And here's your latest heartwarming "Supporting the troops as in Pat Tillman" story

According to the 'authorities' she supposedly either committed suicide, or through her own stupidity, offed herself.
They Say.
Sounds to me like a little Rape - murder. But we wouldn't want that to get around, would we? So, let's blame the victim, like always.

Phillip Barron at AlterNet

The tragedy of her story begins there.

An Army representative initially told LaVena's father, Dr. John Johnson, that his daughter died of "died of self-inflicted, noncombat injuries" and initially added it was not a suicide -- in other words, an accidental death caused by LaVena herself. The subsequent Army investigation reversed this finding and declared LaVena's death a suicide, a finding refuted by the soldier's family. In an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dr. Johnson pointed to indications that his daughter had endured a physical struggle before she died -- two loose front teeth, a "busted lip" that had to be reconstructed by the funeral home -- suggesting that "someone might have punched her in the mouth."

[...]

The mother of Pat Tillman put the matter in stark and honest terms:

"This is how they treat a family of a high-profile individual," she said. "How are they treating others?"

Read it all

Does this make it official that Bush has F**ked up the defense of this country?

I thought that his reason to be allowed continued existence was that he was gonna protect us from the big bad "terrists". Sez here that he has destroyed our military to the point that he might not even be able to throw a war for those nice Iranians. (Don't count on that, though!)
More here - Christy Hardin Smith cross-posted at The News Blog

History has a funny way of looking backward at Presidents and assessing all of those tiny little decisions -- made day in and day out -- from a much wider lens. From the perspective of not just the short-term ramifications of policy decisions, but what their real world, long-term impact has been. It is not often that we get to see both the short-term and the long-term questions intersect in a measureable way. But that is exactly what seems to be shaping up in a number of recent reports regarding US troops, our strategic capability for the short and long term, and the impact that all of this is having -- right now -- on our folks in uniform.

The fact that some of this is coming out of the mouth of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace? That's sure to make a few heads explode inside the Beltway, it?

Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.

[...]So, can we officially say now that the Bush Administration has made us less safe in terms of our strategic readiness capabilities and the eroded level of response capability that we now have under George Bush's watch? The GAO thinks so (H/T Raw Story):

GIs - Just because we volunteered doesn't mean we are suicidal fools.

CBS News 60 Minutes

Americans in the military have been asked to make extraordinary sacrifices in recent years, particularly in Iraq, where the casualties are mounting, the tours are being extended, and some of them have had enough.

Correspondent Lara Logan heard dissension in the ranks from a large group of service members who are fed up and have decided to go public. They’re not going AWOL, they're not disobeying orders or even refusing to fight in Iraq. But they are doing something unthinkable to many in uniform: bypassing the chain of command to denounce a war they’re in the middle of fighting.

---

"As a patriotic citizen who served two combat tours in Iraq, I just feel like this war, it's simply just not working out anymore, and soldiers are dying there everyday," says Specialist Kevin Torres.

Continue

Those plans to go to war with Iran... They include NUKES.

George Lakoff at Huffington

The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" like the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. But on the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.

If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war -- a first strike nuclear war.

We don't know what exactly is being planned -- conventional GBU-28's or nuclear B61-11's. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter.

The title is "Imagine". I dare you to try.

From jurrasicpork at Pottersville

...all we can do is imagine what it has been like to be an average Iraqi these past four years. Their experience is so remote from the typical American experience that we might as well try to invent an extraterrestrial species. So let’s try an experiment.

A great and mighty nation, a proud nation, was attacked on a new day that will last in infamy. Our country, the United States, had nothing to do with it yet the dark storm clouds cloistered over our flags, darkening our soil and there was nothing we could do to disperse them. Not openness, not diplomacy, nothing. Then, four years ago, the bloody rain began falling.

Continue, I dare you.

Hopefully, the Generals will prevent disaster in Iran

From Jeff Huber at the Pen and Sword

I've been saying for some time that the only way the Pentagon might block a strike on Iran would be through key four-star officers resigning in protest. Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter of the Sunday Times reported this week that something like that might be afoot.

