"

The Pentagon said Casey, top U.S. commander in Iraq since July 2004, will remain in his post. Casey previously had been expected to wrap up his duty in Iraq this summer. "There are no plans or intentions to relieve him in the foreseeable future," said chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, who said Casey is "doing a terrific job."

The article states that Lt Gen. Vines' departure is "part of the regular rotation of senior U.S. commanders in the war, which began in March 2003."

Meanwhile, shots of truth continue to tear through the curtain of the "happy talk."

Guardian Unlimited (Julian Borger):

An official assessment drawn up by the US foreign aid agency depicts the security situation in Iraq as dire, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein".
The "conflict assessment" is an attachment to an invitation to contractors to bid on a project rehabilitating Iraqi cities published earlier this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAid).

The picture it paints is not only darker than the optimistic accounts from the White House and the Pentagon, it also gives a more complex profile of the insurgency than the straightforward "rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists" described by George Bush.

Lt Gen. Vines entertained questions from the press last Friday. Here are a couple of questions with answers that lead us to believe that the majority of the violence against the US/Iraqi force is coming from disgruntled Iraqi groups, many with whom we are negotiating for political settlement. As Jill Carroll reported just before she was kidnapped, we are negotiating with the same groups who are committing major acts of violence against us.

Jim Miklaszewski of NBC news went as far as to ask about the deals we're cutting with political figures in Iraq who've had direct ties to the insurgency:

There have been also reports that U.S. military is, in fact, talking to some of these insurgents. Is that underway?

Here are some other questions:

Q. [Al Pessin with Voice of America] - Even if all or most of the Sunni Iraqi part of the insurgency were to decide to support a broad-based government, how big an impact would that have on the overall picture of violence? In other words, how much of the violence is by the Iraqi groups and how much by the foreigners?

GEN. VINES: I believe that the majority is by Iraqi groups -- some who feel like they run the risk of being disadvantaged, and perhaps they're using violence as a bargaining tool to influence the political process; other insurgent groups and other terrorist groups have done that in other parts of the world, and you know them as well or better than I do. There is a portion of the Iraqi population that opposes the presence of the coalition, and they feel like that their resistance is nationalistic in basis, and they attempt to conduct operations in an effort to force the coalition presence out. So I believe it would have a very significant impact if they laid down arms and participated in a democratic process as opposed to violence.

Q: General, I'm Carl Osgood; I write for Executive Intelligence Review. You may know that one of the things that Congressman Murtha has been saying about the U.S. presence in Iraq is that the U.S. troops themselves are a target of the violence and a catalyst of the violence. I wonder if you could comment on that to the degree to which you think that may or may not be true.

GEN. VINES: Without question, some Sunni -- well, in fact, some Iraqis -- do view the coalition presence as a reason to conduct violence against them. That is without question. The extent of that I could not characterize.

Jill Carroll Seen On Video

Jill Carroll Seen On Video

Tape shown of US hostage in Iraq [BBC News]

Al-Jazeera has broadcast a video of the kidnapped US journalist Jill Carroll - the first sighting of her since she was abducted 10 in Baghdad days ago

The video can be seen at the BBC site.

The video contained a claim that Jill Carroll's abductors would kill her unless all female prisoners in Iraq were released within 72 hours.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack was unable to confirm that it was Ms Carroll in the video. "We will make every effort to work with the Iraqis to bring her back safe and sound as soon as possible." Mr McCormack declined to make further comment, including about whether the US would consider meeting the demands as aired in the broadcast. [Australian]



A statement from Jill's family [ABC News]

The Christian Monitor's website allegedly has quoted the Jordan Times, where Ms. Carroll had worked before becoming a freelance correspondent in Iraq, as saying her kidnappers "could not have chosen a more wrong target".

Salon.com has a related article, Alan's Melody, by Iraqi blogger 'Riverbend.' She remembers her friend Alan, killed during the abduction of Jill Carroll.

As always, I pray for Jill Carroll and her family. May she be released safely.

_

UPDATE

Hostage video ignites wide call to free Carroll
Wednesday, the umbrella group for a number of leading Sunni clerics condemned the Jan. 7 kidnapping of Jill Carroll. Those calling upon her abductors in Iraq to show mercy included senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, and some of Iraq's most influential Sunni Arab leaders, including Adnan al-Dulaimi, head of the Iraqi Accordance Front.

