Since being dumped, I pulled an all-nighter, lost my wallet, cancelled all my credit cards, found my wallet in (wait for it) my pants pocket a couple of days later, pulled another all-nighter, and contracted a fantastically wonderful cold, which is still present about six days later. I haven't had a good night's sleep in weeks.
And then this weekend. Still working on the cold, and seeking a really good meal (read = waffles!), I found that my car would not start -- requiring Jump Start No. 2 of the current cold snap. Next day, waiting at a drive-thru, a homeless guy walks up. I start to drive off, and he spits on me.
Thus, blogging has been out of the question--much less a deep analysis of policy. I thought about reading through the FY 2008 Budget, which dropped last week. Then the nurse brought my medication--which, oddly enough, cannot unblock my damn ears. (I much prefer not breathing through my nose to not hearing through my ears. There are alternate routes for air; I can't very well listen to people through my armpits.)
But suck it up we must. The House gets full marks for doing what the Senate seems totally incapable of doing--i.e., anything. We have a resolution to debate! And I love the fact that it is simple and direct:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
So the GOP can't pull a "you really hate the troops, don't you" on those who vote for this thing. But better than that, it is an on-off vote. You like what the President's doing? Vote no. You don't like what the President's doing? Vote yes. The various resolutions in the Senate were dandy and all, but they were so nuanced that they couldn't quite get together on one that they really, really liked. Now the House is going to (likely) pass this one and send it to (yep) the Senate, where they will have something to pass, or at least kick around for a while.
Yes: it's non-binding. But it wasn't until last year when the Dems began to show even baby teeth on this sort of thing. A small step forward is better than three guys in the Senate sleeping through a quorum call any day of the week.
Debate starts tomorrow at 10. Bring popcorn.
And by the way: Hey, Mr. Howard! Yeah, you--the one standing next to the wife of the Prime Minister of Australia. Which would make you the Prime Minister of Australia. Who the hell asked you anything about Barack Obama? Nobody? Figured.
Of course, this is not the first tangle between the States and Down Under. This too shall pass.
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
12 February 2007
10 January 2007
Liveblog Special -- The Bush Iraq (Wrong) Address
Preamble: The intrepid folks at Wonkette, fake name and all, got their mitts on the White House's press release / talking points, released this afternoon. And, boy, are we set up for a mindfuck tonight, ladies and gentlemen! Here are some of the key points of the plan, per that release:
The New Way Forward In Iraq
The President’s New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:
1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.
Bush GW: 0-5; 2 K, BB. I mean, it sure is a "regional approach," isn't it? Beyond that? The Iraqis can't even get a hanging in without there being sectarian bullshit, we've been helping the Iraqis protect the population to wondrous effect over the last few years, extremists are rolling, and Iraqi pols can't go more than fifty yards before they get shot at. I mean, wow.
And the details are filled with never-gonna-happens. For example:
Work with additional Coalition help to regain control of the capital and protect the Iraqi population.
"OK. Everybody left in the Coalition--hey, Poland, where you going? C'mon, sit down for a sec. Right. We need more people to go into Baghdad. We promise you won't get shot at. Much. Any takers? Anybody? Not all at once."
And then there are these equally fanciful doozies:
Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.
Yeah. This worked really well in Afghanistan. (Or, I should say, would have, if we had kept the pressure on things there and not let the Taliban recover.) Even money that any said tribes become turncoats within a year.
Key Elements Of The New Approach: Political
[snip]
All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation.
Moderate coalition emerges as strong base of support for unity government.
Oh for Pete's sake. "All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation?" The Shiites are running the show, the Kurds are running their own show, and the Sunnis are running for cover. If you can see a moderate coalition running Iraq with any kind of coherence and competence, then you should quit your job and take over for the horoscope columnists (who sucked on today's predictions--they said bad day, I got a raise).
---
So what can we gather from this? Tonight is going to be a shell game--but Bush is probably going to suck at it so hard that the American people will know where the ball is at all times.