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources…

…“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

[...]

From the sound of things, a majority of the top Pentagon brass thinks a strike on Iran would be a disastrous failure, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates seems to agree with that view. Mr. Bush's chief ally overseas, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is on record as saying it would not "be right to take military action against Iran."

Also see the piece by John Amato at Crooks and Liars, quoting Sy Hersh

Hersh..inside the military, they are planning very seriously at the President's request to attack Iran

They aren't very happy about this getting out:

We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way…

Another Bush power grab. So what else is new?

SusanUnPC at No Quarter mentions the Olbermann rant, ripping Condi a new one. But then she goes on to mention the neatest little piece of larceny you ever saw.
Someone smart must have thought it up for Georgie, 'cause you know this is just a little (snort!) out of his league.

More from the excellent resource page at SourceWatch:

"Cheney has tried to increase executive power with a series of bold actions -- some so audacious that even conservatives on the Supreme Court sympathetic to Cheney's view have rejected them as overreaching," Milbank wrote.

Less in the public eye are the sweeping controls over federal agencies, emanating from the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB). And I hope that Olbermann digs into the OMB story -- it must be told. My friend Norma e-mailed this vital piece the other day:

A New Bush Power-Grab

Frank O'Donnell (of Clean Air Watch)

Experts gravely concerned about possible nuclear attack by bib-Laden

And Shrub snoozes on...
Paul Slansky at Huffington

"These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States ... and we're going to have no one to blame but ourselves." -- Michael Scheuer, former head of the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit, to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, February 19, 2007

Olbermann takes Condi to the woodshed.

Hit the link and listen to Keith school the Ph.D.

Thank you

I appreciate your thoughts and condolences. I will express them to my family too.


Clyde

Why Clyde has been away...

Some of you know, and many do not know...
I lost my father Tuesday February 13. He was 91.
The illness was brief. (He felt good the preceding
Saturday morning, started to feel bad Saturday
evening, and we had him transported Sunday afternoon)

I think he knew that he wouldn't be returning home...

He was in ICU at Baptist, and passed peacefully
around 1:30 am. I don't know for sure, because the
clocks were a little blurred around then.

My mother is 89, and they were man and wife for
over 67 years. As you can imagine this isn't easy for her.
Yet also remember that she was a farmer's wife.
They don't get to be 89 without being tough.

Her eyesight is failing and she is frail. So, I will
be devoting a lot of time to her care.

If you are interested his obituary is here.
(Trish, my wife, wrote it, asking all the while if she
was being too pushy. She wasn't.)

We are now starting to deal with the aftermath,
psychological, fiscal and all those other -als.

I will just be a little more distracted at times and busier
at less usual things, -for me anyway.


My best to you.
...and take the time to tell those whom you love, that you love them.

Light Blogging - My father is very ill...

Besides the insanity of 300 plus TONS of money to be broadcast by the Republi-Cons throughout Iraq...

There is the fact that it most assuredly financed the deaths of American soldiers.
Steve at The News Blog

What really happened at the Watada court martiall

The judge blinked. Watada has stated repeatedly that he felt that his orders to Iraq were illegal and that it is his responsibility as an officer to resist illegal orders. The trials at Nurenberg took care of the defense "I was only following orders". The judge found that by continuing the trial he would have strayed into serious consideration of war crimes and the consequences thereof. So he took the easy way out. He blinked.
But, this may be just the tip of the iceberg...

Bill Simpich has more at Truthout

Eat, er, Tax the rich!

Nicholas Von Hoffman at Alternet

...Democrats can tax our way out of the war. This would be a Victory Over Terror tax to be levied on incomes of $5 million a year or more. It should be a surcharge of 20 percent over and above what people in that rarified income bracket are already paying. It should be levied on all income, regardless of what form it takes, so it would include stock options, jet plane rides, company-paid-for health and life insurance, retirement programs, golden parachutes, the use of apartments in Paris, cars and drivers.