BBC News - Iraq detainees to be freed early

Hostage takers demanded on Tuesday that women be freed -
Iraq's ministry of justice has told the BBC that six of the eight women being held by coalition forces in Iraq are to be released early. The six will be freed because there is insufficient evidence to charge them, a justice ministry spokesman said.

I'm glad to see State doing what they can to secure Jill's release - although some others don't agree. Jawa Report - see today's entry.

Not Your Typical Bushworld Decision: Oregon Assisted Suicide Law Stands

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

- NY Times

Not Your Typical Bushworld Decision: Oregon Assisted Suicide Law Stands

The NY Times has the SCOTUS story about the Oregon assisted suicide case as a headliner on their website.

The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses, the court majority said.

For me, this is definitely important news. I realize the legal argument wasn't over the merits of the debate over assisted suicide. Regardless, I cannot tell you what a relief it is to see the SCOTUS defending this particular State freedom.

I have seen more than one of my loved ones die an extremely painful death as a result of terminal illness. I sat by their side - I ministered to them. I lovingly served them with every ounce of my energy and caring. I am a deeply spiritual person. Certain life and death decisions should never be placed in human hands, and I believe in the sanctity of life; "the seamless garment of life". I am concerned about human existence before birth. I am against the death penalty. I cannot be a hypocrite, though. I put special spiritual emphasis on mercy for those who suffer. Mercy is a form of grace and can be shown in unexpected ways. I firmly believe that there comes a time when a meaningful Christian life is over. Most people of sound mind realize when that point has been reached. When a loved one's conscious suffering becomes nothing but a form of torture to them, it leaves deep emotional scars upon those left behind to watch them suffer, both physically and spiritually. It causes all to feel a sense of helplessness that goes far beyond pointlessness.

Christ Himself was said to have died within hours of His crucifixion. That, along with the foreknowledge that he would be put to death, was emotionally excruciating. He wept bitterly in the Garden of Gethsemane. He was said to have prayed for death on the Cross, invoking words He'd memorized from the 22nd Psalm.

Terminally ill patients have the same human foreknowledge about their impending death, the same emotional pain, the same fears, and the same hope for their safe delivery into God's hands.

Why would a merciful God condemn them for seeking mercy unto their death?

My mother died a month ago from a particularly painful form of cancer. She was a person of deep and abiding faith in God. Like her, I am a faithful person. She told me, as she suffered greatly, that she knew that there would come a day when people would look back to this time in history and call it a "dark age"; a time when we cared for the suffering of our animals more than we did for human beings.

I know that many of my fellow Christians will vehemently disagree with me on this issue, but I must be honest. I have not turned my face or my heart away - not for a moment - from the suffering of my loved ones. I would challenge any person of faith who has sat with a loved one in great and incurable pain and cared for them up to the time of their passing to tell me they are not happy to see that the freedom to decide was upheld today by our highest court.

The Times reports that "Oregon's law covers only extremely sick people -- those with incurable diseases, whom at least two doctors agree have six months or less to live and are of sound mind."

It's my opinion that any physician who would help a patient to go gently and painlessly into the inevitable "next room" is surely one of the most merciful and thoughtful people that God could ever send our way.

I'm disappointed, though not at all surprised, that new Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration on this, dissenting for the first time. The freedom to make a solemn and dignified choice about one's own life and the rights of individual states to decide to what degree a physician can practice merciful care was clearly not as important to Chief Justice Roberts as was the witch-hunt.

Could this decision be an indication that we are making baby-steps out of Bushworld?


_________

UPDATE - JANUARY 19, 2006 - The January 19th New York Times editorial conveys a similar opinion of Chief Justice Roberts' decision in this case:

The only disquieting note was that the new chief justice, John Roberts Jr., who had assured senators that he believed people had "the right to be let alone," nevertheless joined the dissenters in arguing that the federal government had the power to block Oregon's pioneering effort to let terminally ill patients end their own lives humanely.

The legal opinion is here

Al Gore Speech: Law is King

Al Gore Speech: Law is King

Al Gore Speech - Raw Story has the complete text.

Excerpt:

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, "On Common Sense" ignited the American Revolution, succinctly described America's alternative. Here, he said, we intended to make certain that "the law is king."

Peter Daou - The Gore Example: Does the Democratic Establishment Get the Traditional Media Problem?

