Recently in War in Iraq Category

"An executive at a small defense contractor recently joked to me, 'Afghanistan is our business plan.' I asked him what he would do if the war ended. He stared at me for a moment and said, 'Well, then I hope we invade Libya.'"

Proving Chalmers Johnson's maxim in Why We Fight that "when war becomes that profitable, you're going to see more of it," PBS's Joshua Foust looks at the economic implications of withdrawal in Afghanistan for our standing army of Hessians defense sub-contractors. "Ten years of war have established a discrete class of entrepreneurs, mid-level workers and administrators who are completely reliant upon the U.S. being at war to stay employed." I somehow doubt we'll be freezing their pay anytime soon.

Sean Penn and Naomi Watts reunite to tell the story of Valerie Plame and the imaginary yellowcake in the new trailer for Doug Liman's Fair Game. Hmm, ok...but I'm getting a Lions for Lambs/Green Zone flavor from this trailer -- edutainmenty and too little, too late. Still, it pretty much has to be better than 21 Grams.

"From the early 1930s until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: The New York Times characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and The Los Angeles Times did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002-2008...The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63)."

By way of Greenwald and Sullivan, a Harvard study documents exactly how absurdly our national media carried water for the Dubya-era torture regime. "In addition, the newspapers are much more likely to call waterboarding torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator."

This story, along with Politico's gaffetastic reaction to Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings doing real journalism on the McChrystal story -- ("Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal's remarks" -- See also Lara Logan) and Joke Line deeming Glenn Greenwald a traitor because he dared to call unrepentant Iraq war evidence-falsifier Jeff Goldberg a horrible journalist ("Greenwald...so far as I can tell, only regards the United States as a force for evil in the world.") pretty much tells you everything you need to know about our broken and corrupt Village media. And this is all just in the past week. Rinse and repeat, over and over and over again. (Pic via here.)

"'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war,' General McChrystal dryly remarked." By way of a friend in the office, our military at the highest levels has apparently been infiltrated and subdued by Powerpoint groupthink. "'PowerPoint makes us stupid,' Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, the Joint Forces commander, said this month at a military conference in North Carolina...'It's dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control,' General [H.R.] McMaster said in a telephone interview afterward. 'Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.'"

The first thing that came to mind when I saw that ungainly graph above: The Daughters of the American Revolution's "spider chart" in the 1920's, which aimed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the women's peace and disarmament groups of the time were in fact the fifth column of international socialism. What goes around, comes around, I guess.

On this St. Patrick's Day, what better recent release to discuss here at GitM than Paul Greengrass' Green Zone? Not only do we have two shades of emerald in that last sentence, but we're now on the cusp of the 7th anniversary of the beginning of the War in Iraq. (It broke out, I well remember, just as I was heading to a March Madness weekend in Vegas.) Alas, I just wish I had a better sitrep to report.

I don't mean to be too harsh -- There's nothing terribly wrong with this edutainment-y attempt to explain de-Baathification, highly dubious detainee procedures, and most notably the faked WMD casus belli to disinterested laypersons by way of action-thriller. And, in a way, I sorta admire the gutsiness of the the attempt. But, if you were already well aware of these grim developments, and I assume most GitM readers are, then it's hard to escape the sensation that one is mainly just being talked down to for two hours. Wait, there were no WMD in Iraq? You're kidding me, right? And, while I'm a great fan of Greengrass' previous output -- I said over and over again in this space that I wish he had stuck with Watchmen, and on the Top 100 films of last decade list, Bloody Sunday was #84, his two Bournes were at #49, and the exemplary United 93 was at #6 -- The Green Zone feels quite a bit more leaden than usual.

As with the political edutainment project Greengrass aspired to here, I like the idea of fusing his highly visceral action work (the Bournes) with his fly-on-the-wall discursions into recent history (Sunday, '93)...on paper. But The Green Zone gets lost somewhere in the interstice, and lacks the gripping power of either of these previous Greengrass grooves. Instead, Zone ends up mostly being two grainy hours of watching Matt Damon run around at night, as he tries to uncover an insidious government plot that our nation has been fully aware of for years...and has chosen to greet with a yawn.

More on that depressing problem in a bit, but, first, to bring y'all up to speed: Loosely based on Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City, a non-fiction examination of Dubyaite imbecility and excess in post-war Baghdad, Green Zone begins with a brief sequence set amid the original Shock-and-Awe period of the war, followed by, a few weeks later, a tense raid on a possible WMD storehouse by American soldiers. Led by Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon), this crack MW2-ish assault ends up finding, well, bupkis, just like the time before and the time before that.

To Chief Miller, the problem here is obvious -- the intel must be rotten. But, when he brings this up at the next briefing for high-level military muckety-mucks, he is basically told to shut up and do his job. Nonetheless, events soon conspire to introduce Miller to the "Jack of Clubs" in the Dubya deck, a Baathist general (Yigal Naor) with a still-clearly extant power base in Baghdad. And, when our hero digs deeper to figure out how this Jack might know "Magellan," the top-secret source of all this lousy intel, he soon finds himself trapped -- along with a very Judith Miller-y reporter (Amy Ryan) -- in a power play between a slimy executive branch bureaucrat (Greg Kinnear, stuck no more) and a grizzled CIA hand (Brendan Gleeson), one that might just end up getting Miller fragged by the creepy Special Forces guy (Jason Isaacs, with great accent) who keeps popping up...

Along the way, there's a digression into a detainee facility with all the makings of an Abu Ghraib waiting to happen, the tearful homecoming of the administration's hand-picked Iraqi stooge (re: Ahmed Chalabi), some rather pained attempts to make the decision to de-Baathify an action beat...In other words, Green Zone is basically an attempt to dramatize the Iraq war for people who, for whatever reason, weren't paying much attention the first time 'round. And, to be fair, it's done with solid acting all around (including several folks recognizable from United 93), quality production values, and a reasonable degree of versimilitude throughout. (Note also the brief Paul Rieckhoff cameo, which should nip any IAVA whining about dramatic license right in the bud.)

But, for all its edutainmenty truths to tell, Green Zone still ends up feeling rather fake and film-ish to me, perhaps in part because -- unlike Greengrass' other recent histories -- it seems to subscribe to a very movie-like All the President's Men view of things, where, once word of misdeed gets out, justice will be done tho' the heavens fall. Not to get all Debbie Downer up in here, but that's not really the way the world works anymore, is it? One of the saddest and scariest moments in the recent and very worthwhile Daniel Ellsberg: The Most Dangerous Man in America is when Ellsberg explains how he thought everything would change once the Pentagon Papers got out...and then he finds that, in the face of clear and irrefutable evidence of government wrongdoing, most people just shrugged.

This is the uncomfortable horror that Green Zone almost seems willfully designed not to recognize. The whole premise of the movie seems to be that, if We the People knew what really went down in Iraq (or could just be taught via action-movie), we would be totally livid about the corruption involved. But, is the problem really that the American people don't know what happened in the build-up to Iraq? Or is it that we know pretty well what happened and don't much seem to care?

Just as with our indefensible dabbling in torture and indefinite detention in recent years, we have known about the lies and incompetence that fueled the Iraq fiasco for awhile now. And, alas, nothing ever happened. Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the whole awful, lying lot are still deemed Serious People with Serious Opinions by the nation's domesticated media watchdogs, who, by the way, have also been studiously ignoring the Blair hearings overseas. Our current president, elected with the largest mandate for change in a generation, has deemed all of this just the sins of the past and refused to "look backward" (or worse, made himself complicit in these Dubya-era crimes.) And life continues, much as it has this past age, with no sense of reckoning whatsoever for the Big Lies that were told.

One of the main reasons Bloody Sunday and United 93 work so well is that they offer complex, nuanced portraits of complicated times. But, as Green Zone moves along, it just ended up feeling more and more like a cartoon to me, and one predicated mainly on wishful thinking. Like I said, I guess I admire what Paul Greengrass & co. were trying do here, but Green Zone as an action film feels flat and mostly uninvolving. And Green Zone as a political enterprise -- Iraq War: The Movie!, basically -- often seems at best condescending and at worst dangerously naive.

"'This is probably the best example of violation of the separation of church and state in this country,' said Weinstein. 'It's literally pushing fundamentalist Christianity at the point of a gun against the people that we're fighting. We're emboldening an enemy.'"

I like Saving Private Ryan as much as the next guy, but this, in a word, is ridicky-goddamn-diculous. Apparently, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are routinely outfitted with sniper rifles etched with New Testament verse. "Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon...said the inscriptions 'have always been there' and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is 'not Christian.'"

Newsflash: Given that we're currently engaged in multiple wars and are strongly trying to avoid any appearance of being involved in any sort of anti-Muslim Crusade, arming our soldiers with "Jesus rifles" and crafting bible-thumping war reports for the Commander-in-Chief isn't just catastrophically stupid. It's basically writing the Al Qaeda recruiting posters for them.

Update: Also, "They started it!" is not an appropriate response to this dismal revelation.

Update 2: Trijicon stands down -- Jesus rifles are hereby discontinued, most likely because of quotes like these: "General David Petraeus also addressed the scopes this morning, calling the matter 'disturbing and a serious concern for me.'"

Somebody was going to get to the bottom of this whole WMD thing eventually -- it might as well be Jason Bour...Oh, wait, he's not Bourne this time? Well, close enough for government work. Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass reunite in the new trailer for Green Zone, verrrrry loosely based on Rajiv Chandasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City and co-starring Amy Ryan, Brendan Gleeson, and Greg Kinnear. Great cast, and Greengrass hasn't missed yet -- I'm in.

Some folks in this film would probably call me a right bleedin' tosser (and much, much worse) for starting off this post as such. But Armando Iannucci's hilarious In the Loop, which I caught Sunday morning, has only one real flaw -- It feels like it's coming out a few years too late. This faux-documentary-style disquisition into Britain and America's joint lead-up to war in the Middle East, and the shrewd, venal bureaucrats who got us there, can't help but feel very 2003. (Which is not to say Washington politics is now a beacon of optimism and good faith in the Obama era, only that the political zeitgeist has shifted some since the events depicted here.)

But, that one small caveat aside -- and to be fair, In the Loop is apparently based on a British TV show (The Thick of It) that was more timely (and is going in the Netflix queue) -- this is a gut-bustingly funny film. I honestly can't remember the last time I laughed so hard in a theater. (Alas, it was probably 21 Grams, and that was for all the wrong reasons.) True, given that this is a sharp-edged, basically anti-Dubya political satire that goes out of its way to reward pop-culture geekery (Frodo, Ron Weasley, and the White Stripes are all used as epithets at one point or another), I'm probably as close to a target audience for this sort of movie that's out there. Nevertheless, if your sense of humor runs anywhere from squirmathons like The Office UK or Curb Your Enthusiasm to sardonic political comedies like The Candidate or Bob Roberts to the current-events commentaries of Stewart and Colbert, this movie is a must-see. (And if you don't find hyperarticulate Scotsman Peter Capaldi spewing forth rococo profanities funny just yet, you probably will after watching In the Loop.)

Iannucci's film begins with another day in the life of Malcolm Tucker (Capaldi), the tough-as-nails, take-no-guff director of communications at 10 Downing St. (Think Rahm Emanuel, but funny.) This particular morning, Tucker quickly becomes enraged by the latest slip-up by the seemingly ineffectual Minister for International Development, Simon Foster (Tom Hollander, best recognized in America from the Pirates sequels.) To wit, Foster responded to a direct press question about an impending Mideast conflict by blurting out that "war is unforeseeable." This is not "following the line," as Tucker puts it, but after a stern rebuke, the Minister -- and his communications team, new guy Toby (Chris Addison) and competent veteran Judy (Gina McKee) -- only compound the error. Foster gets completely lost in the thicket at a follow-up press avail, and soon manages to mangle his way through to an even more unwieldy soundbite: "To walk the road of peace, sometimes we need to be ready to climb the mountain of conflict." (Tucker's livid response to this policy breach: "You sound like a f**in' Nazi Julie Andrews.")

Nonetheless, this sort of Zen pronunciamento is exactly the sort of thing the big boys in Washington want more of, even if no one (least of all Foster) seems to know what exactly he was driving at. Soon both the Hawks (represented by a Rumsfeldian David Rasche) and the Doves (mainly State Dept. deputy Mimi Kennedy and peacenik general James Gandolfini) think they've found an ace-in-the-hole in the confused minister. Meanwhile, this being Washington, a town that's "like Bugsy Malone, but with real guns," there's another tier of shenanigans brewing under the principals. State Dept. aide Liza Weld (Anna Chlumsky) has penned a career-killing memorandum -- soon acronymed, in DC fashion as "PWIP PIP" -- that outlines the few pros and many cons of the imminent war. And Foster's new man Toby has managed to inadvertently leak the real name of the War Committee to his friend at CNN -- naturally, it was the committee with the most boring-sounding title.

Throw in a few more byzantine political subplots -- more aides, committees, leaks, and whatnot -- and simmer, and you have what amounts to the smartest, funniest political satire I've seen in a good long while. This is also clearly a movie that will reward repeat viewing, and I could see In the Loop someday being quoted as often and as lovingly in certain circles as The Big Lebowski. It may not be everyone's cup of bile, I suppose, but if you're generally a reader of this site, I'm guessing you'll probably enjoy it as much as I did. So, if this movie is still playing in your area, go check it out...or brave the unholy wrath and frightening verbiage of Mr. Tucker. War may be "unforeseeable" -- your enjoyment of In the Loop is not.

"[W]ith Reagan, the prophecy appreciation part of his brain functioned quite independently of the part that started wars (there's nothing in the Old Testament about Nicaragua or even Grenada). Bush seems to have taken the threat of Gog and Magog to Israel quite literally, and, if this story can be believed, to have launched a war to stop them."

One rather frightening story from a few days ago: As if the recent "Onward Christian Soldiers" war reports in GQ weren't Crusadery enough, it appears that Dubya explictly invoked the End of Days to convince Jacques Chirac to get involved in the Iraq War, making his appeal Christian-to-Christian about the unholy dangers of Gog & Magog. Uh, really? (Apparently, Chirac has confirmed it.)

Last of the past weekend's offerings was Kathryn Bigelow's lean, gripping The Hurt Locker. A taut, minimalist "men-in-combat" thriller that immediately goes up on the top shelf of Iraq flicks next to HBO's Generation Kill (and, if you're counting Gulf War I, Three Kings), The Hurt Locker is also that rare thing in the summer of Terminator: Salvation, Transformers, and GI Joe: a war movie for grown-ups. Very highly recommended.

As The Hurt Locker opens, we meet a three-man Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team out of Bravo Company doing what they do best: locating, examining, and disposing of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) in the streets of Baghdad. Even on a run-of-the-mill call like this, and despite the jaunty banter among team members -- the temperature is rising, the tension is thick, and the situation is life-or-death. For the IED in question could blow at any moment and take out everybody around...or it could be triggered by any one of the onlookers gathered, perhaps innocuously, perhaps not, to watch the soldiers work. Well, in this particular case of somebody-setting-us-up-the-bomb, things happen to go terribly awry. And, only six weeks out from the end of Bravo Company's deployment, a crucial spot opens up on this EOD team.

Enter Staff Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner), an amiable, reckless, possibly suicidal fellow who, not unlike Harry Tuttle, "came into this game for the action, the excitement. Go anywhere, travel light, get in, get out, wherever there's trouble, a man alone." (It's this same devil-may-care attitude and notable lack of self-protective instinct, presumably, that eventually got him reassigned to zombie-stricken London.) Particularly showing up as he does so close to Bravo Company's ship-out date, James' cowboy moxie in the field causes huge headaches for his teammates (Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty), who even at one point contemplate fragging the guy. But, just as Jimmy McNulty is startlingly good po-lice despite his many disastrous personal foibles, Staff Sgt. James turns out to be surprisingly in his element whenever the situation deteriorates. And, amid the alleyways, warehouses, dust, and rubble of the Emerald City, the situation tends to deteriorate pretty much constantly.

The Hurt Locker isn't really a commentary on our Iraq excursion like other movies in the genre we've seen of late. (Grace is Gone, Lions for Lambs) Like Generation Kill, it aims mainly to recreate the visceral experience of the war by getting us into the headspace of the men on the front lines. Inasmuch as there is a wider moral to this tale, it's found in the epigram -- "war is a drug" -- taken from Chris Hedges' War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. Or, if you'd prefer, the same point is found in the first ten minutes of Apocalypse Now: "When I was home after my first tour, it was worse...I hardly said a word to my wife, until I said 'yes' to a divorce. When I was here, I wanted to be there; when I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the jungle."

Scratch a little deeper, tho', and you can find glimmers of a wider critique of the Iraq fiasco in Bigelow's film -- indeed, you could argue that these moments have more force because they're so throwaway. After a Iraqi cabbie breaks a cordon, stares down the EOD team for unclear reasons, and is summarily carried away after finally backing down, James quips, "Well, if he wasn't an insurgent, he sure is one now." Later, David Morse briefly appears as some high-ranking muckety-muck akin to Godfather who has little regard for Geneva niceties, and Ralph Fiennes and Jason Flemyng also show up as British operatives looking to make some easy quid as bounty hunters on the side.

These small moments notwithstanding, The Hurt Locker is mostly apolitical, focusing mainly on the men (and it's just men here) who find themselves deep in the midst of the suck. And, on that level, it's a rousing success. In all honesty, the film cheats a bit by giving this EOD team a wider set of experiences than I think is probably likely -- at various points they are forced into sniper and resource extraction missions by the course of events. But, that's a quibble -- for the most part Hurt Locker is as tense a thriller as I've seen in years.

Bigelow understands intuitively what far too many action directors these days miss: It's not the size of the explosion or the volume of bullets fired that determine the quality of an action flick, but the slow, remorseless buildup to the potentially deadly events. In vignette after vignette, The Hurt Locker ratchets up the suspense by degrees, until you find yourself -- like the EOD team we're following -- living out each moment in a heightened state of tension, endlessly waiting for the other shoe to drop. It's an impressive moviemaking feat, and it helps to make The Hurt Locker one of the best films of the year.

"To paraphrase Al Pacino in 'Godfather III,' just when we thought we were out, the Bush mob keeps pulling us back in. And will keep doing so. No matter how hard President Obama tries to turn the page on the previous administration, he can't. Until there is true transparency and true accountability, revelations of that unresolved eight-year nightmare will keep raining down drip by drip, disrupting the new administration's high ambitions." In today's NYT, Frank Rich makes the case for a full investigation into Dubya-era crimes (as, in a switch, does Maureen Dowd -- with some unattributed help from TPM's Josh Marshall.)

Also linked in Rich's piece is a damning profile of Donald Rumsfeld's tenure at Defense by GQ's Robert Draper, which happens to include these bizarre and, diplomatically speaking, blatantly idiotic Christian-minded cover sheets created especially for Dubya's briefings. "This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine...At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout--as one Pentagon staffer would later say -- 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.' But the Pentagon's top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush's public standing...Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible."

"After Gates was confirmed as George W. Bush's defense secretary in December 2006, he gave several speeches outlining major reforms that his successor should undertake--in weapons procurement, promotion policy, and the whole careerist culture inside the Pentagon. (With only two years in office, combined with a plateful of crises in Iraq and elsewhere, he knew he wouldn't have time to take those steps himself.) When he stayed on at Barack Obama's request, and thus became his own successor, many wondered whether he would turn his words into action. With this budget, he has begun to do just that."

A holdover from the bookmarks of last week: Slate's Fred Kaplan offers a concise overview of the proposed Obama-Gates military spending reforms. (These are not spending cuts, by the way, despite what you may have heard -- just some much-needed and long-overdue reprioritizing over at the Pentagon. I also like the idea of phasing out defense contractors in favor of presumably much more cost-conscious civil servants.) "This budget will not go down easily in the Pentagon or in Congress. The F-22, the DDG-1000, and the Future Combat Systems are the favored systems by much of the Air Force, Navy, and Army brass, respectively...The F-22 in particular is also a favorite of many legislators -- the result of politically shrewd subcontracting that spread out production of the plane to key districts in 46 states."

"I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better, or, you know, mistakes I made. Clearly putting a 'Mission Accomplished' on a aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. Obviously, some of my rhetoric has been a mistake. I've thought long and hard about Katrina -- you know, could I have done something differently..."

After eight long years, the end is in sight, and the Idiot Wind is at long last subsiding. For the 43rd president of these United States, George Dubya Bush, gave his final press conference today, during which he finally conceded that "there have been disappointments." Why, yes, yes, there have. "Abu Ghraib obviously was a huge disappointment during the presidency. Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment. I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but they were -- things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way." Um, yeah.

At any rate, don't worry: I'm sure we'll be getting one last round of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 before closing time, when Dubya delivers his "farewell address" on Thursday. One can only hope that it turns out to be Eisenhoweresque, and not one more final, futile attempt to rewrite the history books. But I'm not keeping my fingers crossed.

"I didn't know what the guy said, but I saw his sole." Say what you will about the 43rd president -- and, no doubt, the history books will -- the man has cat-like reflexes for his age. The story of the weekend was, of course, the shoe incident in Baghdad, which ended up clearly overshadowing Dubya's remarks and reason for his visit -- the signing of a Status of Forces agreement -- and serving as an exclamation point of sorts for the president's, shall we say, fraught relationship with the nation and people of Iraq. I have to give him credit, tho' -- Bush not only handled the incident with agility, aplomb and a surprising amount of sang-froid, but generally struck the right tone about it afterward. "Okay, everybody calm down for a minute. First of all thank you for apologizing on behalf of the Iraqi people. It doesn't bother me. And if you want some -- if you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw. (Laughter.) Thank you for your concern, do not worry about it."

In the wake of the biggest shoe-related world incident since Nikita Khrushchev (or perhaps Richard Reid), there's been some discussion of late about the legitimacy of shoe-throwing as a form of political protest. (Throwing shoes into machines, a.k.a. "sabot-age," is already generally considered a no-no.) It's not hard to understand, or even empathize with, the anger that drove Muntadar al-Zaidi to this act of protest. Here's a journalist who's been covering airstrikes and Abu Ghraib, who has seen the "collateral damage" of this war-of-choice firsthand, and who himself was briefly arrested by American security forces at one point. That being said, to my mind, any attempted act of physical violence against the president -- even something as seemingly innocuous as shoe-throwing -- cannot be countenanced. Now, I'm not saying the guy needs to rot in jail for the rest of his life -- far from it -- but let's not start pretending that that this form of protest is "ok." It's not. End of story.

Plus, keep in mind that a horrible situation was averted by Bush here just by his underreacting estimably to the incident. I don't think it's a stretch to think that al-Zaidi may have put his life in danger by making a threatening lunge at the president. The Secret Service are -- and have to be -- a hair-trigger bunch. Ok, al-Zaidi was only armed with a shoe...anybody ever heard of Amadou Diallo? All too often, tragedy results from a simple misunderstanding of intentions. Mr. al-Zaidi made his point, no doubt...but it was still a stupid and dangerous stunt, by any reckoning.

And besides, It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye.

"'The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own,' the panel concludes. 'The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees." A new bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee lays the blame for detainee abuse squarely on Donald Rumsfeld and his top deputies. "Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

Also of note, the statement today by Sen. John McCain, the ranking GOP member who signed off on the investigation: "The committee’s report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody. These policies are wrong and must never be repeated." It's good to be on the same page again, Senator.

"It's a truism that Barack Obama faces the most intractable set of challenges that any president has faced in at least 50 years. But on a few issues in foreign and military policy, he's caught a break. Whether by luck, the effect of his election, or President George W. Bush's stepped-up drive to win last-minute kudos, Obama will enter the White House with some paths to success already marked, if not quite paved." Having covered six diplomatic priorities for Obama right after the election (the link was buried in this post), Slate's Fred Kaplan takes a gander at five foreign policy arenas primed for good news under the coming administration.

Before we set about picking a new president, some thoughts on the departing one: Oliver Stone's W, which I saw a few weeks ago and have been negligent in writing about, is a decently enjoyable and surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of America's worst president since James Buchanan. Still, it also seems a film that very few among the electorate were in the mood for right about now: Many lefties, I think, were looking for more red meat from the famously confrontational and controversial Stone, while conservatives were never going to set foot in the theater in the first place. As it is, W seems to have gotten sorta lost in the shuffle...which is too bad, really. It's a solid-enough biopic, and definitely far better than Stone's recent misfires, Alexander and World Trade Center. And, while it's played mostly straight, there are still a few funny satiric jabs interspersed throughout the film. (See, for example, Dubya and the Vulcans getting lost on a dusty Texas hike.) So I'd recommend it...with some misgivings.

As with his underrated take on Nixon, Stone mainly seems to want to understand, and thus humanize, Dubya here -- Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his boots, etc. etc. And yet, while I found both the sentiment and the attempt laudable, I also think Stone may have missed the mark a bit here. In making Dubya so congenial (partly the fault of Josh Brolin, I guess, who's both great and thoroughly likable in the role), and in putting so much emphasis on his daddy issues (more on that in a bit), Stone seems to absolve 43 of more than he should in the end. However oppressive the psychological burden of being a Bush, Dubya was ultimately his own man and his own president, and, lordy, was he a terrible one. However, generous Stone's impulse in trying to understand Dubya, you can't just pin all of the incompetence and misdeeds of the past eight years on a lousy, poor-little-rich-boy upbringing.

If you've ever read anything about Bush 43, the story goes as you might expect: After a brief intro in Rangers Stadium, we meet President George W. Bush (Brolin) and various advisors in the Oval Office, as they mull over the decision to go to war to Iraq in 2003. (Speaking of which, Cheney seems a bit too Dreyfussian to me, Jeffrey Wright's Powell is far too heroic, and Toby Jones is too lithe and elfin -- and not nearly porcine enough -- to capture Karl Rove, but Thandie Newton's nerdy, scroonchy-faced Condi Rice is both kinda cruel and scarily dead-on.) In any case, soon thereafter we flip back to Junior's days at Yale, where the young dauphin spends his time drinking, frat-ernizing, and generally upholding the unyoked humor of his idleness. Basically, Dubya -- crafty and streetwise, but too often convinced in the infallibility of his "gut" -- is a good-natured screw-up of the first order, and he'd be the first to admit it, as he does time and time again to the long-suffering, emotionally reticent if otherwise indulgent "Poppy" (James Cromwell).