The people in this stratospheric income category have enjoyed the big tax cuts that have gone into effect while the nation has been attacked and been at war. Individuals making $1.25 million a year have gotten tax cuts of almost 20 percent, but many of these would be spared paying the Victory Over Terror tax, which only cuts in at the $5 million level.

Needless to say, those paying this tax do not represent the Democrats' voter base. As these things go, this is politically pain-free. The tax is aimed at war profiteers, overpaid CEOs and grossly fat cats in general, most of whom carry a lot of weight at the White House. If there is any group of people in the world whom George Bush listens to, it is this bunch of billionaires. Call this a backdoor use of the power of the purse. And since the surcharge expires when the war on terror is won or declared over, those taxed will have a powerful incentive to tell the President it is time to get a move on.

That works for me.

Is Shrub the white Idi Amin?

Jim Schutze at The Dallas Observer

In an otherwise thoughtful defense of bringing the George W. Bush presidential center to SMU, Matthew Wilson, an associate professor of political science at SMU, said of the center, "...it will explore and advance policy proposals on issues of interest to President Bush."

...Wilson went on to cite immigration reform, expanded free trade and global democratization as themes of the Bush presidency that will be of interest to scholars in the years to come.

I don't think so. Let me ask this bluntly: How much scholarly or general interest is there in Idi Amin's monetary policy? Long before anybody can get to the administrative details, history must address the butchery issue.

Is the Iraq war of a fabric with the American history of warfare? Or does the fact that we initiated a war against a nation that had not attacked us place the Iraq war in a dark category of its own?...

These bombs that kill 150 human beings at a time, that send children flying from apartments and litter the pavement with burned skulls: What if the conclusion of history is that these events would not have taken place if George W. Bush had not decided to launch this war?

Schutze also points out that contrary to the reason for the concept of a presidential library to allow scholarly study of presidential positions and papers, Bush has erected a stone wall around his presidential papers and those of Bush senior.

The people I have talked to on the SMU faculty are asking things that have nothing to do with a thumbs-up thumbs-down vote on George W. Bush but everything to do with scholarship. Will the Iraqi scholar who comes to Dallas seeking answers find a real repository of documents useful to his study or a stone wall, a kind of chain-mail fist in the face of scholarship?

The first, most difficult piece of this is Presidential Order 13233, which effectively reverses the presumption underlying the 1978 Presidential Records Act of a basic public right of access. In asserting a contrary right of permanent privilege, George W. Bush pointedly expanded the reach of this new privilege to include the entire Bush dynasty—his father's papers not only as president, for example, but as vice president.

It's an outrageous reach. Scholars and archivists around the country are beginning to suggest that SMU makes a whore of itself if it accepts the presidential center without first insisting that 13233 be vacated.

I think the bush Library should be in one of the ravines there at Crawford.

12 reasons not to go to war with Iran

12 clear reasons to keep our cotton pickin' hands off Iran. Utley reports that Bush reads Scottish preacher Oswald Chambers. Chambers preaches that when your plans go awry, it's not because you have the I.Q. of a houseplant. Instead it's God 'testing' you. (And, by extension, I guess, well over 20,000 US troops as well.)
Now keep calling your congresscritter until they finally tell these fools, "No More!"
Jon Basil Utley at AntiWar.com

An article about Iran in The American Conservative by former CIA officer Phil Giraldi says that Bush may attack before Tony Blair retires in April. Blair has already just sent two British minesweepers to the Gulf.

U.S. war plans are reportedly counting on a few weeks of war (as they did with Iraq) to disable Iran's nuclear and military industries. The concept that the U.S. could simply destroy much of Iran then proclaim the war over neglects all the lessons of Iraq, namely that a wounded Muslim nation only gives up when it wants to. Repeatedly, the U.S. loses when we expect enemies to play by American rules.

Following are consequences we must anticipate following such an American attack:

1. Iran would blockade the Straits of Hormuz.

2. War quickly gets out of hand. U.S. plans to destroy Iran's anti-aircraft and military infrastructure could easily escalate to destroying Iran's oil-loading and shipment facilities. This would take even more millions of barrels off the market for a prolonged period. ...Jim Cramer warned on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Jan. 30 that war would quickly drive U.S. gas prices to $5 per gallon.

