IDIOCRACY

An average of more than 110 Iraqis were killed each day in July, according to the figures (from the Iraqi Health Ministry and Baghdad morgue). The total number of civilian deaths that month, 3,438, is a 9 percent increase over the tally in June and nearly DOUBLE THE TOLL IN JANUARY. (emphasis mine)

The rising numbers suggested that sectarian violence is spiraling out of control, and seemed to bolster an assertion many senior Iraqi officials and American military analysts have made in recent months: that the country is already embroiled in a civil war, not just slipping toward one, and that the American-led forces are caught between Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias.
--"Number of Civilian Deaths Highest in July, Iraqis Say," Edward Wong and Damien Cave, New York Times, August 16, 2006.


The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraq rose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering more evidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi).

Along with a sharp increase in sectarian attacks, the number of daily strikes against American and Iraqi security forces has DOUBLED SINCE JANUARY. (emphasis mine) The deadliest means of attack, roadside bombs, made up much of that increase. In July, of 2,625 explosive devices, 1,666 exploded and 959 were discovered before they went off. (In January, 1,454 bombs exploded or were found.)

"The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels," said a senior Defense Department official…."The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time."
--"Bombs Aimed at G.I.'s in Iraq Are Increasing," Michael R. Gordon (author of Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, published by Random House, 2006), Mark Mazzetti, and Thom Shanker, New York Times, August 17, 2006.


As U.S. and Iraqi forces focus their efforts on taming sectarian violence in Baghdad, Wednesday's bloodshed served as a reminder of the tenuous security conditions across Iraq, and how precariously the country teeters on the edge of civil war…

Lately…the Shiite-dominated south appears to be spiraling into an abyss of violence, fueled largely by power struggles within the religious sect.
"Rival Shiite Militias Clash in Southern Iraq," Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post, August 17, 2006.


Unsure of the loyalties of Iraqi forces, U.S. officers sometimes lie to Iraqi army commanders about where they are going on joint missions and require Iraqi soldiers to give up their cellphones before leaving camp. Police are distrusted even more.

Ironically, as Iraqis increasingly fight among themselves, many look to the U.S. military to broker their conflicts.
--"Strife Moving Out from Baghdad to Villages: Shiites, Sunnis Vie for Control of Diyala Province," Ana Scott Tyson, Washington Post, August 16, 2006.


At a newsconference…President Bush himself weighed in on the subject: "YOU KNOW, I HEAR PEOPLE SAY, WELL, CIVIL WAR THIS, CIVIL WAR THAT." (emphasis mine)
"Snake Eyes," Hendrik Hertzberg, The New Yorker, posted online August 14, 2006, for the August 21, 2006 issue.


Id-i-ot/n/: a feeble-minded person requiring complete custodial care
--Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Idiocy, n. vacuity, vapidity, senselessness. See FOLLY. Ant., see INTELLECT.
--Roget's College Thesaurus



You know, since our Idiot in Chief likes to refer so very frequently to those sinister SOME PEOPLE all the time, as in, some people say…Well, I shall do the same thing.

SOME PEOPLE SAY that we no longer have a democracy, that in fact, we now have a burgeoning theocracy. Some people say we don't even have that. That, in fact, what we have is a dictatorship.

(One of those "some people" who worried about such a fate for this country was former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, a Republican appointed by Bush's god--Ronald Reagan. Not to be confused with his personal savior--Karl Rove.)

But it wasn't until I happened upon a critical review of a movie due out this fall that I realized what we REALLY have in our government, from the White House on down: an IDIOCRACY.

I wish I could make a big joke out of this and play along with the spirit of the soon-to-be-released movie, starring Luke Wilson--one of those Hollywood silly fluffy goofy stupid things that appeals to our baser instincts--but I'm afraid that since the decisions made by this neocon Idiocracy are indeed matters of LIFE AND DEATH, then I fail to see the humor.

There are several important facts to layer onto the appalling statistics quoted in the lead of this post. For example--those 3,438 Iraqis who died in the violence in July alone?

Well, folks, that's just Baghdad.

Casualties outside of the capitol never make an official count because so many of the bodies are never documented--they're just dumped into rivers or into mass graves. And even if somebody somewhere counts them, it's hard to get that count reported to Baghdad because counting methods are haphazard and the grim and gruesome daily reality of life in Iraq tends to shred any semblance of organization and documentation.

Along with that, both the United States government and the military as well as the Iraqi government drastically underreport the levels of violence to the news media.

As far as American casualties go, there is much more to take note of than just how many soldiers and Marines have died in Iraq during these bloody months.

Like how many were maimed and mutilated. And who is putting those IED's in their path.


The number of Americans wounded has soared--to 518 IN JULY FROM 287 IN JANUARY. (emphasis mine) Explosive devices accounted for slightly more than half the deaths…

In addition to bombs, attacks with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and small-caliber weapons against American and Iraqi military forces have also increased, according to American military officials. But the number of roadside bombs--or improvised explosive devices as they are known by the military--is an especially important indicator of enemy activity. Bomb attacks are the largest killer of American troops. They also require a network: a bomb maker; financiers to pay for the effort; and operatives to dig holes in the road, plant the explosives, watch for approaching American and Iraqi forces and set off the blast when troops approach.
--"Bombs Aimed at G.I.'s in Iraq Are Increasing," Michael R. Gordon, Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker, New York Times, August 17, 2006.