Yet, despite failure after failure, this good-timin' man evenually manages to muster up one great success in his life by wooing a good-hearted woman, the lovely librarian Laura (Elizabeth Banks). And, after a literal come-to-Jesus moment at the age of 40 (that's right, the bottle let him down), Dubya decides he will follow in Poppy's footsteps and enter the family business of politics. But, will his parents ever take this prodigal son seriously, particularly as compared to the family's one great hope, Jeb? And, even if they do, what lengths will Dubya go to alleviate his long-standing psychological issues with his father at this point? Would he, for example, start a war he thinks 41 didn't finish?

Now, from Charlie Sheen choosing between his working-class hero pa and Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, to Mickey and Mallory Knox inflicting the consequences of their childhood/sexual abuse on unsuspecting bystanders in Natural Born Killers, psychologically overdetermined characterization due to daddy issues is usually as omnipresent as mystical shamans in Oliver Stone films. (Or, for the other side of the coin, consider Mother Mary Steenburgen as the Ghost of Quaker Past in Nixon, or Angelina Jolie hissing with snakes in Alexander.) And, by itself, the Poppy-Dubya emphasis doesn't bother me all that much -- Stone is at his best when he's painting on a broad canvas and laying it on thick, and just as the "cancer on the presidency" that was Watergate lent itself well to the gothic, Fall of the House of Usher look of Nixon, the story of 41 and 43 is an easy target for Henry IV/Henry V-type overtones.

All that being said, can all the colossal mistakes and errors in judgment that have characterized the past eight years really just be attributed to the Dubya family dynamic? Stone tries to mitigate this notion some, I guess, by giving us an imaginary disquisition in the War Room on the World According to Dick Cheney. (It involves oil, Iran, and the embrace of empire.) Still, one mostly gets the sense here that Dubya is a regular, friendly fellow who's just bitten off more than he can chew in an attempt to please his pop. Such a reading, I think, underplays Dubya's own arrogance, his close-minded conviction in his own sense of the right, his Ivy League legacy-kid air of entitlement, his sniveling weasliness when caught in a pickle, and his habitual intellectual dishonesty. Put another way, I get the sense the real Dubya is much more of an unlikable jackass than Stone and Brolin make him out to be here, and you can't just pin all that and Dubya's constant sucking as president on Pop. I mean, c'mon now, dads don't get much worse than Darth Vader, but Luke turned out ok (if a bit whiny like the old man.) Eventually, the man must stand -- and fall -- on his own.

Still, for all its wallowing in Freudian father issues, W does end on an enjoyably bizarre note, with Dubya writhing on the horns of existential crisis. (No wonder he started reading The Stranger.) Has the prodigal son succeeded beyond his father's wildest dreams in Iraq, or has he forever shrouded the Bush name in ignominy? And how does one handle a situation like the one in Iraq anyway, where, unlike baseball (and bowling), there are no rules? For Dubya, it seems, the story ends at is has for him in most other situations -- with him walking away with a smile, not looking back, and leaving someone else to clean up the godawful mess he's left behind.

"'We have a text,' Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said after a day-long visit Thursday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice." How badly do the Republicans want to keep the White House? Apparently enough that the Dubya administration, contrary to its earlier stance (and to McCain's promises of "100 years" in Baghdad), seems to be on the verge of signing a withdrawal accord with Iraq that would have all U.S. troops out by the end of 2011. (Not that we have much choice in the matter, given that Baghdad has already made it clear it wants us gone.) Well, however politically influenced, this is clearly a step in the right direction...but it's way too late in the game to save the GOP now. It's not like we're all going to forget who started -- and enabled -- this disastrous sideshow.

"That it was a forgery can no longer be doubted; that it originated with the White House may be harder to prove. Two former CIA officials -- Rob Richer and John Maguire -- have gone on record as saying they were personally charged with carrying out the forgery, but their marching orders, if they existed, came directly from Tenet (who has fiercely denied the story). The closest thing Suskind has to a smoking gun is Richer's memory, five years later, of 'looking down at the creamy White House stationery on which the assignment was written.'"

In his review of Ron Suskind's The Way of the World, Salon's Louis Bayard tells the tale of the Habbush letter, a forgery fabricated by the CIA to tie Iraq to Al Qaeda (and, thus manufacture a casus belli for the War in Iraq.) In other words, George Tenet -- perhaps on higher authority -- signed off on an illegal black op aimed against the American people. If this goes up the food chain -- and, at this point, who'd be surprised if it didn't -- this is definitely an impeachable offense. Where's the outrage?

Update: Politico has more.

"Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes...Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want." While much of the nation watched The Dark Knight, Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki shook up our election considerably, perhaps even decisively, over the weekend by publicly backing Obama's troop withdrawal plan in the German magazine Der Spiegel.

The Dubya White House immediately tried to lean on Al-Maliki to get him to walk back his remarks, but some hemming and hawing aside, they would seem to stand. In fact, they were reinforced today by Ali al-Dabbagh, Iraq's government spokesman, upon Sen. Obama's arrival to the region: "We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq."

In other words, even the Iraqis believe Obama is right and McCain is wrong on our future in Iraq. Which means the McCain campaign has just lost one of their critical tentpole issues, and has no place to go now except scream "surge, surge, surge." "Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, 'We're f**ked.'"

Of course, McCain's bleeding on the Iraq issue might be better staunched if he didn't publicly refer to the non-existent Iraq-Pakistan border...

"[T]he cameo of a red pack of Skittles in the opening scene of David Simon's new HBO miniseries, Generation Kill, was a welcome sight, because it signaled that the program was going to be faithful to the smallest detail of the invasion I had witnessed...It wasn't until later episodes that I realized this miniseries is so realistic it should be used as an educational tool for troops going to Iraq and Afghanistan." In Slate, former embed Peter Maass sings the praises of Simon & Burns' (and Evan Wright's) Generation Kill.

While the ass-hattedness of the hick Sgt. Major obsessed with grooming standards, the Howard Zinn-lite ruminations of the Mexican Sgt., and Ziggy's wry way with the perfect quip all seem a little overdone, I've found Generation Kill interesting and compulsively watchable so far, and particularly enjoy the "Situation Normal" bungling of the officers. (I would so not want to get stuck in a firefight with the likes of "Captain America" on my six.)

"Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terror camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States...'The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001,' said Seth Jones, a Pentagon consultant and a terrorism expert at the RAND Corporation."

In the NYT, Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde explore how, despite all their endless bluster and unconstitutional behavior, the Dubya administration is losing the war against Al Qaeda, and has apparently given up on catching Bin Laden. "By late 2005, many inside the CIA headquarters in Virginia had reached the conclusion that their hunt for Bin Laden had reached a dead end...'You had a very finite number' of experienced officers, said one former senior intelligence official. 'Those people all went to Iraq. We were all hurting because of Iraq.'"

"'The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11, 2001) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,' intelligence committee Chairman John Rockefeller said in written commentary on the report. 'Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the nation to war on false pretenses.'"

In the stating-the-obvious department, the "Phase II" report by the Senate Intelligence Committee -- delayed by the GOP since before the 2004 election -- finds once again that the Dubya administration lied us into war. Y'know, back in the day, this would be considered an impeachable offense.

"We've seen this movie before,' Obama said at a town hall in Rapid City, S.D. 'A leader who pursues the wrong course, who is unwilling to change course, who ignores the evidence. Now, just like George Bush, John McCain is refusing to admit that he's made a mistake.'" One more from the past week: He already has trouble distinguishing Sunni from Shia. Now, it seems, GOP nominee John McCain is woefully unaware of our current troop levels overseas, and yet -- like a certain prez we could mention -- even refuses to admit he made a simple error. Uh, been there, done that.

"'Over that summer of 2002,' he writes, 'top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war...In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage ...What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.'" The other big political story of my move week: In a new political tell-all, former Dubya Press Secretary Scott McClellan turns on his former White House masters, accusing them of ginning up the case for war and lying outright to him about the Plamegate affair. "'Over time, as you leave the White House and leave the bubble, you're able to take off your partisan hat and take a clear-eyed look at things...I don't know that I can say when I started the book that it would end up where it was, but I felt at the end it had to be as honest and forthright as possible.'"

Welcome to the reality-based community, Scott. In the meantime, the White House is claiming McClellan was motivated by "sour grapes" (whatever that means -- why would he want to keep a gig he seemed to hate?) while other Dubya stalwarts, blindsided by the tome, have also gone on the attack. (But, don't fret -- of all people, McClellan knew what was coming.)

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Do you remember the Iraq War of 2003? Remember those heady days of euphoria when it ended two months later, with only 139 American lives lost? Journey back with me -- TIME-LIFE style, if you will -- to the scene of our triumph: "Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a 'hero' and boomed, 'He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.' PBS' Gwen Ifill said Bush was 'part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.' On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, 'The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a -- on a carrier landing. This must be very meaningful to the United States military.'"

Well, today marks the five-year anniversary of our glorious victory, the day that "splendid little war" came to a close. Among those honoring the day, and the remarkable achievement of our Commander-in-Chief:

Sen. Barack Obama: "Five years after George Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ and John McCain told the American people that ‘the end is very much in sight’ in Iraq, we have lost thousands of lives, spent half a trillion dollars, and we’re no safer. It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s false promises and failed judgments on foreign policy, so that we can finally ease the enormous burdens on our troops and their families, and end a war that should’ve never been authorized."

Sen. Hillary Clinton: "The fifth anniversary of President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech comes the same week as a chief architect of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq conceded 'We were clueless on counterinsurgency.' That statement confirms what we have all known: the planning and strategy was flawed. Our troops deserved and deserve better."

DNC head Howard Dean: "The real mission George Bush is trying to accomplish is passing the torch of his failed Iraq policy to John McCain, who has made it clear he's willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years against the wishes of the American people. This November the choice will be very clear: if you want to get out of Iraq responsibly, save lives and invest in America, vote for a Democrat."

Sen. John McCain: “To state the obvious, I thought it was wrong at the time [SIC]...all of those comments contributed over time to the frustration and sorrow of Americans because those statements and comments did not comport with the facts on the ground. In hearing after hearing in the Armed Services Committee and forums around America I complained loud and long that the strategy was failing and we couldn’t succeed … Obviously the presidents bare the responsibility. We all do. But do I blame him for that specific banner? I have no knowledge of that. I can’t blame him for that.”

The White House: "'President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said `mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission,' White House press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. 'And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner. And I recognize that the media is going to play this up again tomorrow, as they do every single year.'"

The American people: "A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president. 'No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark,' said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland."

3925 American lives: ...

"In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis."

Another holdover from the weekend: The NYT exposes the Pentagon's platoon of professional pro-war pundits (or puppets, as the case may be.) "'It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,' Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said...Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions."

"Judging from Gen. David Petraeus' Senate testimony today, our military commitment to Iraq is open-ended and unconditional...Their unwavering stance amounted to this: Further pullouts might trigger defeat; the costs of defeat are too horrible to ponder; therefore, we shouldn't ponder further pullouts." Slate's Fred Kaplan takes the measure of yesterday's Petraeus hearings, and the performances of Senators Obama [transcript | video], Clinton and McCain respectively. "Near the end of the afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' likely presidential nominee but a junior member of the foreign relations committee, finally got his turn to ask questions -- and he homed in on one of the administration's key conceptual failures...'I'm trying to get to an end point,' he said. 'That's what all of us are trying to do.' This is what many critics and thoughtful supporters of the war have been trying to do for five years now. The Bush administration hasn't addressed the issue. And, ultimately, neither did Petraeus or Crocker today."

The first family set, Oliver Stone's W picks up some Dubya admin hangers-on: namely, Thandie Newton as Condi Rice and Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair. Those are both solid. "Among the key "W" roles yet to be cast are those of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove."

"It's not a case of good vs. evil. It's just another crevice in the widening earthquake called Iraq." As violence flares up in Iraq once more, Slate's Fred Kaplan summarizes the current situation: "[I]t is 'a power struggle' between rival 'Shiite party mafias' for control of the oil-rich south and other Shiite sections of the country. Both sides in this struggle are essentially militias. Both sides have ties to Iran. And as for protecting 'the Iraqi people,' the side backed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (and by U.S. air power) has, ironically, less support -- at least in many Shiite areas, including Basra -- than the side that he (and we) are attacking."

"President Bush believes that every life is precious, and he spends time every day thinking about those who've lost their lives on the battlefield." And well he should: Following soon after our fifth anniversary in Iraq, a roadside bomb kills four soldiers on Easter Sunday, and the American death toll in Iraq reaches 4000, 3863 of which were killed after Dubya's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003.

I said when the death toll hit 2,000 in October 2005 that " [t]wo thousand US men and women have been killed in the line of duty, and this blatantly amateurish administration still has no plan either to win or to disengage from a conflict they orchestrated, other than 'stay the course.'" Two and half years and 2000 lives later, it's sadly still true. Worse still, Dubya's heir apparent, John McCain, now advocates extending this administration's catastrophic incompetence into another presidential term. This is not a good idea.

"Five years have gone by since that fateful decision. This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq."

-- Sen. Barack Obama, 3/19/08. (Photo by Sgt. Luis R. Agostini, via here.)

"Senator Clinton says that she and Senator McCain have passed a 'Commander in Chief test' – not because of the judgments they’ve made, but because of the years they’ve spent in Washington. She made a similar argument when she said her vote for war was based on her experience at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country – a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington’s judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military...We have a security gap when candidates say they will follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but refuse to follow him where he actually is."

On the fifth anniversary of the war, Sen. Obama delivers a speech on Iraq and national security in Fayetteville, NC, and takes time to poke McCain for his apparent and frightening misunderstanding of Mideast affairs. "Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda. Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades." Really, McCain's oft-repeated error smacks of Dubya-level incompetence, and would be all over the news today if we were in general election mode, rather than collectively continuing to assuage Sen. Clinton's vanity, by assuming she still has a chance. For shame.

It was announced earlier in the week that a new Pentagon study was set to confirm the obvious: "An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network." Big surprise there.

Well, apparently, even the obvious must be suppressed in the Dubya regime. According to ABC News, the report is now being hastily buried. "The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia. It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online." Instead, it seems, the report will be on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard."

Update: ABC News asks for and receives a snail-mailed copy of the report, after which they promptly scan it and post it online as a PDF. Bang-up job suppressing that one, guys.

"The situational forces that were going on in [Abu Ghraib] -- the dehumanization, the lack of personal accountability, the lack of surveillance, the permission to get away with anti-social actions -- it was like the Stanford prison study, but in spades." New scenes of vileness and depravity emerge from Abu Ghraib. NSFW, and, in any case, no way to start your day.

"One serious problem the study described was the Bush administration’s assumption that the reconstruction requirements would be minimal. There was also little incentive to challenge that assumption, the report said...Another problem described was a general lack of coordination. 'There was never an attempt to develop a single national plan that integrated humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, governance, infrastructure development and postwar security,' the study said...The poor planning had 'the inadvertent effort of strengthening the insurgency,' as Iraqis experienced a lack of security and essential services and focused on 'negative effects of the U.S. security presence.'"

The NYT reports that the Dubya Pentagon has systematically worked to bury an unclassified 2005 study critical of the Iraq war's conduct by the RAND corporation (the former employer of my ex-wife during my DC days, RAND also receives a memorable shout-out in Dr. Strangelove.) "The report was submitted at a time when the Bush administration was trying to rebut building criticism of the war in Iraq by stressing the progress Mr. Bush said was being made. The approach culminated in his announcement in November 2005 of his “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” Update: Slate's Tim Noah wonders: "Isn't this the story line of the Pentagon Papers?"

So, as you may have heard, George W. Bush delivered his final (a lovely word, isn't it?) State of the Union address last night. [Transcript.] I actually saw it two and a half times, as I had CNN running in the background while I websurfed well into the evening. And, maybe I've been getting ruined by the recent slew of memorable Obama-related speeches but, for the life of me, it didn't make an impression at all. Right around the time Dubya made that goofy and somewhat undignified joke about the IRS accepting checks and money orders, something in my brain went *click*, and all I could hear was a lame duck quacking. So, if Dubya actually managed to say anything of substance, or discuss a program that might actually happen this year, please let me know. Update: Sen. Obama's response. Update 2: James Fallows offers his usual worthwhile post-mortem.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida...In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

A new study by the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism counts up the staggering number of falsehoods made by the Bush administration in the lead-up to Iraq. "The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period...Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida." (Via Dangerous Meta.)

"Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' to use the constitutional standard." Not to be lost in the New Hampshire shuffle: Former Senator and presidential candidate George McGovern makes the case anew for Dubya's impeachment.

"Today the Australian people have decided that we as a nation will move forward." Dubya loses an important conservative ally on the international front as long-standing Australian PM John Howard is voted out of office, to be replaced by Kevin Rudd of the Labor Party. "Rudd, a Chinese-speaking former diplomat, has also promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, leaving the U.S. as the only industrialized country not to have joined it...Rudd promised to pull Australia's 550 combat troops from Iraq in a phased withdrawal, and to quickly sign Kyoto. Howard had rejected withdrawal plans for Australia's troops in Iraq, and refused to ratify the pact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions." Ozzie ozzie ozzie! Welcome back to the reality-based community, y'all (and here's hoping we catch up with you next year.)

"'I hear you're looking for me,' he said. 'You wanna go mano a mano right here?'" In excerpts from his new book, Fall of the House of Bush, published in Salon, Craig Unger examines the ideological divide between Bush father and son and tells the true story of Dubya's coming to Jesus. "One way of examining the growing crisis could be found in the prism of the elder Bush's relationship with his son, a relationship fraught with ancient conflicts, ideological differences, and their profound failure to communicate with each other...According to the Bushes' conservative biographers, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, family members could see [Bush 41's] torment. When his sister, Nancy Ellis, asked him what he thought about his son's plan for the war, Bush 41 replied, 'But do they have an exit strategy?'" This goes a long way toward explaining the elder Bush's recent spate of (really depressing and hard to watch) public crying jags. (See also Joan Walsh.)

"'The train is derailed and off the tracks,' said Stephen P. Cohen, author of 'The Idea of Pakistan.' 'We have to give ourselves a share of the responsibility for this. We placed all of our chips on Musharraf.' At this point, Cohen added: 'I don't think there is anything we can do. We are not big players in this anymore.'" Dubya diplomacy takes another huge hit as a power-hungry President Musharraf declares martial law in Pakistan to ensure his continued reign, sparking nationwide protests and leaving the Bushies between a rock and a hard place. "One adviser traveling with Rice saw a silver lining in the rapid turn of events. 'Thank heavens for small favors,' the official said. Compared to Pakistan, 'Iraq looks pretty good.'" Oh, joy.

Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan weighs in. "The state of emergency in Pakistan signals yet another low point in President George W. Bush's foreign policy -- a stark demonstration of his paltry influence and his bankrupt principles. More than that, the crackdown locks us in a crisis -- a potentially dangerous dynamic -- from which there appears to be no escape route...The Bush foreign policy was neither shrewd enough to play self-interested power politics nor truly principled enough to enforce its ideals."

"Service in Iraq is 'a potential death sentence,' said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. 'Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now,' he said to sustained applause." Want to join the Foreign Service? Here's your chance...US diplomats appear to be on the verge of mutiny over forced postings in Baghdad. "Foreign Service officers swear an oath to serve wherever the secretary of state sends them, but no directed assignments have been ordered since the late 1960s, during the Vietnam War...A poll conducted this month by the American Foreign Service Association found that only 12 percent of officers 'believe that [Secretary of State Condaleeza] Rice is fighting for them'."

"In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid 'physical labor' and wrote of the need to 'keep elevating the threat,' 'link Iraq to Iran' and develop 'bumper sticker statements' to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war." The WP surveys the "snowflakes" composed by ex-SecDef Donald Rumsfeld during his tenure. "Rumsfeld, whose sometimes abrasive approach often alienated other Cabinet members and White House staff members, produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said." Uh, Rummy, get a blog.

"Is the military's top spokesman in Iraq a loose cannon who routinely fires off angry, impetuous e-mails to bloggers who criticize the war and the spin surrounding it? Or is Col. Steven Boylan, instead, an innocent victim -- an online wallflower whose identity has been hijacked by a pro-war hacker who has managed to break into the most well-fortified space on the planet in order to taunt lefty critics? Neither scenario paints a comforting picture of the situation in Iraq -- and even though the e-mails in question are coming from military servers in Iraq, the military seems strangely uninterested in solving the mystery of who is writing them." Speaking of ominous "snowflakes" emanating from the Pentagon, Salon's Farhad Manjoo summarizes the recent bizarre and troubling behavior by Col. Steven Boylan, most notably his unsolicited letter and subsequent denial to Salon's Glenn Greenwald. Hmm...perhaps Boylan is a drailer?

"'We screwed up and left Saddam Hussein in power. The president [then George H.W. Bush] believes he'll be overthrown by his own people, but I rather doubt it,' he quotes Wolfowitz lamenting [in 1991]. 'But we did learn one thing that's very important. With the end of the Cold War, we can now use our military with impunity. The Soviets won't come in to block us. And we've got five, maybe 10, years to clean up these old Soviet surrogate regimes like Iraq and Syria before the next superpower emerges to challenge us ... We could have a little more time, but no one really knows.'" According to Salon's Joe Conason, Wesley Clark's new book suggests the existence of a smoking-gun 2001 memo that outlined in full the neo-cons' delusional ambitions for the Middle East before the Iraq War. "'Six weeks later, Clark returned to Washington to see the same general and inquired whether the plan to strike Iraq was still under consideration..."Oh, it's worse than that," he said, holding up a memo on his desk. "Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years." And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran.' While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan."

"In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran...The President’s position, and its corollary -- that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians -- have taken firm hold in the Administration." With that in mind, and with Secretary of State Rice citing Iranian "lying" about their nuclear program, here's one from a week or so ago: The New Yorker's Sy Hersh evaluates the current prospects in the administration for a war with Iran. "I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the 'execute order' that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued. But there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning...'They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,' one recently retired C.I.A. official said."

"If you're really worried about Iran, do you want to put your faith in the United States, the country that bungled Iraq? If you really care about Islamic fundamentalism, do you want to be led by the country that, distracted by Iraq, failed to predict the return of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan?" Why has the world soured on America of late? The real reason, argues Slate's Anne Applebaum and the data she surveys, is that, thanks to seven years of Dubya, we're starting to look incompetent. "And even if the surge works, even if the roadside bombs vanish, inept is a word that will always be used about the Iraqi invasion."

Blackwater grows murkier: It seems the private security firm in Iraq has a long and sordid history of troubling incidents to its name, and that the initial State Dept. report on the firefight of a few weeks ago was originally written by a Blackwater contractor. (Indeed, the State Department tried to intervene in today's Congressional testimony by Blackwater head Erik Prince until forced to back down as a result of public pressure.)

How deep does this rabbit hole go? Salon's Ben Van Heuvelen traces the financial connections between Blackwater and the Bushies, while P.W. Singer, an expert on private contractors, explains what Blackwater has cost us all: "When we evaluate the facts, the use of private military contractors appears to have harmed, rather than helped, the counterinsurgency efforts of the U.S. mission in Iraq, going against our best doctrine and undermining critical efforts of our troops...According to testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Defense Contract Audit Agency has identified more than a staggering $10 billion in unsupported or questionable costs from battlefield contractors -- and investigators have barely scratched the surface."

"More than nine months after taking power, about all that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have achieved on the Iraq front is to unfairly share in the blame for mismanaging the conflict...Pelosi, in particular, erred in unduly raising antiwar expectations when she took over as the first Democratic speaker in a dozen years. It was the Gingrich Revolution in reverse, this time with Democrats failing to appreciate the balance-of-power realities of a congressional showdown with an unyielding president, however wounded." Salon's Walter Shapiro puts forth an explanation why Democratic attempts to change direction in Iraq have failed.

[Review, take 2.] Every day I think I'm going to wake up back in the desert... I must say, I went in expecting not much more than an over-the-top "message movie" schmaltzfest, or at best a harmless helping of mediocre, inert Oscar Bait like Cinderella Man or A Beautiful Mind. But Paul Haggis' In the Valley of Elah, the first of four(!) movies I caught last Saturday, turned out to be quite a bit better than I expected. Rather, Elah is a melancholy rumination on the hidden casualties of (any) war and a somber inquiry into the heavy toll exacted on the wives, parents, and children of military men. (The families of military women will likely get their due in John Cusack's forthcoming Grace is Gone.) The David and Goliath nonsequitur of its title notwithstanding, Elah more often brings to mind the questionable sacrifice for an unknown higher purpose in Abraham and Isaac, or the bloody fate of erstwhile brothers Cain and Abel. And, biblical parallels aside, the film showcases the best work Tommy Lee Jones has done in years. (Well, I didn't see The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, and have high hopes for No Country for Old Men.) And it's probably the most engaging police procedural of the year this side of Zodiac.

"Dad?" Roused from a dream he can barely grasp the edges of, grizzled Vietnam Vet turned mechanic Hank Greenfield (Jones) is awoken one Tennessee morning by a call from faraway Fort Rudd, informing him not only that his son Mike is back from Iraq but has gone AWOL since getting back stateside. This doesn't gibe with Hank, who's been receiving image-laden e-mails from his second son during his tour (his first son already perished in his nation's service), and so he packs his bags, kisses his wife (Susan Sarandon) goodbye, and drives straight through to New Mexico, looking to ascertain the score.

The sergeant on duty at Ft. Rudd (James Franco) and Mike's returning platoon members all think he's just shacked up with a good time woman somewhere...but Hank's not so certain. And, just as he's beginning to tease clues off Mike's damaged cameraphone, a charred, mutilated, and dismembered body is discovered on the outskirts of town. Sure enough, it's Mike, and as the ensuing homicide investigation slips into the jursidictional crack between local law enforcement (most notably represented by Charlize Theron) and the Military Police (headed by bureaucrat Jason Patric), Hank takes it on himself to bring his son's murderer to justice. But, as Hank well knows, the dogs of war impart a moon-touched madness on those they've mauled, and Hank will be forced to confront some ugly truths about his son, and the man he became in Iraq, in order to get to the bottom of things.

Admittedly, the movie starts out kinda rocky (or perhaps I was just gunning for Haggis in the first reel.) Events occur early on that scream symbolic significance (you'll know what I mean), people speak in characterization shorthand -- "Someday, you'll just have to trust somebody, Hank" -- and some plot points just don't hang together. How did Hank ever find that (symbolically-named) computer guru operating out of a van, and why does it take him so ever-loving long just to do a defrag? But, for whatever reason -- my money's mostly on Jones -- Elah is a significantly subtler and more resonant film than I ever expected from the writer-director of the lamentable Crash. (Then again, a ball-peen hammer to the skull is subtler than Crash, a film which, as I noted in my review of Inside Man last year, feels like it was made by and for people who don't get out very much.)