Al Gore delivers a scathing indictment of Bush's power-grab. Flipping on the cable nets, CNN, MSNBC and FOX are covering 'breaking' news: an overturned tanker truck on a New York highway. This after a week of roadblock coverage of Bush's worn-out terror speeches.

THIS is the Democrats' problem. Notwithstanding a cacophony of rightwing voices assailing the "liberal" media, the Dem establishment needs to understand that if it doesn't go after the media institutionally, things simply will not change.

UPDATE:
Domestic Spying Challenged in Courts

Two U.S. civil liberties groups filed lawsuits on Tuesday challenging the legality of President George W. Bush's domestic spying program and demanding the practice be ended immediately...White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the lawsuits "frivolous"...

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

January 15, 1929 - April 4, 1968

"Yes, I see the Church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists."

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"....a man without wealth, without elected office, who managed as a single individual to change the world simply through the strength of his moral convictions. His power came from his faith and his willingness to act on what he knew to be right. That story could inspire many millions to similar action -- if only it were told. We could each be Dr. King." _ -_Geov Parrish













Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I criticize America because I love her. I want her to stand as the moral example of the world.

- Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Go to Iraq vet Fred Bieling's site today and hear and see the specially selected words of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, who would have been 77 today.


Senator John Edwards has written these words in commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, reminding us that Dr. King's dream is not yet reality. Many challenges remain.

Part of what made Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a great leader is that he challenged us to become leaders ourselves. He asked us what we are doing to serve others in our lives. Are we working to lift up the poor and the sick? Are we reaching out to a child who’s struggling to stay on the right path? Are we working hard to make sure our kids have the best education? Are we working to bring economic opportunity to every corner of the country? These are the questions that test the content of one’s character. And they are the questions that we as Americans must continue to ask and answer, particularly on this day, the day we remember one of the greatest leaders and patriots our nation has ever known.

Dr. King had an unshakable faith in the good of mankind, a faith that enabled him to dream of a better society in the midst so much evil and fear. He also possessed a keen awareness of how difficult it would be to make his dream a reality, and that awareness allowed him to hold onto his dream despite the dangers and strife he encountered. For he knew that his dream would not be fully realized in his own lifetime, or even in the span of his generation. His was a dream that was to endure and expand in the generations to come. He had faith in us, the future leaders of America. He had faith that we would inherit his dream and make it our own.

Here we are, almost thirty-eight years after Dr. King’s tragic death. We’ve accomplished a great deal since then, and for that we as a nation should be proud. But we are not yet the America that Dr. King described as he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. His dream is not yet reality. And as long as injustice and inequality persist in our society, Dr. King’s legacy will endure not just as a dream but as a challenge – a challenge to live by the principles we as a nation were founded upon, a challenge to lift up those who struggle, a challenge to become a source of motivation, guidance, and hope in the lives of others, just as Dr. King has been for us. We as a nation are up to this challenge, for despite our many differences, we share faith in the ultimate power of human goodness. “With this faith,” said Dr. King, “we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope.” May that stone of hope serve as a building block for the one America that we dream of, and know is possible.

- Senator John R. Edwards

______________

“The great moral issue is the 37 million people in our country who live in poverty,” Edwards told about a thousand people attending Monday’s service for King at Mount Zion First Baptist Church in Baton Rouge, LA.

- Edwards: Dream is fading/Former candidate honors MLK with call to fight poverty

From: We could each be Dr. King

King is not a legend because he believed in diversity trainings and civic ceremonies, or because he had a nice dream. He is remembered because he took serious risks and, as the Quakers say, spoke truth to power. King is also remembered because, among a number of brave and committed civil rights leaders and activists, he had a flair for self-promotion, a style that also appealed to white liberals, and the extraordinary social strength of the black Southern churches behind him. And because he died before he had a chance to be widely believed a relic or buffoon....

.....we forget that of those many dreams King had, only one - equal access for non-whites - is significantly realized today. A half-century after the Montgomery bus boycott catapulted a 26-year-old King into prominence, even that is only partly achieved. Blacks are being systematically disenfranchised in our presidential elections, and affirmative action and school desegregation are all but dead. Urban school districts across the country these days are as segregated and unequal as ever, and the imminent confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court likely heralds a new era where employers and landlords can discriminate with near-impunity.