More truth behind the statistics of sectarian violence in Iraq: It's spreading like a bloodstain.


…What U.S. and Iraqi military officials call a bleeding of sectarian strife out from Baghdad…

Sunni fighters are trying to push Shiite families out of the region (the mixed province of Diyala, which stretches from Baghdad to the Iranian border), while Shiite militiamen from Baghdad are moving in aggressively to attack Sunnis and expand their turf, the officials say…

"We see the challenges of Baghdad being exported," said Maj. John Digiambattista, operations officer for a U.S. Army battalion here.
--"Strife Moving Out from Baghdad to Villages," Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, August 16, 2006.


What the Idiocracy failed to understand when they launched this unbelievably poorly-planned, poorly-executed, and PHONY war, was that there are sectarian strifes going back to the days of Mohammed--sects peeling off immediately following his death, killing one another for centuries. Toss into that boiling cauldron the rivalries and hatreds between the Persians of Iran and the Arabs of Iraq. Add to the explosive mix several generations of brutal suppression by Saddam's Sunni minority of the Shiite majority--and you get even a vague idea of where the retribution starts and where it will never end.

Baathists loyal to Saddam started fighting back against the Americans and the Shiites the first week of the invasion in 2003, and the Secretary of Idiocy Rumsfeld refused to send enough troops to secure the huge weapons and ammo dumps that had been left by Saddam, thus giving them a limitless supply of ways in which to kill us.

After the bombing of the mosque in Samarra in February, one of the holiest of Shiite shrines, the Shiites struck back in vicious and savage ways, with the infamous militia Death Squads, and because the Secretary of Idiocy Rumsfeld and the Idiot in Chief refused to take any of that seriously enough, the militias completely and thoroughly infiltrated the new government in Iraq and have been slaughtering Sunnis with the government's blessing and encouragement and funding--in spite of public posturing to the contrary.

Meanwhile, the Sunnis who live in mixed neighborhoods, and whose loved ones are turning up tortured to death in the local garbage heaps, are begging the Americans to help them, while further north, in all-Sunni areas, they're still murdering Americans every day. (Apparently, they don't care that the Americans are protecting their Sunni brothers in Baghdad.)

Along with this, the Shiites are willing to set aside their hatred of the Persians in order to court the approval of the Shiites in Iran, who also send along money and weaponry to help in their brutal payback of the Sunnis.

But see, this is only the tip of the iceberg. You have to also realize that within the Sunnis and within the Shiites, there are separate sects within each branch of Islam that are fighting one another for power. Shiites fighting Shiites and Sunnis fighting Sunnis.

With the Americans caught in the middle.

That does not even touch tribal loyalties, or devotion and adherence to sheiks and imams--the imams set themselves up as religious leaders and preach from the mosques but many of them are no better than Tony Soprano--they run little fiefdoms and they want more power.

Oh, and we can't forget the differences between those who want a secular government; that is, one that is not run by sheiks and imams, where religion does not run the government, and those who want a theocracy very much like the Taliban--like Moktada al-Sadr, the wicked and charismatic leader of the Mahdi army militia who has fought openly against the Americans from Day One and who lusts for power; he also holds 30 seats in the Iraqi Parliament. (They say he has studied Hezbollah and wants that kind of influence in the government. During the Lebanon war recently, he bused in more than 10,000 of his supporters, wearing symbolic burial shrouds, to protest Israel and the United States.) And of course, there is another charismatic leader with another militia army who opposes Sadr, and...oh, never mind.

Generally speaking, the Sunnis are more secular than the Shiites. But it is the Shiites who, thanks to George W. Bush, now hold the power. The prime minister himself lived in Iran in exile during the worst of the Saddam years and maintains close ties with that country. Back when the Idiocracy was busy planning their happy little war, they relied heavily on , Ahmad Chalabi, another exiled Iraqi, for most of the bogus intelligence they then fed to Cheney to justify the invasion.

After putting Chalabi in power in the provisional government, the Americans learned that their Golden Boy had been selling intelligence on American troop movements to Iran.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we set out to deceive.

And I'm also leaving out the hatred of the Shiites toward the U.S. because, back in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush urged them to rise up against Saddam after we had pulled out of Kuwait and the OTHER Gulf War was over?

He then stood back and allowed Saddam to slaughter tens of thousands of them in retribution.

See, according to the book, FIASCO: the American Military Adventure in Iraq, by Pulitzer Prize-winning war reporter Thomas E. Ricks, we knew they were doing it because even though we'd cut off their access to warplanes and maintained strict no-fly zones, we granted permission for the Iraqis to fly military helicopters, which they immediately used to destroy thousands of those deemed disloyal to Saddam.

And we did nothing.

I didn't even MENTION the Kurds and their ties to Turkey and the hatreds of the other two sects for the Kurds or how the Kurds are starting to fight one another up in the North.

Nor does this include the tiny--five percent--of "insurgents" who are actually al-Qaeda-funded terrorists who simply want to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.

And it does not account for the fact that every single one of these scenarios was predicted far in advance of this miserable failure of a war and THE IDIOTS WERE WARNED.