3. The whole world's prosperity would be at risk if oil didn't flow again quickly. Any such severe shock to the world economy would cause foreigners to cut back on financing U.S. deficits, with a consequent sharp rise in U.S. interest rates. This would cause very severe repercussions to the whole U.S. economy

That's three. Go on and read the rest.

Six words that explains it all.

The Heretik at The American Street

I told them it had to? Stupid is as stupid does and says in six words. So we find ourselves with childish reasons for why more must die. At some future point Bush and his plans will achieve terminal stupidity. For some that moment sadly has passed.

More

The plans the pentagon is making for when Bush's latest 'brainstorm' fails.

Jeff Huber at Pen and Sword

Pentagon planners are so confident in the Iraq "surge" strategy that they're planning on what to do when it fails.

From Sidney Blumenthal of Salon:

Deep within the bowels of the Pentagon, policy planners are conducting secret meetings to discuss what to do in the worst-case scenario in Iraq about a year from today if and when President Bush's escalation of more than 20,000 troops fails, a participant in those discussions told me. None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed. On the contrary, everyone thinks it will not only fail to achieve its aims but also accelerate instability by providing a glaring example of U.S. incapacity and incompetence.

I don't know who Blumenthal's sources inside the bowels of the Pentagon are, but my gut instincts tell me they're right. My instincts also tell me they're right to keep their planning initiatives under wraps, because as Blumenthal also says:

The profoundly pessimistic thinking that permeates the senior military and the intelligence community, however, is forbidden in the sanitized atmosphere of mind-cure boosterism that surrounds Bush. "He's tried this two times -- it's failed twice," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Jan. 24 about the "surge" tactic. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.'" She repeated his words: "'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

Holy Hannah. I'm a subscriber of Mark Twain's assertion that history doesn't repeat itself but it sometimes rhymes. Young Mr. Bush is starting to "sound like" another lunatic who sat in a bunker and only listened to generals who told him what he wanted to hear.

More

Oh, those wonderful folks who brought us Iraq

SusanUnPC at No Quarter.

Even critics of the White House say that Iran's nuclear program poses a grave threat to Israel. "They correctly fear the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat to Israel," says retired colonel W. Patrick Lang, who served as an officer for the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism at the Defense Intelligence Agency. "They are not being silly about this. It really is a threat to Israel."

But waging war against Iran could be the most catastrophic choice of all. It is widely believed that Iran would respond to an attack by blockading the Strait of Hormuz, a 20-mile-wide narrows in the eastern part of the Persian Gulf through which about 40 percent of the world's oil exports are transported. Oil analysts say a blockade could propel the price of oil to $125 a barrel, sending the world economy into a tailspin. There could be vast international oil wars. Iran could act on its fierce rhetoric against Israel.

America's 130,000 soldiers in Iraq would also become highly vulnerable in the event of an attack on Iran. "Our troops in Iraq are supplied with food, fuel, and ammunition by truck convoys from a supply base in Kuwait," says Lang. "Most of that goes over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated South of Iraq. The Iranians could cut those supply lines just like that—the trucks are easy to shoot at with R.P.G.'s," or rocket-propelled grenades.

[...]Even before his January 10 speech, many inside the military had concluded that the decision to bomb Iran has already been made. "Bush's 'redline' for going to war is Iran having the knowledge to produce nuclear weapons—which is probably what they already have now," says Sam Gardiner, a retired air-force colonel who specializes in staging war games on the Middle East. "The president first said [that was his redline] in December 2005, and he has repeated it four times since then."

Read all Here and Here

From Will Bunch at ATTYTOOD - Breaking news: Young woman meets sudden, tragic death

This breaking news story is about the sudden, unexpected, and tragic death of a young woman, not to mention the family that she leaves behind.

Yes, people die every day, and too many do so before their time. But this woman was special, and the things that she did made an impact on all of us.