- Geov Parrish, who says that the real story of Dr. King could inspire action; instead, we hear feel-good whitewash.

Other articles and blogposts:

SF Chronicle: A man without borders- Martin Luther King's appeal for peace with justice is as relevant as ever in our troubled world

Juan Cole - 10 Things Martin Luther King Would have Done about Iraq

Seen at Chancelucky blog:

Had he lived, I’m certain that any number of hard core supporters of the war would be calling Dr. King the same names they are applying to John Murtha, Howard Dean, Gold Star Mothers, and now likely Walter Cronkite.

RNC Claiming Non-Profits as Their Own?

RNC Claiming Non-Profits as Their Own?


John Byrne and Ron Brynaert are questioning a Republican National Committee listing of various conservative nonprofits as "GOP groups". This would be in direct violation of the nonprofit charter. At least six "GOP groups" listed and linked on the Republican National Committee website are tax-exempt nonprofits.
[Raw Story]

WaPo: Scowcroft Describes Success in Iraq

WaPo: Scowcroft Describes 'Success' in Iraq

I've got to give credit to Brent Scowcroft, who has had an extraordinary twenty-nine-year military career, for his ideas about how best to achieve a successful outcome and the necessary transition in Iraq - from a unilateral war with dubious beginnings to an international effort with his own idea about how to achieve success. ("Success" is described below - and please note that he didn't use the word "victory")

Neither debate from the two polarized political sides have convinced me that we'd be taking appropriate measures for a peaceful and productive Iraq from a moral, geopolitical or military strategic standpoint. Scocroft advises that the real challenge is not to choose between them but to make - and take - an option that is most likely to advance the overall U.S. national interest.

Scowcroft, while not ignoring the "bitter and emotional debate in the United States about the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq", reminds us that we are there nonetheless - and that a "failed Iraq" could be a catastrophe for the Middle East and a calamity for the world. He stresses that we must find an honorable and ethical track, and he doesn't mean "staying the course.". He says:

The coincidence of these events may provide a unique opportunity to review the role of foreign military forces and the international community as Iraq takes its next steps back into the community of nations. Such a review could usefully begin by turning over to the historians questions about how and why we got into Iraq. Whatever questions remain, we are there in force, and the central issue that confronts us is how we move forward most effectively.

Scowcroft's idea of "success":

1. A central government that meets the needs of the people well enough to secure their sustained support, shows sufficient consideration for minority rights to win the loyalty of those minorities and demonstrates a credible determination to live in peace with its neighbors

2. An effective, highly disciplined military and security establishment that gives its allegiance not to various elements within Iraqi society but solely to the central government

I think Mr. Scowcroft is a good servant of the public interest here - and I appreciate these ideas. The first George Bush (41) was lucky to have had him - and "43" should have respected and taken his counsel long ago. I regret to say that I believe we could have avoided the mess we've gotten ourselves into, had we only listened to the men and women who knew a hell of a lot more than the greedy chickenhawks and their neoconservative wonks about the bitter realities of war.

US Marine Asks: Will You Slander Me, Too?

US Marine Asks: Will You Slander Me, Too?

I am a Marine currently serving at 4th Marine Aircraft Wing in New Orleans. Right now my fellow Marines and I are watching as we slowly slouch towards war with Iran. If deployed to the area, I promise you this: we will fight together, and we will fight valiantly. We will fight for those we do not know and for a cause we might not share. But we will fight. And when we come home, we may continue our fight, in the halls of power, the state capitols, and DC, if we so choose. We have earned it in blood and sweat. No one, and I mean no one, has the right to impugn our service, or our credentials without expecting a defense. I am defending Mr. Murtha because he did in Vietnam what others would not do. And I thank God for giving me the chance to make my mark as he has. And when I come home, will you be there to slander me too?

Comment from a U.S. Marine - from an update on an op-ed by Bob Cesca titled The Party of 'Patriotism And The Military' Smears The Service of Another Military Patriot [Huffington Post]

Bush Admin. Launched Secret Smear Campaign Against Murtha

Bush Admin. Launched Secret Smear Campaign Against Murtha

"The Huffington Post has learned the Bush administration recently asked high ranking military leaders to denounce Congressman John Murtha. Congressman Murtha has called for the Bush Administration to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

The Bush Administration first attacked Rep. Murtha for his Iraq views by associating him with the filmmaker Michael Moore and Representative Jean Schmidt likened him to a coward on the floor of the House of Representatives. When those tactics backfired, Dick Cheney called Murtha "A good man, a marine, a patriot and he's taking a clear stand in an entirely legitimate discussion."
Though the White House has backed off publicly, administration officials have nevertheless recently made calls to military leaders to condemn the congressman. So far they have refused.