It's okay though. We've had sooo many "Mission Accomplished" moments, haven't we?


That insurgency did not die down when elections were held, when the constitution was ratified, when the government was formed or when the local leader of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed. The insurgency rages on, and no one knows when, how, or if it might end…

Things in Iraq are not going to get better by themselves. The answer is not blind perseverance in staying a course that has demonstrably failed.
--"Meanwhile, In Baghdad…", editorial, New York Times, August 16, 2006.


And yet, while Iraq implodes, collapsing inward like a rotten empty building, the Idiocracy marches on, continuing to order its longsuffering troops into one disastrous strategic mistake after another, one poorly-thought out mission after another, sending the same troops in to face death over and over and over again while the country they are dying for is so very preoccupied with the fact that Desperate Housewives got shut out of the Emmy nominations.

And our Idiot in Chief remains clueless.


More generally…the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. "I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States," said another person who attended (a private meeting with Bush at the Pentagon.)

(on the meeting), "They wanted new insight, so they could better understand the arena in which they are making policy," said Mr. Nasr, author of "The Shia Revival." He said he got no sense that the Bush administration was contemplating a shift in Iraq policy…
--"Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in Iraq," Thom Shanker and Mark Mazzetti, New York Times, August 16, 2006.


Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. There's a trumped-up WE'RE REALLY LISTENING meeting of Middle Eastern experts at the Pentagon with Bush in order to show that yes, he really does listen to differing points of view, because, let's see now, after invading a foreign country which posed no direct threat to the United States, fighting a bloody war there for three and one half years, losing tens of thousands of innocent lives and destroying or losing thousands of American lives…THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ARENA IN WHICH THEY ARE MAKING POLICY????

SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE DONE THIS FOUR YEARS AGO???

Oh, and by the way--they're still not going to change anything. So why bother to even attend their damn meetings?

Oh…but beware the Idiocracy.

Even idiots can be evil.

According to William M. Arkin, who writes for the New York Times on matters of national and homeland security, the Idiocracy is coming up with a whole new spin-package to cover up this catastrophic failure.

First, we went to war to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, which were a looming threat blah blah.

When that was proven to be a lie, we were suddenly battling "remnants" of the old regime and "foreign fighters" and "dead-enders" and the insurgency was "in its last throes."

When the "last throes" went on year after year, well, then, we were fighting to spread democracy.

When that didn't work so well, then it became, we are fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here.

After that, we were fighting until the Iraqi security forces could do their own fighting, so we could "stand down" when they "stand up."

But when the Iraqi security forces proved to be a bunch of traitorous dumbasses who started to fight EACH OTHER as well as aiding and abetting those who were fighting US, and the whole damn world knew that the Idiocracy had a major disaster on their hands…well, suddenly, we got a new "strategic communications" package out of the Idiocracy.

And here it is:

It's all al-Qaeda's fault.

That's right, boys and girls. According to the new White House talking points, the ONLY reason Shiites and Sunnis are cutting each other's throats, blowing each other up, and drilling one another's heads with power tools is that they are being STIRRED UP BY AL-QAEDA.

See?

It's not the Idiocracy's fault! Al-Qaeda did it!!!


The notion here is that nothing the United States is doing, nothing Israel is doing, nothing the West is doing or has done, contributed to the rise of al-Qaeda.

This is not wishful thinking.

This is blind and deceptive.
--"What Are We Fighting For? Not Democracy," William M. Arkin, New York Times, August 16, 2006.


On Wednesday, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the U.S. military's command spokesman in Baghdad, read from the core White House talking points on Iraq that the United States now faces an enemy in Iraq that seek to wear down the "will" of the American people…

This new anti-civil-war word war is a campaign, what the government calls, a "strategic communications" effort. The effort has many targets. In Washington, the target is the growing assumption that if there were a civil war, all bets would be off, that the war would have failed, that the Baghdad government would be doomed, and that the "stand up/stand down" strategy won't work. Strategic communications will neutralize this view.
--"In Iraq, It's All About Strategic Communications," William Arkin, New York Times, August 17, 2006.


Boys and girls, this is not funny.

It's not funny at all.

This photo-op president, who has treated this entire war like a political campaign, is continuing to do so, continuing to spend far more of his energies worrying about how to SPIN this war and MAKE POLITICAL POINTS with it than about HOW TO STRATEGIZE AND SUCCEED on the ground.

Now it's all about convincing the American people--just before the elections--when, mind you, we are INCREASING TROOP STRENGTH, NOT BRINGING TROOPS HOME--convincing them that this is NOT a civil war that our troops are furiously babysitting.

It's all about terrorism, see. Terrorists--the same ones who flew the planes into the towers--are causing all these problems in Iraq.

We are not accountable, says the Idiocracy. This is not our fault. And anyone who says so hates America and doesn't care about our brave troops like we do.

We're just putting it down George Orwell's memory hole--you know the one--the one where inconvenient truths are forgotten.


But whatever you think of the Democrats, the important point is this: They are not the party in power today…

What should worry the country is that the Bush team and the Republican Party, which control all the levers of power and claim to have thought only about this larger struggle, are in total denial about where their strategy has led…

Dick Cheney & Friends…(who focused) their public remarks on why Mr. Lamont's defeat of Mr. Lieberman only proves that Democrats do not understand that we are in a titanic struggle with "Islamic fascists" and are therefore unfit to lead…

Oh, really? Well, I just have one question for Mr. Cheney: If we're in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam, and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did you "tough guys" fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld Doctrine--just enough troops to lose--and not the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is security? How could you send so few troops to fight such an important war when it was obvious that without security Iraqis would fall back on their tribal militias?...

