Johnny Coli

Semantics, really, as "the goal posts" as GG put it, are being moved by both sides. The loser in the whole "mission accomplished" photo op is really Bush and the Neocons. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. The mission as he originally defined it (which was pretty vague to begin with) was unseating Saddam from power and finding WMDs, followed by democratizing Iraq. Saddam was removed from power and there weren't any WMDs, so yeah, that mission was kind of accomplished--if you really lower the bar. As for democratizing Iraq, that's a colossal failure. In fact, you could make the case that the NeoCons botching the occupation phase pretty much destroyed any chance for a secular, democratized Iraq. Iraq is now in a civil war and the US occupying force is bogged down in the middle of it. Personally, in my opinion (which I'm repeatedly told doesn't amount to much around here) there is no way the US military can affect any positive change in Iraq from this point forward, really. All the reasonable Iraqis are being executed or have left. All that are left are the ones who hate each other and us, or the ones that can't leave. The US military will be a convenient scapegoat for all of Iraq's ills until if and/or when we leave. Why prolong the inevitable? The next POTUS, Dem or Rep will undoubtedly redeploy the military out of Iraq. Why, you ask? Because no pro-war candidate will ever win the national election. So, why not start getting them out now? It's not like either the House or Senate plans call for a total abandonment of Iraq (despite what some in the GOP or here say). The US military won't get the orders to bug out on a friday and be gone by sunday afternoon. That's just an ignorant and false accusation to make. People don't like links on this board, but how many here have actually read the legislation? No where in that legislation does it call for abandoning the military. No where in that legislation does it call for stopping the flow of funds to the troops. The legislation calls for goals and benchmarks to be met, or the redeployment begins. What the hell is wrong with setting benchmarks? Why would Bush be against setting reasonable goals for the sovereign Iraqis to control their own country? Because Bush will never admit any mistakes, will never take the blame for anything, will never abandon Iraq because that's pretty much all he's got at this point. Iraq is his legacy. To leave Iraq and admit he fugged it up would be to admit his presidency is a failure. He's shown zero humility to this point, I don't see him showing any now. It's a shame that the US military is paying for that level of hubris.

There's an excellent interview in GQ with fired US-atty David Iglesias (Purged: A Q&A with Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias (3/28/2007). It's a pretty interesting insider's view (from the point of view of one of the fired USA's, of course) on what went down. It's important to remember here that this was a Bush appointee, and a faithful career Republican. Unfortunately for Iglesias (and several others who were purged), integrity isn't as high on Bush/Rove's list as mindless loyalty. Iglesias isn't a stupid man. You don't get to be a US-atty for being a naive person. Subsequently, he's very keen on who had him fired him and why. Politicizing the DOJ, and removing prosecutors with integrity in swing states. Just business-as-usual for these people.

Well it's a damn good thing that Blair and Bush have been fighting so hard on benalf of the Geneva Convention wrt detainees lately. You wouldn't want something like that to come back and bite you in the ass.

I am the only one that really knows what is going on, but I'm too fashionably angry to stab it all out on my keyboard. Rest assured though, buddy-boy, it will be friggin' huge!

USMC Shuns Marked Men

We clearly didn't read the same column (actually I read it in another paper and it had a different title "The fashionably furious wear their rage with pride"...still the same crap, though). In the George Will column I read, he begins in the first paragraph suggesting that the anger people feel today is "fury as fashion." Excuse me? That's not entering into a debate on public discourse with the premise of toning down rhetoric. Right out of the gate he's attempting to belittle the passion of that segment of the electorate that he doesn't agree with. I've got news for you George, the electorate isn't putting on a show...they're really mad. And with that notion, he's off into the over-mined territory of trashing San Fran (talk about mailing it in). Way to stay above it all, Will. Got to get in the subliminal shot at the Dems... The man has nothing left on his fastball...nothing. Must. Attack. The. Hippies. Now, having established that the crazy hippies are only spoiling for a fight because they're bored and shallow, he's on to the crux of his column...the dirty hippies are attacking George Bush. Not becasue they might feel that the country is going in the wrong direction. Not because they might have real questions as to the legality of what this administration is trying to do. Nope, they're just looking to express themselves using the new fashionable lexicon based on anger. I'm sure all those independents that flocked to the polls and overwhelmingly pulled the blue levers were just trying to belong...just trying to fit in and gain some "anger prestige." Thankfully, we have people like George Will to reign us in and remind us of the good old days when all that anger boiled under the surface and we could channel it against the Commies, flouridated water and anybody that didn't look like us. What, no Ronald Reagan references...no Hellcats of the Navy? No The Green Berets? The only way to finish a column like that is to go straight for the standard conservative meat-and-potatos swipe at Clinton (yawn), and today's "politics of disdain" (making sure to mention the Chairman of the Democratic party ). Poor Bush. A victim of the lefties' anger and the politics of disdain. Who can we turn to to raise the public discourse?