In any case, Tommy Lee Jones is really excellent here: Check out the scene where he has to ID his son's body in the morgue, or note how his early military rectitude seeps away as he sinks into the slough of despond. And Jones isn't alone. Sarandon is memorable in every short scene she's in, Theron is surprisingly believable as an ordinary (albeit beautiful) cop, and Patric -- a dependable actor who never quite made it as a lead -- seems to relish the freedom of his oncoming, paunchy Val Kilmer/Alec Baldwin phase. His "on a need to know basis" character in particular could've been way over the top, but Patric underplays him as a guy who really just doesn't want to do the paperwork. (There's also a brief but solid turn by Josh Brolin, Jones' Coen compadre, as the local sheriff.)

Elah isn't the best movie of the year or anything. But it is most of everything you'd want out of a fall film -- It's timely, sober-minded, well-acted and well-made. And, if nothing else, it shows Haggis has the ability to reboot after Crash.

"The problem is that no one seems quite sure what law, if any, would apply to security firm contractors, and any potential applications are untested and would be vigorously challenged." A murky incident involving Blackwater USA over the weekend, which resulted in the deaths of eight alleged Iraqi civilians, raises questions about the legality of private security firms working in Iraq (on whom the well-being of most American diplomats in the region depends.) "Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq." Needed or not, having privately-held American militias operating outside the bounds of the Iraqi legal system isn't going to elicit much respect for the rule of law in the region.

"I said after I was elected in 1996 that 12 years in the Senate would probably be enough. It is...I will not seek a third term in the United States Senate, nor do I intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008." Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) announces his retirement, which may just mean a return to the Senate for Bob Kerrey. (So, he's not running...I guess the trial balloon popped.) In any event, I thought Hagel maddeningly buckled to party pressure more often than not when the heat was on, and I still hold his attempted poison-pill amendment to McCain-Feingold back in 2000 against him. But, he also possessed a definite maverick streak on the war and a penchant for speaking-truth-to-power every so often that'll be sorely missed on his side of the aisle. So, farewell, Senator Hagel, and please give yourself at least a few weeks off before commencing the fundraising for 2012.

Declaring that "the military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met" (an assertion which rests, of course, on how one jukes the stats and skews the benchmarks), Army General David Petraeus, Dubya's most recent man in Iraq, tells Congress he's recommending a drawdown of troop levels in Iraq to pre-surge levels -- around 130,000 troops -- by July of next year. [Transcript.] Not a huge surprise -- As Fred Kaplan noted both a few weeks ago and in his quality preview of today's testimony, the Army would run out of troops by April anyway, so this was a foregone conclusion. Also, obviously, not what you'd call a real withdrawal (although the WP story's cited experts suggest it may be taken as the "beginning of the end" by interested parties in Iraq...and Iran.) So, in effect, Petraeus punted to next July.

For his part, US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker backed Petraeus' "Things are Getting Better" remarks in his own testimony, and intimated that the surge had staved off a near-total collapse. He also warned the nation about the nature of our continuing commitment there: "'There will be no single moment in which we can claim victory,' and any turning point will be recognized only 'in retrospect.'"

Are things getting better in Iraq? If so, it'll be hard to prove with the statistics lately offered by the US military, which critics claim once again have been cherry-picked and "selectively ignore negative trends." "In its December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group identified 'significant underreporting of violence,' noting that 'a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack'...Recent estimates by the media, outside groups and some government agencies have [also] called the military's findings into question."

In any case, it seems that, despite Dubya and Gen. Petraeus's claims to the contrary, Iraqi security forces are nowhere close to being able to handle the load in Baghdad, according to a new report by a commission of retired military officers. "The report expresses concern about what it calls the massive U.S. military logistical 'footprint' in Iraq and its effect on perceptions and problems. 'The unintended message conveyed is one of "permanence," an occupying force, as it were,' the report says. It recommends reconsideration of 'efficiency, necessity...and cost' and calls for 'significant reductions, consolidations and realignments" of U.S. forces.'"

"On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again." Did Dubya know for a fact that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq? With two CIA sources to back him up, Sidney Blumenthal says so. "'The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused,' said one of the former CIA officers. 'The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.'"

"There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001." Every time he thinks he's going to wake up back in the jungle...In a fit of self-serving revisionism, Dubya attempts to reinvent the lessons of Vietnam before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, arguing that our problems really began because we withdrew from Southeast Asia too early. (Also, apparently we lost the war because of Graham Greene's The Quiet American. So, on the bright side, it looks like Dubya is progressing along his high-school reading list.) As you might expect, this line of argument is not sitting well with many historians, among them the venerable Robert Dallek: "What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion,' he continued. 'We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It's a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.'"

"'The British have basically been defeated in the south,' a senior U.S. intelligence official said recently in Baghdad. They are abandoning their former headquarters at Basra Palace, where a recent official visitor from London described them as 'surrounded like cowboys and Indians' by militia fighters." More bad news in Iraq: Once considered a comparative success story of sorts, the formerly British-held city of Basra now seems to be deteriorating as quickly as the rest of Iraq (except that, rather than experiencing sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, the more homogenous Basra is witnessing Shiite militias struggling amongst themselves.) "Much of Basra's violence is 'over who gets what cut from Iraq's economic resources,' a U.S. Army strategist in Iraq said."

"Call it the 'special relationship'; call it, as Churchill did, the 'joint inheritance'; call it, when we meet, as a form of homecoming, as President Reagan did. The strength of this relationship...is not just built on the shared problems that we have to deal with together or on the shared history, but is built...on shared values." Wanna know who (is Mr Brown)? So does Dubya...The new British prime minister and Bush held their first joint press conference yesterday (transcript), and -- so far -- it's all smiles. Still, "[t]he British leader did not hide his differences with the president, describing Afghanistan as 'the front line against terrorism.'...[He also] avoided using the phrase "war on terror" in describing the effort to hunt down and defeat Islamic radicals. He referred to terrorism 'as a crime' and 'not a cause,' though he went on to say that 'there should be no safe haven and no hiding place for those who practice terrorist violence or preach terrorist extremism.'"

"The White House report released today, on how far Iraq has progressed toward 18 political and military benchmarks, is a sham." Well, Dubya may point to the split-decision Iraq interim report as grounds for optimism, but Slate's Fred Kaplan, for one, ain't buying it: "[A] close look at the 25-page report reveals a far more dismal picture and a deliberately distorted assessment...The report card was rigged from the outset by how the White House defined 'satisfactory.'"

"I wish everyone, friend or foe, well. And that is that -- the end." So long, Tony (and good luck in the Middle East.) 'We're very glad to see him go, because he's the most dangerous opponent that we've had in a couple of hundred years,' former Conservative leader William Hague told the BBC afterward.'" That may have been true for awhile, I guess. Too bad Blair decided to pull an LBJ and mar his otherwise-sound progressive legacy with an exceedingly ill-advised foreign war. But, time marches onward, so, with that in mind, Hello to Gordie and the New Labor Order.

By a count of 14-0 (Russia abstaining), the UN Security Council votes to shut down their inquiry into Iraq WMDs. Well, so much for that particular casus belli. From the vaults: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 29, 2002. (There's another one for the impeachment file.)

"'Here...comes...that famous General Taguba -- of the Taguba report!' Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice." Well, the agency and the time may have changed, but it's increasingly clear we still have a lot to answer for, thanks to the actions of those who would claim to protect our way of life. The inimitable Sy Hersh of The New Yorker (who also played a role in 1974 in getting the CIA docs released -- take that, Woodward) reports in with the tale of General Antonio Taguba, the head of the Army's original investigation into Abu Ghraib who, like so many other truth-tellers in the administration, was eventually hung out to dry for his candor. Hersh's frightening and sadly plausible piece not only makes clear that Rumsfeld, Dubya, et al had more knowledge of the nightmare of Abu Ghraib than they've publicly let on, but also suggests that those repellent images we've all seen from the prison may only be the tip of the iceberg of the horrors that occurred in our country's name. "Taguba said that he saw 'a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.' The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it."

"'Setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure.'" As expected, Dubya vetoed the recent Iraq spending bill passed in Congress, only the second time he's exercised his veto power (the first being stem cells.) And, with few options at their disposal and a veto-override failing in the House 222-203, the Dems have already dropped their troop-withdrawal timetable, and now look to fashion a compromise using the language of benchmarks. "'I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks,' said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin...White House officials are also looking to benchmarks as an area of compromise, but they want them to be tied to rewards for achievement, not penalties for failure." Um, what achievements would those be, and how would we evaluate them? It's the soft bigotry of low expectations all over again. Four years after "Mission Accomplished, I don't see how we can feasibly expect this administration to offer anything other than the same rose-scented lies about the chaos in Baghdad. They have no other setting.

"'How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?' asked Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. 'How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush's foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough.'" By a vote of 218-208 in the House and 51-46 in the Senate, the Democratic Congress -- living up to their promise in 2006 -- calls for a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. Dubya has said several times that he'll veto the bill, and is expected to do so in short order.

"Two and a half years ago, John McCain swallowed his pride and hitched his ambitions to two stars -- George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. Both have since imploded. And so, as his campaign faces the purple dusk of twilight time, the man who might once have been an honorable president slips and slides on the stardust." Based on a recent NYT interview with the Mythical Maverick, Slate's Fred Kaplan argues that John McCain's Straight Talk Express is now effectively dismantled for good.

"How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to 'bullseye womprats' on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be 'impossible, even for a computer.' Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?" By way of Triptych Cryptic, Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job? True, it's not as devastatingly on point as The Onion's recent Bush Refuses to Set Timetable for Withdrawal of Head from White House Banister ("I am going to finish what I set out to accomplish here, no matter how unpopular my decision may be, or how much my head hurts while stuck between these immovable stairway posts.") Still, decently amusing nonetheless...I was sold on it by the pic of Palpatine reading My Pet Bantha.

"None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated." In an editorial for Salon, Sen. Russ Feingold invokes GOP behavior on Somalia in 1993 to make the case for Congress cutting funding in Iraq. "Since President Bush has made it painfully clear that he has no intention of fixing his failed Iraq policy, it is no longer a question of if Congress will end this war; it is a question of when."

By a vote of 218-212 and with only two Republicans joining the majority, the House votes on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: "The bill would establish strict standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops before their deployment and lay down binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government, such as assuming control of security operations, quelling sectarian violence and more equitably distributing oil revenue. If progress is not made toward those benchmarks, some troops would be required to come home as early as July. In any event, troop withdrawals would have to begin in March 2008, with all combat forces out by Aug. 31, 2008." For now, and as with the persecuted prosecutors, Dubya is trying to play the partisanship card, and, in any case, the bill has a tough road to hoe in the Senate, where similar legislation received only 48 votes last time around. But, give them credit: While navigating a few defections on either side of the issue, Speaker Pelosi & co. put money where their mouths were last election season. Indeed, the WP deems the bill "one of the toughest antiwar measures ever to pass a house of Congress during combat operations."

"It was a war that the United States had not planned, and did not expect, to fight. It was a war in which the superiority of American civilization was supposed to bring grace to a foreign people. It was a war that the United States seemed to win quickly and with ease, but that somehow did not end. Over at Slate, historian David Silbey ponders what the Phillippine War of 1899-1902 tells us about Iraq. Silbey's emphasis on political counterinsurgency seems sound, but, given that the Philippines wasn't on the verge of a sectarian civil war at the time, I'm not sure his strategy for victory plays out in Baghdad, particularly at this late date.

"I submitted my retirement because I think it is in the best interest of the Army...We are an Army Medical Department at war, supporting an Army at war. It shouldn't be and it isn't about one doctor."" The brewing scandal over mismanagement at Walter Reed claims another victim in Army Surgeon General Kevin Kiley. "Ongoing probes could lead to more firings, two defense officials said yesterday."

In a story unfolding last week that I'm behind on posting on, Dubya goes the bipartisan commission route to try to take the sting out of the brewing scandal over mismanagement at Walter Reed (and other military hospitals) that has already resulted in two firings and some contentious congressional hearings. "Good leadership should have taken these steps long ago, without prompting by a series of embarrassing news articles,' said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the committee's chairman[.]"

"'[Y]ou can already feel the stability,' said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles F. Wald, formerly the deputy U.S. commander in Europe." A few months into his stint at Dubya's second SecDef, Robert Gates is "greeted as a liberator" in and around the Pentagon. "'How much of it is Bob Gates as a personality, manager and leader, and how much of it is Rumsfeld being gone, is hard to say,' said [Brent] Scowcroft, who has known Gates for 30 years. 'Rumsfeld was a difficult man to work for.'"

"What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it does mean that the next chapter in Basra's history can be written by Iraqis." While the Dubya administration continue to press for its "surge," Prime Minister Tony Blair announces the withdrawal of 1600 troops from Iraq, leaving approximately 5,500 British soldiers in the now Shiite-controlled region of Basra. [video.] "Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said though the British and American strategies appear to be opposite, they will achieve the same end: a consolidation of Shiite power in Iraq. The British have already acquiesced to a 'situation of quiet sectarian cleansing' in the south, and their decision to pull out of Basra simply marks 'acceptance of a political reality' of Shiite control in the region."

Although the House passed it last week by a margin of 246-182, the Democratic resolution opposing Dubya's surge fails to win an airing in the Senate. Although seven Republicans joined the Senate Dems in advancing the bill, it fell short by four votes of the 60 required to initiate debate. "Both sides instead are girding for the next phase, a confrontation over war funding, with some Democrats determined to exercise the power of the purse to influence Iraq strategy."

"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." In vaguely-related news, conservative congressman Rep. Don Young trots out an obviously-fake Lincoln quote to bash Dems on Iraq. [ThinkProgress has the video.] '''Now that he's been informed these are not the actual words of Lincoln, he will discontinue attributing the words to Lincoln. However, he continues to totally agree with the message of the statement,' [spokeswoman] Kenny said." (For the record, and despite his suspension of habeas corpus, President Lincoln was a lenient sort, and assuredly not a believer in the reforming potential of public hangings.)

"'We stand together to tell this administration that we are against the escalation, and to say with one voice that Congress will no longer be a blank check to the president's failed policies,' said freshman Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), who was a captain with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad. 'The president's plan to send more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war in Iraq is wrong.'" The House begins three days of debate on a resolution opposing Dubya's proposed "surge." "The Democratic resolution is not binding on the administration, and both sides of the debate agreed that the real fight will come next month, when Democrats are to move to attach to a $100 billion war spending bill binding language that would limit future deployments to Iraq and begin to bring troops home."

"Faust's interpretation helps explain the way the US responded to the 9-11 terrorist attacks with a war on Iraq. 'Even a war against an enemy who had no relationship to September 11's terrorist acts would do,' she notes. People supported war not just because of the rational arguments offered by the White House, but also 'because the nation required the sense of meaning, intention, and goal-directedness, the lure of efficacy that war promises.' It was especially necessary to restore a sense of control after the terrorism of 9-11 had 'obliterated' it. The US, she concludes, 'needed the sense of agency that operates within the structure of narrative provided by war.'" In the pages of The Nation, Jon Wiener evaluates new Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust's work on war mania.

A new report by the Pentagon's inspector general argues that former undersecretary of defense and Dubya war hawk Douglas Feith misrepresented intelligence findings during the lead-up to Iraq. Not a big surprise there, but it's good to get Pentagon confirmation. "Feith's office, it said, drew on 'both reliable and unreliable' intelligence reports in 2002 to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq 'that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration.'"

Now, here's a guy who hopes there's something to this Blue Monday business: On the eve of the State of the Union, Dubya faces the lowest poll numbers of his presidency. "Bush's overall approval rating in the new poll is 33 percent, matching the lowest it has been in Post-ABC polls since he took office in 2001...Equally telling is the finding that 51 percent of Americans now strongly disapprove of his performance in office, the worst rating of his presidency."

"Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." I'm still furiously playing catch-up, so I'm obviously a day or two behind on blogging this...Then again, Dubya's just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I'll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush --- sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission -- calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what's being billed as a "surge." (Re: "escalation.") When you get right down to it, Dubya's basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: "Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I've dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging..."

Here's the thing -- A massive troop increase would've made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then -- and a quicker restoration of order and basic services -- would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops -- many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended -- isn't going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we've been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam's hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything -- until now -- to rein in Al Sadr's Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can't handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran...who says Dubya isn't a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn't having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya's plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight -- While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya's move (most notably John McCain, who's been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

In not-unrelated news, the Dubya White House shuffles its deck to make ready for divided government, replacing failed Supreme Court bid Harriet Miers as White House counsel (likely in favor of someone more aggressive, so as to counter Dem subpoenas), kicking national intelligence director Nicholas Negroponte over to State (to be replaced by Vice Admiral Mike McConnell), appointing Thomas D'Agostino as new nuclear chief (the old one, Linton Brooks, seems to have been of the "Brownie" school of management), putting Iraq ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in John Bolton's former position at the UN (his job goes to Ryan Crocker), and overhauling their top military team in Iraq. As the WP's Dan Froomkin reads the tea leaves, "I see a possible theme: A purge of the unbelievers."

So, as I'm guessing you probably heard, Saddam was hung [obit]. Well, as a long-delayed deliverance of justice visited upon a bloodthirsty and sadistic tyrant, the execution may have been a success. But as a piece of political theater and a symbolic and unifying act of statebuilding, it definitely left something to be desired. Unfortunately, even notwithstanding the poorly-timed Shiite revelry, the hanging came across on tape less as a dispassionate exercise by the new Iraqi State than a heated episode of sectarian vigilantism, one that may grant Saddam more power in martyrdom than he's had in life since his capture. Something to consider if and when Osama Bin Laden is ever brought to justice...

"'When the president talks about staying the course, he never mentions cost as a factor,' Spratt said. 'But it is a factor, particularly when you get costs over $100 billion a year.'" Facing very little room to work with, the Dems attempt to sort out the fiscal fiasco Dubya has created over the past six years and counting.

"These poor contracting practices have left DOD vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse and DOI vulnerable to sanctions and the loss of the public trust." In related news, new audits disclose that a procurement collaboration between Dubya's departments of Defense and Interior has resulted in millions of dollars in waste and mark-ups. "More than half of the contracts examined were awarded without competition or without checks to determine that the prices were reasonable, according to the audits by the inspectors general for Defense (DOD) and Interior (DOI). Ninety-two percent of the work reviewed was awarded without verifying that the contractors' cost estimates were accurate; 96 percent was inadequately monitored."

"'We're not winning, we're not losing,' Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, 'Absolutely, we're winning.'" While calling for an expansion of the army and marines, Dubya comes close to finally declaring the obvious in Iraq.

Good riddance to the do-nothing 109th Congress, which wheedled its way into the history books last weekend. (And sayonara also to Donald Rumsfeld, who closed up shop yesterday.) A word of warning to the Dubya White House: Don't expect the 110th to play as nice...

The buck stops here? Not hardly. Grasping for historical validation wherever he can find it, Dubya has apparently begun to fancy himself a modern-day Truman. "James G. Hershberg, a Cold War historian at George Washington University, said he doubts that history will judge Bush as kindly as it has Truman, saying Truman's roles in fostering European recovery and building the NATO alliance were seen as solid accomplishments at the time. 'Bush, by contrast, lacks any successes of comparable magnitude to compensate for his mismanagement of the Iraq war and will be hard-pressed to produce any in his last two years'."

"As [Harry] Truman said, 'We must, once and for all, prove by our acts conclusively that right has might.' That's why this country has historically been in the vanguard of the global human rights movement. But that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism. When it appears to abandon its own ideas and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused." As Kofi Annan bids farewell to his post at the UN, he offers some words of wisdom to America -- and to Dubya -- on our nation's role in the world.

Apparently none too pleased with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, the Dubya administration tries to conjure up alternative policies for Iraq: "The major alternatives include a short-term surge of 15,000 to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces. Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda. And the third would concentrate political attention on supporting the majority Shiites and abandon U.S. efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents."

"From now on I'll be busy, Ain't goin' nowhere fast..." In what will hopefully amount to both a transformation in the debate over the war and a much-needed moment of clarity for the Dubya administration (alas, not likely), the Baker-Hamilton Commission officially releases its Iraq report (Exec Sum/Assessments). While perhaps vague on the details, it calls the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating" and argues that a "slide toward chaos" is a very real possibility (if, in fact, it hasn't already happened.) "Despite a list of 79 recommendations meant to encourage regional diplomacy and lead to a reduction of U.S. forces over the next year, the panel acknowledges that stability in Iraq may be impossible to achieve any time soon."

"'What we heard this morning was a welcome breath of honest, candid realism about the situation in Iraq,' Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said during a midday break." The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved Robert Gates, who helped his case considerably by admitting the obvious fact that Iraq's looking ugly, as Rumsfeld's replacement at the Pentagon yesterday. Among those impressed with Gates was Slate's Fred Kaplan: "I've been watching defense secretaries in confirmation hearings for 30 years, off and on, but I don't think I've seen any perform more forthrightly than Gates did this morning." Update: Gates goes through, 95-2.

"British intelligence. The term seemed redundant. It conjured up vast experience, levels upon levels of history, and, more than that, a cynical realism. When Americans were eschewing spying -- 'Gentlemen do not read each other's mail,' Secretary of State Henry Stimson said in 1929 -- the Brits, uber-gents to a man, were steaming open envelopes galore, keeping a vast empire together with only a handful of spies, assassins, and dissolute diplomats who were not worth a damn after lunch." In Slate, Richard Cohen asks, less facetiously than you might think, if James Bond might be responsible for the Iraq War.

"Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough." Hewing closer to the McNamara paradigm than I'd earlier thought, Rumsfeld apparently questioned the Iraq war's course on his way out the door. "Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the revelation of the memo would undercut any attempt by President Bush to defend anything resembling a 'stay the course' policy in Iraq.'When you have the outgoing secretary of defense, the main architect of Bush's policy, saying it's failing, that puts a lot more pressure on Bush.'"

"Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history." Columbia's Eric Foner makes the case for Dubya as the worst president ever. Also weighing in on the question: Columbia PhD (and Slate columnist) David Greenberg, Douglas Brinkley, Michael Lind, and Vincent J. Cannato. (I discussed Dubya's ranking briefly here.)

"So the choice is between a terrible decision and one that is even worse. The terrible decision is just to begin leaving, knowing that even more innocent civilians will be killed and that we'll be dealing with agitation out of Iraq for years to come. The worse decision would be to wait another year, or two, or three and then take that terrible course." While parsing the forthcoming recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission (which, among other things, calls for Iraqification of the war (sound familiar?) and a near-complete troop withdrawal by early 2008), journalist and Blind into Baghdad author James Fallows changes his mind about the merits of maintaining our military presence in Iraq: "If it is not in our power to prevent these disasters, then it is better to do as little extra damage to ourselves as possible before they occur."

"To talk of grand schemes -- partitioning Iraq or pressuring Maliki to form a 'reconciliation government' and amend his constitution -- is, quite apart from their merits, plainly absurd, because we have no control over what the Iraqis do. We still have some control, though, over what we do and, maybe, over what we can persuade others to do with us." In related news, Slate's Fred Kaplan, who seems to advocate hunkering down for the long haul over withdrawal, ponders what to do should the Maliki government in Iraq fall apart.

"It's not quite clear what George W. Bush wants Robert Gates to do. But it's doubtful Gates would have come back to Washington, from his pleasant perch as president of Texas A&M, if the job description read 'staying the course on Iraq.'" Invoking Clark Clifford to make his case, Slate's Fred Kaplan suggests what incoming SecDef Robert Gates may be able to accomplish over the next two years.

"I frankly think it's a natural default from the failure of this advice of the people they had. It was impossible to argue anymore that some of the people who got us into this mess were giving good advice." With Dubya's White House in shambles, will Bush 41's team ride to the rescue? Let's hope so -- I much prefer those guys to the militant neocon wing that's been holding the reins the past six years. Still, as one observer pointed out: "Bush's mind works differently from the normal political mind...Maybe these Baker guys can talk him off the ledge, but nobody's done it yet."

Christmas in November continues for the reality-based community: Along with recent editorials in the Army Times, the Dem's Election 2006 takeover claims another high-profile GOP victim in Donald Rumsfeld. He'll be replaced by former CIA chief Robert Gates -- an old papa Bush hand and current member of the Baker-Hamilton commission -- for Dubya's last two lame duck years. Dubya claimed in his press conference that Rumsfeld would've been gone regardless of the election returns...I'm not sure I buy that. Still, this is a very welcome move -- one that should've happened years ago.

Every single Dem incumbent returned to office. At least 26 more seats in the House. The nation's first woman Speaker. Six new governorships. At least four Senate seats. And, if all goes well in Virginia (which, at 5am EST, is looking likely -- Webb's up 8,000, which is a pretty solid lead heading into a recount) and Montana (which seems positive for us, albeit less so -- Tester's up 5,000 with 85% reporting), perhaps even control of Congress...Yessir, all-in-all, it was a pretty grand night for us. So, Dubya and Karl...how you like them apples? Update: Make that 28 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate....soon to be six. Congress is ours!

Shady, harrassing "robocalls", voter intimidation in Virginia, sketchy-acting electronic voting machines: yes, folks, it's Election Day in America, and the frantic GOP are up to their usual bag of tricks. In the inimitable words of Baltimore Deputy Commissioner for Ops Bill Rawls: "American Democracy. Let's show those Third World %@#$ how it's done."

Regardless, each side has had their November Surprise (for the Left, Haggard's hypocrisy; for the Right, Hussein's hanging), and now -- at long last -- it's showtime: Time to show "the decider" what we really think of him.

For what it's worth, I can now personally guarantee at least one vote for the not-particularly-embattled Spitzer/Clinton/Rangel/Cuomo ticket. I even used an old-school levered voting machine, so mine should more likely than not get counted.

Predictions? Of course, I'd like to venture a 1994-like tidal wave, but I've been burned by too many election nights in the past. So I'll play it relatively safe...the Dems win the House, picking up 18-22 seats, and gain four seats in the Senate: Missouri, Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. (So long, Santorum!) It looked like control of the Senate might've hinged on the Allen-Webb race in Virginia, but now that Harold Ford seems to have faded in Tennessee (one has to wonder how much Corker's gutterball ad helped him), a Dem Senate looks really unlikely. Still, I'd love to be surprised in both states.

Obviously not winning the House at this point would be a grievous blow for the party. But, whatever happens tonight, it has to be better than the last midterms.