Please, Mr. Cheney, spare us your flag-waving rhetoric about the titanic struggle we are in and how Democrats just don't understand it. It is just so phony--such a patent ploy to divert Americans from the fact that you have never risen to the challenge of this war…What a fraud!

Friends, we are on a losing trajectory in Iraq…We need to reassess everything we are doing in this "war on terrorism" and figure out what is worth continuing, what needs changing and what sacrifice we need to demand from every American to match our means with our ends. Yes, the Democrats could help by presenting a serious alternative. But unless the party in power for the next two and a half years shakes free of its denial, we are in really, really big trouble.
--"Big Talk, Little Will," Thomas Friedman, New York Times, August 16, 2007.

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS VOTING

Remember the REAL war on terrorism that the Bush administration and its allies decided not to fight, preferring cowboy-style military adventures. (emphasis author's)

The revelation yesterday of the elaborate plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean with liquid explosives reminds us of the real threats we face--as opposed to the phantom threats that George W. Bush and Tony Blair have conjured to justify their disastrous war in Iraq…

…The bungled occupation of Iraq has drawn new recruits to the jihadist cause around the world, and now the disproportionate Israeli assault on Lebanon is doing the same thing. We are at war with an ideology, and pounding it frontally just disperses it. It's like trying to smash mercury with a hammer.
--"The War Bush Isn't Fighting," Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, August 11, 2006.


While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology…

…The (Homeland Security) department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration was also slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

…Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.
--"Bush Staff Wanted Bomb-Detect Cash Moved," John Soloman, Associated Press Writer, Yahoonews.com, August 12, 2006.


A nearly obsessive focus on the previous attacks may have prevented the federal government from combating new threats effectively, terrorist experts and former agency officials say.

The arrests overseas this week of people accused of planning to use an explosive that would be undetectable at airports illustrates the SIGNIFICANT SECURITY GAP, (emphasis mine) they said.
--"Focused on 9/11, U.S. Is Seen to Lag on New Threats," Eric Lipton and Matthew L. Wald, New York Times, August 12, 2006.


I must say, I'm amazed. Not that there was another terrorist plot underway against the U.S. Not that the combination of superb police work and counter-terrorism intelligence--NOT MILITARY MIGHT--on the part of the Brits, I repeat, Great Britain--foiled that plot. Not even the massive governmental panic that resulted and forced old ladies to fork over their diabolical lipstick and toothpaste tubes in order to protect our fair citizens, and those from England who wanted to visit us, from evil.

I'm not even amazed that the same government that gave us Katrina misery and malfeasance, and almost four years of death, destruction, and despair in Iraq--not to mention plummeting troop morale and dropping enlistment figures--plus reconstruction corruption and war pirateering unheard of…well, anyway, I'm not amazed that this same Republican-misrun government would be caught with its pants down, exposed and unprepared for real threats…even though--again, not surprised!--THEIR OWN EXPERTS WARNED THEM AND THEY EVEN HAD THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO CONCENTRATE ON SAID THREATS.

No.

This is what amazes me.

That such incompetency SOMEHOW, SOME WAY…managed to get twisted around by the Republicans to be another Swift-boat attack on who? The Democrats!

Yep. Somehow this is all the Democrats' fault, and furthermore, if we hapless Democrats continue to vote for such terrorist-enablers as Ned Lamont, well, we're all dead. The terrorists win. There will be a mushroom cloud over Manhattan. And Bin Laden will be LAUGHING at us!

Therefore. We must, WE MUST trust the Republicans to KEEP US SAFE.

So, boys and girls. Let's review:

I'm not even going to do it myself. Actually, I already have, in an earlier blog called, "Are We Safer Yet?" (June 21, 2006.)

Instead, I'm going to quote at length from a superb article by Robert Kuttner in the Boston Globe. I wish I could reprint the whole damn thing here, but the high points are sure worth repeating:


…The general ideological and military menace of militant Islamism, are all jumbled into a single all-purpose word--Waronterror. And if you're AGAINST the Bush strategy, you are of course WITH the terrorists. (emphasis author's.)

"Bipartisan" Democrats such as Lieberman, who help President Bush, are good guys. Those who question Bush's strategy help our enemies and make America less safe. The November elections, and the future of our security, will depend on whether Americans see through this blarney. If the right succeeds in persuading voters that this is all one undifferentiated mess requiring Bush-style bravado, America is in even deeper trouble…

Did Al Qaeda have any connection to Saddam Hussein? (No.)

Was Bush's Iraq war a debilitating diversion of attention and resources from the more important ongoing battle against Al Qaeda? (Yes.)

Did Bush spend most of 2001 blowing off warnings about Al Qaeda, shutting out people like national security official Richard Clarke who actually knew something about terrorism, and ignoring escalating warnings of a plot in progress? (Yes.)

Has the Iraq war made America a more effective force for stability and against militant Islamism? (No.)

