Friday, April 09, 2004

The puritans strike again

Clear Channel has dropped Howard Stern's radio show because they're worried about indecency laws.

Let's say they were telling the truth, and they dropped Stern because his show was too raunchy. That's pretty lame in itself.

But they're not telling the truth. The Clear Channel corporation is a Republican behemoth. Howard Stern recently launched a "jihad" against George Bush. He's being dropped because the censors at Clear Channel can't stand for their moron president to be criticized.

Howard Stern's radio show is awful, don't get me wrong....

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Broad-based Shiite uprising?

From the NY Times:

United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.

That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq....Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.

But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising.


Maybe we should STOP BLOWING UP THEIR MOSQUES!!!

But...

Senator Byrd is also a fool:

"Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development," Byrd said in a speech on the Senate floor. "Surely, the administration recognizes that increasing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq will only suck us deeper, deeper into the maelstrom, into the quicksand of violence that has become the hallmark of that unfortunate, miserable country."

So we should pull out right now? As someone who thinks this mission is destined to fail anyway, it seems like a strange question to ask. Why shouldn't I support pulling out now?

Because there's still a chance that our commander in chief will be replaced with someone who can competently manage international relations and bring in other nations troops to clean up this mess.

Stab in the back alert

This time it's Senator Gordon Smith:

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, the Senate's senior member and a fierce critic of the war, said he heard "echoes of Vietnam" in the talk of increasing U.S. forces in Iraq.

In response, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, paraphrased Ho Chi Minh, noting that the North Vietnamese leader said the Vietnam War was won by dividing the American public, not on the battlefield.

"We must win," Smith said. "We must not have the will of the American people broken by the naysayers."


Smith went on to blame the tough situation in Iraq on the Jews and the Communists. He also suggested that we pull out of the Versailles treaty immediately.

Help me Uncle Cheney!!

Here's CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider on Tuesday:
"The question that's emerging out of all this is simple: Why does the president of the United States have to appear jointly with the vice president of the United States? I mean, can you imagine Clinton and Gore testifying before such a commission or the first George Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle? Why do they have to appear together? It's raising some damaging questions about whether or not George Bush knows enough to testify on his own or whether he's dependent on Vice President Cheney."

If Bush wasn't a moron, he could testify by himself. But he's a moron. See, it's simple:

Moron + testimony = disaster
Moron + Uncle Cheney + testimony = Success (unless the lazy press starts covering the ridiculousness of Bush and Cheney appearing before the committee together)

I can't think of any other reason why Bush would testify with Cheney. He can't handle the questions. He's not up to the job. He's incompetent.

He's a joke. And I'm not laughing.

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Daily Polling

Scroll down at Chris Hard Core's site and you'll find out that Kerry's position is improving rapidly.

We fired a missile at a mosque...

I'm not sure why...

update:Here is the Coalition's explanation. I suppose it's satisfactory. But I can't help getting the feeling that Apache Helicopters SHOULDN'T BE FIRING AT MOSQUES!!!

That sort of thing doesn't win hearts and minds!!!

News from Iraq

From the NYTimes:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 6 - American forces in Iraq came under fierce attack from both Sunnis and Shiites on Tuesday, with about a dozen marines killed in the Sunni stronghold of Ramadi and rebel Shiite militiamen stepping up a three-day-old assault in the southern holy city of Najaf, American officials said.
In Falluja, where last week American security contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated, American warplanes fired rockets at houses, and marines drove armored columns into the heart of the city, where they fought block by block to flush out insurgents. Several arrests were made.

It was one of the most violent days in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, with half a dozen cities ignited. One of the biggest questions at day's end was the role of Shiites previously thought to be relatively sympathetic to American goals.

The heaviest fighting raged in Falluja and Ramadi, Sunni strongholds that have been flashpoints of anti-American resistance since the conflict began.