Post-preamble: Rich Lowry over at the National Review comes in with this wish, inter alia:
He should have some pretty strong words for Iran and Syria.
OK. He's on crack. If Iran and Syria start something, what in God's name could we do at this point? Any sane conservatives out there? Oddly enough, one of the far-righties, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), turned today. Per Andrew Sullivan:
I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution. In the last two days, I have met with Prime Minister Maliki, with two deputy presidents and the president of the Kurdish region. I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shi'a are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other.
Well then.
Well that was unexpected: Per MSNBC (TV, no link sadly, and thus no direct quote), the President will say that any mistakes that were made rest with him. That's interesting. The heads analyzing on the fly are supposing that the GOPers that abandoned the President (including Brownback, Collins, Coleman, and perhaps others) pushed his hand.
Kickoff is in a minute: are we going to get body / actual language that says "chastened," or "I hear you," or "screw you all?" Kick back and relax, guys.
2001 (CST): Katie Couric says that this is "his most important speech ever." Three words: bring back Schieffer.
2004: The President is talking about stuff that could happen. Sorry--it's happening now. And now a 9-11 / Iraq reference. Great.
2006: It's not just Baghdad and environs. We've lost a couple of outer provinces too. But anyway. He's now dictating policy to the Iraqi government. And saying the Iraqi goverment is going to do this--he apparently has faith in them. Uh-huh.
The New Way Forward In Iraq
The President’s New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:
1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.
Bush GW: 0-5; 2 K, BB. I mean, it sure is a "regional approach," isn't it? Beyond that? The Iraqis can't even get a hanging in without there being sectarian bullshit, we've been helping the Iraqis protect the population to wondrous effect over the last few years, extremists are rolling, and Iraqi pols can't go more than fifty yards before they get shot at. I mean, wow.
And the details are filled with never-gonna-happens. For example:
Work with additional Coalition help to regain control of the capital and protect the Iraqi population.
"OK. Everybody left in the Coalition--hey, Poland, where you going? C'mon, sit down for a sec. Right. We need more people to go into Baghdad. We promise you won't get shot at. Much. Any takers? Anybody? Not all at once."
And then there are these equally fanciful doozies:
Increase efforts to support tribes willing to help Iraqis fight Al Qaeda in Anbar.
Yeah. This worked really well in Afghanistan. (Or, I should say, would have, if we had kept the pressure on things there and not let the Taliban recover.) Even money that any said tribes become turncoats within a year.
Key Elements Of The New Approach: Political
[snip]
All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation.
Moderate coalition emerges as strong base of support for unity government.
Oh for Pete's sake. "All Iraqi leaders support reconciliation?" The Shiites are running the show, the Kurds are running their own show, and the Sunnis are running for cover. If you can see a moderate coalition running Iraq with any kind of coherence and competence, then you should quit your job and take over for the horoscope columnists (who sucked on today's predictions--they said bad day, I got a raise).
---
So what can we gather from this? Tonight is going to be a shell game--but Bush is probably going to suck at it so hard that the American people will know where the ball is at all times.
Post-preamble: Rich Lowry over at the National Review comes in with this wish, inter alia:
He should have some pretty strong words for Iran and Syria.
OK. He's on crack. If Iran and Syria start something, what in God's name could we do at this point? Any sane conservatives out there? Oddly enough, one of the far-righties, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), turned today. Per Andrew Sullivan:
I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution. In the last two days, I have met with Prime Minister Maliki, with two deputy presidents and the president of the Kurdish region. I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shi'a are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other.
Well then.
Well that was unexpected: Per MSNBC (TV, no link sadly, and thus no direct quote), the President will say that any mistakes that were made rest with him. That's interesting. The heads analyzing on the fly are supposing that the GOPers that abandoned the President (including Brownback, Collins, Coleman, and perhaps others) pushed his hand.
Kickoff is in a minute: are we going to get body / actual language that says "chastened," or "I hear you," or "screw you all?" Kick back and relax, guys.