Did Bush's grand strategy advance the cause of Middle East democracy and civility? (No.)

Did Bush's larger design for the Middle East make Israel more secure? (No.)…

This argument isn't about who supports terrorists. It's about the right strategy for protecting America. And ever since this president took office, his policies have set back that cause…

After more than five years of Bush's blundering grandiosity, a majority of Americans are increasingly skeptical of his policies. America has never faced anything like the hydra-headed threat of Islamist terrorism. Bush's entire performance, from assumption to execution, has placed America at greater risk. To say that is not to abet terrorism, and Bush's critics should be saying it loud and clear.
--"A Convenient Threat," Robert Kuttner, August 12, 2006.


So, they haven't made us safer. They've just been very very good at promoting mythology.

Well, lies.

And in fact, at first, when I questioned the amazing timing of the wide media release of this terrifying terror plot and subsequent logjam of airports, I thought I was just being paranoid.

That is, until I started reading similar accusations in legitimate news outlets. I would have expected it from Buzzflash. But MSNBC? The Associated Press? The Washington Post?

C'mon.

One reporter flat-out asked Tony Snow, White House press secretary, about when the White House had known, when Dick Cheney had known, and how the decision was made to release that information RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF (a) CONTINUING BAD NEWS FROM IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST AND (b) NATIONAL QUESTIONING OF REPUBLICAN POLICIES IN THOSE WARS AFTER THE BUSH-FLUNKY DEFEAT IN CONNECTICUT BY AN ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE.

And here is a direct quote, from MSNBC, of Tony Snow's reply:

Spokesman Tony Snow was asked directly whether the Administration knew of this terrorist plot beforehand (he said yes) and whether they knew the news about it would break today--just after they had whacked Democrats on Lamont's victory. Snow's answer raised our eyebrows. "Let me put it this way, I don't want to encourage that line of thought. I don't think it's fully accurate, but I also don't want--I know it's frustrating, but we really don't want to get too much into who knew what, where, when."
--"GOP Still Trying to Make Hay from Lamont Win," Mark Murray, MSNBC.com, August 10, 2006.



Boys and girls, are you paying attention?

This was not a denial.

So the White House--and particularly Dick Cheney--pretty much orchestrated this whole thing so they could pull up flagging poll numbers on their number-one campaign issue--the so-called "war on terror."

Much the same way that, during the presidential race of 2004, they often called a hysterical panicky orange-alert whenever John Kerry was looking particularly good.

I'm not saying that the Brits did not stop evil men from trying to kill innocent civilians in a massive headline-grabbing way. This is what terrorists plot and this is what terrorists do, and the only real way to fight them is through extremely good intelligence and extremely good law enforcement. You cannot fight an unconventional war with conventional means. Ask my son and his buddies--Marines who spent the better part of the past two years trying to do just that in Fallujah, Ramadi, and other Iraqi hellzones.

You cannot smash mercury with a hammer. It just disperses in millions of little mercury-balls that poison and kill anyone who handles them.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that either the White House pushed Tony Blair to rush the arrests in order to get the most political gain just before some grim-looking mid-term elections, or at the very least, knew full well the arrests were pending just as they stepped up their Swift-boat attacks on the Democrats, so that they could get the most mileage out of it.

And don't think it will stop with fear-mongering to get votes. The White House has already admitted that they intend to use this terror-scare to shove their agenda through Congress:

White House officials said Friday that the fallout from the discovery of the British bombing plot could help the administration advance its agenda in Congress. The officials cited in particular battles over supervising the program of eavesdropping without warrants and how to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Taking the White House's lead, Republicans throughout the country used the arrests of terror suspects in Britain to go on the offensive against Democrats for the second day in a row.

--"Bush Aides Foresee Gains on Eavesdropping and Guantanamo," Jim Rutenberg, August 12, 2006.

You can expect to hear one administration spokesperson after another hype up the White House agenda, no matter what their position in the government. Expect them to slip into their comments the same talking-points, and at the same time, to HINT, for instance, that the terrorists were caught because of warrantless surveillance. The terrorists were caught in Great Britain and we don't know how that was done, but the Republicans have never cared very much for the truth. They will say whatever they have to in order to advance their agenda.

Watch for mainstream media to allow them ample room to make these bogus claims and make no effort to refute what they are saying, or to check out the "facts" presented in the broadcast. Print journalists will come closer, but most are deadline-driven and don't want to take the time.

It's up to the voters to ferret out the real truth themselves. Don't just swallow whole what you are fed.

Boys and girls, I have said it before and I cannot say it too many times.

Know when you are being manipulated.

Know that those in power in this administration will do anything to stay in power, will say anything to stay in power, will try anything to stay in power.

They will take a real threat, and rather than efficiently dealing with that threat through well-funded research and development and careful heading of experts in the field who know, will stumble around and heedlessly let the threat get out of control, because they are busy, as one counter-terrorism expert said tonight on NBC Nightly News: "They are working to prevent the last attack."

--Rather than deal with it intelligently, they will bumble and stumble around until it grows into a SERIOUS threat, and then they will say things like, "No one could have foreseen this," and then they will USE IT AS A WEAPON TO ATTACK ANYONE WHO DARES TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR OWN INCOMPETENCE.

