Craig update

Just a few minutes ago I heard on "Countdown" that Sen. Craig will announce his resignation tomorrow and that he will stay in office until the end of next month. That's his plan. Olbermann interviewed John Dean about this matter, and Dean opined that the longer Craig stays in office, the greater the potential damage to the Republican party.

This could be interesting, for it appears that Craig is far more concerned with trying to clear or salvage his name and reputation. Given that 1) the rest of the GOP completely abandoned him, and 2) he has nothing left to lose, it could very well be that Craig is not going to go quietly into that good night.

Just a few thoughts on Larry "Wide Stance" Craig

Up to now I have refrained from writing about the latest sex scandal to hit the GOP, and I am not going to write extensively about it now. Anyone wanting extensive coverage about Sen. Craig's alleged conduct, arrest, guilty plea, and what has transpired since can read all the posts on Talking Points Memo (starting on August 27, 2007). I will just raise a few points here.

Point 1: Here is yet another case of a right winger, family-values champion apparently engaged in homosexual behavior. I will state once again that I don't care about the homosexual part. What I care about is the abject hypocrisy of these people.

Point 2: There has been a surge of Republicans saying Craig should resign. Also, he was removed from his committee posts by the GOP caucus. Why is this happening to Craig when nothing happened to David Vitter? Recall that Vitter is the (married family values proponent) Louisiana Republican Senator who was exposed as having multiple encounters with prostitutes (via the DC Madam). The only apparent difference is that Vitter was engaged in heterosexual activities. Vitter actually had illegal and extramarital sex, while Craig was busted for solicitation, not actually having sex. It would seem that for the GOP, extramarital affairs and illegal sex are O.K. as long as there is no homosexual aspect. Now that's "family values."

Kevin Drum had a post that suggested a more practical and political reason for this disparity in treatment between Craig and Vitter, namely that if Vitter resigned, his replacement would be named by a Democratic governor while Craig's replacement would be named by a Republican governor. Even if this is true, it shows hypocrisy by the "family values" party.

In any event, I find it interesting that high-ranking Republicans are so willing to quickly throw Craig under the bus. I mean to say, they have stopped just short of publicly disowning him. I'm not saying Craig should not be thrown under the bus, but I would like to know why these same Republicans did not react so quickly to the Foley Follies.

I guess maybe Craig's guilty plea might have something to do with it. That plea means that the standard GOP response of "there's been no charge or proof of wrongdoing" simply is unavailable.

Another possibility is that they are pissed that Craig kept all of this a secret and thus they were pretty much blindsided when the story broke.

Point 3: Today's news is that the Republican National Committee was going to publicly ask Craig to resign, but put such action on hold because word is that Craig might resign today. As Greg Sargent asked at TPM Election Central, "When's the last time one of the national party committees called on one of their own senior senators to resign?"

To me the RNC's willingness to publicly call for Craig's resignation strikes me as very odd. I admit that I don't currently have any hard facts or evidence to support my gut feeling, but it sure feels to me like this is an indication that everything the GOP does is all based on partisan politics and appearances.

I also have to say that I do not know if the DNC would not do the same thing.

Since Bush is so keen on history, here's some he might want to examine.

Since Bush is on a big history kick, trying to use history as a guide for what we do regarding Iraq, I have a topic he might want to review, namely the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. He might want to examine the impact that little excursion had on the Soviet Union.

According to Bush's VFW speech, America--and only America--saved the world.

A great deal of Bush's speech at the VFW National Convention was devoted to discussing America's participation in WW II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. As I read through the whole speech, I was struck by the fact that Bush did not mention one other country that fought in those wars.

This post will focus on WW II. Here are some excerpts from the speech:

[W]hat I've described is the war machine of Imperial Japan in the 1940s, its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and its attempt to impose its empire throughout East Asia. Ultimately, the United States prevailed in World War II[.]

*******

I recognize that history cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. I understand that. But history does remind us that there are lessons applicable to our time. And we can learn something from history. In Asia, we saw freedom triumph over violent ideologies after the sacrifice of tens of thousands of American lives -- and that freedom has yielded peace for generations.

The American military graveyards across Europe attest to the terrible human cost in the fight against Nazism. They also attest to the triumph of a continent that today is whole, free, and at peace. The advance of freedom in these lands should give us confidence that the hard work we are doing in the Middle East can have the same results we've seen in Asia and elsewhere -- if we show the same perseverance and the same sense of purpose.

*******

In fact, the war machines of Imperial Japan would be brought down -- brought down by good folks who only months before had been students and farmers and bank clerks and factory hands. Some are in the room today. Others here have been inspired by their fathers and grandfathers and uncles and cousins.

That generation of Americans taught the tyrants a telling lesson: There is no power like the power of freedom and no soldier as strong as a soldier who fights for a free future for his children. And when America's work on the battlefield was done, the victorious children of democracy would help our defeated enemies rebuild, and bring the taste of freedom to millions.

Let me make this clear--what I am about to say is in no way meant to downplay the sacrifice made by all the veterans of WW II, nor do I mean to downplay America's role in WW II. That being said, the sacrifices, great costs paid, and contributions by other countries should be acknowledged. Not once did Bush mention any of our allies from WW II. Not once did he acknowledge their that their homes were ravaged by the war. Not once did he mention that soldiers and civilians of our allies were killed. Not once did he acknowledge that countries other than American helped save the world.

This is precisely the sort of arrogance and shortsightedness that has damaged this country under Bush's administration. I realize that this speech was for the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars), meaning that the speech was appropriate for that audience. Our veterans deserve honor and public recognition for what they have done for our country. However, the big problem with this speech is that the VFW was not the sole audience. For every speech Bush gives, the audience is the entire world. And under Bush, this country has pissed off most of the world. As if proof was needed before the Iraq war, this war has definitely showed that America cannot "go it alone." We need allies. We need help. We need friends. The arrogance of the Bush administration in going to war in Iraq and the continuation of such arrogance (along with a refusal to allow other countries to be involved) alienated most of our traditional allies and most other countries who could have provided meaningful help. It has also decreased the chances for securing allies in the Middle East--the very region Bush insists we must now save.