Rep. Murtha spent 37 years in the Marine Corps earning a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts and a Navy Distinguished Service Medal. His service has earned him the respect of the military, and made him a trusted adviser to both Republican and Democratic presidents and leaders of the armed forces.

Unfolding..."

Military leaders have refused - but Brent Bozell III, David Thibaiult, and Howard Kurtz, along with the editors at the Washington Post seemed to have been willing lapdogs, tongues hanging out, drool a-dripping.

I come from a family with veterans of just about every war our nation has ever fought - including the Revolution. If you think this tactic of deliberate smearing of any of our veterans doesn't piss me off, you've got another thing coming.

Does President Bush make a promise to support the troops - or only the Republican troops? When you're fighting a war beside your buddies, it doesn't matter what party you're from when the bombs and bullets are flying. President Bush should separate himself from this unAmerican activity now - or be seen as a conspirator or a harborer of conspirators against the reputation of veterans who bravely and loyally defended their nation.

The Great Raid - movie, 2005

The Great Raid
No Mama - No Papa - No Uncle Sam

I saw the movie "The Great Raid" last night and I enjoyed it very much. It brought to life the characters I'd read about in Hampton Sides' "Ghost Soldiers" - and it brought to life a time and place in history I'd heard first-hand stories about since I was a young child. My great Uncle was a prisoner of war after the Bataan March in the Philippines, and for many years later in Japan. The true story was about the 6th Ranger Battalion in the Philippines in 1945, under the command of Lt Colonel Henry Mucci (played by Benjamin Bratt). The Battalion undertake a brave and daring rescue mission against nearly impossible odds. Traveling thirty miles behind enemy lines, the 6th Ranger Battalion aims to liberate over 500 American prisoners-of-war from the notorious Cabanatuan Japanese POW camp.

Fourth Marine Mel Sheya, a Bataan survivor, wrote a first-hand accounting of Bataan and the prison at Cabanatuan in a book titled "The Battling Bastards of Bataan".

I am lucky enough to have an autographed copy of the book, which was given to my great Uncle, who survived the Bataan Death March, thanks to his sheer will and a secret stash of quinine, which he shared with others to help sustain them.

In one section of the book, Mr. Sheya writes:

"In our short stay at Cabanatuan, we had seen our comrades face the firing squad, hundreds die from dysentery, malaria, malnutrition, and shot by guerillas who were after the Japs.

When we left, the camp was in a precarious state, for many men were lying around about to die. The camp looked more like a graveyard than a prison camp. Men weighed from sixty to eighty pounds and were unable to hold anything on their stomachs.

We bid them adieu, knowing that soon many would be buried.

Some of the dying would give buddies their sentimental valuables and ask them to give them to their wives or families when Uncle Sam liberated us. The time for departure came and we lined up ready to march.

You wouldn't realize men could become so close in friendship until you could see the tears shed by the men whose close friends were leaving...."

A review of the movie can be seen here.

I continue to be greatly inspired by the story of the men who, in the face of overwhelming odds, risked their own lives to save their fellow soldiers. It was not for strategic gain, it was bravely done out of loyalty, friendship, and a sense of duty to one another.

I have long been personally touched by this story, and I was thrilled to see it brought to life in the film. I am especially glad to know that these men are getting the recognition they had so deserved.

Why Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray Deserve a Raspberry

"The true measure of a Nation is how it treats its Veterans."

~ George Washington ~

Why Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray Deserve a Raspberry

Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray have used L. Brent Bozell III's right-wing Cybercast-CNS Newswire (given a big thumbs-up review by the human bastion of fairness and balance, Rush Limbaugh) to give big wings to the Swift-boating of Congressman (and winner of two Purple Hearts) John Murtha with literally no independent investigation. CNS has been a supplier of information for GOPUSA, who brought you the fake journalist/propagandist Jeff Gannon. What could Kurtz and Murray be thinking when they passed this off as a legitimate story worthy of the Washington Post?

I am truly disgusted.
Outraged beyond imagination, I am.