Will’s sermon got what it deserved. To suggest that the public anger directed toward this administration is some fad is insulting and entirely wrong. His disingenuous horror at the public discourse and criticism leveled at George W Bush is the true act of theatre here. Poor Will can’t fathom that all the “hate” directed at this president could possibly be the very real psyche of the people—it must be pretend criticism, it must be anger manufactured to impress their peers, it couldn’t possibly have it’s motives based on how an informed electorate actually feels about this administration. And to prove this he mentions blogs and angry liberal “road rage” in San Francisco? The thesis of his column is complete nonsense, and I bet he knows it’s complete nonsense.

Excellent job, sir. I haven't had time to watch any of the show this season. Perhaps I'll do what The Dean did last year and just read the thread here, which I'm sure is way more entertaining than the show. Good job.

I’m going to have to disagree with George Will. George Will is an entrenched beltway journalist columnist who pines for the good-old-days when gas-bags like him could pontificate and/or mail in a column twice a week then hit the DC cocktail circuit and glad-hand with the rest of the elitists. Far be it from George Will to actually ask a hard question instead of acting like a doe-eyed twelve-year-old meeting his sports hero when eating freedom cheese and drinking champagne in a ballroom with the political celebrities he so adores. Will seems generally taken aback that anyone would be angry with Bush, and according to him it must all be an act. Well, people are actually angry with this administration—the lies, the open-ended and pointless war for legacy, the corruption, the arrogance. People in America aren’t feigning anger as an emotional fashion statement, they are legitimately pissed at what has happened to this country at the hands of George W. Bush. Will mentions “bloggers”, as if internet blogs (I’m making the assumption that Will is particularly upset with any left-leaning internet sites, as he mentions repeatedly how angry everyone is with his hero, Dubya) are the source of hate and vitriol in this country, conveniently failing to mention right-wing hate radio and Fox News. If he would put down his martini for a second and turn on a TV, radio, or actually log onto the internets instead of beltway party-hopping he would see that there is just as much hate coming through the right window of his limo as the left. He singles out Howard Dean, yet makes no mention of Ed Gillespie or Ken Mehlman. He holds up SF (and those crazy liberals!) as an example of parking rage when he could have easily used any city in America. But when your going from brownstone-to-brownstone in a Lincoln Town Car on your paper’s voucher you just don’t get a good feel for the problem. Perhaps after Will’s current spell of the vapors wears off he might take a gander at the polls (or read up on how the past election turned out) and see how the citizens of America feel about how well his hero is doing. People are pissed and it’s not for some exhibitionist show, it’s not pretend, and they’re not doing it to impress anyone. People are mad because, unlike George Will, they are actually informed as to what’s going on in this country.

Just speculating of course, because I haven't read up on any of this...but could they be trying to crack down on gang affiliation tattoos?

There are about five or six links in this thread about why the two (Clinton/Reno removing USAs in '93, Bush removing the same number of USAs in '01, but the additional eight subsequently under suspicious circumstances) are not the same and I don't see the point in continuing to knock down that GOP talking point yet again. Explain to me how she would be in legal jeopardy were she be forced to testify giving "her most truthful and accurate testimony"? Where exactly is the legal jeopardy? You plead the Fifth to avoind incriminating yourself. This isn't a criminal investigation (yet). Libby was prosecuted and convicted for lying under oath during a grand jury investigation. Are you suggesting that Goodling is invoking her Fifth Amendment rights because if she does go before Congress she intends to lie under oath? I'm pretty sure you can't take the Fifth because you intend to perjure yourself. Plus, she hasn't testified before anybody yet, so she couldn't have even committed the act of perjury. Can you take the Fifth to keep from testifying about someone else's perjury? Any lawyers out there? Actually, it's become a politically charged environment because no one as of yet will testify under oath (Sampson is this week, I believe). It's also become a politically charged environment because McNulty admitted before Congress that Cummins was removed for political reasons. The Bushies have only themselves to blame.

I'd like to change my pick to Bernard Silver, whose invention made the simple act of taking retail inventory that much more mundane. I will hoist a Pabst in his honor.