And now Bush keeps up this arrogance with this VFW speech. Acknowledging the price paid and contributions made by our allies in WW II even once could have avoided this arrogance, and such action would not have in any way lessened the importance of what our veterans gave and accomplished. Instead, Bush chose to make it sound like the WW II victory and all post-war success were solely American accomplishments. Why?

It is clear that Bush wanted to try to convince the American public that we have to stay in Iraq, and I guess maybe he and his idiot speech writers thought that a good dose of jingoism would do the trick. That might work on people who still support the war and Bush, but guess what? That ain't the majority of this country.

Another boneheaded statement from Bush's VFW speech

Let's revisit Bush's August 22, 2007, speech at the VFW National Convention. Bush was speaking at length about some of the wars of the past in order to try to make the point that if we had "given up" in those wars and post-war periods like some people want to "give up" in Iraq, the world would be a worse place. Bush spent a lot of time talking about how Japan became a successful democracy after WW II. Bush was trying to use Japan as an analogy for Iraq and trying to use that analogy as a reason why we have to stay in Iraq. As "proof" of his argument he offered the following:

You know, the experts sometimes get it wrong. An interesting observation, one historian put it -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts" -- he was talking about people criticizing the efforts to help Japan realize the blessings of a free society -- he said, "Had these erstwhile experts had their way, the very notion of inducing a democratic revolution would have died of ridicule at an early stage."

There's just a slight problem with quoting this historian, namely that the historian has come out and said Bush is flat out wrong.

The historian in question is John W. Dower, a professor at MIT. On August 24, 2007, he was interviewed on "Countdown" by Allison Stewart. Here's the transcript of that segment (plus some commentary from me):

STEWART: If you look at the work of that author—you can use the Google—you would discover he would not agree with that set up. In an op-ed titled “No Comparison” written in November of 2002, historian John Dower wrote, "Does America‘s successful occupation of Japan after World War II provide a model for a constructive American role in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq? The short answer is no."

John W. Dower teaches history at MIT. His book "Embracing Defeat" won a Pulitzer Prize.

Professor Dower, thank you for being with us tonight.

JOHN DOWER, PROFESSOR, MIT & AUTHOR OF "EMBRACING DEFEAT": Thank you for inviting me.

STEWART: I have to give full disclosure. I did not read your entire book this afternoon. So forgive me if my questions are very basic. I understand you found the use of that quote through a journalist. Why did you become so upset? What was your initial response?

DOWER: I was surprised and distressed that the administration continues to misuse history in this way. They began using occupied Japan as a way of prepping the U.S., force the invasion of Iraq. And they‘ve continued to do so to the present day. And it is a terrible misuse of history.

(emphasis added). So, the very person whom Bush cited in support directly said he does not support Bush's argument and that Bush basically twisted his words. I am shocked! Shocked, I say! Dower then started explaining why the Japan analogy always has been and always will be bogus.

STEWART: In an interview you referred to the use of your quote to draw this historical comparison between Japan and Iraq as, quote, "really perverse," in the sense meaning the corruption of the idea. Specifically, what was corrupted or presented wrongly?

DOWER: I think what is perverse is they have continued to use occupied Japan as an apt model for Iraq and what they are doing. And, in fact, if you look carefully at what the place and the occupation of Japan after World War II, everything says this is entirely different from Iraq. Without these conditions you can‘t expect this to happen.

The occupation began in 1945. And most of the basic reforms, the great reforms, the democratic reforms were completed within the first two or three years. We‘re still today sitting at over four years, almost four and a half years into the occupation of Iraq and the country is in chaos. These models have no application. It is not history. It‘s propaganda that they‘re giving us.

(emphasis added). The Bush administration spewing propaganda? Again, I am shocked! What is even more shocking is the lame-ass explanation given by the White House regarding Dower's criticism:

STEWART: The White House has responded Mr. Bush used the quote, "to in no way endorse his view of Iraq, only his view of Japan." Do you buy that?

DOWER: Anyone's view, mine, and I think anybody who knows it, but I think anybody that knows it, and most people in Japan—the media in Japan responded very negatively also to that speech.

I would say that everything in Japan was very, very different from in Iraq and those differences are striking and if the administration had paid more attention to them, perhaps they would have not been so foolhardy in the things they did. They do not use history for illumination, but to support propaganda.

(emphasis added). First of all, the claim that Bush was not using Dower's quote as an endorsement of Bush's Iraq policy is complete crap. Why else was it included in the speech? But let's move beyond that bullshit and focus on the italicized portion of the above excerpt. In the speech Bush emphasized that we should all look at what happened in the past, and yet his administration repeatedly ignored history and cultural realities when it came to Iraq policy. Dower then gave an example which also further explained why a using post-WW II Japan as a model for Iraq is fallacious:

STEWART: An editorial you wrote in 2002 was prescient. You predicted attacks on our troops and, quote, "religious, ethnic, regional and tribal animosities likely to erupt in post-war Iraq." Why did you believe this at the time?

DOWER: I think most—many people who knew Iraq very much were pointing out to the racial, to the ethnic, to the tribal and geographic fault lines in Iraq, which were just enormous. Anyone who worked on Japan, as I do, would say what a stunning difference from Japan. There are no such fault lines in Japan. That was one of the many differences in Japan. If you went down the list, for example, and this was clear before the war.

In other words, 1) there were ethnic and tribal divisions in Iraq that would be problematical, 2) there were no such divisions in Japan, 3) all of this was known before the Iraq war, and 4) the Bush administration either ignored or disregarded these facts. I have written extensively regarding facts known before the war which clearly showed that post-Saddam Iraq was going to be a complete mess and how the Bush administration failed to integrate those facts into any decisions or planning (and decisions not to do any planning). Rather than listing all those posts, I will link to only this one, which provides a good starting point for getting into all the other posts.

Dower concluded with more details as to why the Japan analogy is bad, and he also highlighted the utter lack of planning for post-Saddam Iraq.