Oh, there were many things that this woman, so deserving of our undivided attention tonight, did not do. No, she didn't take off her clothes for a men's magazine for a big payday, work as "an exotic dancer" or marry a billionaire customer who was 63 years older than her. Nor did she spend most of her adult life pursuing that billionaire's estate in courtrooms from Texas to Washington, D.C., or record her life for a reality TV show, or abuse drugs, or give birth to a child whose paternity is the focus of a legal battle.

Frankly, we feel silly for even writing those things, because such a woman would clearly not be newsworthy.

No, unlike some women you might see on your newsstand this week, this woman liked simple things: According to one report, she "always enjoyed the water, including boating and scuba diving. She also liked yoga and music and spending time with family and friends."

This is what her aunt says about this unique woman that America mourns tonight:

"If you knew her, you loved her. She was a go-getter. She knew what she wanted in life and she was doing what she had to do to achieve that."

Her name is Jennifer M. Parcell. She was just 20 years old, and she graduated in 2004 from Fallston High School in her hometown, Bel Air, Md.

...You may think that we're crazy here, to devote all our attention to the story of just one woman. But at CNN, anchor T.J. Holmes defended this type of saturation coverage just this afternoon. Here's what he said:

"With everything that's going on...that's the reason we've covering it, because it sort of supersedes entertainment. There are a couple of lawsuits at stake here, and it's just been a very tumultuous time for her."

More

Blackwater: Should be Black Hearted Water.

This is beyond the pale of decency.
Steven Weber at Huffington

...moms and wives and daughters spoke, expressing outrage in hoarse, respectful tones. They testified that they had asked Blackwater USA simple questions: how did my boy die? Why was there no planning? No protection? No help? Why were these men---some in Iraq for mere days before being killed on the mission to protect catering equipment---denied the use of maps? Of an experienced escort? Of heavy defensive weaponry? Where were their remains? Blackwater USA informed them that in order to obtain answers to these questions the families would have to sue the company. Otherwise, they were not obliged to respond. And months later, at a memorial service organized by Blackwater USA, the families were closely guarded by Blackwater USA security and prevented---prevented---from speaking with each other. So sue they did. And what was the response to the suit the grieving families launched? Blackwater USA countersued to the tune of 10 million dollars.

[...]California Republican Representative Darrell Issa prefaced his inquiry with his assertion that their testimony was not germane to the goal of the commission. Having gotten this matter out of the way, he proceeded with what he felt was germane: the authorship of their statement and whether a lawyer was involved in its drafting.

[...]testimonials, when prepared by lawyers, can function as an advance attack in a lawsuit that could result in the awarding of millions of dollars to the plaintiffs. The women responded: "We will not take one dime. We want accountability". And why wouldn't Issa or Shays think that the motive behind the grieving families's lawsuit would be anything other than financial? After all, that is how America does business. That is the heart of why Blackwater USA is there: to profit.

More

Shrub's major accomplishment.

Bush has gone and done something most reasonable folks would have thought impossible...
Booman at Booman Tribune

An annual poll of six Arab countries puts President George W. Bush at the top of the world's 'most disliked' for the first time in the history of the poll, CNN International reported today.

... the striking thing is for the very first time in the Arab world the most disliked person is the President of the United States of America, and superceded the combined numbers for both the Prime Minister of Israel and his hated predecessor Ariel Sharon, who's in a coma," said Telhami.

The poll, ...allowed people to suggest any person outside of their own country. In past years, ...This year, Arabs selected Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, because of the "black eye" given to Israel after they withdrew from their attack on Lebanon, according to the report.

For those of you who don't know, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is a Shi'ite, while the vast majority of Arabs are Sunnis. And with current relations between Sunnis and Shi'ites at a longtime low, it is even more jarring to see Nasrallah considered the most liked person in the world by Arabs.

More

One of the best things about Scooter Libby's trial...

Besides catching Darth Cheney in it's web, that is... Is showing the world just how screwed up the "Liberal" MSM really is.
Eric Boehlert at Media Matters

So as the facts of the White House cover-up now tumble out into open court, it's important to remember that if it hadn't been for Fitzgerald's work, there's little doubt the Plame story would have simply faded into oblivion like so many other disturbing suggestions of Bush administration misdeeds. And it would have faded away because lots of high-profile journalists at The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, and NBC wanted it to.