2001 (CST): Katie Couric says that this is "his most important speech ever." Three words: bring back Schieffer.
2004: The President is talking about stuff that could happen. Sorry--it's happening now. And now a 9-11 / Iraq reference. Great.
2006: It's not just Baghdad and environs. We've lost a couple of outer provinces too. But anyway. He's now dictating policy to the Iraqi government. And saying the Iraqi goverment is going to do this--he apparently has faith in them. Uh-huh.
2010: Americans will have the green light to go into the hood, and Iraqis will cover us. What about this says "what the hell are you thinking?" And gaining trust from the people of Baghdad turns on (a) what part of town you're in, and (b) which brand of Islam you subscribe to. I don't know about this.
2012: Training of Iraqi troops is just about the only thing that makes sense at this point, if we are going to stick around. Other than that: a washout so far.
2013: Now he gets to Anbar province, where "we are protecting the local population." Not that it shows or anything. 4,000 more troops for this? And that would defeat al-Qaeda in Anbar?
2015: Rich Lowry called it -- Iran and Syria are getting it now. They might stick out their tongue at that one, but give it no further thought.
2016: Getting Arab states to help us? That seems like a gimmick play to me--wonderful if it comes through, but really dicey in the execution. Boise State got the miracle this year; could we get a second one here?
2018: "Democracy fighting for its life." And "bloody and violent" year ahead--a hedge, that. Oh: "no surrender on a battleship." They were talking about this pre-game, how this militates against that whole "mission accomplished" thing.
2019: "Phased withdrawal" equals total disaster. As opposed to moderately-bad disaster, which is what we have now, I guess. Scrutiny is welcome, he says. Lieberman gets a mention--that wasn't an accident, I figure.
2021: "Talented civilians." Does that sound like a bunch of contractors? Pass.
2022: Softlight now on the troops, so it looks like he's winding up.
2023: "The author of liberty." Which is to say the Big Fella, who is getting tired of this shit, just as we are.
Postamble: Same old shit, really. We waited since the election for this turn around, and we got just about what we expected--not much, in the end.
Post-postamble: The Iranians hold a lot of keys here, don't they? If they push, they can make things even worse than they are now. They can't do it openly, but they can cause a lot of trouble just under the surface.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is on now, calling it what Bush wouldn't: a civil war, based on "fourteen centuries" of conflict. Time for Iraqis to "stand and defend their own nation." Can they do it? Maybe not. Can we? It shows, doesn't it?
Well, that's it. I need a drink, and there's nothing useful in the fridge. Night, all.
08 January 2007
The Meter -- Past Interference
You back for more? OK.
Steny "100 Hour Man" Hoyer: 3. Wow. That five-day work-week thing lasted, well, not one week.
"[Q.] On the Tuesday schedule, I have had one Member come up to me during our discussion and wanted me to ask if there is any possibility that 3 to 4 votes could slip closer to 5 just because of a number of travel concerns that Members have, particularly west coast members.
"Mr. HOYER. We could try. But let me say in all fairness, our original intent was to meet and have votes at 6:30 on Monday. There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those who live in Ohio and Florida."
Good. The business of the nation takes a back seat to a damn football game. And a contrived one too, so as to avoid the logical conclusion of an honest-to-God playoff system and to make the guys in the cream-colored coats happy.
The White House: 2. Cue the barf bags. The President will give his address at 2100 (ET) on Wednesday. What, pray tell, will he do the next day? Tony Snow--hit me, brother!
"Scheduling announcement: The President will travel to Fort Benning, Georgia, on Thursday. He'll visit with troops and make a statement to the press. We'll give you more details as they become available.
"With that, I'll take questions. Terry."
Actually, it's Tom, but thanks. Does the President think this photo-op is going to actually do anything to help his position? Or is it just to boost his ego?
"MR. SNOW: I don't know; ask me in four years -- or maybe two years. What you're asking is -- you're asking a look-back question, rather than a look-forward question --
"Q No, I'm asking you a look-forward question.