Don't fall for it. Not again. For five years, the American people have voted from a deep dark well of post traumatic stress disorder.

PTSD voting put these miserable failures in control of our destiny.

Now, we're getting some serious group therapy; we're getting better. Oliver Stone is even making a movie about our shared trauma and we're watching it.

We're starting to think straight now.

Vote intelligently. Don't be fooled. Let them be fooled.

I'll close with a great quote--only slightly tongue-in-cheek, from an editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News, called, "Bush and Cheney's Reign of Error":


These people have no shame. Their contempt for democracy is so great they will stop at nothing to undermine it. Their adherence to fundamentalist beliefs that blinds them to reality is frightening. They must be stopped.

And that's just the Republicans.
--"Bush and Cheney's Reign of Error," editorial, Philadelphia Daily News, August 11, 2006.

WOULD EVERYBODY PLEASE JUST CALM DOWN???

Election coverage saw conservative columnists feverishly denouncing a "liberal inquisition against Lieberman; they attacked "Ned's nutcases" and "crazies." Given the invective aimed at Lamont's grassroots and Netroots supporters, it was fun to see Fox news pundit Mort Kondracke whining that Lieberman's defeat could mean the end of "civility in American politics" and a victory for "hatred politics" and "savage Internet-based attacks." Persecuted Lieberman was "The Last Honest Man," according to a Washington Post column…In the Washington Post, David Broder--the "dean of political journalists"--denigrated Lamont's "elitist insurgents" and argued that a Lieberman primary defeat could push Democrats "toward a stronger anti-war stand" and troubles in general elections.

Broder didn't mention the latest polling that shows 63% of Americans saying the war isn't worth the cost, and only 30% saying it is.
--Jeff Cohen, "Lamont's Victory--a Media Defeat," Buzzflash.com guest contribution, August 10, 2006.

"…a rejection of the Sunni-Shi'ite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachments to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency…the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi…"
--"Party No. 3," David Brooks, New York Times, August 10, 2006

Meanwhile, Republicans showed their determination to try to exploit the results of Tuesday's primary in the November elections by claiming that Democrats had been captured by the anti-war left. Vice President Dick Cheney IN A CALL INITIATED BY HIS OFFICE TO NEWS SERVICE REPORTERS (emphasis mine)…went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage "al Queda types."

…Lieberman's campaign also confirmed an ABC News report that White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove had called the senator Tuesday night…
--"Democratic Leadership Welcome's Lamont; Lieberman Shuns Calls to Drop Out," Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz, Washington Post, August 10, 2006.

An article by New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney about Ned Lamont's victory over incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut primary stated that Democrats are "struggling to arrive at a unified position about the (Iraq) war," contradicting an article Nagourney wrote JUST EIGHT DAYS EARLIER (emphasis mine), in which he reported that "most of the Democratic leadership had unified around a position" on the war.

Which is it? Is the party "struggling to arrive at a unified position"? Or is there "little room…for Iraq war opponents"? Or are both statements simply mindless repetition of flawed anti-Democratic storylines?
"NYT's Nagourney Contradicted His Own Reporting to Suggest Dems in Disarray," MediaMatters.org, August 10, 2006.


Okay, boys and girls. Time for us all to step back, take a deep breath, and re-enroll in Deanie's Mythology 101 class once again.

At first, I didn't pay that much attention to the Lieberman-Lamont contest for the Democratic nomination for Senate because, well, it's up in CONNECTICUT and therefore should really only be of interest to people who LIVE IN CONNECTICUT and therefore VOTE FOR THE CONNECTICUT SENATE NOMINEE.

But, alas, yet again, the Republican spin-machine has taken hold of an issue and turned it into a matter of LIFE OR DEATH that should worry all of us, because if the candidate the Republicans don't support loses, well, AL QUEDA WILL GET US AGAIN!!!!!

I mean, it's bad enough when Dick Cheney inserts himself into Democratic politics. Or, God forbid, Karl Rove. (What the hell was Karl Rove doing calling a Democratic senator who had just lost a primary, anyway? Karl Rove and Dick Cheney care about NOTHING BUT PRESERVING THEIR REPUBLICAN POWER-BASE. They do not--repeat--DO NOT CARE about Joe Lieberman.)

Normally, for instance, I have a great deal of respect for conservative columnist David Brooks. I don't agree with most of what he writes, but his tone is usually measured and reasoned and well worth considering. Sometimes he even wins me over.

But I must say, that comparing a Democratic primary race in Connecticut with Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents and claiming that Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi is a jihadist goes waaaay beyond the pale.

Mr. Brooks, my son just spent the better part of two years of his life trying to stay alive while REAL Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents tried to murder him and anyone else who disagrees with them. To compare ANYTHING in American politics with such bloody tribal retribution that goes back centuries is irresponsible and outrageous.

Shame on you.

And I would really like to know where the party who has embraced the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and on and on and on (not to mention Tom DeLay and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney) gets off moaning about any Democrat, anywhere, of hatred politics.

How dare they.

Now, for a little myth-busting.

Myth No. 1:

The Connecticut Democratic primary race was all about the war in Iraq.

Boys and girls, if you think that Joe Lieberman lost a Democratic primary just because he supported George W. Bush's failed policies in Iraq, well, as my mother used to say, You've got another think comin', missy.