This statement is completely ignorant. To even suggest that KISS were better musicians than the Ramones (or Paul Cook and Steve Jones of the Pistols) shows your complete lack of knowledge of the subject. The KISS roadies haven't plugged Paul Stanley's or Gene Simmons' instruments into actual amplifiers since the late 70s. I can name any one of hundreds of "punk" musicians that had far and away more talent than the majority of your 70s rock heros.

Chuck Barris TV game-show producer and host by day, CIA hitman by early evening.

Did you even read the second and third links you've posted? This is hardly the scandal you are proclaiming it to be. One of the six women that was interviewed lied to the interviewer, and it was the NYT who posted the correction mea culpa. So, interviewer is lied to (and taking away this woman's account doesn't change the gist of the article at all, btw), Times runs piece, Times finds out about discrepancy, Times runs correction, erynthered clears some room on a shelf in his den for the Pulitzer in investigative reporting he most surely deserves. I'll take my chances with the NYT.

Interesting interview on NBC last night if you’re into train wrecks. Alberto was interviewed by Pete Williams, seemingly in an effort to clear up some of the mess he’s gotten into over the US-atty purge. He didn’t do so swell. The attorney general talks to NBC's Pete Williams in an exclusive interview Wow. Remember, this is the US Attorney General who doesn’t do himself any favors in a softball interview. Is there any wonder why the Admin doesn’t want any of these people testifying under oath, on the record and in public? One other neat little tidbit to mull over while we watch Gonzo flop around…how far up Dubya’s Supreme Court Justice nominee list do you think he was?

Anarchy will be six weeks early this year.

We are in complete agreement on this subject, Joseph. You could make the case that the Ramones were/are the greatest Rock and Roll band of all time. They were equally as proficient in cranking out pop masterpieces as the Beatles, and did it for a far longer period of time.

Probably should've swapped those around.

Just when you could have sworn Gonzales and Cheney had all the copies shredded or burned, Gonzo's Senior Counsel (and liason to the WH ) dusts off a copy of the Constitution so she can plead the Fifth. Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment Imagine that, a Senior Counsel at the DOJ pleading the Fifth. Nah, there's nothing illegal going on. Seems Goodling doesn't want to be "scootered" for this one and end up doing Rove's and/or Abu Gonzales' prison time. Hell'uv a job, Gonzo!

As a whole, I do not believe that the countries in that region want to see region-wide chaos, no. In fact, isn't "spreading the chaos outward" more of a Neocon policy for the region, in the hopes that the governments would be overthrown? Be that as it may, incorporating the surrounding regional powers in the diplomacy for the region is what the Iraq Study Group had in mind, not a round-table of insurgent gang leaders. Khalizad said he had dialogue with insurgent groups both before and after Samarra, so to suggest that Samarra was his "reward" for those talks is not bourne out by any direct evidence. He may not have even been talking with people that had any influence at all. From the today's paper based on the Khalilizad interview with the NYT on Friday (Today's NYT):

I don't think anyone would argue that Patraeus is a fine commander. But do you think he has complete autonomy to handle the Iraq occupation? I don't, and nothing I've seen so far wrt how Bush has interacted with the military suggests otherwise.

There is a real solution--phased redeployment and force the Iraqis to start controlling their own country. Start working diplomatically with the other countries in the region that have a vested interest in a stable Mid-East. This was all put forth in the bipartisan Iraq plan last fall...the one that Bush ignored. Also, you say you measure success in Iraq using stability. If you're using that as your benchmark then Iraq is a total failure. Stay the course? It's not working. Doing what's best for the long-term does not mean continue doing what you're doing (which isn't working by even your measure of success), but even longer. Ending the US military occupation of Iraq is not a concrete recipe for chaos. Furthermore, ending the US military occupation of Iraq does not mean the US is withdrawing all influence and presense from the Mid-East. It doesn't even mean a complete abandonment of Iraq. Iraq is not Germany or Japan, and it is precisely that thinking that has put the US in the position it is in. No sovereign nation's government will be considered legitimate as long as they require another nation's military to prop it up. The empty rhetoric that this bill doesn't fund the troops is false. The money is there for the troops. However, the money is not there for a prolonged, open-ended occupation of Iraq to be used at the discretion of the President. The troops will be paid. The troops will get everything they need. I would argue that screwing the troops is continuing to involve them in a bogged-down occupation of a country with no end in sight. And I would like someone to make the argument that this bill is unconstitutional, rather than stating that it is because they think so. Let's see someone bust out their Con Law texts and put forth the legal reasoning behind that statement.

One opinion of many. Newsweek poll 3/14-15/07: 69% disapproval of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, 64% oppose President Bush's decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq Polls suck.