"MR. SNOW: Well, but a look-forward question is the President believes it's important to address the situation in Iraq in a manner that he thinks is going to be effective, that's going to make this country, our country, more secure in the war on terror, by addressing violence and uncertainty in the central front in the war on terror. Make no mistake, Iraq is it. Therefore, rather than saying, well, this is the last big speech -- this is the President's proposal for moving forward in a way that he believes is going to be conducive to producing the results."
Reason No. 47 Why Corporatespeak Sucks....
[Snip from press conference real, but taken wildly out of context. Which makes the match-up really freakin' scary.]
Steny "100 Hour Man" Hoyer: 3. Wow. That five-day work-week thing lasted, well, not one week.
"[Q.] On the Tuesday schedule, I have had one Member come up to me during our discussion and wanted me to ask if there is any possibility that 3 to 4 votes could slip closer to 5 just because of a number of travel concerns that Members have, particularly west coast members.
"Mr. HOYER. We could try. But let me say in all fairness, our original intent was to meet and have votes at 6:30 on Monday. There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those who live in Ohio and Florida."
Good. The business of the nation takes a back seat to a damn football game. And a contrived one too, so as to avoid the logical conclusion of an honest-to-God playoff system and to make the guys in the cream-colored coats happy.
The White House: 2. Cue the barf bags. The President will give his address at 2100 (ET) on Wednesday. What, pray tell, will he do the next day? Tony Snow--hit me, brother!
"Scheduling announcement: The President will travel to Fort Benning, Georgia, on Thursday. He'll visit with troops and make a statement to the press. We'll give you more details as they become available.
"With that, I'll take questions. Terry."
Actually, it's Tom, but thanks. Does the President think this photo-op is going to actually do anything to help his position? Or is it just to boost his ego?
"MR. SNOW: I don't know; ask me in four years -- or maybe two years. What you're asking is -- you're asking a look-back question, rather than a look-forward question --
"Q No, I'm asking you a look-forward question.
"MR. SNOW: Well, but a look-forward question is the President believes it's important to address the situation in Iraq in a manner that he thinks is going to be effective, that's going to make this country, our country, more secure in the war on terror, by addressing violence and uncertainty in the central front in the war on terror. Make no mistake, Iraq is it. Therefore, rather than saying, well, this is the last big speech -- this is the President's proposal for moving forward in a way that he believes is going to be conducive to producing the results."
Reason No. 47 Why Corporatespeak Sucks....
[Snip from press conference real, but taken wildly out of context. Which makes the match-up really freakin' scary.]
07 January 2007
The Week -- Can You Hear Me Now?
It was a good first two days for the House, I believe. There was much noise from the GOP side about how the new leadership were ramming bills through without consideration. Yet the four bills on the docket next week--approving the 9/11 commission's recommendations, raising the minimum wage, providing for embryonic stem cell research, and making changes to the Medicare prescription drug programs--are by no means new items, seeing the light of day for the very first time just this week. (An argument can be made about holding off on the Medicare changes--those always don't seem to do what you'll think they do, of course.)
Yet all of this is bound to be a sideshow compared to the announcement (date and time TBA) of what the President intends to do now regarding Iraq. Another good move by the Dems here last week, as the letter from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid on the subject places a clear marker--at last--of where the Democratic Party is going to go with this. (To be sure: there are those on the left who are unsatisfied with the proposal--sooner rather than later is not soon enough for them. That can't be helped--at least now there is a unified (somewhat) message.) The bad news is that perception is reality, and if the GOP can tar the opposition with claims that they are [jarring orchestral chord] not supporting the troops [/chord], then the President may be able to get his surge.
Lot of good it will do him, though. If there is not significant movement in the right direction, in terms of stabilizing things (and, to a great extent, getting the Iraqi government away from sectarian divisions and other nitwittery) in the next six months, then the calls for an immediate withdrawal will gather serious pace. That will take the politics of the nation into a tailspin, as the President will, in all likelihood, ignore them, thus entrenching both sides even further, and making any kind of success, which is now improbable as it is, virtually impossible to reach.