Correspondents based in Falluja who work for Arab television stations reported widespread damage to homes from the firing and difficulties in getting wounded Iraqis to the hospital because the fighting was so fierce. Falluja hospital officials, quoted by The Associated Press, said they received 16 Iraqi dead on Tuesday and more than 20 wounded, among them women and children.

The attack in Ramadi was on an American base at the governor's palace, and it involved several dozen insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons, a Defense Department official said.

``The indications are they were well-trained,'' the official said. The official said the insurgents had suffered large numbers of casualties, but cautioned that reports from Iraq, where it was the middle of the night, were still early and sketchy.

Meanwhile, Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces in connection with a brutal killing last year, continued to invigorate his followers. In a statement issued on Tuesday from Najaf, Mr. Sadr urged disciples to keep up the fight against occupying forces.

``America has shown its evil intentions,'' Mr. Sadr said, ``and the proud Iraqi people cannot accept it. They must defend their rights by any means they see fit.''

He also aligned himself with the country's most influential religious figure, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

``I proclaim my solidarity with Ali Sistani and he should know that I am his military wing in Iraq,'' Mr. Sadr said.

Mr. Sadr, whose followers launched the most serious insurrection of the post-invasion period starting on Sunday, said, ``I will put the city with the golden dish between Ali Sistani's hands after liberation.''

The golden dish refers to the golden shrines of Najaf, some of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. Najaf, south of Baghdad, is the home of Ayatollah Sistani, who is considered much more moderate than Mr. Sadr. On Sunday, Ayatollah Sistani issued a religious decree urging Iraq's Shiites to stay calm.

So far, though, Mr. Sadr's followers have not been heeding it. Day after day, the black clad militiamen have rolled over Iraqi security forces in a number of cities, including Kufa, Najaf, Nasiriya, Basra and Baghdad, and taken over government offices. The string of successes seems to inflate Mr. Sadr's popularity and draw more recruits to his Mahdi Army, a private militia that attracts both idle youth and adults with jobs. In some cities, like Kufa, his followers have completely replaced police and security forces, essentially establishing an occupation-free zone and patrolling towns in blue and white government cars that just days ago were driven by members of the newly formed security forces.

Mr. Sadr has moved from a mosque in Kufa, where he was holed up on Monday, to his main office in Najaf, in an alley near the city's holiest shrine. Hundreds of militiamen were protecting the office. On Tuesday night, military flares could be seen burning over the area.

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

Potholes

From the Washington Post:

President Bush seems to have developed a powerful obsession with asphalt. Wherever and whenever the president sees a mayor, he blurts out one word: "potholes."

Bush has employed this word association about 30 times in speeches, when he introduces the local mayor. In Appleton, Wis., last week, he advised Mayor Tim Hanna: "Fill the potholes and empty the garbage. All will be well." Three weeks earlier it was Harvey Hall, mayor of Bakersfield, Calif., who received the same advice. Bush has given similar instructions to the mayors of St. Petersburg, Seminole and Clearwater, Fla.; Springfield, Mo.; Knoxville, Tenn.; Roswell, N.M.; Little Rock; Pasco, Wash.; Santa Monica, Calif.; and Livonia and Dearborn, Mich. Noting that Mayor Al Cappuccilli of Monroe, Mich., received loud applause, Bush observed: "You must be filling the potholes, picking up the garbage; that's the way to go."

No city executive has endured the pothole joke more often than Washington's own Mayor Anthony A. Williams. Bush first singled out Williams in the Rose Garden in April 2001, noting to laughter: "There's a couple of potholes out back that I'd like to talk to you about."

Bush delivered the same joke at Williams's expense in May, June and July.

Latest Pew Poll

Rings the bells! Sound the alarms! Wake the children!

George Bush's approval rating has slipped to 43% in the latest Pew Poll!!!

How long until the Right-wingers start claiming that the insurgents in Iraq aim to instigate a "stab in the back" (they don't want Bush reelected)? Oops - it already happened!