The last two times I posted exit polls here (in 2000 and 2004), I've been led astray, but if I see anything good from the Senate races, I'll post it below. In the meantime, the NYT has a quality election guide here, and there are a couple of good explanations of what to look for tonight here and here. On this end, I and several of my friends who've been burned over the last few election nights together will be huddled around the TV, yearning to breathe free. Hopefully, at long last, it'll be our night.

I don't really have anything to say about Kerrygate, except, well, is it Tuesday yet? Way to stick your foot in it, Senator. But, really, is this all you guys got? Is this all you can conjure, Rove? The whole GOP media onslaught about it reeks of desperation (as do the gutterball ad campaigns), and, hey, I don't blame them: times are desperate: "'So many different kinds of scandals going on at the same time, that's pretty unique,' Zelizer said. 'There were scandals throughout the '70s, multiple scandals, but the number of stories now are almost overwhelming.'"

It's true in the West, it's true in the Southwest, it's even true among the reddest of the red. And, in perhaps the final straw for the GOP this November, a new poll puts independents breaking for the Dems 59%-31%. Yes, y'all, it looks like a wave is coming...(provided, of course, Diebold doesn't ride to Dubya's rescue.)

As Medley pointed out yesterday, Dubya and the GOP are now "cutting and running from 'stay the course.'" Instead, Tony Snow tells us, "What you have is not 'stay the course' but in fact a study in constant motion." And that motion, folks, is a full-out freefall. As even Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) noted yesterday, "We're on the verge of chaos" And, frankly, that's being charitable.

"But if the list is for real, it's evidence of presidential dereliction of duty, and perhaps an outright threat to national security. Two books a week is an uphill battle for a graduate student whose responsibilities don't even include showering. For a president, who lives at work, reading and comprehending two serious books a month takes a Herculean effort." (Hey, I shower!...um, most days.) Slate's Bruce Reed discusses Dubya's newfound love for books, suggesting that his recent reading contest with Karl Rove is part of the reason why things have gone so astray of late for this president. Well, call me old-fashioned, but -- My Pet Goat notwithstanding -- I'd usually rather see Dubya with his nose in a good book than see him make any more lousy world-threatening decisions. Besides. Dubya dug himself in this hole long before 2006...some healthy book learnin' might've done him right earlier in his tenure. Hey, at the very least, he might've locked down that whole pesky Shia-Sunni thing.

"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else...It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States." Agh! File this one in the Tom DeLay loves NASA department: Right-wing freakshow and self-proclaimed Tolkien fan Rick Santorum invokes Lord of the Rings to justify Iraq. Sorry, Senator...you can't Wormtongue your way out of this one.

655,000 deaths in Iraq?! A new report by Johns Hopkins researchers puts the number of fatalities from Dubya's Baghdad debacle at over twenty times what other sources such as Iraq Body Count have been reporting (making it roughly comparable to the fatality rate in Darfur.) Dear Lord, can that really be right? (Also noted at Ed Rants.) Update: The study's author explains its methodology.

"The cut-and-run phrase is an effective political weapon...It is also a very dumb phrase...As one Republican congressman put it recently: 'Reality has been suspended for a moment. Republicans cannot speak out publicly on this issue right now.'" With even Republicans making dour assessments of Baghdad these days, Slate's John Dickerson makes the obvious points against Dubya for the "cut-and-run" garbage he indulged in last week.

"What's maddening is the way Woodward reverses his point of view without acknowledging he ever had one -- then or now. You could charge him with flattering politicians only when they're up, and piling on when they're down. But you might as well accuse a weathervane of changing its mind about which way the wind should blow." Slate's Jacob Weisberg examines Bob Woodward's treatment of Donald Rumsfeld through his three Dubya books (most recently State of Denial) and finds him a fickle beast at best.

331 billion dollars? 2965 dead troops? Approximately 45,000 dead Iraqis? Don't worry, folks. According to Dubya (in what some think is a veiled message to the fundies), it's all "just a comma" in the history books. Well, my, that's reassuring. Shucks, when you put it that way, all of American history -- or the history of our solar system, for that matter -- doesn't amount to much in the great scheme of things. Ok, you've sold me...bombs away!

"The disclosures so far have been devastating. The book paints the administration as clueless, dishonest, and dysfunctional." Slate's John Dickinson surveys the likely political impact of Bob Woodward's State of Denial, which broke today (in the NYT, strangely enough) and which is apparently much more critical of the neocons than his last two puff pieces, Plan of Attack and Bush at War. Of course, we've all known that the Dubya White House is chock-full of scheming, untrustworthy, incompetent loons for years now, but apparently, when Bob Woodward finally figures it out, it's suddenly newsworthy. Oh well, I'll take it.

"Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq 'jihad;' (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims -- all of which jihadists exploit." In a sorry attempt at a document-dump diversion, the precis of the National Intelligence Estimate report cited over the weekend has been declassified by order of the Dubya administration, so as to help blur one of its central contentions in the public mind (point #2 above): The Iraq War has served to fuel the expansion of terrorism against the US and its allies. (Update: If you're here from Daniel Drezner's blog, welcome, and have a look around.)

"The generals' revolt has spread inside the Pentagon, and the point of the spear is one of Donald Rumsfeld's most favored officers, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff." Slate's Fred Kaplan examines the newest military complaints against Dubya and Rummy: They've wrecked the US Army. "This new phase of rebellion isn't aimed at the war in Iraq directly, as was the protest by six retired generals that made headlines last spring. But in some ways, it's more potent, and not just because Schoomaker is very much on active duty. His challenge is dramatic because he's questioning one of the war's consequences -- its threat to the Army's ability to keep functioning."

"'It's a very candid assessment,' one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. 'It's stating the obvious.'" A new classified report written by US intelligence agencies and unearthed by the NYT declares that Dubya's Iraq sideshow has made us weaker in the War on Terror. Gee, you think?

"First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson." In his column this week, DoL Robert Novak finally comes clean about the Plamegate leak, and his version suggests leaker Richard Armitage knew exactly what he was doing when he told Novak about Valerie Plame.

"The power of his rhetoric is in marked decline...We are losing a war right now, and there is no way to get around that." Five years after the 9/11 attacks, Dubya and the GOP are once again in full "terror, terror, terror, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11" mode. But, really, what can you expect? Other than going virulently negative, it's the only trick these jokers have left. If we let them pull it again this November, shame on us.

"'Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden,' the former Iraqi foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, told the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he was asked about Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda's leader...'He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China,' says a passage in the nearly 400-page report." A new Senate intelligence report confirms what has become patently obvious: There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the war. "Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was 'a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts' to link Saddam to al-Qaida."

"He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat." A new book by Newsweek's Mike Isikoff and The Nation's David Corn outs former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a moderate by Dubya administration standards, as the man who leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bobs Novak and Woodward. (Woodward's former boss, Ben Bradlee, telegraphed as much in March.) "Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. 'I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing,' he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief."

"As for Iraq, it's no news that Bush has no strategy. What did come as news -- and, really, a bit of a shocker -- is that he doesn't seem to know what 'strategy' means." Slate's Fred Kaplan tears apart another dismal Dubya press conference. At this point, it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

"Seen the arrow on the doorpost saying, 'This land is condemned, all the way from New Orleans to Jerusalem.' I traveled through East Texas where many martyrs fell, and I know no one can sing the blues like Blind Willie McTell." Or Kind Willie Clinton, for that matter...a belated happy birthday to our ex-president, who turned 60 yesterday.

A day after Scotland Yard announces it managed to prevent a major terrorist incident (with the help of Pakistan), terror is back on the menu here at home, with the GOP invoking 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 and Lieberman -- absolutely wallowing in shamefulness now -- actually calling Lamont's recent victory a boon for plane-bombers. This was a terrifying near-event indeed -- were it not for top-notch intel work by British authorities, the world might've experienced another horrific day akin to September 11 in very short order. But, look closely, and you'll find this plot by homegrown British terrorists bears the likely marks of Al Qaeda, which, last I recall, we left somewhere near Afghanistan to go dink around in Iraq. Crossover Joe and the GOP can shout terror to the heavens, but the fact is that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are more of a threat to us today because of Dubya's non-sequitur Iraq sideshow. Make no mistake: America is less safe because Dubya and the neocons chose to cut and run in Tora Bora so they could prosecute their war of choice in Baghdad.

"Once again, Bush demonstrated that he doesn't understand what makes young democracies flourish or why Hezbollah has appeal even to many nonterrorists. He doesn't seem to realize that democratic governments require democratic institutions and the resources to make them thrive. He evinces no awareness that the longer Israel bombs Beirut into oblivion, the harder it becomes for Siniora (who has few resources) to retain legitimacy -- and the easier it becomes for Hezbollah (which has many more resources) to gain still greater power." Slate's Fred Kaplan parses yet another dismaying press performance by Dubya regarding the current international scene.

Update: "Scholars who enter the chambers of power should use their training as a tool to help them make decisions. Condi Rice is using hers as a chant to wish away the consequences." In a related piece, Kaplan examines Condaleeza Rice's tendency to hide behind her PhD when faced with tough questions. Well, she may be a "student of history," but as Sean Wilentz noted earlier, she's never been a very good one when you get right down to it (although, to her credit, she has been very busy creating work for future members of the profession.)

"What [Connecticut] tells us about the fall is something I think we've known all along, and that is the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to Democratic primary voters, it's unacceptable to independents and it's unacceptable to a large minority of Republicans. Iraq is the number one issue and the message is exceptionally simple: We cannot abide the status quo." As Joe Lieberman likely nears the end of his days as a Democrat, Hillary, the DLC, and other centrist Dems prep for the fallout from the Connecticut primary.

As reported over the weekend in the NYT, an audit finds that the US Agency for International Development (AID) has been using funny math to hide huge cost overruns for Iraqi reconstruction projects. "The agency hid construction overruns by listing them as overhead or administrative costs, according to the audit...[for one new power station]the project's overhead, a figure that normally runs to a maximum of 30 percent, was a stunning 418 percent."

"I and my former colleagues trusted the government to protect us in our jobs." Plamegate enters a new phase as Valerie Plame files a lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, and Libby for "leaking Plame's identity to 'discredit, punish and seek revenge against the plaintiffs.'" And for all the rabid right-wingers out there cheering on Paula Jones back in the day, it looks like the chickens have come home to roost: "Cheney and others might be compelled to turn over documents to the Wilsons, as well as give sworn depositions, as President Bill Clinton eventually had to do when Paula Jones sued him for sexual harrassment."

As war profits begin to dry up, the Army announces it is finally ending Halliburton's exclusive deal to provide logistical support to US troops, in favor of a multi-company approach that will hopefully spur some degree of price competition. Good news, sure, but this newly rational stance against Cheney's pet corporation is coming more than a little bit late in the game: "The decision on Halliburton comes as the U.S. contribution to Iraq's reconstruction begins to wane, reducing opportunities for U.S. companies after nearly four years of massive payouts to the private sector....No contractor has received more money as a result of the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton, whose former chief executive is Vice President Cheney."

"'It's difficult to think of many other times and many other presidencies when so many dangerous events were happening at once,' says Wendy Sherman, a State Department official under President Clinton. 'But there's so much going on in every global hot spot because the Bush Administration really opened up Pandora's box with little-to-no plans to support their actions.'" TIME Magazine composes a cover story obit for the Bush doctrine. Good riddance: "As it turns out, Iraq may prove to be not only the first but also the last laboratory for preventive war. Instead of deterring the rulers in Tehran and Pyongyang, the travails of the U.S. occupation may have emboldened those regimes in their quest to obtain nuclear weapons while constraining the U.S. military's ability to deter them."

"He's making a political speech. He's sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside saying, 'Stay the course.' That's not a plan." As justifiably disgruntled veteran John Murtha lights into bile-spouting chicken-hawk Karl Rove for another gutterball attack on Dems' patriotism, the Democrats step up to the bar and offer two substantive plans for phased withdrawal from Iraq, to be debated tomorrow. "Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin...pushed an amendment requiring that U.S. combat troops be out by July 2007...In a statement, Kerry and Feingold said a deadline 'gives Iraqis the best chance for stability and self-government' and 'allows us to begin refocusing on the true threats that face our country.'"

"The idea that Truman and Dean Acheson could be hauled out as exhibits for preventive war in Iraq against 'abject pacifists' such as myself made me feel that I was living in Oceania, and the Ministry of Peace had rewritten the textbooks to prove that the legacy of a president who rejected preventive war in fact constituted the best justification for it!" By way of my friend Mark, Peter Beinart and Michael Tomasky go toe-to-toe over the legacy of '48 at Slate's Book Club. I'm inclined to agree with the latter.

"We can't win this militarily. It can only be won politically; it can only be won diplomatically and internationally...And you've got to listen to realism and what the public wants in the United States." Hopefully (but not likely) heeding John Murtha's words, Dubya's Iraq team retreats to Camp David for a strategy pow-wow. By the way, is it just me or does the "Interagency Team on Iraq" look suspiciously like the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants?

"I do think she is so into this that she sees it from the inside out...And I'm not sure she adequately grasps all the mistakes we have made." The NYT profiles Meghan O'Sullivan, the deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. "In Baghdad, American Embassy officials sometimes use the phrase, 'Let's not Meghan-ize the problem,' meaning, let's not try to impose order on the chaos of Iraq with one of her five-point presentations." But, to be fair to O'Sullivan, the fellow she's briefing every day hasn't shown a propensity for understandiing anything more complex. In fact, five points may be stretching the limits of the presidential curiosity.

I was traveling yesterday during the big news: With the aid of cellphone surveillance and an Al Qaeda informer who suggested tracking "spiritual adviser" Sheikh Abd al-Rahman, the US military dropped two 500-lb bombs on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leading Iraq insurgent (and Al Qaeda poster boy for the administration.) Undoubtedly good news for our efforts in Iraq (and, lord knows, Dubya needed some good news in the worst way, particularly in the wake of Haditha.) Still, this big kill obviously doesn't answer the big questions about Iraq's stability, or our continued involvement in the region: "'The immediate aftermath of this will probably be an upsurge of violence' as Sunni insurgents hurry to show that Zarqawi's killing has not broken the resistance, said Michael Clarke, an expert on terrorism at the International Policy Institute of King's College London. 'In the medium term, in the next month or two, it will probably help to downgrade sectarianism,' Clarke said by telephone. 'But the dynamic of sectarian violence is probably past the point of no return.'" And, of course, while this strike will hopefully be a stunning blow to Al Qaeda in Iraq, what of the original Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and around the world? We're nearing five years since 9/11, and Osama's still out there...

"'I was sorry for staying in the bathroom. I should have died like them,' recalls Safa, who now lives with a cousin. 'The Americans are murderers, criminals. They have no mercy.'" So much for hearts and minds. Obviously, the big news over the past week has been the nightmarish revelations of the atrocities at Haditha, which have moved the Senate to hearings (and some moderate Senators to consternation with Rumsfeld), re-fueled anti-American sentiment around the world, demonstrated once again the corrosive consequences of this administration's pathetic lack of planning and leadership in Iraq, and forced us all to wonder anew exactly what the hell is going on over there that's led to the deaths of approximately 40,000 Iraqi civilians. "'People were taking steroids, Valium, hooked on painkillers, drinking. They'd go on raids and patrols totally stoned.' Hicks, who volunteered at the age of 17, said, 'We're killing the wrong people all the time, and mostly by accident. One guy in my squadron ran over a family with his tank.'"

"Saying, 'Bring it on'; kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know. 'Wanted, dead or alive'; that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that." In a joint press conference, Dubya and Tony Blair own up to some mistakes in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib -- "the biggest mistake", according to Dubya -- and de-Baathification, according to Blair. "The prime minister's examples appeared to be a direct rebuke of both the Pentagon's insistence that a detailed "nation-building" plan was unnecessary before the invasion and the push by key members of Bush's administration for broad de-Baathification."

As seen on Medley's Furl, Columbia PhD, Rutgers professor, and Slate "History Lesson" columnist David Greenberg reexamines the current divide between liberal internationalists and anti-imperialists among the Dems -- and seems to think more of Peter Beinart's recent "Cold War Liberal" argument and the protective camouflage DLC-types than I do -- in the Boston Globe.

"'We are engaged in a battle with people who hate our team and our way of playing basketball,' Thomas said in an interview Tuesday. 'We cannot afford to second-guess ourselves. You are either with the New York Knicks or you are against them.'" It is as we feared. As The Onion reports, Isaiah Thomas has no exit strategy for the New York Knickerbockers.

"Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an amb to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?" A new court filing by Patrick Fitzgerald finds Dick Cheney fretting over Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame in his handwritten notes on Wilson's article, further substantiating that the felonious leak likely emanated from the veep's office...if not ordered by the vice-president himself. "Fitzgerald's filing states that Libby learned of Plame's name from Cheney, in the course of discussions by the vice president's office about how to respond to a June 2003 inquiry from Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's trip to Niger. Fitzgerald asserts that those conversations -- and earlier ones sparked by a May 2003 column about the trip in the Times -- help demonstrate that Libby's 'disclosures to the press concerning Mr. Wilson's wife were not casual disclosures.'"

"Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office." Concerned about the desire for possible investigations of Dubya (as well as calls for withdrawal from Iraq) among the party's grassroots and left-wing, the Democratic hawks of the DLC make a case for running on national security issues. I dunno..at first glance, it sounds like the same-old stale brand of warmed-over protective camouflage that the DLC's been pushing on us for years...first you'd have to convince me that calling Dubya out for his multiple civil liberties violations and breaches of the public trust, as well as putting the brakes on our badly mismanaged foray into Iraq, aren't national security issues.

"'This administration may be over,' Lance Tarrance, a chief architect of the Republicans' 1960s and '70s Southern strategy, told a gathering of journalists and political wonks last week. 'By and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over.'" Are we at the turn of the tide? As even committed conservatives and right-leaning observers start sticking a fork in the Dubya administration, newly confident Dems begin to prepare for a return of the House. Foremost in their plans is "a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls...a Democratic House would [also] launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq."

"Battered by accusations of a liberal bias and determined to prove their conservative critics wrong, the press during the run-up to the war -- timid, deferential, unsure, cautious, and often intentionally unthinking -- came as close as possible to abdicating its reason for existing in the first place, which is to accurately inform citizens, particularly during times of great national interest." In very related news (as Dan Froomkin pointed out), Salon publishes an extended excerpt from Eric Boehlert's Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush.

"'The president's military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate; they may still feel that years later. Some of us don't. I don't,' Powell said. 'In my perspective, I would have preferred more troops, but you know, this conflict is not over.'" In a slap at Rumsfeld, Cheney, and his other one-time nemeses in the Dubya White House, former Secretary of State Colin Powell airs some of his grievances with the build-up to war in Iraq. "'At the time, the president was listening to those who were supposed to be providing him with military advice,' Powell said. 'They were anticipating a different kind of immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad; it turned out to be not exactly as they had anticipated.'"

"[F]or all their practical failures, conservatives have at least told a coherent political story, with deep historical roots, about what keeps America safe and what makes it great. Liberals, by contrast, have offered adjectives drawn from focus groups and policy proposals linked by no larger theme." In keeping with the intellectual territory he staked out after the 2004 election, former TNR editor Peter Beinart makes the case for a return to Cold War liberalism in a NYT excerpt of his new book, The Good Fight (also discussed in the recent Atlantic Monthly.)

I couldn't agree more with Beinart's paragraph above, but I don't think the lack of a sufficiently robust national security emphasis is really the defining element missing among today's Dems. Are there really Democrats out there who don't agree with Beinart's three main assessments here, that (a) America faces a real enemy in Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist terror networks, (b) our foreign policy should be less hubristic and more attuned to both local contingency and international institutions, and (c) our national sense of self should emphasize our own fallibility at times? Beinart would probably target the MoveOn crowd, but as Eric Alterman noted in the last round of this back-and-forth, that's just a DLC straw man, roughly akin to Joe Klein's cadre of phantom lefty consultants in the last update.

Plus, I think there are two significant historical problems with the Cold War liberalism Beinart unreservedly espouses, which he fails to discuss here. For one, Cold War liberals could very easily be seen as best inattentive to and -- at worst complicit in -- the excesses of McCarthyism. If the enemy abroad becomes the central defining focus of your national narrative, then the enemy within is undoubtedly going to start eating at you as well. For another, (and as John Gaddis, among others, has pointed out) -- for all its early sense of diplomatic complexity and limited, realistic goals -- the Cold War liberalism Beinart promotes all too readily (d)evolved into the guiding rationale for wildly wrongheaded foreign policy interventions, most notably in Vietnam. (You'd think Beinart would pay more lip service to this issue, particularly as he himself made much the same mistake in shilling for the Iraq war in The New Republic.)

In short, I agree with Beinart's assessment that the Dems lack a sense of usable past, but the problems with his argument can be encapsulated by his ideal of a what a good, hawkish, Cold War liberal Democrat should look like these days: That, if Beinart's tenure at TNR is any indication, would be Joe Lieberman, a politician who's not only been flagrantly cheerleading for the administration during the current war, but has exhibited little interest in today's wartime civil liberties issues. Simply put, Joe Lieberman would hardly be my choice of template for the Democratic party. (Who would? That's easy: Russ Feingold, who's displayed a strong commitment to preserving both national security and civil liberties at home, while arguing for a more level-headed, less-in-your-face American foreign policy.)

"I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq." In a must-watch (or at least must-read) event, the inimitable Stephen Colbert took it to Dubya hard at last night's White House Correspondent's dinner, and Bush, according to press reports, was not amused. Great stuff throughout:

* "I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical. And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe our infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior."

* "Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias...Sir pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash."

* "I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world."

* "I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen. The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday."

* "But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on N.S.A. wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason, they're superdepressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, W.M.D. intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew."

* "But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know, fiction."

* "I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg."

* "See who we've got here tonight. General Mowsly, Air Force Chief of Staff. General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld."

* "Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is." (Note: YouTube has smaller clips, too.)

"'The current debate over our national security by a series of retired generals -- some critical, some supportive of the present leadership in the Department of Defense -- is an important exercise of the right to freedom of speech,' he said. 'Another valued tenet is the right of the president to select the members of his own Cabinet.'" Senate Armed Service Committee chairman John Warner (R-VA) makes noise about holding Senate hearings on Rumsfeld. I'll believe it when I see it.

"'What Democrats want to do is gin up their turnout in the suburbs and divide Republicans, and right now they may do that' said Jennifer E. Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. 'This is the first real wedge issue Democrats have had with Republicans.'" According to the NYT, congressional Dems think they may have a winner in November with the stem cell issue. And, also in election news, polls suggest the once-highly vulnerable Abramoff flunky Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) may be shedding the taint of Casino Jack, while potentially beatable Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) looks to do the same with Donald Rumsfeld.

"Observers describe Bush as 'messianic' in his conviction that he is fulfilling the divine purpose. But, as Lincoln observed in his second inaugural address, 'The Almighty has His own purposes.' Invoking also Lincoln's remarks on the Mexican War, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. laments the rise of preemption, senses dark forebodings in Dubya's saber-rattling with Iran, and concludes that "there is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war."

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." Retired CIA officer Tyler Drumhiller, formerly the highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, calls out the Dubya administration anew for their manipulation of intelligence during the lead-up to Iraq. "'It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure,' Drumheller told CBS' Ed Bradley. 'This was a policy failure. I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time.'"

"Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities." As seen all over the place, historian Sean Wilentz wonders aloud in Rolling Stone if Dubya is the worst president in American history.

To my mind, the only other president that even comes close is James Buchanan. Sure, Warren Harding was lousy, but he knew it ("I am a man of limited talents from a small town. I don't seem to grasp that I am President."), and thus didn't go out of his way to be actively terrible like Bush has been. (Plus, for all the corruption of the Ohio gang, Harding's cabinet also included Charles Evans Hughes, Andrew Mellon, and Herbert Hoover, all impressive in their own right.) Speaking of Hoover, both he and Ulysses Grant have been given a bad shake. Even if the Depression basically ate his administration alive, Hoover -- once renowned as the "Great Engineer" -- was a more innovative president (and empathetic person) than he's often remembered. And Grant's administrations, although plagued by corruption, at the very least tried to maintain Reconstruction in the South. (In fact, I'd argue that Grant's sorry standing in presidential history is in a part a reflection of the low esteem in which Reconstruction was once held by the now-woefully obsolete Dunning School.) Regarding the other Reconstruction president, Andrew Johnson is assuredly down near the bottom too, but to be fair, he faced an almost impossible situation entering office in the time and manner he did, and -- as with Clinton -- his impeachment was a bit of a frame-job. And Richard Nixon, for all his many failings, had China (as well as the EPA despite himself, and, although it didn't pan out, the Family Assistance Plan.) Nope, I think it's safe to say that we may be experiencing perhaps the most blatantly inept, wrong-headed, and mismanaged presidency in the history of the republic. Oh, lucky us.

"Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation." In response to the growing calls for Rumsfeld's resignation among retired top brass, Dubya chooses instead, as per his usual M.O., to hug Rummy tighter to his breast. (full text.) And, in related news, Salon's Michael Scherer and Mark Benjamin argue that Rumsfeld was "personally involved" in at least one questionable interrogation at Gitmo in 2002.

"It's an odd thought, but a military coup in this country right now would probably have a moderating influence. Not that an actual coup is pending; still less is one desirable. But we are witnessing the rumblings of an officers' revolt, and things could get ugly if it were to take hold and roar." Fred Kaplan assesses the considerable contempt of US military leaders for Donald Rumsfeld. Update: While Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace attempts damage control, more retired generals pile on: Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former commander of the 1st Infantry Division (2004-2005), and Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, former head of the 82nd Airborne (also an Iraq war veteran.)

Add one more lie to the pile: "On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile 'biological laboratories.' He declared, 'We have found the weapons of mass destruction.'...But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true." The Washington Post recounts step-by-step the tale of Dubya's fake WMD trailers, sending White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan into a paroxysm of aggressively circular spin. As it turns out, even though Dubya had been notified the trailers were a red herring two days before his above comments, "for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."

"God may smile on us, but I don't think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen." Although Dubya is personally dismissing the report as "wild speculation", The New Yorker's Sy Hersh argues in a terrifying piece that the administration is actively planning for "regime change" in Iran, and -- no joke -- the use of tactical nuclear weapons (particularly "bunker-busters") is on the table.