The wildcard in all of this are the impending investigations, which may force the President's hand, if the heat gets too hot, even for him. We shall see.
Yet all of this is bound to be a sideshow compared to the announcement (date and time TBA) of what the President intends to do now regarding Iraq. Another good move by the Dems here last week, as the letter from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid on the subject places a clear marker--at last--of where the Democratic Party is going to go with this. (To be sure: there are those on the left who are unsatisfied with the proposal--sooner rather than later is not soon enough for them. That can't be helped--at least now there is a unified (somewhat) message.) The bad news is that perception is reality, and if the GOP can tar the opposition with claims that they are [jarring orchestral chord] not supporting the troops [/chord], then the President may be able to get his surge.
Lot of good it will do him, though. If there is not significant movement in the right direction, in terms of stabilizing things (and, to a great extent, getting the Iraqi government away from sectarian divisions and other nitwittery) in the next six months, then the calls for an immediate withdrawal will gather serious pace. That will take the politics of the nation into a tailspin, as the President will, in all likelihood, ignore them, thus entrenching both sides even further, and making any kind of success, which is now improbable as it is, virtually impossible to reach.
The wildcard in all of this are the impending investigations, which may force the President's hand, if the heat gets too hot, even for him. We shall see.
02 January 2007
The Meter -- Say "Isthmus" Five Times Fast
More Meter for you--because we care. (And because long-form commentary is out for the night. Sorry.)
Surging: 0.5. So help me, George W. Bush has to get himself a clue. More troops? And if the BBC is right, the theme of the announcement (due next weekish) will be "sacrifice." This, when the toll passed 3,000 just this week. Let us hope this is just a check-swing.
Matthew Rothschild: 1. This guy has no off-switch. He ought to find one.
"Sorry, but I refuse to let my tear ducts open over the death of Gerald Ford.
"There’s something profoundly undemocratic and vaguely medieval about the almost mandatory salutes that we, the people, are supposed to offer when a former President dies. The niceties of custom all too often reinforce the habits of blind obedience to the unworthy wielders of power.
"Say no ill of the dead, we are told. Hogwash...."
And then he goes into why the pardon was unnecessary--which is fine, I guess. But it could wait. There is an excoriation of his domestic policy. Again: fine, can wait. He then makes a statement that is worth making:
"On foreign policy, Ford was damnable.
"He fronted for Pinochet in Chile, and kept aid flowing to that vicious strongman.
"And on December 6, 1975, Ford and Henry Kissinger flew to Jakarta to meet with dictator Suharto and to give him a green light to invade East Timor. Suharto’s invasion and occupation cost the lives of 200,000 Timorese.
"But never mind. We’re not supposed to remember those things. Just that Jerry Ford was such a nice guy."
It's worth saying. But for Christ's sake--the body is still warm. Could you give it a rest for a week? Better: sit down, write a book, and let the story be told in full, instead of taking a potshot while his family greives.
So he allowed East Timor to happen. Point taken. Oh, and you're a dick.
John Nichols: 9. Now see, Matt? This is how you do it. Give credit where it is due. It's not that hard:
"While presidents are afforded the authority to grant pardons, it is certainly reasonable to disagree with the decision to clear Richard Nixon before Congress and the courts were done with him.
"It is impossible, however, for anyone who cares about the right working of the federal government to disagree with what Ford did next.
"After he pardoned Nixon "for all offenses against the United States which he... has committed or may have committed or taken part in" while his disgraced predecessor occupied the Oval Office, the 38th president voluntarily appeared before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding his decision.
"Contrast Ford's respect for Congress with the belligerent disregard for the institution shown by members of the current administration. Vice President Cheney, Ford's former White House chief of staff, has been particularly foul – not to mention foul-mouthed – in his rejection of congressional oversight."