In a sense, it was Watergate in reverse. Instead of digging for the truth, lots of journalists tried to bury it. The sad fact remains the press was deeply involved in the cover-up, as journalists reported White House denials regarding the Plame leak despite the fact scores of them received the leak and knew the White House was spreading rampant misinformation about an unfolding criminal case.

And that's why the Plame investigation then, and the Libby perjury trial now, so perfectly capture what went wrong with the timorous press corps during the Bush years as it routinely walked away from its responsibility of holding people in power accountable and ferreting out the facts.

More

Democrats Should Force the Republicans to Physically Filibuster

Cenk Uygur At Huffington

If the Republicans want to filibuster the Iraq debate, then they should be forced to get up and keep talking about how well the Iraq War is going and what a great idea escalation is.

They can tell us for hours and hours how much they believe in the escalation and how the Iraqis will throw roses at our feet.

...Maybe Dick Cheney could make a special guest appearance to help his Republican buddies in Congress talk about how much progress we're making there.

...Make them get up there and physically block a vote about what we should do in Iraq. Have them in front of the cameras telling the American people why we wouldn't shouldn't vote on the most important issue in the country.

They want a filibuster? Give them one. Let them make jackasses of themselves.

More

Grover Nyquist thinks that going to war with Iran is stupid. But Bush is pushing for it.

Geez! Grover Nyquist! And he thinks the NeoCons have screwed up.
Ryan Powers in Think Progress
In this month’s issue of Vanity Fair, Craig Unger writes... that not all of Bush’s key conservative allies are pleased with the administration’s course on Iran:

“Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn’t happened,” says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion. “And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president’s neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, ‘Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.’ But after you’ve lost x number of times at the roulette wheel, do you double-down?”

...Richard Perle, a former Bush administration official, has said, “I have very little doubt” that Bush would order “necessary military action” against Iran. “Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office,” wrote American Enterprise Institute analyst Joshua Muravchik.

More

So, where does this go, now?

He refused orders he feel are illegal. He refuses to participate in war crimes. Those are some of the things he swears to do when he becomes an officer.
So will Watada be tried again? Or will this quietly go away because it casts Dubya's war in a decidedly unflattering light?
Mike Barber in The Seattle P. I.

The court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in a mistrial Wednesday.

The case's judge, Lt. Col. John Head, declared the trial over after a day of wrangling over a stipulation of facts that Watada had signed before the trial and that would have been part of the instructions to the jury. The judge decided that Watada never intended when he signed the stipulation to mean that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his unit.

Again the issue was Watada's views on the Iraq war -- opinions that kept him from going with his unit to the conflict and that the judge didn't want brought up at the court-martial.

More

Is the battle for Baghdad lost before the surge even arrives?

Actually, the whole thing sounds like one more of Dubya's patented neocon clusterf*ks.

Jeff Huber at Pen and Sword

The battle for Baghdad appears to be lost even as it starts. From Damien Cave and Richard A. Oppel Jr. of the New York Times:

BAGHDAD, Feb. 5--A growing number of Iraqis are saying that the United States is to blame for creating conditions that led to the worst single suicide bombing in the war, which devastated a Shiite market in Baghdad on Saturday. They argued that the Americans had been slow in completing the vaunted new American security plan, making Shiite neighborhoods much more vulnerable to such horrific attacks.

They started the battle without the additional troops they said they needed to fight it. Hmm. Where have we seen that happen before?

And they took down significant portions of the Mahdi Army who were protecting the Shiite neighborhoods without enough regular forces to fill the security void. The U.S. "surge" is moving too slowly and, according to Naeem al-Kabbi, the deputy mayor of Baghdad, "the Iraqi Army is not ready."

The Iraqi Army is not ready?

Is this Iraq fiasco starting to look like the movie Groundhog Day or what?

More

Even the Fat-Cats are beginning to realize that Emperor Cheney is nuts.

Brett Arends at AOL Money & Finance

The oil-based energy policies usually associated with Vice President Dick Cheney have just come under scathing attack. There's nothing remarkable about that, of course -- except the person doing the attacking.