DOWER: World War II against Japan was a formal war with a formal surrender. The Americans moved in and the Japanese government remained completely intact from the top to the bottom, beginning with the emperor through the bureaucracy through the towns and cities and villages. The country had great social cohesion. It had a deep national history. It had very strong democratic traditions back in the 1910s and 1920s in particular, before militarism took hold.

If you sat with people from the Middle East, who really were looking seriously at it, it was clear, they were all saying none of this is present in Iraq. None of what was present in Japan is present in Iraq. And then if you go beyond this to other differences, one of the stunning differences is the Americans began planning for the occupation of Japan in 1942.

STEWART: So the planning alone is enough?

DOWER: So the planning alone—and it was taken seriously. When they arrived in Japan, they had plans and a very charismatic leader, General Douglas MacArthur. And he announced them clearly and swiftly and they were a very competent occupation regime. So there was a competence there which added to their sense of legitimacy.

Planning for the occupation of Japan started approximately three years ahead of time. In essence, any planning for post-war Iraq began mere weeks before the war started. Actually, as has been detailed before, the State Department had been doing such planning for about 18 months, but the Bush administration shut down that planning and refused to use any of it. Then when Gen. Jay Garner (ret.) was put in charge of the group that was supposed to be responsible of the occupation/reconstruction, the Bush administration gave him no resources or help. In Japan, a thorough plan was in place. The organization was in place. The policies and goals were clearly defined. None of that was done with Iraq. And when all the "fault lines" and other Iraq realities are added to the mix, there is no way that post-WW II Japan can serve as any kind of model for Iraq or as any kind of justification for "staying the course" in Iraq.

And despite all of that, Bush deliberately used post-WW II Japan in such manner, and he wrongfully and knowingly tried to use someone else's words to that end.

Coming up...more about Bush's WW II references.

My only commentary on Michael Vick

Michael Vick entered a guilty plea on dog fighting charges. Let me explain why I think Michael Vick is one sorry-ass person. I will say now that anyone who thinks my condemnation of Vick has anything to do with race can kiss my ass. I would say the same things about anyone of any race.

It is not because he was involved in dog fighting. I think dog fighting is reprehensible, but I can accept that it is culturally acceptable in some circles. I can also accept that some dogs are bred to fight. Fighting is in their genetic makeup.

It is not because he lied to the authorities, the NFL, and the world about his involvement in these sorry affairs. He broke the law, and as a result he was in a position of losing millions of legitimate dollars and a career, and I can understand why he would lie.

It is not because he was involved in gambling. Vick said that he never personally bet on or benefited from any dog fights. I think that is utter bullshit. Even if it is true, he was nonetheless deeply involved in gambling. Gambling is an inherent and inseparable part of dog fighting. From a professional sports league perspective, the involvement in gambling is the big concern and crime. Any professional athlete, but especially a marquee star like Vick, who is involved in any kind of gambling venture runs a risk of having that fact used as a means to get him to fix games in some way. Thus, the gambling activity was a huge problem. Still, that is not my problem with Vick.

My problem is with Vick killing dogs, more specifically the way he killed dogs. I can accept that dogs that were not aggressive or vicious enough would have to be put down. I don't like it, I think it is wrong, but I can accept it. What I cannot accept is how Vick and his cohorts killed the dogs--by hanging, drowning, and electrocution. Anyone who does that is a sick, twisted fuckhead. If you are going to kill a dog and you don't want to spend the time and the money to have it done by a vet, try a single bullet to the head. Is that cruel? Well, it damn sure is nowhere near as cruel as hanging, drowning, and electrocution. Vick and his cohorts deliberately chose to kill the dogs viciously, slowly, and painfully instead of quickly and cleanly. And they didn't have other people do it. They did it themselves. That is just sick.

I don't care if Michael Vick ever plays in the NFL again.

A message from Wes Clark

We must find a way out of Iraq.

The White House's September Report on Iraq has yet to be released, and the discussions and debates have already begun over the success or failure of the troop escalation in Iraq. As I've said before, we need to stop arguing over the troops or their tactics and raise the debate to the administration's strategies and policies in this region. We can't succeed in Iraq with more troops, no matter how good they are, because we can't succeed in this war just by killing people or intimidating the opposition.

For the past ten weeks, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq -- a broad coalition of organizations working to end the war -- have been pressuring Republican obstructionists who keep rubberstamping George W. Bush's failed policies.

Tomorrow, their efforts will culminate into one national day of action -- Take a Stand Day. AAEI in coordination with coalition partner, MoveOn.org, will be hosting Town Halls on Iraq and Stand Up Vigils across the country to send a clear message to Congress: bring a responsible end to the war.

Can you attend the Take A Stand Town Hall and/or Stand Up Vigil in your community and make sure your representatives hear the public's voice on the Iraq war?

Sign Up Here:

http://pol.moveon.org/event/septembervigil/?rc=congress

Despite what George W. Bush says, Iraq is not Vietnam. When we leave Iraq, we'll still be left with significant interests in the region. We'll still have concerns about Iranian nuclear potential, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, our friends in the Arab Gulf, and yes, the security of the world's principal supply of oil. These interests won't go away simply by pulling U.S. troops out.

Congress must demand George W. Bush present a real strategy and policy in the region and defend it. If George W. Bush refuses, then Congress must explore legislative measures, including funding cutoffs to force President Bush to change the course in Iraq.

The administration doesn't want to talk about this. They want to talk about troops. They want to say they support our troops, and if we question the numbers of troops or their effectiveness, they want to say we don't support our troops. President Bush, we're not questioning the Generals. Mr. President, we are questioning you. Stop hiding behind General Dave Petraeus.

The only person who can make a difference is the person who controls the overall strategy in the region. We must make the debate about George Bush and his failure of leadership. It is Congress' responsibility to force President Bush to defend his strategy.

I urge you to show up in force to send Congress back to D.C. with a message they cannot ignore.

Sign Up Here:

http://pol.moveon.org/event/septembervigil/?rc=congress

Sincerely,

Gonzo is gone-zo!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. Oh happy day, even if it has come long, long after this should have happened. In an administration populated almost entirely by duplicitous, incompetent, political hacks, Gonzales was possibly the worst of the lot.

There will be more to say about this turn of events, but for now I will say 1) good riddance, and 2) I hope this man never holds any public office ever again.