Here are some of Joe Lieberman's stands on various issues:

1. Along with Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, Lieberman backed the conservative Republican stand on Terry Schiavo.

2. He favors school vouchers diverting American tax dollars to religious schools.

4. He has been silent on issues such as:

* the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo
*warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping
*the nomination of right-wing judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court

5. He supported a decision by Connecticut's catholic hospitals to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims.

6. He was the first Democrat to speak out forcefully against Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky

7. He played the gentlest softball possible during the vice-presidential debate with Dick Cheney in 2000 and throughout the campaign. He also hedged his bets by retaining his senate seat--just in case Gore lost.

8. The White House has repeatedly referred to him as their "favorite Democrat," culminated by George W. Bush planting a kiss on his cheek after the State of the Union address last year.

9. As the war in Iraq has gone from bad to worse, with Bush administration mistakes mounting, costing more and more American casualties and completely destabilizing the region, making the U.S. LESS, not MORE safe--other senators and congresspeople on both sides of the aisle who once voted to support the war have come to temper their remarks and hold the administration accountable. Although Lieberman claims to have done the same, his most public remarks have continued to stubbornly support "staying the course." He has even stated that his defeat in the primary literally means that Democrats are weak on terrorism--the VERY CLAIM MADE BY CHENEY, ROVE, AND THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN MYTH-MAKERS.

10. He began collecting signatures to run as an Independent should he lose WEEKS before announcing that he intended to do so, hedging his bets against the Democrats yet again.

11. He has fired his entire campaign staff, including those who've been with him for years, and refuses to speak to old Democratic friends who chose to back Lamont in the primary. Apparently, however, he had no problem taking a phone call from Karl Rove.



Myth No. 2:

Lamont was a one-issue candidate who simply harped on Lieberman's stand on the war and let a bunch of hotheads in the blogosphere take it and run. It's the only reason he won.

Ned Lamont relied on two powerful allies to win this election: old-style grassroots politics and new-style netroots politics:



He tapped the Net roots to promote his cause--but the grass roots to win over voters.

…As the hype grew, the campaign stuck to the basics. It focused n building a file of likely voters, organizing a turnout effort and circulating Lamont at events, including small gatherings in living rooms.

"He went from town to town, house to house, for months. It defined grass-roots campaigning," said Tom Matzzie, political director for MoveOn.org…

…He decided to pursue both avenues for getting on the ballot: collecting signatures and wooing Democratic delegates at state conventions. Both required aggressive outreach and helped to expand his support base.
--"Lamont Relied on Net Roots--and Grass Roots," Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, August 9, 2006.

Consider the way Democratic politics has worked for most of the past 40 years. (The article goes on to describe the traditional courting of powerful interest groups such as unions.) Under this old model, Mr. Lieberman was an all-star. He was a reliable vote on what Connecticut liberals care about: defending the right to abortion, fighting oil drilling in the Alaskan arctic, raising the minimum wage…

But over the past six years this old model has broken down…traditional Democratic interest groups have steadily lost ground to a more partisan, progressive movement skilled at using the Internet to communicate and raise money. The most visible faces of the new movement are the thousands of political bloggers--and their millions of readers…

The new gang doesn't care so much about any one issue; it wants Democrats to present a united…front.
--"The Lieberman Lesson," Noam Scheiber, New York Times, August 9, 2006

Lamont…has elaborate position papers, available on his Web site, on everything from civil liberties to the situation in the Middle East. (He thinks, for example, that Bush should have been censured over the NSA wiretapping issue; he thinks the president has squandered so much of the country's prestige in Iraq that it can't play the role of mediator anywhere else in the region.) They are the views of a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and a foreign-policy moderate.
"True Blue, or Too Blue: Senate Hopeful Ned Lamont is Challenging Joe Lieberman--And the Democratic Party," David Segal, Washington Post, August 2, 2006.

"This race wasn't about ideology. Ned Lamont succeeded because of participation politics--he talked plainly and honestly with the people of Connecticut, and his campaign engaged in the kind of neighbor-to-neighbor organizing that has reinvigorated our party across the country."
Howard Dean, M.D., Chairman, Democratic National Committee, August 9, 2006, in an e-mail letter to Democrats.


Myth No. 3:

A Lamont victory spells doom for the traditional centrist views of the Democratic party of Bill Clinton and heralds the party takeover by a far-left-wing group of radicals who will ensure that the Democrats will lose in future elections, particularly the presidency in 2008.

First of all, I'd like to calm down this entire hysterical Republican-led discourse by pointing out that Connecticut is a solidly blue state in a solidly blue part of the country. Many Connecticut residents work in New York, also a solidly blue state. Those who aren't educated Northern liberals are rust-belt factory union workers.

This is not the national party and not a national election, for heaven's sake.

Secondly, this is NOT, as the Republicans would have you believe, a referendum on Democratic politics.

It is, however, a referendum on the failed Republican policies that have led our nation from one disaster into another.

This is why they're all so scared. And we all know what Republicans do when they get scared.

They get mean.


Republicans have done their best to foster (the) division (between liberals and centrists)…

Lieberman could prove more successful than Republican Alan Schlesinger in the Senate contest at bringing out GOP voters to oppose Lamont.
--"Jury Out on Lieberman Effect: Independent Run Could Hurt, Help Democrats Seeking House," Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, August 10, 2006.