Disbanding Iraqi army

Remember when Bush replaced Jay Garner with Jerry Bremer as head of the CPA? And then Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army? It turns out that those out of work Iraqis are leading the resistance. And it also turns out that Bush made the decision to disband the army, not Bremer.

From Kautilyan Blog
Bush himself, in fact, may have had a direct hand in one of the most disastrous decisions of the postwar period: the move to “de-Baathify” Iraq to the point of dismantling the entire Iraqi Army. U.S. officials now believe that former Iraqi Army officers are among the leaders of the insurgency. When Bremer arrived in Baghdad in mid-May, the insurgency was just getting started, and clots of former Iraqi troops were reappearing, asking to be remobilized. Bremer, who has been widely blamed for reversing the decision of his predecessor, Jay Garner, to hire such men and pay them, was warned he would cause chaos by demobilizing the Army instead. The CIA station chief told him, “That’s another 350,000 Iraqis you’re pissing off, and they’ve got guns.” According to one official who attended the meeting, Bremer replied: “I don’t have any choice ... Those are my instructions.” Then Bremer added: “The president told me that de-Baathification is more important.”

Medical Malpractice suits

Is it just me or did the medical malpractice issue disappear from the radar after John Edwards' Presidential candidacy disappeared? Could it be that the medical malpractice "crisis" was just invented by Republicans to counter Edwards in the general election? No...couldn't be...

By the way, the article I linked is up for a National Magazine Award.

Housing bubble about to burst?

The Washington Monthly is on this one.

Iraqi blogger
From the Iraqi blog, "Healing Iraq":

Monday, April 05, 2004
A coup d'etat is taking place in Iraq a the moment. Al-Shu'la, Al-Hurria, Thawra (Sadr city), and Kadhimiya (all Shi'ite neighbourhoods in Baghdad) have been declared liberated from occupation. Looting has already started at some places downtown, a friend of mine just returned from Sadun street and he says Al-Mahdi militiamen are breaking stores and clinics open and also at Tahrir square just across the river from the Green Zone. News from other cities in the south indicate that Sadr followers (tens of thousands of them) have taken over IP stations and governorate buildings in Kufa, Nassiriya, Ammara, Kut, and Basrah. Al-Jazeera says that policemen in these cities have sided with the Shia insurgents, which doesn't come as a surprise to me since a large portion of the police forces in these areas were recruited from Shi'ite militias and we have talked about that ages ago. And it looks like this move has been planned a long time ago.

No one knows what is happening in the capital right now. Power has been cut off in my neighbourhood since the afternoon, and I can only hear helicopters, massive explosions, and continuous shooting nearby. The streets are empty, someone told us half an hour ago that Al-Mahdi are trying to take over our neighbourhood and are being met by resistance from Sunni hardliners. Doors are locked, and AK-47's are being loaded and put close by in case they are needed. The phone keeps ringing frantically. Baghdadis are horrified and everyone seems to have made up their mind to stay home tomorrow until the situation is clear.

Where is Shitstani? And why is he keeping silent about this?

I have to admit that until now I have never longed for the days of Saddam, but now I'm not so sure. If we need a person like Saddam to keep those rabid dogs at bay then be it. Put Saddam back in power and after he fills a couple hundred more mass graves with those criminals they can start wailing and crying again for liberation. What a laugh we will have then. Then they can shove their filthy Hawza and marji'iya up somewhere else. I am so dissapointed in Iraqis and I hate myself for thinking this way. We are not worth your trouble, take back your billions of dollars and give us Saddam again. We truly 'deserve' leaders like Saddam.

UPDATE: Sorry for the depressing note. It seems like everything is back under control, at least from what I can see in my neighbourhood. There is an eerie silence outside, only dogs barking. Until about an hour ago, it sounded like a battlefield, and we had flashbacks of last April. I don't know what happened, but there were large plumes of smoke from the direction of Adhamiya and Kadhimiya. I wanted to take some pictures but my father and uncle both said they would shoot me on the spot if I tried, they were afraid the Apaches would mistake us for troublemakers and fire at us. I'm dreading tomorrow.