My "new" horn two years later and other musical musings

WARNING: This post is heavy with bass bone technical talk.

Today marks the two-year anniversary of owning my Kanstul 1662 bass trombone. I am happy to say that I still love the horn. I still think it is the best horn out there for me. Of course that didn't stop me from buying a 1953 Conn 70H about a month ago, but that's another story...Back to my Kanstul. After two years I can provide a good evaluation of the horn. It's not perfect, but I still would not have a different horn. For a while I had a problem with the valves getting gummed up and needing cleaning on a semi-frequent basis. Fortunately, all I had to do to solve that problem was change valve oil (from Zaja Blue to Zaja Pro). Another problem was that the solder on the F trigger gave way twice, which required the use of a heavier solder. The F trigger has remained in place since then, but the heavier solder combined with the amazing singing resonance of the horn has caused the trigger hardware to vibrate, and that in turn would cause a buzz when playing tuning Bb. Wierd, huh? Once I took the thumb paddle off that problem was solved. The only other problem I have had is that notes in seventh position generally have to be played in 7+ position to be in tune, but given that I generally play low B and E with the F trigger, this is not a big problem.

Bottom line: The 1662 is still the only horn out there that has all the features I want, and the horn is still amazingly versatile, and I still love it.

I changed mouthpieces about nine months ago, going from the Rath B 1 1/2 W to the Rath 1 1/4 W, which is a larger mouthpiece. The new mouthpiece did more than open up the lower register. It opened up my overall sound to give me the precise tone I wanted. It has been a lot of work as I have never used a big mouthpiece (this one is .1 mm larger than a Bach 1G), but it has been worth it.

About six weeks ago I bought Ben's Basics, a method book by Ben van Dijk, one of the best bass trombonists in the world (his website is in my list o' links). This is a fabulous book, and I highly recommend it. I have been doing the book's basic practice routine, and it is the best one I have ever tried. Should anyone be interested in more details about that, we can discuss it in the comments.

And finally...I have started a trombone quartet. The name of the group is Quadrivial Quotient, and if things go well, a website will follow in the semi-near future (I have several internet domains wrapped up). I've gone a little bit crazy acquiring music, and we have over 200 charts at our disposal. We have music for almost every occasion except bar mitzvahs (anyone know where I can get some klezmer music arranged for trombone quartet?). Our "world premier" is tentatively scheduled for October 28. Details to follow.

Vietnam, George? Are you sure you want to go there? Now?

Back on April 13, 2004, the following exchange took place at a Bush press conference:

Q: Mr. President, April is turning into the deadliest month in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, and some people are comparing Iraq to Vietnam and talking about a quagmire. Polls show that support for your policy is declining and that fewer than half Americans now support it. What does that say to you and how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.

What a difference a little over three years makes. On August 22, 2007, Bush gave a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, and he did indeed compare Iraq to Vietnam. I am going to quote some of his statements and add my commentary along the way. Here is how he began the Vietnam comparison:

Finally, there's Vietnam. This is a complex and painful subject for many Americans. The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

The argument that America's presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

(emphasis added). First of all, I'm not sure who has argued that "the killing would end" in Iraq if only we were not there. This is classic Bush--make up a bogus argument so he can knock it down. Second, why bring up Greene's novel in general? Bush did not need such reference to make his basic argument (which is explained below). More to the point, Bush damn sure did not need to include the quote "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused." Why? Because that quote perfectly describes Bush. I have spent almost 20 years structuring, writing, and making arguments for a living. One rule I have developed is "don't make a statement that can be directed right back at you in a negative way" (conversely, nothing gives me a bigger kick than turning an opponent's arguments against him). Bush's inclusion of this quote violated that rule in a big way. Bush could have simply stated "Some people have argued that the killing would end if we leave Iraq" and that's what he should have done instead of unnecessarily quoting a line from a novel that makes him look like a fool. The fact that he did not recognize this is further evidence that the man is plain stupid.

Bush went on to highlight some of the Vietnam-era arguments that thing would be better there once we left, and then he said this:

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

Now I know that George ain't exactly a genius when it comes to geography, but someone should have pointed out to him that Vietnam and Cambodia are two different countries. Now I know that what happened in Cambodia during the Vietnam-era was linked to actions in Vietnam, but I raise the obvious "two different countries" point for a reason. Bush acknowledged that the Vietnam war is a complex subject, but then he tried to turn it into a simple (and simplistic) one. Cambodian history of the time is a very complex subject. Did Bush address that? No. Did he address the overall situation in Vietnam? No. Did he address the possibility that no matter what we did in Indochina the ultimate result might have been the same? No. Did he address how the Vietnam War was affecting efforts in the Cold War? No. Did he address how the Vietnam War was tearing this country apart? No. Instead, he boiled it all down to one conclusion after "no debate" in his own mind (there's a shocker): all the deaths and imprisonments in Vietnam and Cambodia were caused by the American withdrawal.

And later Bush said that "In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one." When this statement is viewed in the context of the entire speech, it certainly seems that Bush is claiming that the American withdrawal from Vietnam was immoral, or, stated differently, that we had a moral obligation to stay in Vietnam.

And that leads me to some questions for our Fearless Leader:

If staying in Vietnam and continuing the Vietnam War was so crucial, was so much our moral obligation, then why did you not volunteer to serve in Vietnam? Why did you choose to avoid service in Vietnam?

An assessment and recommendation from troops in Baghdad

Three days ago, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece about Iraq written by a group of people who have current, firsthand knowledge of what is happening. They are: Army Specialist Buddhika Jayamaha, Army Sergeant Wesley D. Smith, Army Sergeant Jeremy Roebuck, Army Sergeant Omar Mora, Army Sergeant Edward Sandmeier, Army Staff Sergeant Yance T. Gray, and Army Staff Sergeant Jeremy A. Murphy. They are U.S. Army soldiers coming to the end of a 15-month deployment in Iraq. In other words, this op-ed piece was written not by some pundit or politician or smart-ass lawyer in Texas. It was written by people who have been there, people who have lived there, people who have fought there, people who are members of our military. So anyone who claims to support our troops can do so by listening to these soldiers.