No doubt about it, this is trouble. A nuclear Iran would represent a grievous threat to the region (and particularly Israel), and must be prevented by diplomatic means if at all possible. But, after the Iraq WMD debacle, this administration has become the boy who cried wolf, and -- just as the US is facing perhaps its thorniest diplomatic issue yet, neither our European allies nor many US observers trust Dubya's motives or credibility any more, to say nothing of his basic competence. ("Speaking of President Bush, [one] House member said, 'The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.'.") And, needless to say, if Dubya and the neocons screw this one up, the consequences for both the entire Middle East and the war on terror -- as well as our own homeland security -- could be nightmarish. "If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us...If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle."

Update: ""I'm announcing officially that Iran has now joined the countries that have nuclear technology." The situation darkens with Iran's successful (increased) enrichment of uranium. "Iran had previously enriched uranium to a level of about 2 percent, using a smaller cascade, and separately enriched uranium to about 15 percent during laser experiments in 2002. Bomb-grade uranium must be enriched to a level of well over 80 percent...Though it is technically possible, most nuclear experts agree it is unlikely Iran would be able to make bomb-grade uranium with the[ir current] 164-centrifuge cascade." Still, Russia and Britain are decrying the advance, and Secretary Rice wants "strong steps" by the UN Security Council in reply.

"I think that there has to be a detailed explanation precisely as to what Vice President Cheney did, what the president said to him, and an explanation from the president as to what he said so that it can be evaluated." In keeping with a recent pattern of talking tough on the Sunday shows (no doubt to impress his independent-minded Pennsylvania constituents) while pretty much folding like an accordion in Senate committee, Arlen Specter says he want answers from Bush and Cheney regarding the recent Libby leak disclosure. Update: Dubya responds.

"'Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq,' Buckley said...'If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of his jam...It's important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.'''
By way of Cliopatria, National Review founder and Firing Line wit William F. Buckley discusses Dubya's failings, his own problems with neoconservatism -- "The neoconservative hubris, which sort of assigns to America some kind of geo-strategic responsibility for maximizing democracy, overstretches the resources of a free country." -- and the presidents of his lifetime. "'[Bill Clinton] is the most gifted politician of, certainly my time,' Buckley said. 'He generates a kind of a vibrant goodwill with a capacity for mischief which is very, very American.'"

"I am quite certain there are going to be dissertations written about the mistakes of the Bush administration." Madam Secretary, you said it.

A new report by Rep. Henry Waxman discloses some of Halliburton/KBR's billing shadiness in Iraq. "In one case, the government's contracting officials reported that KBR attempted to inflate its cost estimates by paying a supplier more than it was due. In another, KBR cut its cost estimates in half after it was pressed on its true expenses. In a third, KBR billed for work performed by the Iraqi oil ministry."

"In the wake of Bosnia and Rwanda, the assumption is that ethnically divided countries can never function. But countless countries at risk of civil war have been able to avoid going over the cliff...So, how have divided countries kept the peace? Here are a few successful strategies." With Iraq seemingly on the precipice of civil war, Princeton professor Gary Bass (who was one of my teaching fellows at Harvard back in the day) briefly summarizes possible ways to stem the sectarian violence in Slate.

"In recent weeks, a startling realization has begun to take hold: if the elections were held today, top strategists of both parties say privately, the Republicans would probably lose the 15 seats they need to keep control of the House of Representatives and could come within a seat or two of losing the Senate as well. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich...told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: 'Had enough?'"

TIME previews the increasingly nightmarish electoral landscape for the GOP, and the "signs suggest an anti-Republican wave is building, says nonpartisan electoral handicapper Stuart Rothenberg... 'The only question is how high, how big, how much force it will have. I think it will be considerable.' In addition, "administration officials say they fear that losing even one house of Congress would mean subpoenas and investigations--a taste of the medicine House Republicans gave Bill Clinton."

"The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein." The NYT relates the details of a January 2003 pre-war meeting between Bush and Blair, and it's not pretty. Not surprisingly (and like the July 2002 Downing Street memos, the recollections of Paul O'Neill, and countless other sources), this new material confirms that Dubya and the neocons wanted a war in Iraq, come hell or high water.

"'There seems to be a disconnect between the rhetoric in Washington about what this is all about and what we hear here,' Feingold said. McCain responded that he did 'not want to get into a back-and-forth with one of my best friends.'" While visiting Baghdad, Senators McCain and Feingold argue "cordially and pointedly" over Iraq. "Feingold...said he was dismayed not to hear any of the military commanders he met with mention al-Qaeda as a source of the problems in Iraq. The Bush administration and U.S. officials here often point to the radical group as a major source of instability in the country."

"It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction." In a must-read LA Times editorial, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright witheringly dissects Dubya Diplomacy. (Via Medley.)

Remember "We'll be greeted as liberators"? How 'bout "I think they're in the last throes...of the insurgency"? As the administration reaps the dividends of a severe credibility gap on Iraq, Dubya ventures forth once again to tell the nation about all the progress we're just not seeing over there. "'I understand people being disheartened when they turn on their TV screen,' Bush said, adding that 'nobody likes beheadings' and other grim images."

"No longer does he see Republican government as a source of stability and order. Instead, he presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed and dangerous shortsightedness." By way of Cliopatria, Columbia provost (and my dissertation advisor) Alan Brinkley takes a look at Kevin Phillips' new book, American Theocracy for the NYT.

He's a uniter, not a divider...Watch America turn blue (once again) with contempt over the ineptitude and dishonesty of the Dubya administration, from month to month. (Via Medley.)

"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." As the war in Iraq enters its fourth year (US casualities) and civil war appears increasingly likely on the ground, Dubya and Cheney trod out the same stale talking points we've been hearing since "Mission Accomplished" (while Rummy attempts variations on a theme.) Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan surveys the mistakes.

"Placards posted by soldiers at the detention area advised, 'NO BLOOD, NO FOUL.' The slogan, as one Defense Department official explained, reflected an adage adopted by Task Force 6-26: 'If you don't make them bleed, they can't prosecute for it.'" In related news, the NY Times exposes more allegations of shameful and disturbing Abu Ghraib-like detainee abuse conducted by "a shadowy military unit known as Task Force 6-26." "Task Force 6-26 was a creation of the Pentagon's post-Sept. 11 campaign against terrorism, and it quickly became the model for how the military would gain intelligence and battle insurgents in the future...Military and legal experts say the full breadth of abuses committed by Task Force 6-26 may never be known because of the secrecy surrounding the unit."

"We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret. Is strategic failure a possibility? The answer has to be 'yes.'" Several internal Downing Street memos, recently obtained by the Guardian, suggest that our British allies have been wary of US mismanagement in Iraq since at least 2003, when Baghdad envoy John Sawers called the US post-invasion operation "an unbelievable mess." (By way of Dateline: Bristol.)

"Leave it to Rumsfeld to invoke memories of Vietnam as others in the administration are trying to dispel such comparisons. Leave it to the Senate to miss the slip-up." In yet another sad example of the AWOL Senate of late, Slate's Fred Kaplan watches the Appropriations Committee flub a hearing with Rumsfeld and Rice on Iraq.

"While he remains sympathetic to the democracy-spreading mission, Fukuyama castigates the unilateral and militaristic turns that gave us such concepts as 'preventive war,' 'benevolent hegemony,' and 'regime change.' Neoconservatives, he contends, have abandoned their fundamental political insight, namely that ambitious schemes to remake societies are doomed to disappointment, failure, and unintended consequences. 'Opposition to utopian social engineering,' Fukuyama writes '...is the most enduring thread running through the movement.' Yet neoconservatives today are bogged down in an attempt to remake a poorly understood, catastrophically damaged, and deeply alien semi-country in the Middle East. How did these smart people stray -- and lead the country -- so far off course?"

Um, well, maybe 'cause a lot of 'em read Fukuyama's The End of History back in the day? Jacob Weisberg reviews Francis Fukuyama's new book, America at the Crossroads, and, while it's good to see principled conservatives take this administration's egregiously inept Iraq policy to task, it's also hard to believe that the neocons didn't share Fukuyama's earlier contention going in that "the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government" was both an historical inevitability and in full flourish. Fukuyama can play the aggrieved realist now, but that's definitely not how he made a name for himself.

"Grisly attacks and other sectarian violence unleashed by last week's bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine have killed more than 1,300 Iraqis, making the past few days the deadliest of the war outside of major U.S. offensives, according to Baghdad's main morgue." While the Iraqi cabinet disputes the 1300 figure as "inaccurate and exaggerated," the news from Baghdad is still tragic and horrifying: After the bombing of the Golden Mosque last week, Iraq appears to be in freefall, with 68 more casualties just today, and civil war looms. Dubya's response so far: Civil war won't happen, and, if it does, it's y'all's problem.

According to the Globe, the Dems are beginning to coalesce around a plan of "strategic redeployment" in Iraq. According to the plan, co-authored by Reagan assistant Defense secretary Lawrence Korb, "all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas -- Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa -- with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq."

To the consternation of the Dubya administration, the Sydney Morning Herald posts more horrifying and previously unpublished pictures from Abu Ghraib. (Warning: They're grisly, as you might expect.) Why doesn't Cheney want to ban this flagrantly unAmerican behavior again? He must realize this type of national disgrace makes us hypocrites before the world. [First seen at Ed Rants/Blivet.] Update: Walter Shapiro: "Abu Ghraib is not an issue of partisan sound bites or refighting the decision to invade Iraq. Grotesque violations of every value that America proclaims occurred within the walls of that prison." Salon has more.

A quick note on Tuesday's State of the Union: I actually think Dubya has delivered some well-crafted speeches (1/23) in the past, even if I disagree with almost all of their content. This wasn't one of them. Except for the "America is addicted to oil" line (which Jimmy Carter basically said over 25 years ago) and the "human-animal hybrid" goofiness (which, as Crooked Timber points out, might mean trouble for diabetics), there wasn't a single memorable moment throughout, just more of the same "9/11" and "freedom, yeah" grandstanding. (And Kaine was no better -- I like to think I'm more interested in politics than most people, and I was bored stiff after a minute or two. Nice fireplace, tho'.) If the White House was looking for this address to reverse their ailing fortunes, a la Clinton in '98, my guess is that they failed. (Pharyngula link via Now This.)

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." That flaming liberal Dwight Eisenhower's somber farewell address to the nation is the historical and thematic anchor for Eugene Jarecki's documentary Why We Fight, a sobering disquisition on American militarism and foreign policy since 9/11. In essence, Why We Fight is the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 should have been. Like F911, this film preaches to the choir, but it also makes a more substantive critique of Dubya diplomacy and the 9/11-Iraq switcheroo, with much less of the grandstanding that marred Moore's earlier documentary (and drove right-wing audiences berzerk.)

Sadly, the basic tale here is all-too-familiar by now. Ensconced in Dubya's administration from the word go, the right-wing think-tank crowd (Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, etc.) used the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretext to enact all their neocon fantasies (spelled out in this 2000 Project for a New American Century report), beginning in Iraq. Taken into consideration with Cheney the Military-Contractor-in-Chief doling out fat deals to his Halliburton-KBR cronies from the Vice-President's office, and members of Congress meekly signing off on every military funding bill that comes down the pike (partly because, as the film points out, weapons systems such as the B-1 or F-22 have a part built in every state), it seems uncomfortably clear that President Eisenhower's grim vision has come to pass.

To help him rake this muck, Jarecki shrewdly gives face-time not only to learned critics of recent foreign-policy -- CIA vet Chalmers Johnson, Gore Vidal (looking unwell) -- but also to the neocons themselves. Richard Perle is here, saying (as always) insufferably self-serving things, and Bill Kristol glows like a kid in a candy store when he gets to talk up his role in fostering Dubya diplomacy. (Karen Kwiatkowski, a career military woman who watched the neocon coup unfold within the corridors of the Pentagon, also delivers some keen insights.) And, when discussing the corruption that festers in the heart of our Capitol, Jarecki brings out not only Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity but that flickering mirage of independent-minded Republicanism, John McCain. (In fact, Jarecki encapsulates the frustrating problem with McCain in one small moment: Right after admitting to the camera that Cheney's no-bid KBR deals "look bad", the Senator happens to get a call from the Vice-President. In his speak-of-the-devil grimace of bemused worry, you can see him mentally falling into line behind the administration, as always.)

To be sure, Why We Fight has some problems. There's a central tension in the film between the argument that Team Dubya is a corrupt administration of historical proportions and the notion that every president since Kennedy has been party to an increasingly corrupt system, and it's never really resolved satisfactorily here. Jarecki wants you to think that this documentary is about the rise of the Imperial Presidency across five decades, but, some lip service to Tonkin notwithstanding, the argument here is grounded almost totally in the Age of Dubya. (I don't think it's a bad thing, necessarily, but it is the case.) And, sometimes the critique seems a little scattershot -- Jarecki seems to fault the Pentagon both for KBR's no-bid contracts and, when we see Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas salesmen going head-to-head, for bidding on contracts. (Still, his larger point is valid -- As Chalmers Johnson puts it, "When war becomes that profitable, you're going to see more of it.")

Also, the film loses focus at times and meanders along tangents -- such as the remembrances of two Stealth Fighter pilots on the First Shot Fired in the Iraq war, or the glum story of an army recruit in Manhattan looking to turn his life around. This latter tale, along with the story of Wilton Sekzer, a retired Vietnam Vet and NYPD sergeant who lost his son on 9/11 and wants somebody to pay, are handled with more grace and less showmanship than similar vignettes in Michael Moore's film, but they're in the same ballpark. (As an aside, I was also somewhat irked by shots of NASA thrown in with the many images of missile tests and ordnance factories. Ok, both involve rockets, research, and billions of dollars, but space exploration and war are different enough goals that such a comparison merits more unpacking.)

Nevertheless, Why We Fight is well worth-seeing, and hopefully, this film will make it out to the multiplexes. If nothing else, it'll do this country good to ponder anew both a president's warning about the "disastrous rise of misplaced power," and a vice-president's assurance that we'll be "greeted as liberators."

"The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. 'They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut,' he said." Ah, the perks of a no-bid contract. As e-mail records prove, those patriots at Halliburton, Dick Cheney's favorite corporate cronies, have been knowingly exposing some soldiers to contaminated water, despite being warned by their own employees about the danger. "Another former Halliburton employee who worked at the base, Ken May of Louisville, said there were numerous instances of diarrhea and stomach cramps."

"> EXAMINE CHAIRS

They are two several chairs arranged around the center of the room, along with two couches. Under one couch you find Clinton's shoes.

> FILL SHOES

You are unable to fill Clinton's shoes."

This may be the funniest political Internet post I've seen since the Cheney poker game: By way of WebGoddess and from the brain of Defective Yeti, it's the George W. Bush text adventure. Beware of lurking grues, special prosecutors, and that goshdarned Constitution.

"I'm not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap." Along the lines of (2006 Oscars host) Jon Stewart on Crossfire in 2004, a driven-to-anger David Letterman goes after guest Bill O'Reilly on Cindy Sheehan, the war in Iraq, and his "fair and balanced" drivel. "I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country...however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of 'Why the Hell are we there to begin with?'" (Via Dumbmonkey.)

Thanks to more lies emanating from the Dubya administration, the Congressional Research Service is forced to set the record straight: Dubya saw more prewar intelligence than Congress. "The Bush administration has routinely denied Congress access to documents, saying it would have a chilling effect on deliberations. The report...concludes that the Bush administration has been more restrictive than its predecessors in sharing intelligence with Congress."

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." In his final speech on Iraq before tomorrow's elections, (text) Dubya admits the case for war was FUBAR, while insisting it was a good idea anyway. ("The United States did not choose war -- the choice was Saddam Hussein's.") Of course, Bush neglected to mention that it was he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al who cherry-picked through the available intelligence and continued to recite claims they knew to be false. Still, for someone who's seems pathologically incapable of accepting reality at times, this has to be considered a step forward.

"The Arab states agree on one thing: Iran is emerging as the big winner of the American invasion, and both President Bush's new strategy and the Democratic responses to it dangerously miss the point...[T]he Shiite clerics in Iraq have achieved fundamental political goals: capturing oil revenues, strengthening the role of Islam in the state, and building up formidable militias that will defend their gains and advance their causes as the Americans draw down and leave. Iraq's neighbors, then, see it evolving into a Shiite-dominated, Iranian buffer state that will strengthen Tehran's power in the Persian Gulf just as it is seeks nuclear weapons and intensifies its rhetoric against Israel."

By way of Dangerous Meta, former Dem candidate Wesley Clark argues for a revised strategy in Iraq, one centered on border control, the reduction of Iranian influence in the region, and the use of carrots rather than sticks to defang insurgents.

"Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism." According to today's NYT and in keeping with the Dubya administration's penchant for rigging the media, it appears the Pentagon has been paying for planted propaganda in Iraqi newspapers. "'You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility.'"

"It is symptomatic of everything that's gone wrong with this war that, after two and a half years of fighting it (and four years after starting to plan it), the White House is just now getting around to articulating a strategy for winning it." Fred Kaplan surveys yesterday's Dubya speech, one full of sound and fury about winning the war but, apparently, signifying nothing.

"In short, Bush could pull a win-win-win out of this shift. He could pre-empt the Democrats' main line of attack against his administration, stave off the prospect of (from the GOP's perspective) disastrous elections in 2006 and '08, and, as a result, bolster his presidency's otherwise dwindling authority within his own party and among the general population." Slate's Fred Kaplan argues that, despite the administration's demagogic attacks of the past few weeks and recent reports of faith-based blinders, Dubya may well bow to reality and announce a phased withdrawal from Iraq in a speech tomorrow.

Update: Dubya sets the stage: "'We will make decisions about troops levels based upon the capability of the Iraqis to take the fight to the enemy,' Bush said in El Paso, Texas. 'I will make decisions on the level of troops based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground.'"

Update 2: Dubya makes his speech, and, in keeping with his usual MO, it's basically just "stay-the-course" for now. Although, as suspected, he did argue that Iraqi forces have made great strides of late, which leaves the door open for withdrawal by Election Day 2006, as Murtha, Kaplan, and others have predicted.

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that 'God put me here' to deal with the war on terror. The President's belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that 'he's the man,' the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reelection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose." By way of Salon's War Room, The New Yorker's Sy Hersh scrutinizes the terrifying dogmatism and tone-deafness at work in the White House with regards to Iraq.

Here's more: "[Rove and Cheney] keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,' the former defense official said. Bush's public appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to similar public forums. 'Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House,' the former official said, 'but Bush has no idea.'"

Update: According to the Daily News, who published a similar story yesterday, the White House won't comment on the Hersh piece.

As seen at many fine blogs this past Thanksgiving week (including FmH & Medley), some nice visual data to be thankful for (and for all those red state/blue state dualists to ponder): One year after Election 2004, America's blue over Dubya.

"It almost doesn't matter whether withdrawing or redeploying the troops is a good idea; it's simply going to happen because there is no way for it not to happen (short of a major act of political will, such as reviving the draft or keeping troops on the battlefield beyond reasonable endurance). This is what Murtha meant when he told Russert, 'We're going to be out of there, we're going to be out of there very quickly, and it's going to be close to the plan that I'm presenting right now.' Cutting through the congressional anger and the "cut and run" cheapshots, Slate's Fred Kaplan explains exactly what John Murtha called for last week, and why. "John Murtha's proposal leaves open a lot of questions, but -- seen for what it really says, not for how it's been portrayed -- it's a start."

"I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn't work." If it's any consolation, Dubya, we all feel just as trapped. In one of those resounding visual metaphors that capture a presidency and that life occasionally kicks up for all to see (the last one being Dubya's fiddling during Katrina), our leader gets stymied by a locked door while trying to evade a reporter's questions about his China trip (which were pretty softball, given all the things he could've been asking these days.)

In somewhat related news, in the relatively sanguine Post story about the door incident, the following depressing information is included: "In five years in the presidency, Bush has proved a decidedly unadventurous traveler...As he barnstormed through Japan, South Korea and China, with a final stop in Mongolia still to come, Bush visited no museums, tried no restaurants, bought no souvenirs and made no effort to meet ordinary local people...[Laura Bush] once persuaded him to go to the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, only to see him burn through the place in 30 minutes. He dispensed with the Kremlin cathedrals in Moscow in seven minutes. He flatly declined an Australian invitation to attend the Rugby World Cup while down under."

"This was a huge 'Congress getting into the ballgame' week,' Mr. Graham said. Mr. Warner said wryly, 'You know, Congress is a co-equal branch.'" Well, make no mistake: They're no Clay, Calhoun, and Webster. Still, the NYT takes a gander at the self-named "Little Triumvirate" of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner, three "Gang of 14" members who've become the locus of GOP discontent with Dubya in the Senate.

"What was striking about Cheney's assault was that while denying critics' charges of manipulation and dishonesty involving prewar intelligence, he resorted to exactly the tactics that inspired the criticism. As he did with the prewar intelligence, Cheney told no outright lies, but he exaggerated the case, picked only evidence he liked, and ignored the caveats." In case it wasn't obvious, Slate's John Dickinson explains how Cheney is still misrepresenting the lead-up to war. (In fact, he did it again today, although at least he didn't join his congressional colleagues in their recent spate of Murtha-bashing.) But, really, can we expect any less from the administration that brought us imaginary WMDs and the phantom Iraq-9/11 connection? Like George Costanza at his worst moments, these jokers have been lying so long they've lost sight of the truth.

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done. It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country." On the day after the GOP-controlled Senate tightened the reins on Dubya, President Clinton reasserts his contempt for this administration's rank amateurism in Iraq and the Middle East.

Another week, another secret torture center...anyone else sensing a pattern? Tensions in Iraq simmer to a boil as a secret prison holding 173 Sunnis is uncovered in Baghdad. "The discovery...created a new aura of crisis for American officials and Iraqi politicians who hold power in the Shiite-led transitional government. For many Iraqis, the episode carried heavy overtones of the brutality associated with Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-dominated government."

Whatsmore, the head of the Badr Organization, a Shiite militia suspected of pulling the strings and wielding the implements in this center, says: "This bunker is run by the Interior Ministry, the Americans are there every day." Whether or not that's true (and for the love of Pete, let's hope not), it's obvious that recent events, from Abu Ghraib to the Frist-sanctioned CIA black sites to the al-Jamadi murder, have seriously damaged our credibility as opponents of torture, in this prison and around the world.

Wary of increasing public opposition to the Iraq war and spurred to action by a Democratic amendment advocating a specific timetable for withdrawal, Senate Republicans craft legislation calling for an Iraq exit strategy. "On the Iraq resolutions, the Democratic and Republican proposals say that '2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq'...The White House is also directed 'to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq.'" Unfortunately, with the exception of quarterly reports to Congress on the war effort, the language of the proposal is not binding. Update: It passes, 98-0 (Lamar Alexander and Governor Corzine didn't vote.)

"President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence. Neither assertion is wholly accurate." Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan parses Dubya's speech further.

As McCain calls for changes in Dubya's Iraq strategy, White House National Security advisor Stephen Hadley inaugurates Dubya's comeback plan, which will get more run in a presidential speech today. Step One: Call the Dems out on their pro-war votes. "'Some of the critics today,' Hadley added, 'believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people.'" Well, yes, but if Dems were relying on faulty and doctored intelligence to come to that supposition in 2002, that only brings us back to the $64,000 question: What exactly happened to our prewar intelligence once it reached the White House?

"After President Bush's disastrous visit to Latin America, it's unnerving to realize that his presidency still has more than three years to run. An administration with no agenda and no competence would be hard enough to live with on the domestic front. But the rest of the world simply can't afford an American government this bad for that long." The NY Times editorial staff come out swinging against Dubya.

Generally well-made and well-acted, and at times beautifully shot (particularly in the oil-fire sequence late in the film), Sam Mendes' Jarhead, alas, doesn't really work. One marine recruit's account of his time in "the suck" and his service in Gulf War I, which involved a lot of waiting around in the Saudi desert with nary an enemy combatant in sight, the film is strangely flat and uninvolving for most of its run. It must've been hard to figure out a way to make a movie about anxious boredom seem compelling to an audience, and I haven't read Anthony Swofford's much-acclaimed memoir, so I don't really know how much the source material is at fault, but stocking Jarhead with war movie cliches and nods to other, better films was not the correct answer.

As the movie begins, Swofford (Jake Gyllenhaal) undergoes a mercifully brief stint in Basic Training (a la Full Metal Jacket), before being assigned to a unit under the severe but well-meaning Staff Sgt. Siek (Jamie Foxx). Soon, Iraq invades Kuwait, and Swofford's unit (which includes an excellent-as-usual but somewhat miscast Peter Sarsgaard, and memorable turns by Lucas Black and Jacob Vargas) find themselves in the Saudi desert, and the interminable waiting begins. Trained to be lethal killing machines, Swofford & co. are all dressed up with no place to go, so they spend their days hydrating, pining over their (serially unfaithful) ladyfriends, running chemical attack simulations, and rather unsuccessfully staving off insanity with machismo and masochism. Finally, they're given the chance to fulfill their training, only to discover to their disgust that marine infantry are somewhat extraneous in this particular conflict, and they'll have very little chance to exorcise their ingrained bloodlust. (To which I say, better than the alternative -- I suspect very few veterans of live combat situations would share their disappointment.)

In almost any war, long stretches of waiting followed by intermittent bursts of activity is the soldier's lot, so perhaps Jarhead should be commended for trying to bring this reality into focus. But, I have to admit -- and admittedly, I'm as civilian as they come -- a lot of the movie rings false. And, even if the many implausible details are in fact true and documented, the movie does itself a disservice by wallowing in broad war movie cliche. We've got the aforementioned hellish basic training, the sergeant with a heart of gold, the private who goes bug-nuts psycho in the field, the obligatory descent into madness by the protagonist, so on and so forth. In its best moments, Jarhead riffs on these obvious nods -- marines hoop and holler to the valkryie scene in Apocalypse Now, and Swofford complains that The Doors' "Break on Through" is "Vietnam music." But most of the time, Jarhead just feels like more of the same.

In sum, if you want to see a great Gulf War I movie, watch Three Kings. Jarhead, unfortunately, is at best a low two-pair.

"There has never been more frustration with the war in Iraq, and less clarity about our mission there, than we face today...And while we haven't heard the administration clearly articulate our military mission in Iraq, there is another silence that is just as deafening -- the lack of a debate in Congress about how and when that mission will be brought to an end." Over at Salon, Sen. Russ Feingold argues for a timetable in Iraq, or at the very least a congressional debate on the issue.