Step forward, Jeremy Grantham -- Cheney's own investment manager. "What were we thinking?' Grantham demands in a four-page assault on U.S. energy policy mailed last week to all his clients, including the vice president.

Titled "While America Slept, 1982-2006: A Rant on Oil Dependency, Global Warming, and a Love of Feel-Good Data," Grantham's philippic adds up to an extraordinary critique of U.S. energy policy over the past two decades.

What Cheney makes of it can only be imagined.

[...]

The irony is that this isn't, or shouldn't be, a partisan issue. Grantham singles out the Ford administration for his strongest praise on environmental matters. Everyone since, of both parties, has been a failure, he concludes. "The past 26 years have been such a wasted opportunity," Grantham writes. "This country had previously shown leadership in this field. President Ford got us off to a running start in energy efficiency... With a succession of President Fords, we would have ended up as an environmental leader and a great model."

I would love to know what President Ford's former chief of staff thinks of that.

His name? Richard B. Cheney.

More

Richard Thompson - Dad's Gonna Kill Me

Go to the site learn the song!

Remember when Scott Ritter was correct about what a clusterf*ck Iraq would be?

Here is his take on the coming war on Iran.
Steven D at Booman Tribune

If I were to address [the Democrats in Congress], I would focus my effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however, will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats.

I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat," especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric.

More

At Long Last, Sir, Have you no decency?

By Clyde
I was listening to Diane Rehm's News Roundup Friday morning. The Journalists were Linda Wertheimer, Andrew Sullivan and Elanore Clift. The subject of conversation, Bush's expansion of the war and the senate Non-binding resolutions against the expansion.

A caller indicated there would be 45 thousand troops sent, not 21 thousand.

Thoughts were then expressed by these journalists that this president must be affected by the expressed desires of the country. That he would accept the prospect of thousands dying simply to cover his sorry ineptitude would be unthinkable.

Well, think it! This man has no decency! We've known that for more than six years. Each time he has gone before congress assembled, to present his state of the union address, he has used inflammatory points he knew were not valid. That is the expression of a faulsehood. Lying. From his previous record as the governor of Texas, it appears he simply has no regard for human life.

Bush stated he knew nothing about Plame. The grand jury testimony is showing that Cheney was in the middle of the whole thing and was the one who leaked Plame's identity. But the president didn't know...(?)

Bush has now admited that statements that the US was winning in Iraq during the run-up to the elections were false. That he was disturbed by the lack of progress and has been considering this 'New Direction' all that time.

Congress must stand up to thwart this pitiful little man, who would be king. He must not be allowed to further squander the lives of our troops, the lifeblood of our treasure, and the honor for which this country has stood, for over 230 years. He must not be allowed finally to make true the imagined all pervading terrorism he has preached since 9-11-2001. He must be prevented from engaging yet another non-aggressive middleast state in a preemptive war for no other reason than to cover up his incompetence as a head of state, and enraging one and a half BILLION muslims.

Finally as happened in the Army - McCarthy hearings, someone must finally rise and ask this question of Bush, Cheney et. al. "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Molly's last words... "WE are the deciders!"

Read the post, read as many of her columns as you can find. You will always find a nugget

"We are the people who run this country," Ms Ivins said in the column published in the Jan. 14 edition of the Star-Telegram. "We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war.

"Raise hell," she continued. "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous. Make our troops know we’re for them and are trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge."

She ended the piece by endorsing the peace march in Washington scheduled for Saturday. 01-27 "We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!' " she wrote.

Bill Gates (yeah, yeah, I know..) says the internet will revolutionize TV

Actually it already has. The number of folks skipping the tube for YouTube or D/L-ing to the 'ole iPod is becoming a strong movement. We are becoming a nation of people who refuse to wait on the network to see what we want.
Tivo, DVD recorders, Tuner cards in PCs, all of these are striking at the heart of the old style networks.

Instead of 100 channels of crap, we will Google an infinity of material from all over the world.