Here are the opening paragraphs of the op-ed:

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

And that just gives the general picture. The details counter almost all of the spin from the Bush administration. For instance:

Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

So much for "When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

These soldiers also address the possibilities for a "political solution." Everyone agrees that a political solution is key to "success" in Iraq (and I will remind all the Democrats that in the 2004 campaign Wes Clark was the first candidate to discuss this and point out that the Bush administration was failing to use a comprehensive approach to Iraq...yes, I am still bitter about how Clark was ignored and mistreated by his own party), but these soldiers explain why the realities on the ground make such a solution unlikely.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

In other words, a political solution will be something that is beyond our control, and the way in which it is achieved and the immediate and ongoing consequences are likely not going to be things that meet American approval and interests. And that means that "success" for America might not ever happen.

And any chance we might have ever had at success (and I still maintain that such a result was near impossible from the start and there was plenty of evidence of that before the war) has been squandered by the criminal incompetence of the Bush administration. The following assessment from the op-ed supports my opinion:

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

Like I have said before, building and painting schools was no substitute for providing water, electricity, and jobs. And like I have detailed repeatedly, the Bush administration did nothing before the war and in the time after the declaration of "mission accomplished" to see that these basic needs would be provided.

The op-ed concludes with a prediction and a recommendation for policy. I just hope that The Decider is paying attention.

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

The Coast Guard is in something deep, and it ain't water.

This past Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a story about a program called Deepwater, which was supposed to modernize and upgrade the capabilities of the Coast Guard. To put it mildly, the program has been a failure. Here's how the report opened:

After 9/11, few government entities were as poorly prepared to take on an expanded role as the U.S. Coast Guard. Already charged with sea rescues, drug interdictions and immigration enforcement, the Coast Guard became the primary maritime force for homeland security, tasked with protecting 95,000 miles of coastline and 361 ports with an old and antiquated fleet.

So five years ago the Coast Guard undertook a massive modernization program called "Deepwater" and ended up way over its head. As correspondent Steve Kroft reports, the $24 billion project has turned into a fiasco that has set new standards for incompetence, and triggered a Justice Department investigation.

I will not share the specifics of the report, instead choosing to direct people to the 60 Minutes website for all the details. I will, however, make two observations.

First, the entire program was privatized, meaning that both the execution and oversight of the program was placed in the hands of major defense contractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. As retired Coast Guard Captain Kevin Jarvis said,

People say that this is like the fox watching the henhouse. And it's worse than that. It's where the government asked the fox to develop the security system for the henhouse. Then told 'em, "You're gonna do it. You know, by the way, we'll give you the security code to the system and we'll tell you when we're on vacation."

Privatization is not some sort of magical panacea that automatically works. If big corporations were primarily interested in doing a good job in the most efficient way possible, privatization would be great, but corporations are primarily interested in making lots of money. For them, doing the job is nowhere near as important as getting the job. Greed plays a major role. This sort of waste and corruption has been rampant under the Bush administration, but it has happened continuously long before now and can certainly continue once Bush is gone. I have long been in favor of reducing government, but the objective of such reduction is efficiency, both in terms of getting the job done and money spent. Privatization can be a means to do that, but unless the basic attitude of private companies changes and the government still maintains some oversight, privatization is not going to be any better than bureaucracy.

The second observation deals with the Bush administration and its horrendous record regarding Homeland Security. As noted in the opening of the 60 Minutes report, the Coast necessarily is our first line of maritime defense, meaning it is one of the most important organizations in protecting us from terrorism. And yet what has happened under the Bush administration? The Coast Guard has been weakened while private defense contractors make billions. And that is another part of the Bush legacy.

Summit40 report

About a month ago I wrote about Summit40, an improbable charity run by my friend and high school classmate Alan Brock. After 896 miles of running from Austin, all Alan had left to do was make a little jog known as the Pike's Peak marathon. It took him a while, but on August 19 he did indeed make that run to complete his 40-day journey.

Six days into the run Alan developed a very serious blister on his left foot, but he overcame that and so much more. He kept a blog of the entire journey, and I encourage people to read it. Just go to Summit40 and click on "Brock's Blog."

Way to go, Alan!

"Just wait until we get the report from Gen. Petraeus..."

For months now, the standard response from the Bush administration to any questions or concerns about Iraq has been "Let's wait until September when we get Gen. Petraeus's report." This response became the latest version of "We will not answer questions about an ongoing investigation" or "we won't answer hypothetical questions."

And now we discover that "the Petraeus report"--the report that is supposed to quiet all critics and become the basis for future policy--is not even going to be written by Gen. Petraeus. As reported by the L.A. Times yesterday,

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Just more bullshit from Bush about how he only does what the commanders recommend. Yeah, right. Bush might listen to his commanders, but he won't let them write their own reports.

And anyone doubting that Bush and the rest of his administration have been saying that this report was going to be Petraeus's report needs to check out this post at Talking Points Memo.

As noted in that post,

In light of this news, we thought it would be interesting to go back and look at just how comprehensive, thorough, and coordinated the White House effort to convince the American people that this report will represent Petraeus' exclusive word has been until now.

So TPM's Eric Kleefeld and I went back to see just how many times White House officials said the report would be the work of Petraeus, or of Petraeus and Crocker. It wasn't hard to find examples. In fact, we stopped at ten. If you look at them all together, it really becomes clear just how premeditated -- and how audacious -- the White House's deception campaign here really has been.

This isn't just some academic exercise, by the way. It goes directly to the heart of the credibility of the report itself -- something which a tremendous amount is being staked on in advance of the showdowns between the White House and Congress on Iraq that are coming this fall.

Their ten examples are then listed. But wait...there's more!

One would think that after all the emphasis put on Gen. Petraeus's report and his views that he would certainly appear openly before Congress and the American people to discuss these matters and answer questions. Gen. Petraeus has seemed to be very forthright and candid in all his previous dealings with Congress and the public, and surely that is what is needed given the importance placed on "his" report by the Bush administration. Surely that is what is needed since "his" report is supposed to be the basis for future policy and action in Iraq.