"I demand on behalf of the America people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted." In a bold and unblockable parliamentary move, Harry Reid closes the Senate doors to push for an inquiry into Libby and Weaponsgate. A blustering and blindsided Catkiller Frist, for one, was shocked -- shocked! -- by the closed-door session. "The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership...They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas." Please, Frist, take it down a notch...your blind panic is hardly presidential. Besides, the GOP don't have any convictions yet either...just plenty of investigations and indictments.

Update: The Dems dig in: "We're serving notice on [Senate Republicans] at this moment: Be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality. The Senate Intelligence Committee has a responsibility to hold this administration accountable for the misuse of intelligence information. They have promised this investigation. We will continue to make this request until they do it." Bravo!

"'Everyone thinks it is over for Karl and they are wrong,' a source close to Rove said. The strategist's legal and political advisers 'by no means think the part of the investigation concerning Karl is closed.'" As Scooter Libby preps for his Thursday arraignment, Rove continues to sweat the Fitzgerald investigation. Meanwhile, Cheney picked Libby's replacements yesterday, and they're more of the same: The new chief of staff, David Addington, was the co-author of the infamous torture memo, and Cheney's new national security advisor, John Hannah, acted as the conduit for false Iraq intel in the lead-up to war. And, as you might expect of Cheney's cronies, both are already implicated in Plamegate.

But how deep go the roots? As you know by now, Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby (a.k.a. "Cheney's Cheney") has been indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. (So much for "restoring honor and dignity to the White House.") As for the other rumored indictment, it seems Karl Rove has slipped off the hook for the time being, but the investigation continues...

As Iraq announces the approval of its draft constitution (which passed in a manner Slate's Fred Kaplan has deemed "the worst of both worlds"), the war claims its 2000th US military casualty. (Of these, 357 were under 21, 487 were National Guard, and 1863 -- over 9 in 10 -- have died since Dubya's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco.) We're still well under the casualty rate for Vietnam, true, but what comfort is that to the families of the fallen? Two thousand US men and women have been killed in the line of duty, and this blatantly amateurish administration still has no plan either to win or to disengage from a conflict they orchestrated, other than "stay the course." As with so much else under this president, the conduct of this war from its inception has been shameful and unacceptable -- in short, a national embarrassment.

"'The real anomaly in the administration is Cheney,' Mr. Scowcroft told Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker. 'I consider Cheney a good friend - I've known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore.'" As Cheney consigliere Scooter Libby preps for a likely Plamegate perp walk, the NYT refocuses on the broader question of our entry into the Iraq war. And, as the Scowcroft quote attests (and as Medley also notes), prominent Republicans are starting to pile on. "'Iraq was at core a war of choice, and extraordinarily expensive by every measure - human life, impact on our military, dollars, diplomatically,' said Mr. [Richard] Haass, a former senior State Department official under President Bush."



Or, as former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson puts it, "[T]he case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my study of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice-president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy didn't know were being made."

Update: Jeffrey Goldberg discusses his Scowcroft piece, and Slate's Fred Kaplan evaluates it, noting that George H.W. Bush is also something of a Dubya critic in the article. Speaking of Scowcroft, Dubya Sr. says: "He has a great propensity for friendship. By that, I mean someone I can depend on to tell me what I need to know and not just what I want to hear....[He] was very good about making sure that we did not solely consider the 'best case,' but instead considered what it would mean if things went our way, and also if they did not." Listen up, sonny...Papa just learned you.

Personal plug: Bill Press' How the Republicans Stole Christmas, which I worked on earlier this year, was released today. As I noted last April, its basic thesis is "The Religious Right are neither religious nor right" (discuss amongst yourselves), and it aims to put the lie to the fundies' constant invocations of Jesus to justify their greed, intolerance, and hypocrisy. (And, along with being a long-time Dem campaign manager and pundit, Press also spent a decade in the seminary, so he knows of what he speaks.) Now, as they say, in bookstores everywhere.

"Tillman had very unembedded feelings about the Iraq War. His close friend Army Spec. Russell Baer remembered, 'I can see it like a movie screen. We were outside of [an Iraqi city] watching as bombs were dropping on the town.... We were talking. And Pat said, "You know, this war is so f***ing illegal." And we all said, "Yeah." That's who he was. He totally was against Bush.'" By way of a friend of mine from high school, The Nation's Dave Zirin explains how the Dubya administration's use of slain NFL safety (and Chomsky fan) Pat Tillman as poster boy for the Iraq war was, like so much else in the lead-up to this conflict, built on lies.

"We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation." Behind Sen. John McCain, who knows as well as anyone why we must set limits on our interrogation policies, the Senate votes 90-9 to rebuke the White House and constrain future interrogation abuses at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and around the world. For his part, Catkiller Frist earlier tried to smother the amendment, but ultimately ended up voting for it. Wouldn't want a vote for torture on our 2008 transcript now, would we?

"President Bush's speech this morning, billed as a major statement about Iraq and the war on terror, was a sad spectacle -- so ripe with lofty principles, so bereft of ideas on what to do with them. He approached the podium amid growing disapproval of his performance as a war president, ratcheting chaos and violence in Iraq, continuing terrorist attacks worldwide -- and pleaded for nothing more than staying the course, with no turns or shifts, for a long, long time to come." Slate's Fred Kaplan surveys, and bemoans, Dubya's "big" Iraq speech this morning.

FYI, Medley has birddogged a great Dubya lightbulb joke...

With the administration's numbers in a continuing death spiral ever since their sheer incompetence, blatant cronyism, and general heartlessness was exposed by Katrina, several recent anti-Dubya speeches of note:

President Clinton: "Now, what Americans need to understand is that means every single day of the year, our Government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts. We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else...We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don't think it makes any sense. I think it's wrong."

John Kerry: "'Brownie is to Katrina what Paul Bremer is to peace in Iraq, what George Tenet is to slam-dunk intelligence, what Paul Wolfowitz is to parades paved with flowers in Baghdad, what Dick Cheney is to visionary energy policy, what Donald Rumsfeld is to basic war planning, what Tom DeLay is to ethics and what George Bush is to 'Mission Accomplished' and 'Wanted Dead or Alive.'"

John Edwards: "I might have missed something, but I don't think the president ever talked about putting a cap on the salaries of the CEOs of Halliburton and the other companies . . . who are getting all these contracts...This president, who never met an earmark he wouldn't approve or a millionaire's tax cut he wouldn't promote, decided to slash wages for the least of us and the most vulnerable."

Bill Maher: (I forgot where I saw this one first, but it's a toss-up between Booknotes and Follow Me Here.) "On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.' "

"Known as a stickler for the rules on competition, Ms. Greenhouse initially received stellar performance ratings...But her reviews became negative at roughly the time she began objecting to decisions she saw as improperly favoring Kellogg Brown & Root, he said. Often she hand-wrote her concerns on the contract documents, a practice that corps leaders called unprofessional and confusing." Via a colleague in the department, an Army contracting official is demoted for questioning no-bid contracts given to Halliburton, proving once again that Cheney conservatism has less to do with competition or capitalism than it does sheer, unmitigated cronyism.

To be honest, I've only had one eye on the news the past few days, as I've been busy relocating back to NYC. But what I have seen...oh my word. While the world looks on with a mix of horror, sympathy, and schadenfreude, New Orleans has fallen into almost-total anarchy. Other bloggers have been keeping up with the madness much better than I, so I'll defer to them: As I noted earlier, Looka and Ed Rants are both doing a particularly good job covering the catastrophe, and Breaching the Web and Medley, among others, have ably drawn attention to both the Dubya administration's culpability for the extent of this crisis and its grotesquely inappropriate and insufficient response. I assumed I couldn't think any less of Dubya and his cronies after four years, but watching their sneering at desperate people, their mealy-mouthed evasiveness, and, most of all, their sheer, blatant incompetence -- while Americans are suffering and dying in their homes -- it's disgusting. They've been exposed before all as pathetic, self-absorbed fuck-ups...at the cost of hundreds to thousands of lives and one great American city. Update: Also, by way of Booknotes, Wesley Clark weighs in on Dubya's failure.

"In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war." Citing domestic budget cuts and Dubya's disastrous wetlands policies, among other things, Sidney Blumenthal makes a compelling case that the tremendous devastation wrought by Katrina "may not entirely be the result of an act of nature."

Bush's poll numbers, low since early summer, just keep on plummeting and might soon reach Carter-like proportions. Somehow, I don't think calling the Iraq War the moral equivalent of WWII is going to stem the tide. Nor, I'll hazard, will his making it easier for his corporate cronies to pollute at will. But hey, keep trying, guys. Update: Slate's Fred Kaplan blows further holes in the WWII analogy.

As big-time progressive donors get to institution-building, the Dems try to work out a coherent strategy on the Roberts confirmation hearings and the war in Iraq. Right now I think Russ Feingold's strategy -- taking the heat off Roberts to focus on matters in Baghdad -- is probably the right one, although the party should also try to keep the public eye trained on the misdeeds of Mssrs DeLay, Rove, etc. There should be no wriggling off the hook this time for these well-placed GOP criminals.

As seen on Slate, Iraqi insurgents are apparently using dogs as unwitting suicide bombers. Perhaps it reveals a fundamental inability on my part to confront the grotesque human costs of this conflict, but this...this disgusts me.

"An independent panel headed by two former U.S. national security advisers said Wednesday that chaos in Iraq was due in part to inadequate postwar planning. Gee, you think? At any rate, both Berger and Scowcroft are already on record as critics of Dubya's foreign policy, so I doubt this new report will turn too many heads.

"It was unbelievable. They didn't show a lot of what really went on with the enemy attacks and the shelling. There was so much stuff that went on and somehow the tapes got mysteriously misplaced." Jessica Simpson discovers her and husband Nick Lachey's experiences in Iraq have been edited down for carefree consumption. Yep, they keep lyin' when they oughta be truthin'.

"'Reasonable people always suspected these techniques weren't invented in the backwoods of West Virginia,' said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch. 'It's never been more clear than in this investigation.'" A new report by military investigators finds the tactics of Abu Ghraib in full use at Guantanamo. "The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers...they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq."

From the folks behind Drop the Hammer: Be a Witness, a site which calls out the national newsmedia for ignoring genocide in Darfur in favor of the Jackson case and myriad damsels in distress. While we're at it, more coverage of the war we're mired in might be nice too...y'know, the one over in Iraq.

Was Karl Rove the source who outed Valerie Plame to Novak & others? His lawyer says no, but he's definitely proven himself amoral enough in the past to be capable of it.

"Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice." In the NY Times, John Kerry offers some advice to Dubya on tonight's Iraq speech. Update: That's your speech? Terror, terror, terror, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, all over again? Pathetic and shameful.

"'Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality,' said Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. 'It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq.'" Two quality links via the consistently splendid Follow Me Here: First, Republican Senators McCain and Hagel call out Dubya on the war. Between this and "Freedom Fries" Jones, are the floodgates opening in GOP-land?

And, on an altogether different note, physicists cast doubt on the possibility of time travel paradoxes "When Greenberger and Svozil analysed what happens when...component waves flow into the past, they found that the paradoxes implied by Einstein's equations never arise. Waves that travel back in time interfere destructively, thus preventing anything from happening differently from that which has already taken place." (Well, looks like time-traveling historians won't need to worry about any Primeresque recursions, then.)

"'A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise.' The authors add, 'As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point.'" Using the Dubya administration's blatant lack of postwar prep as their news-peg, the Washington Post finally headlines the Downing Street Memo on their front page, over a month after the story broke overseas. Well, better late than never, I suppose.

Last Friday, the Pentagon admitted that a Quran -- and detainee -- were in fact urinated on by a guard at Guantanamo. But, according to the eagerly dismissive White House, there's no need to court-martial anybody or anything. (Heck, you should hear about Dubya's crazy pledge days.) In the meantime, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) took time off from castigating Howard Dean to call for the closing of Guantanamo.

"Now in terms of the requests for the documents, I view that as just another stall tactic, another way to delay, another way not to allow Bolton to get an up or down vote." As per his usual my-way-or-the-highway approach, Dubya announced he's decided to stonewall the Dems by withholding the requested intelligence documents bearing on Bolton. Given that this UN appointment seems a done deal in terms of votes, you'd think our "uniter, not a divider" prez might've relished an opportunity to appear magnanimous and thus replenish some of his squandered political capital. But perhaps he didn't want to put another feather in McCain's cap so soon after the nuclear compromise...or perhaps these documents confirm anew that Bolton is unfit for his post. (Video link via Freakgirl.)

Even more troubling, in keeping with the administration's attempts to make Amnesty International this week's Newsweek, our president also put the blame for the "absurd" recent Amnesty report about our dismaying recent proclivity for torture squarely on the shoulders of "people who hate America." As Sidney Blumenthal notes, "It may be of minor ironic interest that before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration cited Amnesty International's reports on Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights as unimpeachable texts. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld often claimed Amnesty as his ultimate authority."

"The pattern of the South's Reconstruction, more than the pattern of Japan's, has anticipated occupations elsewhere -- above all in Iraq, where some supporters of the old regime participate in a campaign of terror even as a long-oppressed and newly enfranchised group struggles to claim power. What are the lessons of our own self-reconstruction?" By way of The Late Adopter (who, darn it, beat me to the great "Fables of the Reconstruction" post-title), historian and Promise of the New South author Edward Ayers discusses the applicability of Reconstruction to current events.

"'There is a growing sense of frustration with the president and the White House, quite frankly,' said an influential Republican member of Congress. 'The term I hear most often is "tin ear," ' especially when it comes to pushing Social Security so aggressively at a time when the public is worried more about jobs and gasoline prices. 'We could not have a worse message at a worse time.'" The WP wonders aloud if Dubya's already in lame duck territory. One can only hope. Update: Dubya pushes back.

"'Frankly, I was offended by it,' Cheney said in the videotaped interview. 'For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously.'" Awww. Our thin-skinned veep's feelings are hurt by an Amnesty International report claiming all is not kosher at Guantanamo Bay. Well, as a colleague of mine noted, perhaps someone should fill Dick in on Abu Ghraib (or, for that matter, countless other episodes in US history, from chattel slavery to the Trail of Tears.) For his part, the president of Amnesty responded: "It doesn't matter whether he takes Amnesty International seriously. He doesn't take torture seriously; he doesn't take the Geneva Convention seriously; he doesn't take due process rights seriously; and he doesn't take international law seriously. And that is more important than whether he takes Amnesty International seriously." Touche. (That being said, the WP cried foul as well.)

Exemplifying MTV's consistent downward spiral since the heady days of Rock the Vote and Randee of the Redwoods (yes, I just dated myself), Nine Inch Nails drops out of a performance at the Movie Awards after the network got nervous about (gasp!) a "partisan political statement." "'We were set to perform "The Hand That Feeds" with an unmolested, straightforward image of George W. Bush as the backdrop. Apparently, the image of our president is as offensive to MTV as it is to me,' Nine Inch Nails' leader Trent Reznor said in a statement posted on the band's Web site." Hmmm. Well, maybe the Breakfast Club will pick up Reznor's standard... (Last link via Freakgirl.)

The Bush administration announces they're going to reevaluate their anti-terrorism strategies. To put it mildly, "[t]he policy review marks what many experts regard as a belated shift." Well, perhaps a good place to start would be looking harder at who we sell weapons to, so we as advocates of freedom around the world aren't forced to explain away situations like the recent massacre in Uzbekistan. (2nd link via Looka.)

While the toilet incident that got Newsweek in trouble was emphatically denied, the Pentagon announces -- after the release of FBI interviews obtained by the ACLU -- that there have in fact been incidents of Koran mistreatment at Gitmo. (Surprise, surprise.) While "the interviews underscore that U.S. government officials were made aware of allegations of prisoner abuse and Koran mistreatment within months of the opening of Guantanamo Bay in early 2002", just last week "Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita said the Defense Department had received no credible claims of such abuse."

"If the president believes what he said, he doesn't comprehend the nature of either crisis. If he doesn't believe it and was just reciting the usual grab bag of cliches, what was his point?" As more questions arise about John Bolton's temperamental fitness for UN ambassador, Slate's Fred Kaplan wonders aloud if Bolton's boss "gets" diplomacy either.

"We believe that Marla Ruzicka was an inspiration, that her heart was full of grace, and that she was not only a servant of those in the global village who need our help the most, but of a soul generated by love." Citing a 1968 call to service by Dr. King, The Spencerian offers an eloquent eulogy for Marla Ruzicka, the young activist tragically killed by an Iraqi suicide bomber last week.

An event of note last night here at Columbia's Miller Theater: Music critic Greil Marcus, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, and Oxford poetry scholar Christopher Ricks came together to contemplate Dylania old and new. Marcus began by speaking on the many lives of "Masters of War," including Dylan's Gulf War I Grammy performance and the recent "Coalition of the Willing" episode at a Boulder, Colorado high school. Wilentz followed by discussing Dylan's debts of gratitude (and debt to history) in the recent Chronicles. And Ricks punned his way through a priceless disquisition on Blonde on Blonde and the differences among poetry, prose, and song, finishing his remarks with a defense of "Just Like a Woman," which apparently has been deemed misogynistic in certain academic corners. (I asked the panel about the mixed reception to Masked & Anonymous, and Wilentz & Marcus in particular praised it as an underrated film...I'll probably have to see it again at some point.)

All in all, it was quite an interesting evening of Dylanology, although I must admit, I was a bit put off by some of Ricks' comments in the Q&A session -- He called "Masters of War" (and, for that matter, "The Death of Emmett Till") self-absorbed and overly tendentious songs, which I think there's a good deal of truth to, but then proceeded to castigate the audience for indulging its generally anti-Bush sentiment (via some mild chuckling) during Marcus' Coalition of the Willing anecdote. Ricks began by deploring knee-jerk political responses in either direction as a typically American (and occasionally Dylanian) vice...ok, fine, that's a criticism we've all heard before. "Fist fighting is here to stay,
It's just the old American way." But Ricks then went on to bemoan the tribulations faced by his poor right-wing friends in Massachusetts, who thought -- correctly, in Ricks' view -- that "John Kerry didn't deserve the presidency." (As you might expect, this gave the smattering of right-leaning folk amid the audience a chance to clap vociferously and to indulge anew the currently-popular fallacy that they're an oppressed minority.)

Yes, unfortunately, the decline of civility in debate and the "MacNeill-Lehrerization" of every issue into two opposite and irreconcilable poles are lamentable repercussions of the way politics is practiced today, as Jon Stewart famously noted on Crossfire several months ago. (Or, as Bob once put it, "Lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull...Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.") But that doesn't mean that Americans' opinions of the war in Iraq aren't well-thought out and hard-won. Ricks treated the issue as basically six-one, half-dozen-the-other, that to voice an opinion about the Iraq War is somehow irresponsible and -- worse -- uncouth. (Whatsmore, I had no idea what anybody's politics were until Ricks began complaining about the presumed incivility in the room, at which point the audience immediately bifurcated into lefties and righties.) In sum, incivility is a serious problem, sure. But, for that matter, so is war.

The Q&A aside, though, the evening made for an eloquent appreciation of the many gifts of Bob Dylan, gifts further illuminated by the warmth and regard with which Marcus, Wilentz and Ricks held these songs to the light and uncovered some of their fragile tendrils of meaning and allusion. And if nothing else, the conference made for an excellent excuse to go home and delve into Bob's back pages for the remainder of the evening, and listen to old songs with new ears.

In a perfect world, I'd write up book reviews here on GitM with the consistency and length of my movie posts. (Then again, in a perfect world, I'd also be able to dunk a basketball.) But, time being a factor, here instead are some short thoughts on non-history books recently consumed.

Revelation Space, Alastair Reynolds Children of God, Mary Doria Russell The Prestige, Christopher Priest The Battle of Brazil, Jack Mathews The Shawl, Cynthia Ozick American Pastoral, Philip Roth Why Orwell Matters, Christopher Hitchens

Revelation Space, Alastair Reynolds: "Working alone, living within the cramped confines of the pod, Sylveste spent weeks learning how to jump-start the lighthugger's crippled repair systems...When the recuperative processes were in swing he was able to sleep, finally -- not daring to believe that he would actually succeed. And in those dreams, Sylveste gradually became aware of a momentous, paralysing truth...before he regained consciousness, something had happened. Something had reached into his mind and spoken to him. But the message that was imparted to him was so brutally alien that Sylveste could not put it into human terms. He had stepped into Revelation Space."

I'd heard a lot of good things from sci-fi aficionados I trust about the Revelation Space arc of Alastair Reynolds, who holds a PhD in astronomy and clearly knows his stuff. In fact, one of the strengths of Revelation is in how Reynolds grounds what amounts to a sci-fi space opera in hard science ideas. For example, I don't think I'm giving too much away to say that the book offers a hypothetical answer to Fermi's Paradox, or that Hawking's singularity theories play a significant role in the denouement. Of course, some scientific quandaries, such as the ability for ships to move at or around lightspeed, are left unexplained (it's apparently been figured out by a shadowy, mysterious group known as the Conjoiners.) But, even those flights of fancy carry the touch of realism, as indicated by the time disparities throughout the book -- Often, a character will get locked away in jail or have some other ugly incident befall him or her, and then fifteen years will pass in the space of a few paragraphs (or at least fifteen years relative to the prisoner -- the time is shorter on the ship en route.)

These clever ideas notwithstanding, however, I found Reynolds' writing style a bit dense and unwieldy at times. All in all, I ended up enjoying Revelation Space, but it was also a bit of a slog. In fact, I ended up putting it down for several weeks. There are four books (and counting) in the series, and I've heard they get better as they go along...but still, I've been putting off delving into #2, the prequel Chasm City, until I've got more time on my hands.

Children of God, Mary Doria Russell: "It was absurd in hindsight -- the very idea that a handful of humans might have been able to do everything right the first time. Even the closest of friends can misunderstand one another, he reminded himself. First contact -- by definition -- takes place in a state of radical ignorance, where nothing is known about the ecology, biology, languages, culture, and economy of the Other. On Rakhat, that ignorance proved catastrophic. You couldn't have known, Vincenzo Giuliani thought, hearing his own pacing, but remembering Emilio's. It wasn't your fault. Tell that to the dead, Emilio would have answered."

As y'all may or may not remember, I highly recommended Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow last fall, and have only now gotten around to reading the sequel, in which both Father Emilio Sandoz, sole survivor of the ill-fated Jesuit expedition, and the planet of Rakhat grapple with the consequences of the abortive, abysmal First Contact described in Book One. An anthropology PhD (I promise, I read sci-fi by non-PhDs too -- this back-to-back was a fluke), Russell has constructed a clever and refreshing science fiction tale here that seems very far removed from most standard forays in the genre. I preferred Sparrow to Children -- in fact, in some ways I think the resolution of the latter book detracts from the power of the first -- but they're both well worth-reading and readily accessible to people who get easily aggravated by the usual sci-fi literary tropes.

I will admit that at times I felt that Russell's characters all spoke with the same voice -- they all have the same wry intelligence and self-deprecating humor, and they tend to react in similar ways when pushed to the wall. But, it's a forgivable lapse, and besides, given that this is the type of mistake made by newer authors, the tendency may well be rectified in her newest, just-published book, A Thread of Grace (No more sci-fi for now -- Grace is a work of historical fiction set in WWII Italy.)

The Prestige, Christopher Priest: "First let me in a manner of speaking show you my hands, palms forward, fingers splayed, and I will say to you (and mark this well): 'Every word in this notebook that describes my life and work is true, honestly meant and accurate in detail.'...Already, without writing a falsehood, I have started the deception that is my life. The lie is contained in these words, even in the very first of them. It is the fabric of everything that follows, yet nowhere will it be apparent. I have misdirected you with the talk of truth, objective records and motives. I have omitted the significant information, and now you are looking in the wrong place."

After finishing up Batman Begins, Memento's Chris Nolan will apparently be making this film, and it should be a doozy. Tales of turn-of-the-century prestidigitators have perhaps been somewhat overdone in recent lit -- At times, The Prestige reminded me of both Glen David Gold's Carter Beats the Devil and the first "Houdini" half of Kavalier & Klay. Nevertheless, The Prestige, the sordid tale of two dueling stage magicians and their respective covenants with electrical pioneer Nikola Tesla, is a quick fantasy read that's well worth picking up. Even if you figure out where it's all going, and I'd say I guessed most of it about halfway through, the ending still has a Five Star level Twilight Zone-creepiness to it. All in all, with an eerie climax you're not going to shake off lightly, The Prestige is a grim and captivating conjuration -- read it before seeing the movie.

The Battle of Brazil, Jack Mathews: "Gilliam's Brazil is a cautionary tale about the loss of passion in a bureaucratic society where people passively go along to get along. It's his metaphor for the lives we now lead, overly dependent as we are on structure, materialism, and dubious technology. There isn't a futuristic element to it, other than the likelihood that the future holds more of the same. The love story between the daydreaming bureaucrat Sam Lowry and the cynical truck driver Jill Layton is the major sub-text. The dominant theme is that only through fantasy can we escape the reality of our own lives."

I actually don't quite agree with Jack Mathew's take above on the film...there's a lot more going on in Brazil than just Organization Man angst. [I tossed this out for my college paper almost a decade ago, but at some point I'd like to write a much-longer post around here that does Brazil (and, for that matter, Amadeus, Miller's Crossing, and several other of my Top Ten films) justice.] At any rate, you can get most of the information in The Battle of Brazil -- which chronicles the attempts by Universal flunky Sid Sheinberg to either squash or re-edit the film -- out of the companion documentary on the 3-disc Criterion set (which also includes the Sheinberg "Love conquers all" edit.) But, for fans of Terry Gilliam's magnum opus (as well as people interested in studio realpolitik), there are a lot of fun anecdotes and vignettes to be had -- For example, Rupert Everett or Tom Cruise as possible Sam Lowrys, DeNiro's Method Acting Tuttle to everyone's annoyance, and Gilliam's point-for-point evisceration of several negative reviews of the film (including ones by Rex Reed, Roger Ebert, and the inimitable Pauline Kael.) This version of the book also contains the full screenplay (by Gilliam, Tom Stoppard, and Charles McKeown, the latter of whom plays Sam's office neighbor Harry Lime.) Again, a quick read, and interesting in its own right as a tale of Hollywood inside baseball. But, of course, unlike The Prestige, see the movie before you read the book.

The Shawl, Cynthia Ozick: "She looked into Magda's face through a gap in the shawl: a squirrel in a nest, safe, no one could reach her inside the little house of the shawl's windings. The face, very round, a pocket mirror of a face: but it was not Rosa's bleak complexion, dark like cholera, it was another kind of face altogether, eyes blue as hair, smooth feathers of hair nearly as yellow as the Star sewn into Rosa's coat. You could think she was one of their babies."