Why did Paul Bremer say this?

"June 30 is the date. We're going to stick to it."

I'm not so sure we can live up to that date anymore...

Who the hell are we going to transfer power to?!?!

Even more on flip flopping!

Here's a list of Bush Flip Flops. I'll preface it by saying that it's incredibly shortsighted to attack a politician when he changes his mind. Reconsidering positions is part of being human. Bush shouldn't be attacked for changing his mind about nation building or free trade or anything.

Wait...unless his main election strategy is to paint his opponent as a flip flopper! Attack away!

Powell, Rice, and now Rumsfeld

Colin Powell has fallen from grace. His testimony in front of the UN was a sham. He finally admitted it Sunday.

Condi Rice has been thoroughly embarassed by the Richard Clarke flap.

I predict the next to fall will be Donald Rumsfeld. As the situation in Iraq deteriorates, we're going to start realizing that 150,000 troops was plenty to topple Saddam's weak (and weaponless) regime, but not nearly enough to rebuild the place and establish security. And security breeds Democracy. Who's going to police this place? The Iraqis? There have already been reports of CPA trained militias joining the insurgency.

Monday, April 05, 2004

What does Kerry stand for?

(Before I get hate mail from liberals, let me preface this with the FACT that Bush is the worst President in the last 60 years)

If someone asked you, "What does John Kerry stand for?" what would you say? What does this man stand for? What is his campaign about? Besides the current White House's complete and utter incompetence, why support John Kerry?

I find myself answering the question by citing his voting record (it includes a mix of liberal and New Democrat votes). But I can't tell you a central theme to his campaign. Shouldn't he have come up with one by now? He's been on the trail for over a year.

I can tell you what George Bush stands for. I don't like it. But at least I can tell you.

What the other side believes

I'm going to start a recurring thread on here called, "What the other side believes". I feel like the political world has become too insulated, with liberals clinging to their blogs and their NyTimes and conservatives clinging to Fox News and talk radio. It'll be sort of a know thy enemy segment. I'll tell you what they believe, and why they believe it, and then I'll refute it. So here we go:

Many conservatives believe, with strong conviction, that Al Gore would NOT have attacked Afghanistan after 9-11. This is actually central in their case against John Kerry (that if America was attacked again by terrorists, he'd immediately surrender to France). They cite Clinton's failure to act throughout the 90s as their reasoning.

These conservatives make two mistakes:

1. They are looking at the 90s through the post 9-11 lens. After 9-11, it became apparent that the catastrophic threat that terrorism posed must be met by force. Before 9-11, I dare you to find someone who opined about our government's failure to invade Afghanistan (or wherever else terrorists were being harbored).

2. 9-11 was literally 300 times worse than any other terrorist attack (excluding the home grown Oklahoma City bombing). When I throw 300 out there, I'm speaking in terms of total dead or wounded, and property damage. To accuse Clinton of "doing nothing after several terrorist attacks in the 90s" ignores the fact that the terrorist attacks in the 90s were relatively insignificant compared to 9-11. The most significant attack was undertaken by right-wing fanatics, and you can bet that Janet Reno's Justice Department kept a close eye on them throughout the 90s.

update:
This conservative belief is symptomatic of a problem with conservatives everywhere: they believe that liberals, if in power, would stab their country in the back. They think we're traitors and that we hate America. They really think that. It's not hyperbole or sarcasm when they say it. So it's not surprising that they think Gore would have floundered if he'd been President during 9-11.

In the words of Bill Maher:
"As if President Gore couldn't have pointed at Afghanstan on a map and said, 'Destroy that country.'"

British cooperation?

Take a look at this casualty list and notice that the British have disproportionately less casualties and deaths than our troops do. What explains this?