Well, guess again. Today the Washington Post reported that

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

*******

White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony.

(emphasis added). First they won't let Petraeus write his own report, and now they don't want him speaking publicly about it. Not only that, but the White House wants Petraeus to speak privately to Congressional committees BEFORE the report is even published. That would mean that no one could check with Petraeus to see if he agreed with the report (that he will not have written) or ask him whether the report is accurate and the recommendations are feasible.

The WaPo article also reported that

U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad appeared puzzled yesterday when told that the White House had indicated that the two may not be appearing in public. They said they will continue to prepare for the testimony in the absence of instructions from Washington. "If anything, we just don't know the dates/times/or the committees that the assessment will be presented to," a senior military official in Baghdad said in an e-mail yesterday.

I'd say those "instructions" will be delivered soon.

So, here's the situation...We have been told repeatedly for months that 1) everything hinges on Gen. Petraeus's report, and 2) to there's no way to judge or criticize Iraq policy until we have Gen. Petraeus's report. And now we find out that "Gen. Petraeus's report" is going to be written by White House political hacks and that the White House does not want us, the American public, to know what Gen. Petraeus really thinks.

Just another deceitful day of life under the Bush administration. Ain't life grand?

CLARIFICATION (8-17-2007): I am not complaining about the fact that Petraeus might brief Congress in a closed (non-public) session. That possibility, standing alone, does not upset me, for there might very well be legitimate reasons for a closed session. I am complaining that this is in contravention to the way the Bush administration has been portraying and selling the "Petraeus report" for months. I am also complaining that the White House wants Petraeus to speak with Congress, and possibly the public, only BEFORE the report is published.

Hillary's first national TV ad and her dodging tactics

Hillary Clinton has her first national TV campaign out in Iowa, and for me it simply reinforces my view of her--and that view ain't good.

The theme of the ad is fine, namely that Hillary is compassionate and wants to make life better for people who have been marginalized. However, the main catchphrase is something with which I have several problems.

Throughout the ad, Hillary says "If you are a __________, you are invisible to this President." She's talking about George W. Bush. And while the groups she mentions have been invisible to some degree to Bush, what the hell does that have to do with the 2008 campaign? News flash, Hillary: George Bush ain't running for President in 2008. You are not running against George Bush. None of the Republican candidates are named "George Bush." To me, her constant references to Bush are similar to wingers always invoking 9-11. It is an emotional ploy to take away focus from relevant matters. So Hillary says she will be better than George Bush. Whoop-dee-damn-doo! My dog would better than George Bush. So Hillary now wants to run against George Bush? If she really thought Bush has been so bad, and if she thought she would be so much better than him, why didn't she try running against him in 2004? Only now that Bush cannot run and will soon be out of office does she try to run against George Bush. Wow, how courageous. Did it take her this long to figure out that Bush has been a bad President? If so, she's not nearly as smart as she claims to be.

This ad's invocation of Bush also shows a real arrogance to me because Hillary is acting like she has already won the nomination. It gives the appearance that she has already ordained herself to be the nominee. She can smile and wave and say "I know I have to earn votes" all she wants, but ads like this reveal her true nature. She thinks she has already won, and I don't like that.

Hillary has shown that she will do or say anything to further her political career and win elections (read this post for a few details). And her responses in the debates to hypothetical questions provide more proof. In a debate in early June, Joe Biden said he was in favor of using military force to stop the genocide in Sudan's Dafur region. The moderator then asked if the other candidates agreed, and here's what Hillary said:

Well we're not going to engage in these hypotheticals. I mean one of the jobs of a president is being very reasoned in approaching these issues. And I don't think it's useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms.

Excuse me? Not useful to know where a candidate stands on a major world event that is actually taking place right now? Not useful to know how a candidate might choose to use the military? Give me a break. Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune addressed these questions in an August 8, 2007, blog entry:

Only cowards duck them, I say. The hypothetical question--"What if ...?" -- remains one of the great tools of ethical exploration and argumentation.

As I wrote in a column [in 1998], answering hypothetical questions can push a person toward moral clarity, promote intellectual rigor and self-understanding, and build guideposts into the metaphorical road ahead.

What do you value and why? How do you rank your values when they seem to conflict? Which principles do you apply when confronting a dilemma?

Deft hypothetical questions zero in on the inconsistencies in our thinking, expose ambiguities, reveal where emotion, hypocrisy and shoddy thinking have overtaken logic and rip us from comfortable moorings.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I want some guideposts to what a candidate for President thinks and believes--especially now. Apparently Hillary does not want anyone to know these things. She is dodging hard questions and issues, and she will continue to do so, for, as noted by Zorn at the top of his post, Hillary stated at the August 7 debate/forum in Chicago that "I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals..."

What galls me about Hillary's dodge tactic on hypotheticals is that it is precisely what Bush and everyone in his administration have been using for years. As George his ownself said at a press conference on July 8, 2002, "They (the American people) can expect me not to answer hypothetical questions." And he has stuck steadfastly to that statement ever since. Hillary pillories George Bush, and yet she is now doing exactly what he has done over and over and over. That's hypocrisy, folks. She is doing it to avoid giving tough, genuine answers on substantive, relevant issues, and she has indicated that she is going to keep doing that. That is not what I want in a President.

And many Democrats have applauded her refusal to answer hypotheticals, calling her strong and courageous. Those people have their heads buried somewhere that ain't right. Wake up, people.

Hillary Clinton's ambition is not to lead, but to win. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have already had enough of that sort of Presidency. I don't want another one.

The promised excerpts from MSNBC

In the previous post I said I would provide excerpts from last night's Dan Abrams commentary on Karl Rove and Keith Olbermann's interview with James Moore, and here they are...

Here's what Abrams said:

[I]n terms of his legal legacy, Rove has long applied basic political strategy to the courts: Accuse your opponents or critics of engaging in the very behavior that could become your own Achilles heel. Rove has accused judges of bending the law to fit their personal agenda. It‘s true, some do. But I can‘t think of a federal judge who has done that more than Karl Rove himself.