"Eternal Father" (hymn): 10. You can argue that there is a better hymn to sing at a state funeral. You would be wrong. Chills. (Though the sung Lord's Prayer was not at all bad.)
Massachusetts Legislature: 5. I'm not opposed to letting the people of the Commonwealth have their say on gay marriage, so long as they allow it. I would have preferred it if the Legislature had stopped the move to a referendum. Still, the good guys had a sizable majority--134 to 62. Reason for hope, perhaps.
Little Green Men: 0. So that's why O'Hare is unable to function as a metropolitan airport. But, credit where credit is due--this was funny:
"At least one O'Hare controller, union official Craig Burzych, was amused by it all.
"'To fly 7 million light years to O'Hare and then have to turn around and go home because your gate was occupied is simply unacceptable,' he said."
Surging: 0.5. So help me, George W. Bush has to get himself a clue. More troops? And if the BBC is right, the theme of the announcement (due next weekish) will be "sacrifice." This, when the toll passed 3,000 just this week. Let us hope this is just a check-swing.
Matthew Rothschild: 1. This guy has no off-switch. He ought to find one.
"Sorry, but I refuse to let my tear ducts open over the death of Gerald Ford.
"There’s something profoundly undemocratic and vaguely medieval about the almost mandatory salutes that we, the people, are supposed to offer when a former President dies. The niceties of custom all too often reinforce the habits of blind obedience to the unworthy wielders of power.
"Say no ill of the dead, we are told. Hogwash...."
And then he goes into why the pardon was unnecessary--which is fine, I guess. But it could wait. There is an excoriation of his domestic policy. Again: fine, can wait. He then makes a statement that is worth making:
"On foreign policy, Ford was damnable.
"He fronted for Pinochet in Chile, and kept aid flowing to that vicious strongman.
"And on December 6, 1975, Ford and Henry Kissinger flew to Jakarta to meet with dictator Suharto and to give him a green light to invade East Timor. Suharto’s invasion and occupation cost the lives of 200,000 Timorese.
"But never mind. We’re not supposed to remember those things. Just that Jerry Ford was such a nice guy."
It's worth saying. But for Christ's sake--the body is still warm. Could you give it a rest for a week? Better: sit down, write a book, and let the story be told in full, instead of taking a potshot while his family greives.
So he allowed East Timor to happen. Point taken. Oh, and you're a dick.
John Nichols: 9. Now see, Matt? This is how you do it. Give credit where it is due. It's not that hard:
"While presidents are afforded the authority to grant pardons, it is certainly reasonable to disagree with the decision to clear Richard Nixon before Congress and the courts were done with him.
"It is impossible, however, for anyone who cares about the right working of the federal government to disagree with what Ford did next.
"After he pardoned Nixon "for all offenses against the United States which he... has committed or may have committed or taken part in" while his disgraced predecessor occupied the Oval Office, the 38th president voluntarily appeared before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding his decision.
"Contrast Ford's respect for Congress with the belligerent disregard for the institution shown by members of the current administration. Vice President Cheney, Ford's former White House chief of staff, has been particularly foul – not to mention foul-mouthed – in his rejection of congressional oversight."
"Eternal Father" (hymn): 10. You can argue that there is a better hymn to sing at a state funeral. You would be wrong. Chills. (Though the sung Lord's Prayer was not at all bad.)
Massachusetts Legislature: 5. I'm not opposed to letting the people of the Commonwealth have their say on gay marriage, so long as they allow it. I would have preferred it if the Legislature had stopped the move to a referendum. Still, the good guys had a sizable majority--134 to 62. Reason for hope, perhaps.
Little Green Men: 0. So that's why O'Hare is unable to function as a metropolitan airport. But, credit where credit is due--this was funny:
"At least one O'Hare controller, union official Craig Burzych, was amused by it all.
"'To fly 7 million light years to O'Hare and then have to turn around and go home because your gate was occupied is simply unacceptable,' he said."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)