The attacks came as Republicans are openly alarmed that their party seems to be headed for big losses this November…

"It's right-wing propaganda," Mr. Dean said. "They are beginning to look ridiculous. A majority of Americans now believe that going to Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I think this shows how far out of touch the Republicans are.
--"Democrats Back Lamont in Race in Show of Unity," Adam Nagourney, New York Times, August 10, 2006.


In fact, this whole idea that wild-eyed raging liberals have run off with the good Democratic party is a Republican-made-up myth. And an editorial in the New York Times entitled "Revenge of the Irate Moderates," absolutely nailed what is REALLY going on in Connecticut:

The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, IRATE MODERATES. (emphasis mine) They are the voters who have been unnerved over the past few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president's choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration's contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.

Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person's right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.

When Mr. Lieberman told the Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crises and started subverting the nation's best traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take the lead in fighting back.
--"Revenge of the Irate Moderates," editorial, New York Times, August 9, 2006.


I rest my case.

PAYBACK'S A BITCH, EH, BUGMAN?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused yesterday to block an appeals court ruling to keep former congressman Tom DeLay as the Republican candidate on the ballot, all but ensuring that the former House majority leader will stand for election in November for his suburban Houston district.

DeLay was under indictment in Texas and facing a possible House ethics investigation when he resigned his seat in June and announced he would move to Alexandria in hopes of removing his name from the ballot.
--"GOP Loses Bid to Drop DeLay from the Texas Ballot," Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, August 8, 2006.

What cracks me up the most about DeLay's failed bid to manipulate the Constitution, the Courts, and God Himself to get his ruthless way yet again was that the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court--the very one who made the swing vote that put George W. Bush in the White House in the first place back in 2000--took less than two hours to kick DeLay back to the curb.

For years now, while stealing money from well-meaning Christian doners to his various "family" organizations, which were merely fronts for money-making enterprises for Tom DeLay and Family, while terrorizing any Congressman who got in his way while, at the same time, giving convicted felon Jack Abramhoff whatever his little heart desired in return for yet more graft and corruption, while restructuring the entire state of Texas to keep it red and send more red Congressmen to the Hill...

...All that time, Tom DeLay (the former exterminator who keeps his bug-killing license current) was ranting and raving--among other things--about "activist judges," only the things he was saying went beyond the pale for what most conservative activists had in mind while lobbying for, say, John Roberts's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

No, DeLay was not content to merely work to put the judges he liked on the bench. He went so far as to propose legislation that would severely limit the power of the United States court system and make it subservient to Congress--in direct violation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any other accepted legal standard known to God or man. He wanted to prosecute federal judges who disagreed with his extremist agenda. He even intimated that it was all right to target judges we disagree with by harrassment, and failed to condemn horrendous acts of violence against judges, basically stating that some of them deserved it.

When DeLay was indicted in a Texas court of law, he raised high holy hell that the Democratic judge was in on some nasty liberal conspiracy to ruin him, and the judge was replaced. Then he started in on THAT judge, intimating that he wasn't doing his job if he sent DeLay to trial. His attorneys had spread all kinds of lies about the original judge in the case, claiming that he'd even ordered a T-shirt from liberal group MoveOn.org that depicted DeLay's mug shot on the front.

Problem with that is that MoveOn.org has never--not EVER, not ONCE--offered T-shirts of ANY KIND, much less T-shirts with DeLay's smug self-righteous arrogant smirk on the front.

Even when he was going before judges, he was still mouthing about how our legal system ought to be in the hands of good congresspeople--like himself--rather than something so mundane and open to interpretation as the Constitution. No other congressman has ever gone so far in their diatribes against the American judiciary as Tom DeLay.

A Republican federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of the Democratic argument last month, and that ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans last week. With the election less than 100 days away, Texas Republicans appealed to the Supreme Court yesterday to stay the appeals court ruling and allow them to pick a new candidate to stand against Democrat Nick Lampson in November. That appeal was routed to Scalia, who denied it just two hours after it was received.
--ibid

You know, the Republican Powers That Be begged DeLay not to run in the primary. His decision to do so was yet another exercise in narcissistic hubris the likes of which have not been seen since...well...never. He thought he could manipulate the system yet again, by running and winning just to prove I Still Got It, then "move" to Virginia--even though his wife still maintains a home and lives in Houston--and step aside. The reason for that whole plan was that so DELAY could then choose his annointed successor, not the foolish little peon voters.

When the Democrats challenged that preposterosity, DeLay must have felt so surely smug--yet again--because, after all, most of the judges that have been rammed through Congressional approval in the past six years are conservatives. He relished yet another anticipated win over those hapless moronic Democrats.

..."At this point, it's now up to Tom DeLay to decide whether he's going to cut or run," said Chris Feldman, a lawyer representing the Texas Democratic Party...

...DeLay said he would probably stand for reelection if he lost the court fight to remove his name from the ballot.

That would be an ideal fight for the Democratic Party, which had wanted to challenge the scandal-tarnished DeLay even before his resignation. Now Democrat Nick Lampson, (a well-funded former House member) appears destined to face a former congressman mounting a comeback against his will to represent a district he tried to leave.
--ibid