Rove called the federal judiciary fundamentally out of touch with mainstream America, a nice campaign slogan, but it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of judges. They‘re not supposed to reflect popular opinion.

(emphasis added). Abrams is absolutely right. Like it or not, judges are not supposed to reflect public opinion. The legislature is supposed to reflect public opinion by creating laws. The role of the courts is to enforce those laws which are passed by Congress and to determine if those laws comply with the Constitution. And the Constitution is not supposed to be a reflection of popular opinion--unless popular opinion establishes a Constitutional amendment through an established process. The remainder of Abrams's commentary summarized Rove's SOP (standard operating procedure):

It also demonstrates some hypocrisy. He cites the will of the people until, of course, it comes to the people‘s reaction to this administration‘s policies. Then he ignores it and even said, quote, “I‘m not going to stay or leave based on whether it pleases the mob.” Rove‘s legacy is littered with examples of shifting rules to accommodate his own political objectives.

We don‘t know exactly how involved he was with certain decisions about everything from the NSA spying to Guantanamo, but we do know, according to Justice Department e-mails, that in January of 2005, Rove was asking about firing all 93 U.S. attorneys, that he passed along specific complaints about others, then reportedly advised on how to make the firings seem merit-based.

And to avoid being scrutinized ever, he sent more than 140,000 e-mails through the Republican National Committee‘s computer system instead of through the White House, thereby circumventing federal law. That‘s according to a House oversight committee.

His philosophy: expand the power of the executive branch, often meaning his own power—and demean the branch of government willing to rein him in, the judicial branch. Rove used court appointments as a political carrot, privately assuring religious groups, for example, that court nominees would share their beliefs. And for the fired U.S. attorneys, it was also about politics but in the form of political punishment.

He may be one of the great political operatives of all time, but from a lawyer‘s perspective, as someone who‘s studied the Constitution and relishes the rule of law, appreciates our courts, I will not shed a tear at his farewell bash.

(emphasis added). Nor will I, Mr. Abrams.

Although Abrams was speaking only about Rove, there is no way to separate Rove's tactics and philosophy from those of the Bush administration as a whole, as James Moore explained to Keith Olbermann.

You‘d like to believe that we all at least had a shred of humanity and will have a moment of atonement. I do not think that Karl does. There is a certain part of this guy that is pathological, and he has a happy little movie in his head that he is watching. And he creates a reality that he refers to. That is what sustains him and the people who support him. They are in denial, just as they have been in 2006 and with the war.

See? I'm not the only one who thinks Rove is pathological. Moore then went on to sum up Rove and the Bush administration:

What Karl has done throughout the years is turn everything political. He has taken the institutions of our government and our country and he‘s turned them into political institutions in ways that they never were used before. Federal agencies are used to accumulate political power. Everything they did was to accumulate political power. And eventually, what happened was that when those agencies were called upon to serve the constituencies that elected people to Washington, when they were unable to do that, the public finally said, we have had enough. We get what‘s going on here. Karl did not see that coming. But that does not mean he is not a bright political guy. It just means that nothing else mattered to him beyond the accumulation of political power. It was not about serving the people that sent them to Washington.

(emphasis added). I have tried repeatedly tried to make the points Moore so succinctly stated, and he just about covered everything. About the only thing missing is that there were some "true believers" in the Bush administration--Wolfowitless being the chief one--but even they were delusional and they were so devoted exclusively to their own views that they were blind to reality and thus blind to trying to serve the people.

"It was not about serving the people that sent them to Washington." That is and will be the legacy of Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

More on Rove and the Bush administration

On August 13, Keith Olbermann interviewed James Moore, author of Bush's Brain and The Architect, two books about Karl Rove. When the transcript is available later today I will post excerpts, but until then check out the video of the interview, in which Moore describes Rove as pathological and summarizes the Bush/Rove SOP and what is sure to be the legacy of Rove and the Bush administration.

Immediately after Olbermann's show, Dan Abrams opened his show with a fairly blistering commentary on Rove. I will also post excerpts from that commentary when the transcript is available later today.

Now for excerpts which already exist. Kevin Drum noted two passages from Joshua Green's profile of Rove in the current issue of The Atlantic magazine. The actual article is accessible online only to subscribers, and although I have a subscription, I don't know if a link would work for non-subscribers. Anyhoo, here's a heartwarming story Dick Armey told Green:

"For all the years he was president," Armey told me, "Bill Clinton and I had a little thing we'd do where every time I went to the White House, I would take the little name tag they give you and pass it to the president, who, without saying a word, would sign and date it. Bill Clinton and I didn't like each other. He said I was his least-favorite member of Congress. But he knew that when I left his office, the first schoolkid I came across would be given that card, and some kid who had come to Washington with his mama would go home with the president's autograph. I think Clinton thought it was a nice thing to do for some kid, and he was happy to do it."

Armey said that when he went to his first meeting in the White House with President Bush, he explained the tradition with Clinton and asked the president if he would care to continue it. "Bush refused to sign the card. Rove, who was sitting across the table, said, 'It would probably wind up on eBay,'" Armey continued. "Do I give a damn? No. But can you imagine refusing a simple request like that with an insult? It's stupid. From the point of view of your own self-interest, it's stupid. I was from Texas, and I was the majority leader. If my expectations of civility and collegiality were disappointed, what do you think it was like for the rest of the congressmen they dealt with? The Bush White House was tone-deaf to the normal courtesies of the office."

What a couple of douchebags. And then there's this nugget concerning hurricane Katrina:

Hurricane Katrina clearly changed the public perception of Bush's presidency. Less examined is the role Rove played in the defining moment of the administration's response: when Air Force One flew over Louisiana and Bush gazed down from on high at the wreckage without ordering his plane down. Bush advisers Matthew Dowd and Dan Bartlett wanted the president on the ground immediately, one Bush official told me, but were overruled by Rove for reasons that are still unclear: "Karl did not want the plane to land in Louisiana." Rove's political acumen seemed to be deserting him altogether.