I believe that the rise of routine communications among average citizens on both sides of the pond had more than a little to do with the 'fall' of the USSR. As long as you didn't know Ivan's voice, or that his little girl was starting school or any of the millions of concerns of parents, children, husbands and wives going about their daily routines, it was easy to hate Ivan. When you began to know him, and he learned that we (at that time presided over by sane, intelligent leaders) didn't really want to invade, pillage and burn. (Now, of course, all bets are off!)

I would hope that that same 'sharing of intelligence' with all manner of people all over the world , may help those in this country finally learn that what everyone wants is to go about his own affairs, undisturbed by bullies half a world away. We all want just to get along.

Get ready for it. The sociopath is going to get us into the biggest disaster ever.

Just pray that there are officers who take their oath to uphold the constitution and the law seriously. If we go into Iran, the entire mideast will hate America. If you are afraid of 'turrists', be very very afraid of this mental midget with Cheney's hand up his ass.
Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars

I've had a knot in my stomach for weeks as the rhetoric out of Washington amped up against Iran. As others have pointed out, this is deja vu, all over again. Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist pulls it all together and it paints one very scary picture.

The drumbeat for an attack on Iran is getting louder and louder.

Fears of Iranian economic dominance in Iran are being stoked, although the story is already weeks, if not months old. We've also been told the Iranians are cooperating with the North Koreans in their bid for nuclear weapons. Never mind that the North Koreans use plutonium in their reactors and the Iranians use uranium. Ooops.

...A parade of administration officials from the President on down inform us that Iran is aiding and abetting the chaos in Iraq by providing weapons to Iraqis. Never mind that there is little or no proof that the Iranians are supplying weapons to groups in Iraq actively targeting American forces.no evidence found.)

Arthur Silber at Once Upon a Time says the time is now . We must take control of our government NOW, or face complete disaster at the hands of a disinterested puppet.

If ... the Democrats showed some leadership, there is one other issue they desperately need to address: Iran.

They should rescind the Iraq authorization of force resolution (Lindorff's reference is to the earlier one, passed right after 9/11 -- both should be burned to a crisp), since Bush uses the authorizations to maintain that he already has authority to attack Iran (and anyone else he chooses). And they should pass resolutions stating that, if Bush attacks Iran in the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War (remember those?), that will be grounds for immediate impeachment.

And they should draft articles of impeachment NOW, just in case they need them. And they should publish them in every major newspaper, and read them on television every night.

No, it's not the set-up for a really sad joke... Robert Reich asks What Can Possibly Be in Bush's Head?

The points Reich makes are good commentary, but some of the best comments are, remarkably, in the comments. Read them too.

Question: Why is Bush willing to risk his party’s future, as well as his own legacy, by putting more troops into Iraq when it’s clear to almost everyone – including top military brass, foreign policy experts, and most analysts and journalists on the ground there – that Iraq is descending so quickly into civil war that more troops won’t make a bit of difference except causing more American deaths and instigating more violence?

Read more

Where Have All The ...

Damn! Where have they gone? All those scientists who were dissenters, that is...
The headline says "World Scientists Near Consensus on Warming", but what that really means is not that there is great disparity in thought, but that they want to all agree on the wording of their report!

Winter Patriot

Scientists from across the world gathered Monday to hammer out the final details of an authoritative report on climate change that is expected to project centuries of rising temperatures and sea levels unless there are curbs in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

That's what the report wants to say, but the wording is tricky because there's all manner of politics involved. And they're bickering over such things as whether the current rates of warming and melting will by typical in the future.

But scientists involved in the effort warned that squabbling among teams and government representatives from more than 100 countries — over how to portray the probable amount of sea-level rise during the 21st century — could distract from the basic finding that a warming world will be one in which shrinking coastlines are the new normal for centuries to come.

Ah yes, shrinking coastlines.

We might as well face it; No matter how much we try to curb the emissions of carbon gases, the atmosphere is already carrying a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide than it should, it's trapping heat at a greater rate than ever before, and the planet will continue to heat up, no matter what.

Regardless of what we do, the future will be hot, dry, and windy.

More