The British are situated in Southern Iraq where there just isn't much danger. I wonder if Blair committed his troops with this compromise in mind?

Of course, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld expected flower throwing galore when we arrived in Iraq. So they probably figured all every sector would be equally enamored with our presence.

But I think Tony Blair is smarter. He knew this would be a "tough slog" (Rumsfeld's words) and he committed his troops to the safest spot possible - the South - where many moderate Shiites live.

Arrest Sadr?

I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not. But we really don't have many options with this guy. The way I see it, we have 3 options (thanks to DailyKos):

1. Kill him

This option would make a martyr out of him...and from listening to some of his supporters, that would only strengthen their resolve. This guy is VERY popular amongst the more conservative Shiites and many young Shiites in Iraq. He was virulently anti-Saddam (Saddam had his father killed). Ayatollah Sistani (a relatively moderate secular cleric who has worked with the US) thinks Sadr's an idiot (and he is). But he has yet to come out against him publicly, I suspect because he knows how popular Sadr is.

2. Arrest him

The reason why I listed choice 1 is because choice 2 might actually lead to choice 1. This guy doesn't seem likely to go without a fight. We closed down his newspaper the other day and his supporters have been enraged ever since. Arresting him would probably be the best option (and it's the one we're trying) but we'd better hope we get this guy alive. And wouldn't his arrest just lead to more protests and unrest? Probably. But it might be unavoidable.

3. Leave him be - but keep checks on him (especially his advisors and close associates)

This option COULD work if we could decapitate his organization...the problem is, he gives a fiery sermon every week at his mosque and has plenty of followers. It's not going to be easy. And as long as he's free, he'll continue to (allegedly) orchestrate attacks against the US troops. And that's not good.

These are the only three options I can think of...and none of them are good. The best we could hope with this Sadr guy was that he vented to no avail. Maybe closing his newspaper down was a bad idea. Even though it supported violence towards American troops - well - it's message was pretty toothless. And do you know how many rag journals in the Arab states propose violence against the US in their editorials? Plenty. We can't shut these people up by proclaiming ourselves democrats then shutting down their media, now matter how disgusting that media is.

Flip flopping

Read William Saletan's explanation of Karl Rove's strategy for defeating Bush's critics. It's the best piece of political commentary I've read in a while.

McCain Rips GOP

This lovely article was emailed to my by Blair:

From the Boston Herald:

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain yesterday unleashed an attack on his own
party, saying the GOP is ``astray'' on key issues and criticizing President
Bush [related, bio] on the war in Iraq.

``I believe my party has gone astray,'' McCain said, criticizing GOP
stands on environmental and minority issues.

``I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems
with it, in their views and their philosophy,'' he said. ``But I also feel
the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated
before.''

The maverick senator made the remarks at a legislative seminar hosted
by U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) as he again ruled out running on a
ticket with Democrat John F. Kerry [related, bio].

The Arizona Republican took on President Bush for failing to prepare
Americans for a long involvement in Iraq, saying, ``You can't fly in on an
aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You can't
do that.''

McCain said the U.S. should seek more U.N. involvement in Iraq. ``Many
people in this room question, legitimately, whether we should have gone in
or not,'' he said, adding that that debate ``will be part of this
presidential campaign.''

Oops

Those militias that we're training in Iraq are starting to turn against us...

Why am I not blogging?

I've been wondering this myself over the last couple of weeks...

I think it's because John Kerry is about as exciting as...well...Al Gore.

That doesn't mean I don't think he'd be a good President. I think he'd be a much better President than Gore. But he's just not exciting. And his weaknesses as a candidate really annoy me. Imagine if John Edwards were the nominee right now!

Or if Dean were the nominee - I'd be attacking his foolishness daily! It would be fun! But John Kerry is just marginally electable...so I'm caught between my lack of enthusiasm for Kerry and my hatred for Bush.