Beside the fact that that decision was monumentally stupid, why the hell did Bush--the supposed "Decider" and bold leader--need anyone to tell him that as President, he needed his ass on the ground to provide some tangible show of leadership and that he actually cared about the victims? Why did anyone need to tell him that making a personal appearance instead of simply flying over would possibly give people hope and trust? Then again, why on September 11, 2001, did The Decider just sit in an elementary school classroom for seven minutes after being told that America had been attacked? Why did he look like he had no idea what to do? Go to the last section of this post for a description of what Bush did in that classroom.

George W. Bush is no leader. He can't even make easy decisions on his own. Instead he has relied on reprobates like Karl Rove. They are both disgraceful.

Karl Rove resigns.

Karl Rove will resign his post at the White House at the end of this month. According to the Washington Post, Rove says he is going to get out of political consulting.

This is a great way to start the week!

Rove, a/k/a "Bush's Brain," is perhaps the single person most responsible for Bush's political success and the overall style that politics has taken over the last six and a half years.

Rove is a sick, twisted, power-hungry asshole, and I just wish I thought his resignation truly meant that he was getting out of the political consulting game. However, I seriously doubt that to be the case. The man seems to have a near pathological need to be involved in Machiavellian machinations. Now that he is no longer a public official, he could very well be free from close scrutiny and allowed to be even more of a bastard than he has been in the past. I also don't think Bush is capable of functioning without Rove being intimately involved.

Rove's departure does raise some interesting questions. Although he and Bush deny that the resignation has anything to do with the various ongoing Congressional investigations, anyone believing that might be interested in the beach front property I have for sale here in Wichita Falls (which, by the way is hundreds of miles from the nearest coastline). As proof of his claim, Rove stated that he wanted to leave about a year ago. Hmm...about a year ago, it was starting to become clear that the Democrats could very well win back Congress. Could that have prompted Karl's desire to leave? After all, a Democratic Congress would mean lots of investigations, and most of them would lead back to Rove. So I ain't buying the bullshit that Congressional investigations had nothing to do with Rove's decision to resign.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. There were no Congressional investigations a year ago, so Karl is telling the truth. Well, this is precisely the kind of bullshit that Karl Rove and the Bush administration use as their sustenance. No one would know more about the possible election results--and know sooner--than Karl Rove. It would not take a rocket scientist (or a political scientist) to figure out that if the Democrats won back both houses there would be lots of investigations of Bush administration activities. And who had likely been involved, either directly or through some sort of planning or supervision, in most of those activities? Karl Rove. Karl could see the handwriting on the wall, and I believe that is why he wanted to leave a year ago (if in fact he is telling the truth about that). So, while it is literally true that there were no Congressional investigations a year ago, it is also true that there loomed a real possibility of future investigations that would lead to Rove. Consequently, to say that Congressional investigations are unrelated to Rove's resignation is just more bullshit from the Bush administration.

And that leads to the interesting questions. What happens now that Rove is out of the White House? More to the point, what happens to the claims of executive privilege? Is Rove going to clear out all his files and records so that the White House can claim that they do not exist and therefore they don't have to turn over the records to Congress? Will the Congress continue to pursue Rove now that he is officially out of the administration?

My guess is that Rove thinks that the Dems will be satisfied that they "got rid" of him and will forget about coming after him. I hope the Dems do not do that. They need to go after Rove with a renewed vigor. Why? First of all, he needs to be held accountable for all his bullshit. I'm talking about principle here, folks. This country does not need any future Karl Roves, regardless of political party. Holding him accountable could help to change the political climate for the future. Secondly, if Rove is busy trying to defend himself, he will have less time and energy to devote to "political consulting." Karl Rove's influence on American politics needs to end, and his resignation from the White House does not accomplish that.

And by the way, I did see his and Bush's statements as they happened. I almost threw up.

According to this Republican, one Hindu prayer and one Muslim Congressman are going to end American civilization.

Via Josh Marshall, I found this story from One News Now:

A conservative Idaho lawmaker believes America's founding fathers would not have wanted a Muslim elected to Congress or a Hindu prayer delivered in the U.S. Senate.

Last month, the U.S. Senate was opened for the first time ever with a Hindu prayer. Although the event generated little outrage on Capitol Hill, Representative Bill Sali (R-Idaho) is one member of Congress who believes the prayer should have never been allowed.

"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.

Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."

"You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.

According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, "that's a different god" and that it "creates problems for the longevity of this country."

Gee, I wonder what Sali would think about some Republican Senators and Representatives sponsoring, attending, and participating in a lavish coronation ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building for Sun Myung Moon? As insane as that little event was, the world did not come to an end, so I kinda doubt that one Hindu prayer and one Muslim in the House of Representatives is going to do much harm.

Then again, maybe Sali agrees with Moon's views that "Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent" and that Moon is bigger than Jesus and will succeed where Jesus failed.

And Rep. Sali, you might want to start carrying an umbrella all the time.

Certain aspects of Firefox are crap.

I was suffering from more burnout and this is what gets me to start posting again...

I use Firefox as my primary web browser. I have been using it since before I started this blog. Overall, I like it better than IE or Netscape. HOWEVER, some aspects of Firefox are inexcusably bad.

Almost every time for at least the last year whenever I downloaded the latest version of Firefox, I lost all my bookmarks. The first time that happened I lost a huge amount of bookmarks--and they had all been organized, no less. As a result, I don't bookmark anything in Firefox any more. It seems this flaw might have been fixed, but I still won't rebuild my bookmark list.

And then there is Firefox's download manager, which is a complete piece of shit. It always has been, and still is. It takes at least 30 seconds for it to come up if it is not already open. Any file of any kind that is downloaded is noted in the download manager, and any time I have tried to remove a single file or use the "clean up" button (which clears the entire download manager), the whole program freezes. And good luck trying to find any support or help on this matter. I don't have time to wander through all the forums to find solutions. WILL SOMEBODY IN THE MOZILLA COMMUNITY FIX THE PIECE OF SHIT DOWNLOAD MANAGER? There are other problems with the download manager, but I am not going to detail them now.

Look, there are many great things about Firefox, but I do not understand why the download manager continues to be a steaming pile of crap.

And another thing...It takes Firefox about five times as long to download picture files than on IE. What's up with that?

People working on Firefox really need to fix these problems.