I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to evaluating serious and prize-winning short fiction like Cynthia Ozick's The Shawl, I tend to feel slightly out of my depth. (But being uninformed about matters has never stopped me from commenting before, so why worry about it now?) At any rate, the question of how to address and make sense of insensible atrocities is one pondered by both fiction writers and historians. And, while I was moved and impressed by some of Ozick's paragraphs or imagery at times, altogether, I don't think these two stories squared that elusive circle very well.

At the risk of spoiling it for you [Seriously, stop reading if you don't want to know the end], the very brief first story in The Shawl, set inside a concentration camp, basically involves a mother's reaction to watching her baby get thrown onto an electric fence. (The longer and better second tale picks up with the same mother, now a semi-sane Holocaust "survivor" in retiree-land Florida, thirty years later.) This first story is obviously shocking and repugnant, and perhaps as a way of approximating a small sliver of the unknowable horror of the Holocaust, it may even be a success. But, to be honest, I found it more exploitative than anything else -- the central incident of the tale happens so quickly and with so little context that it reminded me of what David Edelstein (and others) noted of the egregious 21 Grams: "it doesn't take insight or artistry to shake up an audience with dead kids. It just takes a certain kind of ruthlessness."

To be fair, perhaps my problems with The Shawl are faults of the genre. After all, if there's any murdering of innocents to be done in a short story, it has to be done rather quickly, or else we're getting into novella territory. Still, I found Bao Ninh's novel The Sorrow of War a much more harrowing and successful survivor's tale read of late, partly because it reflects at length on the questions of writing and remembering, but also because it had more room to breathe, more lulls between the horrific episodes, and, to my mind, more character development.

American Pastoral, Philip Roth: "He had learned the worst lesson that life can teach -- that it makes no sense. And when that happens the happiness is never spontaneous again. It is artificial and, even then, bought at the price of an obstinate estrangement from one and one's history...He whose natural nobility was to be exactly what he seemed to be has taken in far too much suffering to be naively whole again...Stoically he suppresses his horror. He learns to live behind a mask. A lifetime experiment in endurance. A performance over a ruin. Swede Levov lives a double life."

A few years ago a good friend of mine let me her copy of Goodbye, Columbus as an introduction to the world of Philip Roth and...well, not to put too fine a point on it, I didn't like it. (My impressions of the book are blurry now, but I remember thinking that not only could I not empathize with the main character, I actively disliked him, from his relishing his 1-on-1 basketball victories over his girlfriend's little sister to his endless passive-aggressive pushing on the diaphragm issue. In retrospect, I guess that was probably the point.) So, when another good friend offered me her copy of American Pastoral, I was mildly hesitant.

Yet, I found Swede Levov's fall from American grace vastly preferable to my first Roth experience, so much so that I aim to throw a few more of his books in the hopper at some point in the near future. (Looking back, it was probably a bad call to judge a writer of Roth's stature and prolificness by only his first work anyway, however well-reviewed.) At times, I did think the "Americanness" aspect of the Swede's arc was a tad overdone -- for example, in the Johnny Appleseed segues, or the hinge point of the story being 1968. And perhaps the symbolism was occasionally just a little too cute (e.g. Miss New Jersey becoming a breeder of cows, or the dinner party incident that closes the book.) But, all in all, Pastoral turned out to be quite a powerful treatise on the charred smell emanating from all too many postwar American dreams, as well as a haunting case study of one man trying to keep it together once the wheels come off. (By the way, I'm open to suggestions for the next stop on the Roth train. Portnoy? I Married a Communist?)

Why Orwell Matters, Christopher Hitchens: "The three great subjects of the twentieth century were imperialism, fascism and Stalinism...Most of the intellectual class were fatally compromised by accomodation with one or other of these man-made structures of inhumanity, and some by more than one...[But after his experience as a budding imperialist functionary in India] Orwell was in a stronger position to feel viscerally as well as intellectually about the modernist empires of Nazism and Stalinism. Among many other things, of which an educated sympathy for victims and especially racial victims was only one, he had grown sensitive to intellectual hypocrisy and was well-tuned to pick up the invariably creepy noises which it gives off. He was already an old India hand, in other words, when it came to detecting corrupt or euphemistic excuses for undeserved and unchecked power."

I'm sure I'm not the only person out there who looks at Christopher Hitchens these days and laments a great writer and once-formidable man of the Left now -- seemingly irrevocably -- gone to seed. Still, Orwell being high in my personal pantheon of writers, I thought I'd give his extended essay Why Orwell Matters a look-see. The result is intriguing not only for what it tells us about Orwell, but also in understanding and humanizing this most recent incarnation of Hitchens. Throughout the book, Hitchens applauds Orwell's enviable foresight and his "power of facing" unpleasant truths so often obscured to others by ideology or wishful thinking. As the passage above suggests, with the exception of severely understating the future role of the US in world affairs (and his occasional and unfortunate lapses into homophobia), Hitchens argues, Orwell got all the big questions of the 20th century right. He anticipated the demise of imperialism and -- unlike many of his contemporaries on the Left -- was as stringent an opponent of Stalinist totalitarianism as he was of Nazism.

Hitchens is correct in noting all of these remarkable insights and legacies of our man Orwell. (As an aside, Hitchens' theory that Orwell could probably have gotten lifesaving treatment for his tuberculosis here in America is really just too depressing to contemplate.) Still, I don't think it's going too far to suggest that Hitchens is also trying to use Orwell as a paragon of independent thinking in order to justify his own recent cheerleading for the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

I don't know how Orwell would come down on the Iraq war. Who can know for sure? On one hand, as Hitchens would immediately point out, Orwell was no friend to tyrants. He put his own life on the line to defend Republican Spain, and -- like most clear-headed people -- wouldn't shed a tear to see a two-bit sadistic despot like Saddam dispatched to the dustbin of history. On the other hand, Orwell clearly had a well-developed suspicion of imperialist enterprises, particularly those cloaked in the language of freedom and good intentions. If nothing else, I feel pretty confident Orwell would have lambasted the corruption of political rhetoric -- and outright lies -- that characterized our entry into this current conflict. I'm sure Hitchens is right to suggest that Orwell would rally against the inhuman ideology of terrorist fundamentalism, as he did against the nefarious -isms of his day. But that doesn't mean Orwell -- or Hitchens, for that matter -- should be so sanguine in backing our current policy in Iraq. One does not necessarily flow from the other.

I was at the movies during Dubya's State of the Union address -- I tried to watch it online this evening after my Radicalism sections, but Quicktime died in mid-sentence, so I just ended up reading it. And, while I thought it was very well-written as per the norm, my thoughts on the address have been colored even more than usual by the punditocracy. So, with that in mind, I'll avoid being derivative and just direct y'all to the following:

• Fred Kaplan: "Some of the president's statements on national security were simply puzzling. Again on Iran, he said, 'We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium-enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing.' This is just false."



• Chris Suellentrop: "You could call Bush's idea the Screw Your Grandchildren Act...This was the Greatest Love of All speech, in which Bush asserted that The Children Are Our Future. But before you sign on to Bush's proposal, be aware that what he's offering is pretty tough love."



• Will Saletan: "Tonight's State of the Union Address demonstrated again that President Bush is a man of very clear principles. He's just flexible about when to apply them."



• Joe Conason: "Although George W. Bush and the White House aides who craft these public spectacles become increasingly adept at manipulating the feelings of his audience every year, their underlying method remains the same: to shade inconvenient realities with rhetorical vagueness and outright deception."



• E.J. Dionne: "Our country could profit from an honest debate about the future of Social Security. Judging from President Bush's State of the Union address, that is not the kind of debate we are about to have."

"Few sights are more stirring than the televised images of Iraqi citizens risking their lives to vote in their country's first election in a half-century, kissing the ballot boxes, dancing in the streets, and declaring their hopes for a new day of democracy. And yet, the challenges and uncertainties that seemed so daunting last week -- about Iraq's security, society, and governance -- are unlikely to turn less daunting next week, next month, or the month after."
After a smoother Election Day in Iraq than feared (thanks in part to a 24-hour ban on motor vehicles), Slate's Fred Kaplan surveys the road ahead, which includes the drafting of a new constitution.

"'I really don't like being lied to, repeatedly, flagrantly,' Mr. Dayton said." In a display of dissent that bodes well for the Dems' outlook in the coming term, several Senate Dems -- most notably Ted Kennedy, Mark Dayton, Carl Levin, Evan Bayh, Robert Byrd, and Barbara Boxer -- use the Condi hearings to call out the administration on Iraq. (Newcomer Ken Salazar and Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, rolled over immediately.) Update: She's through, but not before racking up the most No votes (13) in 180 years (since the "Corrupt Bargain" backlash against Henry Clay in 1825.)

Alright, enough partying...let's get it on! In keeping with the conclusions of Sy Hersh's recent New Yorker piece, Cheney stops by Imus before the inauguration to rattle the saber at Iran (using Israel as the bad cop.) I can see it now -- Iran: We're really pretty sure this time they've got WMD. Update: Iran rattles back.

"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." Really? Well, dang, that was easy. But who's going to break the news to China, Russia, and the Saudis, for starters? As per many of Michael Gerson's Big-Moment speeches, Dubya's Second Inaugural was a well-crafted piece of prose with some nice rhetorical flourishes and an eye to history. But, stylistic flair aside, Dubya might as well have been declaring himself the President of Mars, for all the grounding this speech had in contemporary reality.

"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." Freedom...I can dig it. Reminds me of the end of Braveheart. But, as Slate's Fred Kaplan already aptly questioned, "What is this thing called 'freedom'?...Does 'freedom' always mean a Western-style, or pro-American, democracy? Whatever freedom is, how do we go about spreading it?" And, for that matter, isn't this the guy who once told us there "ought to be limits to freedom?"

I know we shouldn't expect nuance from this president, but today's speech was even worse than usual (as well as being somewhat distasteful, given the very real problems with "freedom" Iraq is facing right now.) The only things I learned from Dubya's speech are that freedom rains down like a benediction (in fact, exactly like a benediction) on the peoples of the world, and, whatsmore, that evildoers hate them some freedom. And that was about it. Seriously, he sounded like he was kicking off that goofy rave in the second Matrix.



On the domestic side, I was somewhat surprised that Bush didn't push the Ownership Society meme a little harder -- he only mentioned it once -- but I guess that'll probably get more run in the upcoming State of the Union. (Perhaps he didn't want anyone reminded of Colin Powell's "You Break it, You Own it" Pottery Barn rule when they were supposed to be drinking in the sweet, sweet freedom.) That being said, Bush did manage to squeeze in some Grade-A chum for the pro-lifers -- "always remember that even the unwanted have worth" -- which he then half-heartedly tried to mask with a plea to end racism. (Freedom, yeah! Bigotry, no! Serenity now! I think I got it.)

All in all, the inaugural wasn't an embarrassing speech as delivered -- Gerson's too good at his job for that. But, like too much in this administration, it was all style and no substance, offering false simplicity and sanctimony in the place of good ideas or hard-won truths. In short, it was just like Dubya.

Monica who? On the eve of Dubya II, Salon's Peter Dizikes offers a short but comprehensive list of this administration's scandals thus far. Thirty-four and counting...not that you'd know it from watching the evening news.

"Not only is what the American forces are doing damaging the archaeology of Iraq, it's actually damaging the cultural heritage of the whole world." Archaeologists of the British museum fault US forces for damaging what's left of ancient Babylon, currently a base for US and coalition marines. While our troops did originally work to prevent the looting of artifacts, later attempts to construct parking lots and a helipad at the site apparently caused all kinds of needless wear and tear.

"Sometimes, words have consequences?" So do actions, Mr. President. The CIA has at last uncovered an indisputable link between Iraq and terrorism...Unfortunately, we created it. "[A]s instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops." (Apparently, we were too busy not finding WMD to spend any time securing these conventional caches.) My, oh my, this administration has really done a bang-up job of making Americans safer, haven't they? Just think how safe we'll be after four more years.

As a US general cautions of "spectacular" attacks prior to the Iraq election, the commander of our forces declares that 4 of 18 Iraqi provinces are not secure enough to hold the vote, and even Bush I consigliere Brent Scowcroft warns of an "incipient civil war" to follow them, what does Dubya do? Well, what do you expect? "'Democracy is hard,' Mr. Bush said in a brief question-and-answer session...'I know it's hard, but it's hard for a reason. And the reason it's hard is because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom.'" Dang them evildoers, always making foreign affairs so needlessly complex.

It's a pile-on. GOP Senators Trent Lott (who knows how these things work) and Susan Collins join John McCain, Evan Bayh, Bill Kristol, and Chuck Hagel in calling for Rumsfeld's removal. (Naturally, this White House is responding by hugging him ever closer.) Update: Dubya praises Rummy's 'really fine job.' In comparison to yours, perhaps...)

"The congressional watchdog remains fast asleep, and we intend to wake him up." As Catkiller Frist and the GOP threaten to go nuclear on the filibuster tip, Senate Dems announce they'll be holding oversight hearings into matters such as "defense contract abuses" over the coming year. Well, at the very least, this news from our side of the aisle sounds more promising than Harry Reid's recent thumbs up for Scalia.

Speaking to the Associated Press yesterday, fair-weather maverick John McCain gives Donald Rumsfeld a vote of "no confidence." As usual, this seems like the type of key reservation McCain should have expressed before last month's election.

Ooh, Porter Goss must be furious. The CIA station chief in Baghdad "has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon." According to the classifed cable obtained by the NYT, "the security situation was likely to get worse, including more violence and sectarian clashes, unless there were marked improvements soon on the part of the Iraqi government, in terms of its ability to assert authority and to build the economy."

Elsewhere, Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) said upon his return from Iraq, "We really need cold, hard facts and honesty. The situation is tough over there...If with 100,000-plus troops over there, we can't control that 10-mile road [between Baghdad and GWB Airport], it shows what's happening politically. The people are not as friendly as they were a year ago towards Americans." Hmm...you'd think a GOP Senator like Chafee, to say nothing of our nation's intelligence agency, would know better than to aid the terrorists by airing the real facts about what's going on over there. Can't they smell the victory?

"Intent on using his capital to secure his place in history, Bush may finally pass a right-wing social agenda, an entitlement reform agenda and a neoconservative foreign policy...And by enacting his program, Bush may dash conservatives' hopes for a lasting Republican majority." With trouble already brewing among House conservatives, Columbia PhD, former FCC colleague, and Gipper scholar Matthew Dallek contrasts Dubya's governance with that of Reagan, and finds the former wanting, to say the least.

Stick a fork in him, and say goodbye to what semblance of multilateralism has existed in the Dubya era. To Rummy's relish (and to no one's surprise) Colin Powell's ignominious tenure at State is through. Seemingly well-intentioned but weak and sidelined most of the time, Powell's tour at State will probably be best remembered for his losing battles with the Neocons and his embarrassing and misleading performance before the United Nations in 2003.

Following Powell out the door are Education Secretary Rod Paige, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Margaret Spellings, Dubya's domestic policy advisor, is taking Paige's gig...I dread to think who else will sign on for Dubya II. Ken Lay at Energy? John Danforth has been mentioned as a possible Powell replacement, but, heck, why not pull Helms out of mothballs? Update: Looks like it's Condi...and more of the same.

Hope is on the...wait, what's this? Oops, sorry about that. Turns out Hope took a wrong turn and got lost somewhere back there in Idiotville. Welcome to Despairtown, baby.

So, that's that, then...the Idiot Wind blows anew. The American electorate has spoken and -- despite all the shadiness and incompetence of the past four years -- has given Dubya and his cronies the imprimatur to go hog-wild. 51-48%...this is pretty much a mandate, folks. (Big of those Red Staters to ensure that we will be woefully unprepared for the next terrorist attack on a Blue State.) Y'know, H.L. Mencken's whole Tyranny of the Booboisie schtick has always grated on my lefty sensibilities, but at this point I have to admit he may have been on to something.

Ugh. I'm too young to remember 1984 very well, but I'm curious as to how last night and this morning compared for America's Left. (I've since been reminded by several people I trust that 1968 and 1972 were much more grievous blows.) Thing is, 2004 started out with such promise over here. But, right around the time I ended up on crutches in May, events personal and political took a nasty turn, and the past few months have been some of the most dismal I can remember. Now, it seems, I may just look back on this time as relatively calm and worry-free.

But, ok, enough wallowing...let's start taking it frame-by-frame. Given the war, the economy, and Dubya's obvious incompetence, how on Earth did we lose this election? Well, give credit where credit is due...all this exit-talk of "moral values" proves that Karl Rove pulled off his gambit: He got the extra 4 million evangelical votes he was targeting, partly, it seems, by judiciously invoking rampant anti-gay hysteria. Yet, for some reason or another -- a lousy ground game, perhaps? -- the Dems inexplicably didn't counter with extra votes of our own.

Where do we go from here? The Dems are facing an ugly Rule of Four...We lost four seats in the Senate, at least four seats in the House, and likely four seats in the Supreme Court. Whatsmore, we now appear officially dead in the water in the South and Midwest. And, with Kerry and Daschle gone, our standard-bearers now appear to be Hillary Clinton (about whom the country has already made up its mind), John Edwards (whom I still admire, but he couldn't carry his home state), and Barrack Obama (who's probably too inexperienced to make much headway in 2008.)

Obviously, it's now well past time for the serious party overhaul we should've began last cycle, when Al Gore had an election stolen from him that he should have won hands down. Daschle & Gephardt are already in the dustbin of history, and Terry McAuliffe should probably follow them there. I for one don't think Howard Dean was or is the answer, but he's one of the only people injecting new blood and enthusiasm into the party right now, so he should have a seat at the table. Right now, I think Edwardsian populism is our strongest ideological card, but as I said, it didn't seem to make much headway last night.

Silver lining? Yeah, right. Well, as this Washington Monthly forum noted in September, second terms are notoriously scandal-prone (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica), partly out of press boredom, and Dubya's ilk seem particularly scandal-worthy...perhaps we'll finally hear a little more about Halliburton. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of horrifying policy decisions emanating from this administration that'll keep lefty blogs like this one in business. And, on a purely selfish note, my likely dissertation topic on the fortunes of progressivism in the twenties is now seeming much more sexy in the wake of last night's 1928-like cultural divide. Of course, none of these are really any consolation at all.

At any rate, I generally believe that America tends to get the president it deserves. So, God help us, we've brought this upon ourselves. And now, for we 48%, the hard work begins...we have to lick our wounds, get our act together, and figure out how we can best combat the rightward drift that's afflicting our nation. Alas, I fear Dubya will do much of the heavy lifting for us, by running the nation further into the ground over the next four years. Still, we gotta keep on keeping on, y'all. I do not believe this darkness will endure.

Remember how much was made of Kerry saying Iraq had cost $200 billion in the debate? Well, "the Bush administration intends to seek about $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, pushing total war costs close to $225 billion since the invasion of Iraq." $225 billion...for that kind of cheddar, you'd think the Bushies could at least have locked down those 380 tons of lethal ordnance, eh?

By way of Looka and The Nation, 100 Facts and 1 Opinion: The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration. If you know any undecideds out there, this might be a good one to share.

Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor and consigliere to Bush I, decries Dubya's diplomacy in the Financial Times, calling Iraq a "failed venture" and questioning this administration's penchant for unilateralism.

"The senator now says we'd have to pass some international truth standard." Um, well, yes, we do. As Will Saletan points out, in the final three weeks of the campaign, Dubya is now explicitly running against reality. The reality is, it's time for this faith-based administration to go.

An hour after tonight's town hall debate in St. Louis, the immediate spin seems to be that it was a draw, mainly because Dubya didn't scowl and sputter to the extent he did last time around. (The "soft bigotry of low expectations" strikes again.) But it must be a Two Americas thing, 'cause that's not the debate I saw...most of the time I was waiting for Rove and Cheney to run on stage, hold a light to Dubya's eyes, and squirt some water in his mouth. As before, John Kerry radiated calm, determination, and a quick, roving intelligence. In a word, leadership. Dubya, on the other hand, was once again all hat and no cattle, trying to shirk, smirk, weasel, bluster, and lie his way through the proceedings. "Flip-flopper," "global test," tax-and-spend, etc...Dubya sought to evade every single question about his dismal record with a insult or a threat, even going so far as to throw around "Liberal" desperately, a word still verboten since his Daddy ran it through the mud in '88.

Kerry's been surging since last Thursday, and I expect it'll continue after tonight. But I confess, I really can't wrap my mind around how anyone could have watched tonight's event and think Bush would be the better choice between these two men. With the possible exception of the canned Red Sox quip, there wasn't a moment when Kerry didn't seem presidential and didn't hold the upper hand. And, as for Dubya...based on tonight, I wouldn't trust this guy to run the local chapter of the Elks, much less the Oval Office. No mistakes made at all, Mr. President? Who wants a President so blatantly unreflective about life-and-death decisions? I mean, he could have at least tried to look one up on the Internets. Would forgetting about your timber company count as a mistake?

That being said, I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that, when considering the inevitable Supreme Court appointments over the next four years, Dubya has at least promised not to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford. Phew! Say what you will about Dubya's godawful judicial nominees, at least we know they'll hold up the Thirteenth Amendment. (Civil rights and civil liberties, of course, are another matter...) Update: Ok, now I get it. It was a coded pro-life message to the right-wing fundies. (Via Blivet.) Update 2: Tim Noah talks more about Dred.

"The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see. This is the test Bush has failed." Will Saletan dispels the "global test" canard that the GOP has been latching on to since last Thursday.

Yesterday, Paul Bremer -- Dubya's former chief man in Iraq -- admitted in remarks intended for a private audience that many more troops were needed on the ground after Saddam's fall to stave off looting and lawlessness. Today, a report by Charles Duelfer -- the chief weapons inspector in Iraq (after the departed David Kay, who's already quit the WMD party line) -- concludes "that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." How many more "failures of judgment" in Iraq, to put it charitably, do we need to see from these jokers?

Well, to my partisan eye, Dick Cheney proved time and time again in tonight's sole veep debate that he's not only an inveterate liar but a major-league asshole. (Yeah, big time.) Iraq ("It's going great!"), Osama ("We never stopped going after him!"), the homefront ("Things are looking up!"), you name it...the guy just seems to have no compunction about dissembling flat-out to the American people. Said the veep early on, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." Really, Dick? How were we supposed to take Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda" then? Similarly, the audacity of Dick Cheney attacking John Kerry for voting against weapons systems he himself opposed is simply staggering.

From lies to misdirection. How did Cheney try to explain away Halliburton's sweetheart no-bid Iraq contracts, and the subsequent looking askance at their egregious overbilling of the American people? "Um, John, I've never seen you around the Senate before." (Not true, of course, but nice of Dick to send voters to the Soros-run FactCheck.com rather than FactCheck.org, though.) And, when Edwards skewered the veep with his own voting record from back in the day -- no to Head Start, Meals on Wheels, and the Education Dept, no to MLK Day and to condemning apartheid(?!) -- what was Cheney's answer? "Oh, I think his record speaks for itself." You're damn right it does, as does yours.

All that being said, I thought Edwards missed a few chances to put the hurt on Cheney in the early going, and should have responded harder to the ridiculous "facing-up-to-Howard Dean" riff. And he didn't really hit his stride until the domestic-policy-oriented second half, when less-interested swing voters out there had probably started tuning out. (Conversely, I thought Cheney self-destructed for awhile there, mumbling about No Child Left Behind in a question about jobs.) So, while my gut (and the insta-polling) say Edwards took this one, I'm guessing the numbers in the next few days will show a draw, if only because Cheney seemed at least somewhat cognizant of the world around him, unlike his running mate. Next stop: Friday.

Well, to give credit where it's due, Dubya has clearly improved as a debater since 2000. While occasionally flustered and often seeming petulant, he never seemed as confused and inarticulate as he did in his jousts with Gore...in fact, I'd go so far to say that he even occasionally seemed wily. Still, given the artifice of the format, it's hard to see how John Kerry could have done much better in tonight's first debate. After the first question or so, Kerry seemed calm, collected, forceful and resolute, and he managed to make succinct and readily understandable distinctions between he and Dubya throughout. For undecided voters who imbibed all the RNC's garbage a month ago and were expecting another Dukakis Dem in John Kerry, I suspect they may have begun reevaluating him tonight. And, when you consider that the terrain of this debate most facilitated Dubya's "9/11, 9/11, 9/11" strategy, Kerry's got nowhere to go but up.

Some food for thought for my Asia-Pacific sections today (by way of Prof. Armstrong): Historian John Dower compares the Iraq imbroglio to Japanese expansion in Manchuria. Before rejecting his argument outright, at least consider the source. Dower knows a great deal about America's experiences in postwar Japan -- more, I'd wager, than anybody working in the Dubya administration.

"'Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the "dancing in the street crowd," that we just simply will be greeted with open arms,' [Republican Richard] Lugar said. 'The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.'" A new intelligence report declares that, despite Dubya's dog-and-pony show, things are looking worse in Iraq. "At worst, the official said, were 'trend lines that would point to a civil war.'" Bang-up job, Dubya, as usual. "'It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous,' said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska," referring to the administration's disbursement of reconstruction money thus far. After getting us into this fiasco, the least the Bushies could have done was try to manage it properly. We must get these fools out of office already.

"'It is outrageous and shameful to make the war on terror an instrument of their politics,' Kerry said. 'I defended this country when I was a young man, and they chose not to. And I will defend this country as president of the United States.'" John Kerry pushes back hard at Cheney for his indefensible remarks on Tuesday. Whatsmore, Kerry has keyed in on a way to concisely tie together two of Dubya's most grievous sins. To wit: "George W. Bush's wrong choices have led America in the wrong direction in Iraq and left America without the resources we need here at home." Simple, eloquent, and effective.

Or, more to the point, 1002 points of light and counting have now been extinguished in the service of Dubya's unnecessary and mismanaged neocon sideshow in Iraq, and that's just the American count. (The Faces of the Fallen) As this site notes in an update of John Kerry's famous question, how do you ask a man or woman to be the last person to die for a lie? Update: And now it appears we've already reached another dubious milestone. "With the latest spike in violence in Baghdad, more U.S. troops have died since the turnover of power to an interim Iraqi government at the end of June than were killed during the U.S.-led invasion of the country in the spring of 2003."

13 more soldiers dead in Iraq since yesterday, a looming $2.29 trillion deficit over the next ten years...I mean, really, what's it going to take to persuade people that Amateur Hour in the White House needs to end?