I stand by every comment I'd made about Bozell last year at this time.

65% of Americans see the direction of our nation going down the toilet and all we get from Howard Kurtz is this unsubstantiated trash? Is he a gossip columnist or a journalist? If he's a journalist, I'm quite sure that he allowed himself to be manipulated on this one. I've noted that he's been manipulated before. Maybe I just don't agree with the use of (and failure to tell the whole truth about) his sources and his failure to be tough enough on them in order to get to the objective truth. Anything less is gossip. For such a prestigious newspaper, a lack of follow-up would come close to qualifying this particular story as being libelous in nature.

But don't ask me - ask Murray Waas, who has a blogpost on the topic. He's a professional journalist for whom I have immense respect for his objectivity and tenacity - and he rips the reporting to shreds. Speaking about CNS Newswire editor David Thibault, he says

"..the article tells us very little about Thibault himself. Had the reporters done a simple Internet search, they would have discovered this biography of Thibault posted online which describes him as a "senior producer for a televised news magazine" broadcast and sponsored by the Republican National Committee. I dunno, but I for one, would have wanted to know that.

Thibault's background and those engaging in the Swiftboating of Murtha would be relevant to any news story on this issue, I would think.

And so would some independent examination by the Post as to whether there is even any veracity to the charges."

I recommend reading Mr. Waas' post in its entirety. I'm glad I'm not the only outraged soul in the blogosphere. With two professional reporters on the story, you would have thought it would have been much more thorough, much more honest, much more objective. John Murtha was a patriot of this country and he has been done a great disservice here. He deserves a big apology.

Quote from 1stRepbublic/14th Star:

"The Post's ethics suck."

In this case, how could anyone disagree?

Congressman Murtha must be furious over this.

It's time to stop putting stock into the myth that right wing ideologues support our veterans. I wish I could buy into the myth that we have an objective media today.

Mary Karr on J T Leroy and James Frey

Mary Karr on J T Leroy and James Frey

"And now, writing my own memoirs, I know God is in the truth. Only by studying actual events and questioning your own motives will the complex inner truths ever emerge from the darkness..."

- Syracuse University professor and author Mary Karr in self-reflection, from a piece about the J T Leroy and James Frey literary scandals in today's NY Times [NY Times Select

Regarding the ethical nature of the respective scandals, Ms. Karr calls J T Leroy a "fine little prankster" and Mr. Frey a "skunk" - commenting that

"the nitty-gritty is that the novelist creates events for truthful interpretation, whereas the memoirist tries to honestly interpret events plagiarized from reality. And here's how readers know the difference: the label slapped on the jacket of the book."

NY Times: NO on Alito

NY Times: NO on Alito

Could their message be any clearer?

Today's New York Times editorial speaks of the President's morally challenged lawyers and Samuel Alito is not spared from mention. Alito's "pet theories" are called "offensive".
That's hot stuff.

I quote:

Both of the offensive theories at work here - that a president's intent in signing a bill trumps the intent of Congress in writing it, and that a president can claim power without restriction or supervision by the courts or Congress - are pet theories of Judge Samuel Alito, the man Mr. Bush chose to tilt the Supreme Court to the right.

The administration's behavior shows how high and immediate the stakes are in the Alito nomination, and how urgent it is for Congress to curtail Mr. Bush's expansion of power. Nothing in the national consensus to combat terrorism after 9/11 envisioned the unilateral rewriting of more than 200 years of tradition and law by one president embarked on an ideological crusade.

To any Senate member who understands the implications here (and they all understand):

Vote NO on
the confirmation of
Samuel Alito.

He's nothing but a sinking of the knife to the gut of over 200 years of American tradition.

If we had real fire and passion for the American way in the Senate, we'd see a filibuster - and argument passionate enough so that any partisan attempt to exercise the "nuclear option" would be scorned!

All this BOREDOM in these hearings = getting STUCK with Alito, finally completing the circuit of a new one-party state with an Imperial president.


Kevin Zeese at Raw Story writes:

It is time for the Democrats to stand up and use their power. Stopping Alito is an opportunity to show that they believe in three equal branches of government that provide a check and balance on the actions of the others. Americans support the framework of the Constitution. It is a chance to show they represent the people against the powerful and want a court that reflects that reality.

I couldn't agree more.

Goodbye, Shelly

Goodbye, Shelly