"Don't listen to the filter, or the facts -- listen to the words." By way of One Good Move and The Daily Show, the RNC Campaign Film George W. Bush: Words Speak Louder than Actions. It's been making the rounds for a couple of days now, but still, this is a must-watch. (And there's a transcript at Trenchant.)

Not content with the elements of freak-show conservatism in his acceptance speech or the flattening effect of Dubya's giveaways to the rich in recent years, Dubya is now threatening an official flat tax (not unlike the one imposed by fiat on Iraq last November.) As even Phil Gramm attested eight years ago, "It's not fair to say that people who work with their head or with their hands ought to pay taxes, but people who earn their living with their capital ought not to."

"Democracy matters are frightening in our time precisely because the three dominant dogmas of free-market fundamentalism, aggressive militarism, and escalating authoritarianism are snuffing out the democratic impulses that are so vital for the deepening and spread of democracy in the world. In short, we are experiencing the sad American imperial devouring of American democracy." By way of Rebecca's Pocket and DangerousMeta, Princeton philosopher (and Matrix Elder) Cornel West weighs in on the dangers of Dubyaism.

Well, with talk of deregulation, privatizing Social Security, tax code "simplification", anti-gay and pro-life rhetoric, "Hollywood value" and "activist judge" hectoring...all punctuated by that off-putting and consistently out-of-place chimp smirk, you can't say Dubya didn't warn us about his plans for a ultra-conservative second term last night. (And for a man who was heroic enough to stop circling Nebraska and venture down to Ground Zero three long days after 9/11, he seemed amazingly ready to bolt-and-run at the sign of one measly protestor.)

Not much was said about Dubya's first four years in office, of course, aside from 9/11 (9/11, 9/11) and the usual conflation of Al Qaeda and Saddam. But, really, what can he say? Deficits through the roof, the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover, 1000 men and women dead in a needless diversion of a war...His administration has been an embarrassment of historic proportions. And it is time for him to go. (Dubya video via I'm Just Sayin'.)

As the dust settles from the GOP convention and Tom DeLay emerges from hiding, the truth starts coming back to light. Naturally, Dubya's speech had serious problems with reality and the GOP severely distorted Kerry's voting record. Obviously, Cheney and the Zellout were full of it. More surprisingly, however, Arnold Schwarzenegger apparently doesn't know Austria from a hole in the ground.

"If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican." If you believe that rich people deserve tax breaks while the middle-class struggle harder and the poor send their kids to war, then you are a Republican. If you believe that cutting First Responder, Homeland Security, and Nunn-Lugar funding, lying bald-faced to our allies before the UN, letting Osama Bin Laden disappear into the caverns of Afghanistan, and contriving a casus belli to start a war in Iraq that has further alienated the moderate Muslim world is sound anti-terror strategy, then you are a Republican. If you believe an extramarital blow job is an impeachable offense, but dissembling to the American people about war is hunky-dory, then you are a Republican. If you believe God loves you, but He hates gays, liberals, and foreigners, then you are a Republican. If you're an immigrant bodybuilder who made it to the top of his field through hard work, discipline, and the judicious application of enough steroids to kill a small horse, then you are a Republican. And if you're a serial groper who was befuddled enough to think Nixon was a good idea in 1968 and who somehow earnestly believes that the GOP hasn't moved much further right since the days of Tricky Dick, then you are Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Iraq's Olympic soccer team ask to be removed from Bush re-election ads. "'My problems are not with the American people,' says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. 'They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything.'" Sorry, y'all...it's just that Dubya has very little to fall back on these days. It's not like he can campaign on his domestic record.

"It just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during Vietnam and said he had 'other priorities' at that time would say that...When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil...He'll be tough, but he'll be tough with someone else's kid's blood." Iowa Senator Tom Harkin lashes out at Cheney for the "sensitive war" bit he was banging into the ground last week. I don't much care for the notion that not serving in Vietnam makes anybody a coward...but, then again, the veep had this coming. He should've known better than to push the tough guy thing so hard. After all, he's a war profiteer, not a warrior.

"Although these events concern different legal issues and different sets of detainees, they share a common denominator: a legal strategy to keep the rule of law out of the war on terrorism by whatever procedural, legal, or administrative means are available." According to Slate's Phillip Carter, the Dubya administration is obstructing and/or ignoring the recent Supreme Court decisions on the Gitmo Gulag. Sadly, I guess we couldn't expect any less from this crowd.

"Does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? One that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the American people, but to protect itself? That so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? I simply cannot think so." Ron Reagan eviscerates George W. Bush in Esquire.

Postponing Election Day?!? You must be joking. Are "the terrorists" going to infiltrate every middle school gymnasium and public library in the country, counting extra votes for Kerry and offsetting Dubya's Diebold advantage? We held elections in this nation in 1864, 1944, 1968...surely we can handle 2004.

Whatsmore, what's all this talk of terrorists determining the election anyway? When are the Bushies going to realize that Osama Bin Laden and his ilk probably prefer Dubya in office? No other man could have so brazenly squandered the enormous international reservoir of post-9/11 goodwill, so thoroughly fractured the natural alliance of the West against terrorism, or so decisively set the moderate Muslim world against the United States. For Osama bin Laden, George W. Bush is a godsend. For three and a half long years, he's been a divider, not a uniter.

Postponing Election Day...my Lord, what tripe. Yes, I know Homeland Security is covering its bases by arguing that they're just thinking out loud. Well, it's still a terrible idea, and a particularly tone-deaf one coming from an administration who came into office so ignominiously with Bush v. Gore. Forget Warren Harding or even Richard Nixon -- this presidency has earned its place since that 5-4 decision as the most corrupt in our nation's history. They have to be shown the door on Election Day, and not a day later.

Similarly, GOP Senator Pat Roberts covers Dubya's back by making Tenet the fall guy for the WMD fiasco in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, while preventing any further investigation into White House efforts to arm-twist the CIA into the right conclusions. "'The Republicans ultimately and effectively, at the end of the day, controlled this investigation. There's no doubt about it. And they tried to put a bipartisan patina on it, but anybody who accepts that on face value is out of touch,' said [a] former Democratic aide."

Aigh! Attack, attack! No, we don't know when. No, we don't know where. No, we're not raising the threat level. No, we're not sorry we let Osama slip away so we could dink around Iraq. Just be afraid, and, remember, the terrorists want to "disrupt the democratic process" and make you vote Kerry-Edwards. You have been warned. Good day.

Is there any aspect of the Iraq war that holds up to scrutiny? As the LA Times reports, the famous toppling of Saddam's statue, probably the high point of the whole excursion notwithstanding Saddam's capture, apparently didn't happen as advertised either. "It was a Marine colonel -- not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images -- who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking...Ultimately, a Marine recovery vehicle toppled the statue with a chain, but the effort appeared to be Iraqi-inspired because the psychological team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering Iraqi children." Clever, clever. (Via Rational Enquirer.)

I'm sayin' bro! This has been making the rounds lately, but I believe I caught it first over at Forty Two: Rock Paper Saddam. As Bush and Blair will no doubt soon emphasize, WMD or no, Saddam's RPS skills are seriously suspect.

Well, I'm a bit behind on this one, but I finally got out of the apartment to catch Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday afternoon. And the verdict? Well, it's undoubtedly an extremely powerful piece of cinema. And, judging from the reactions of the afternoon crowd, it looks as if it might do some real good in crystallizing popular discontent with the Bush administration outside of the blog-world echo chamber. Still, even though I know Moore is playing by the rules set by right-wing freak shows like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, I found myself wishing at times that he had played F911 a little straighter. Simply put, Dubya and his cronies are guilty of so much blatant incompetence and documentable malfeasance that it's disappointing that Moore feels he has to rely on cheapshots and push-button emotions some of the time.

If you've been keeping up with pretty much any lefty blog since 2000 (including this one), the central and most powerful allegations made here -- that Dubya and the Neocons played bait-and-switch on the American people in Iraq and used 9/11 as a pretext for all kinds of terrible legislation, while doing pathetically little to minimize the actual threat of terrorism -- will not come as a surprise. Still, when the data is laid out before you here like ducks in a row, from the Florida fiasco in 2000 through to the recent stonewalling of the 9/11 commission a few weeks ago, the continued pattern of incompetence and mendacity that has characterized this administration becomes unmistakably clear. As the story unfolds, Moore offers plenty of intriguing footage -- Bush's 7 minutes of Pet Goat superfluousness may perhaps be overemphasized by now, but it's still out-and-out eerie. Equally damning is footage of Dubya at the ranch a month prior to 9/11, in which he has absolutely no clue what his agenda is for the day and, whatsmore, doesn't seem to much care (particularly when contrasted with his obvious enthusiasm for armadillos exhibited a few scenes later.)

But while there are plenty of blows landed, I ultimately thought that Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been much more impressive if it had focused more closely on the facts and avoided the more obvious attempts at sentiment. For example, instead of examining in detail the clear civil liberties transgressions occurring at the Gitmo Gulag and elsewhere under the Patriot Act, or noting the discrepancies in its enforcement (no gun checks?) under Attorney General-cum-balladeer John Ashcroft, Moore spends too much time interviewing an aging weightlifter and various Fresno peace activists -- all of whom have run afoul of goofy anti-terrorist inquiries -- for laughs. Similarly, instead of talking about Dubya's spiking of the Nunn-Lugar act or his continued cutting of First Responder funding, the film dinks around Western Oregon with two underfunded deputies - as a result, I thought the larger point about Bush's failure to protect the homeland was lost.

As the film moves overseas, the problems with F911 become more evident. Regarding the war in Afghanistan, Moore talks about a proposed UNOCAL pipeline to the exclusion of virtually anything else, which I think invites charges of shrillness (Exhibit A: The Bonanza riff) and blurs one of the most serious charges against this administration - that it gave up a chance to catch Osama Bin Laden in order to play regime change in Iraq. Speaking of Baghdad, I think Moore would have done better to talk more about missing WMD and lies to the UN and spent less time with Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a deceased US soldier. This last section of the film is undeniably powerful, but it also feels extremely manipulative, particularly as it's hard to envision very many situations where a mother's grief wouldn't be harrowing to behold. (The same goes for the grisly scenes of charred bodies and horrifically wounded Iraqi children.)

Still, what do I know? Perhaps Fahrenheit 9/11 needs these human touches to get its point across to a larger audience, a goal which it so far seems to be accomplishing with great aplomb. The fact is, Michael Moore can undoubtedly be a blowhard with grating populist pretensions, but if we had any semblance of a functioning national media these days, Fahrenheit 9/11 would have been a non-event. In the absence of anything like an independently critical television press, and given the existence of such a well-oiled, well-funded right-wing propaganda machine these days, perhaps somebody out there had to co-opt conservative talk-radio techniques to get the message out. I'm more of a "destroy the ring" than a "use the ring" kinda guy, but, as I said, what do I know? I could write in this space a hundred times over and still never reach an infinitesimal fraction of the people who will see this film and be newly angered by the idiotic and unethical behavior of this administration.

In short, if a picture is worth a 1000 words, this film is worth 10,000 blogs - by stringing so many of the Bush-bashing beads together in such entertaining and moving fashion, Fahrenheit 9/11 should bring the heart of the anti-Dubya critique right to the Heartland. I just wish it had covered its flank a little better by sticking to the cold, hard facts about the national embarrassment of historic proportions that is George W. Bush, rather than indulging every so often in cheap laughs and reflexive sentiment.

In the dead of night (EST), and quieter than the Teddy Bear's picnic, the Bushies handed Iraq over to the interim government two days early. I agree with Slate's Fred Kaplan - this actually seems like a good call for once by the Bushies. I guess they already figured out how much trouble the "Mission Accomplished" banner can cause.

Cheney drops an F-bomb in the Senate and likes it (naturally, the GOP moral arbiters don't care, despite their tsk-tsking Kerry after an earlier outburst.) Meanwhile Dubya loses his temper on Irish TV when asked relatively basic questions about the failures of his Iraq policy. Yes, folks, these people are in charge.

"Editors: Can you show us your cards? Cheney: Sure. One of them's a six." By way of Value Judgment, experience the tribulations of poker with Dick Cheney. "Cheney: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed." Update: In semi-related news, the Supreme Court bails out Cheney 7-2 on the energy task force documents, although they also decided to punt the case back to a lower court. Hmmm.

Dubya jumps in the polls after Reagan's photo-op funeral, and decides to celebrate by lying about Iraq and 9/11 all over again. C'mon, y'all Republican moralists out there...Where's the outrage? Clinton was impeached for far less, and we already know the Baptists won't put up much of a fuss.

The 9/11 commission concludes that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and the planning of the September 11 attacks. Wow, are you serious? Who knew?

"Never in the two and a quarter centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted." A bipartisan group of 26 diplomats and military men call out Dubya Diplomacy for causing irreparable harm to the republic, and the statement is heady stuff. "The Bush Administration has shown that it does not grasp these circumstances of the new era, and is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change."

While authorization for attack dog intimidation techniques implicate intelligence higher-ups in the horrors of Abu Ghraib, Bush gets legalistic to (not) explain the pro-torture policies emanating from his administration. Hmmm. I bet the White House is wishing Reagan could die every week right now.

Well, between Tenet's resignation and Reagan's end, my cable modem picked an eventful few days to give up on me. More to come next week, after the Time Warner technicians have ascertained and corrected the problem.

In a speech before graduates of the Air Force Academy, Dubya compares the war on terror to WWII. And, a day after being called out by Dana Milbank for his straw men, Bush is at it again: "Some who call themselves realists question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours." Is that really the central argument being made by those dubious of our foray into Iraq? I don't think so.

Typical. Despite being oversight-crazy during the Clinton era, the Congressional GOP refuses to hold hearings about the "smoking gun" e-mail connecting Cheney's office to a sweetheart Halliburton deal in Iraq. (And, as with the energy probe, Cheney's office is stonewalling.) Good lord, what shadiness...is there no level below which these guys won't stoop? Once again, the Bush administration and its Congressional cronies have proved themselves a national embarrassment of historic proportions.

What does $340,000 a month buy you? Treason. Ahmed Chalabi, until very recently the Neocons' favorite Iraqi, apparently tipped off Iran that we'd broken their codes. "U.S. intelligence officials two weeks ago had told CNN that Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, gave intelligence secrets to Iran so closely held in the U.S. government that only 'a handful' of senior officials knew them." So...which of the Bushies was it? Between this and the Plame affair, the Bush administration has now displayed a pattern of disregarding and betraying our intelligence community.

Well, it's a well-run campaign, midget'n broom'n whatnot. The Washington Post scrutinizes the Bush campaign's continued resort to misleading attacks and outright lies when discussing Kerry's record. And, in related news, Dana Milbank (one of the co-writers of the article above), surveys Dubya's penchant for bashing straw men. "Bush is obviously not the first politician to paint his opponents' positions in absurd terms...But Bush has been more active than most in creating phantom opponents...[and]There seems to be no end to the crazy positions the straw men take."

They can't handle the truth...Senator John Warner (R-VA) takes heat from his fellow Republicans for leading the inquiry into Abu Ghraib.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. And don't say we didn't warn you. Nothing changes an undesirable news cycle quite like another terror threat, does it? As the AP article notes: "The sudden warning returns the nation's attention to terrorism, the issue that President Bush has highlighted as a central theme of his re-election campaign, after intense focus on other subjects like Iraq and prisoner abuses in Iraq. Bush has lost ground in the polls, falling in approval ratings to the lowest point of his presidency."

To be fair, releasing pics of the possible suspects is probably more helpful in preventing a future attack than the usual exhortations to buy duct tape. And nobody want to see another 9/11, particularly those of us who live in NYC. Still, the very fact that news articles have to concede that Dubya may just be pushing the Panic button for political points proves how untrustworthy this president has become. And don't you love how Bush officials keep suggesting that Al Qaeda wants to "have some impact on the electoral process," as if voting Democratic means the terrorists have won? Sorry, but you'll have to count me among the many Americans who thinks that terrorists have more to fear from John Kerry than they ever would from Dubya's haphazard and crony-driven homeland security agenda.

So apparently Dubya handles a bike about as well as he handles a Segway (or the nation)...poorly. Well, at least one benefit of this nasty scrape for the viewing public is that, when Bush addresses the nation on Iraq tonight, you'll literally get to see the blood on his hands.

wake up with fleas. The US raided the compound of Ahmed Chalabi this morning, who up until this week was receiving $340,000 a month in taxpayer funds for spouting exactly the lies the Bushies wanted most to hear. In fact, Chalabi has been the Dubya gang's favorite Iraqi for years now, but "U.S. disenchantment with Chalabi has been growing since it dawned on the White House and the Pentagon that everything he had told them about Iraq -- from Saddam Hussein's fiendish weapons arsenal to the crowds who would toss flowers at the invaders to Chalabi's own popularity in Iraq -- had been completely false." Is Wolfowitz's house next?

As Dubya tries to rally the worried Republican troops, Speaker Hastert questions John McCain's GOP cred. Hey, if you don't want him, we'll take him. Didn't you guys learn anything from the Jim Jeffords defection?

So the word emerging from Cannes on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is very positive so far. I'm very curious to see what kind of reaction this film will get stateside, once the distribution situation has been resolved. Hopefully, it'll end up doing more than just preaching to the converted in arthouses across America, as it sounds like it has the potential to be very big.

Jan 25, 2002: "'As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,' Gonzales wrote to Bush. 'The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.' Gonzales concluded in stark terms: 'In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.' Dismissing the Geneva Conventions, two full years before the atrocities at Abu Ghreib? That giant sucking sound you hear is the void left by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales's incredible imploding Supreme Court bid. He's probably got less chance now than Ken Starr of taking the nation's highest bench, and for good reason.

Earth to Inhofe? Earth to Inhofe? Nope, no answer. While several GOP leaders are turning on Dubya (and Rumsfeld) after recent events, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is not among them. To the contrary, he lost it in committee today, proclaiming that he is "probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment" of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. (For their part, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) disavowed Inhofe immediately.) One would be tempted to write Inhofe off as simply a crank, until you peruse the many similar responses emanating from the Right about the relative newsworthiness of US soldiers engaging in torture and assorted other depravities. Mind you, these are the exact same Defenders of American Values who wore moral outrage like a cheap cologne all through l'affaire Lewinsky...some people have no shame. Update: Sure enough, the Right rallies around Inhofe.

With Rummy on the ropes, Dubya and Cheney rush to the defense of their man in Defense. Hey, hold him to your breast as long as possible, Mr. President...maybe then, you'll all go down together come November.

"As the president says, we misunderestimate him. He was not born stupid. He chose stupidity. Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt. On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool." Slate writer and collector of malapropisms Jacob Weisberg psychoanalyzes Dubya's mental deficiencies and finds that Bush is less simple-minded than he is just intellectually lazy...and the Daddy issues don't help.

From The Economist to the NY Times, Salon examines the growing calls for Rumsfeld to resign as a result of Abu Ghraib. When even Karl Rove is forced to admit the damage done by these horrifying pics, you know it'll be rough for Rummy in the weeks ahead, even with Dubya's vote of confidence. Well, I'm all for getting rid of Rumsfeld, but I don't think he should be the only fall guy for this Iraq fiasco...the decision may have began with Cheney, Wolfowitz, & co., but it ended with Dubya. For Abu Ghraib as with so much else, they all gotta go.

I don't know how we will ever recover from this. Medley aptly sums up my stomach-churning disgust at the Iraq atrocity photos now circulating around the world. If there wasn't a connection between Dubya's carnival sideshow in Iraq and the war in terror before, there assuredly is now. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, just think how many possible US-hating terrorists have been born with each one of these vile and grotesque snapshots. Our entire nation and way of life have been shamed by these depravities, perhaps to fatal effect.

"Woodward reports that in July 2002 Bush ordered the use of $700 million to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, funds that had not been specifically appropriated by the Congress, which alone holds that constitutional authority. No adequate explanation has been offered for what, strictly speaking, might well be an impeachable offense." Sidney Blumenthal sees the behavior underlying Reagan's Iran-Contra fiasco revived, while law professor Cass Sunstein delves deeper into the illegality and unconstitutionality of Dubya's likely misappropriation of funds.

Once again, it seems, the Bush administration is falsifying records to cover up their shadiness. This time, the Pentagon deleted key remarks made by Rumsfeld to Bob Woodward on the certainty of the Iraq war. (Regarding an invasion of Iraq, Rummy told the Saudis in Jan. 2003, two months before operations commenced, that they could "take that to the bank.") Given the other times the Bushies have been caught doing this, their withholding of Reagan and Bush Sr. papers, and the general moral turpitude of this administration, one has to wonder how snarled up the historical record is at this point.

Slate's David Greenberg (a Columbia PhD recently hired at Rutgers...congrats) examines the use and misuse of Iraq-Vietnam analogies.

Clandestine oil deals with the Saudis, secret (and quite probably) illegal misappropriation of anti-terrorism funds, Bob Woodward's confirmation that Richard Clarke was right despite the Bushies' smear machine...no matter how you cut it, the news coming out of the White House these days looks grimmer and grimmer. Now Dubya is actually running on the Patriot Act, of all things, and yet his poll numbers are rising?! I'm going to chalk up this latest bounce to sheer GOP cash flow (a funding discrepancy soon to change) and the post-primary press lull for Kerry. But, still, I find it hard to believe that anybody of an independent disposition can look at what's going on in Washington these days and in good conscience vote for Dubya. This joker can't handle the 9/11 commission without Cheney by his side, and he can't even face the national press without begging to see the questions in advance. Why on Earth would anyone think this fool should stay in office? Inept and corrupt, Bush is easily the worst president America has seen since Warren G. Harding. In fact, he's probably worse. Where's the outrage?


Dubya and his cronies have coasted on the "soft bigotry of low expectations" long enough...let's vote out these guys, already.

Sean Wilentz reviews trained historian Condoleeza Rice's sense of her field in light of her recent testimony, and finds her wanting. Notes Wilentz, "The American Historical Review's notice of her first book, a study of Russia and the Czech army after 1948, charged that Rice 'frequently does not sift facts from propaganda and valid information from disinformation or misinformation' and that she 'passes judgments and expresses opinions without adequate knowledge of the facts.')" Well, dang, no wonder the Bushies jumped on hiring her for National Security Advisor...she sounds like a great fit.

Sorry 24 and American Idol fans...Dubya takes over the airwaves tonight to "reassure" us about Iraq, and perhaps explain why he spent the day he was warned about Al Qaeda attacks just goofing off at the ranch. Hmm...I wonder if he'll only answer press questions in the presence of Cheney...after all, the Prisoner's Dilemma still holds.

I haven't spoken much about it here, but obviously the situation in Iraq is getting much, much worse. I think it's now safe to assume that our war president's June 30 pullout date is an election-year fantasy. Who the hell's running this half-assed outfit? You'd think that after getting us involved in this unnecessary sideshow of a war, Bush and the neocons would at least have the decency to execute it properly. But, no, they're still prattling on about a peaceful transfer of power and hoping we ignore the unmistakable signs of an incipient civil war, and all the while the US casualties mount. What's the plan? (War prez link via Medley.)

"There was always something of the boy in the bubble about George W. Bush, cosseted from the vicissitudes of life, from Vietnam to business failure, by his famous name....Now we're told the military is preparing an "overwhelming" retaliation to the carnage in Falluja. You can hear the clammy blast from the past: We're going to destroy that village to save it." Maureen Dowd ruminates on recent events in Iraq...and the Bush administration's failure to recognize their gravity.

Hmm...I've been so busy this week that I've completely missed out on the Clarke 9/11 testimony, but it sounds like he's not only fighting mad at the Bushies for their Iraq sideshow and failures on the terrorism front, he's deflecting their usual smear tactics quite swimmingly. Good stuff.

Hey did you hear the one about Dubya looking under a chair and asking, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere?" Chuckle, chuckle. Yeah, well I can think of almost 600 Americans (to say nothing of their families) that don't find Dubya's snickering all that goddamn funny. The Prez hasn't been in such lousy taste since the day he scampered across the WTC rubble playing fratboy with a bullhorn.

Did the awful 3/11 train bombing decide the recent Spanish election? Not so fast. My friend Luke of Expats against Bush happened to be visiting Barcelona during the recent attack, and his experience conforms closely with this Post article. Namely, it was Aznar's lousy spin job as much as the bombing which decided the election. And, let's be real -- Given that 90% of Spain was against continued involvement in the Iraq war prior to the attack, it's not as if the new government is coming out of nowhere with its decision to withdraw Spanish troops. Obviously, this act of terror didn't help matters for the Popular Party, but the foundation of this decision by the electorate was paved long before by George W. Bush's amateurish diplomacy. Instead of seeing common cause with our nation after a horrible terrorist attack, the Spanish people have been more repelled by Dubya's preemptive sideshow and his continued insults to international intelligence. At this point, if Bush really wants to figure out which world leaders would prefer John Kerry, all he has to do is look around.

Nat Hentoff files another dispatch on Guantanamo, and it ain't pretty. "The authority to unilaterally keep a defendant locked up?conceivably for the rest of his or her life?used to be reserved solely for kings, who could ignore any part of the realm's legal system. This monarchical power?as I've indicated in reporting on the indefinite imprisonment, without charges, of American citizens Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla?has been expanded by George W. Bush to include defendants at Guantᮡmo."

The Senate Intelligence Committee moves toward subpoenaing Bush for various documents regarding the lead-up to war, documents which the administration has tried to withhold on the grounds of executive privilege. Hmm, I wonder...will the shrill echoes of Dubya's gay-baiting be enough to mask the whirring of the shredders? Somehow, I doubt it.

Unfortunately, I missed Dubya's flailing about on Russert Sunday morning, so I can't really venture an opinion about how that went. (The rightniks seem dour about it.) But Salon has put up an interesting presidential popularity chart, which shows that Dubya's approval rating has only spiked thrice: 9/11, the Iraq War, and Saddam's capture. Makes you wonder if Karl Rove is on the phone with Pakistan this very moment.

In case you missed the State of the Union address last night, this cartoon anticipated the upshot: terror, terror, terror, 9/11, 9/11, fear, fear, fear, steroids, thank you, good night, and God bless the USA. It's wonder they didn't pass out little bloody shirts for the Congressional GOP to wave in unison. Well, while this New York Times news analysis of the speech sounds like it was written by the Bush campaign (he "quickly turned" to domestic issues? What is Todd Purdum talking about? Dubya was blathering on about scary, scary terrorists for at least 40 minutes), I gotta think that this speech might've played badly to any voters out there concerned about the economy, and this year as always, it's still the economy, stupid.