I agree with what he said, but I can't defend his right to say it

General Dannatt wants British troops out of Iraq immediately:

The point that I'm trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy.

I've always been amazed at two types of people: those who said it was inapproriate for retired generals to speak out against the war, and those who complained that no serving generals spoke out against it. No serving generals spoke out because such speech is insubordination and a breech of discipline. If you're in the service and you want to criticize any higherups in the chain of command, you have to get out of the service. It's called military discipline.

It feels strange to say this, but I agree with what the general said, but I have to oppose his right to say it. Billy Mitchell was right about Air Power, too, and today everybody knows it. We have an Air Force, an Air Force Academy, a Department of Defense and everything else he asked for. We even know that he was right about the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor. But he shouldn't have said it without resigning from the military first, and the court martial was right to convict and punish him.

If you've ever seen an insubordinate, undisciplined military you would understand what I am talking about. It's dangerous.

Wes Clark says what needs to be said!

and he says it so well. Listen for yourself:



Here's more from coverage of his speech in Alabama:

Bin Laden’s strategy, Clark said, is to encourage the U.S. to invade Iran and Syria.

“His strategy is to create zones of chaos and savagery," Clark said. “He wants more Iraqs … where he can go in and emerge with leadership.

“Why do we want to play his game, when it is totally against our interests?"

I only hope his voice holds out until the 2008 election.

Fair and balanced? How?

Faux news claims to be fair and balanced, but here's what they did in a report on what they called

Vanderbilt Univ. discussion on 9/11 turns into a Bush-bashing festival

There was no chance for any of the faculty members to defend themselves, only the prosecution, and a witness for the prosecution. Faux News did have their punching bag "liberal" to make some mealy mouth comments that were supposed to be a defense of something (free speech?) but the accused were not given a chance to defend themselves, nor were any witnesses for the defense allowed to testify.

That's Faux News for you! Liberals are guilty, guilty, guilty of treason, treason, treason!

And the idea of debate between two sides is a quaint relic of liberalism. Which means freedom.

Remember, the president says the terrorists hate us become we are free, so as soon as we become unfree the terrorists will stop hating us and the GWOT will be over. Unless we try to become free again. So don't even think about freedom anymore. Much less a fair and balanced debate.

It's all Clinton's fault!

I don't believe these people. When Bush finally leaves office in 2009, they will still swear that everything bad that ever happened during his eight years was Clinton's fault. I guess the "Party of Personal Responsibility" was the party of other people's personal responsibility.

Et tu, McCain?

Yes, John McCain blames Clinton, too:

Sen. John McCain, a likely 2008 U.S. presidential contender, blamed former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday for failing to stop an unfolding nuclear threat from North Korea in the 1990s.

The Arizona Republican also took a swipe at Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York senator and possible Democratic rival for the White House.

It's time for Bush to take responsibility for his own policies and their failures. Clinton's policy on North Korea wasn't perfect. What policy could be for a country that expects to be applauded for its nuclear test? But Bush's policy is clearly worse, and if Bush won't admit making a mistake with it, McCain should be adult enough to tell him to change course again.

And blaming Hillary is really low, even for a Republican.

How to get the Usama clock?

Colorado Bob, who runs "Thank you, Keith Olbermann" among other blogs, wants to know where to get the Usama clock. I just copied and pasted the source code from another blog. I suggest everyone else do the same.

I rewrote the shpiel, and changed the spelling. There are only three vowels in Arabic (a, i, u). The other two vowels (e, o) are written in Roman script to to try to show short vowels, but I think it's confusing. There's no good method of showing vowel length in English. But I digress. You can write "Osama bin Laden" if you want.

Put up the clock and edit it yourself. I don't think we can remind enough people that this is the first time in American history that it has taken more than four years to catch the people responsible for an attack on the US and put a stop to their activities. The Confederates and the Japanese military were both out of action four years after Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor, respectively. We can't let bin Ladin get away!

The president's voices

are getting stranger and stranger. "The President hears what he wants. . . . He hears things that only he can hear." I couldn't have said it better than Keith Olbermann: Watch here!

Clinton on Faux News!

Did he flip out, or did he smack them down?

Check out the video here, and decide for yourself?

Surprise, surprise!

Read it and weep:

WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become the primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers are increasing faster than the United States and its allies are eliminating the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

I'm back, and I want my country! (I love country)

As you can probably guess from those last few posts, I've been getting pretty depressed considering the state the country is in, but I just got cheered up. By a country song of all things! Check this out:



I've always loved country music (yes, "I was Country when Country wasn't Cool" FWIW), and I'm a big Merle Haggard fan. In fact I've been a fan of his since before "Okie from Muskogee" and I really loved his last albums. Especially the one with "Rebuild America First!"

I guess I can't close a blog entry about Country music without mentioning Willie Nelson's drug bust. Marijuana prohibition is at best a waste of everyone's time, at worst a policy disaster that is making things worse than legalization would be. LEGALIZE MARIJUANA NOW!!!

Who was B. Traven?

(OK, I'm a little drunk so this may not make total sense.)

If you don't know who B. Traven is, just google the name or google "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" instead.

He spoke German and English, was an anarcho/socialist, and wanted to keep his identity totally secret.

In other words,

He was a Wobbly, full of their cult of anonymity and wanted to keep his identity secret, which was harder and harder as his books kept selling and even became best selling movies, and everyone wanted to know who he was.

You want to know who he was? Look for a Wobbly who spoke German and had to flee, who disappeared. But there are too many people who fit that description, aren't there? You'll never find him now. Which was his idea. And I sympathize. Totally.

B. Traven went to Mexico and tried to be anonymous, tellling lie after lie after lie to be anonymous. Wouldn't you? If you were smart, and he was, wasn't he? If you were a Wobby wanted by the law in the US, and probably Germany, too. I don't know who he was, but I'm sure everything told by now is full of lies. B. Traven was a Wobbly, probably (almost certainly) wanted by the law, and afraid of being found out until he died.

I'll drinkn to the wobblies. Especially if B. Traven was one of them.

Maybe more when I'm sober. Hasta la vista, baby!

In the meantime, here's to B . Traven!

The fix is on!

TRENTON, N.J. - A Princeton University computer science professor added new fuel Wednesday to claims that electronic voting machines used across much of the country are vulnerable to hacking that could alter vote totals or disable machines.

That's right. The election is already rigged. But I'm not giving up.

Read more here.

Watch the video:

The right still believes it was just a "Wag the Dog" distraction!

Does anyone want evidence of my claim at the beginning of this blog that the Right was not on the ball about bin Ladin?

When Bin Ladin attacked the US and Bill Clinton went after him a lot of Republicans insisted this was a "wag the dog" distraction from the real threat to the republic, Monica Lewinsky's mouth. Some of this is still up on the Internet

This is from Redstate:

Everybody thought his response to the embassy bombings was sleight of hand to distract from Lewinsky. I know I did.

We got hit on 9/11 because the Republican right didn't believe that the threat was real. They have continued to blow the war ever since. We have to get rid of them.

5 years after 9/11, a reason for the Iraq invasion

But it's not new. It's the old, original claim that Iraq was an immediate threat. It wasn't. And they knew it at the time.

I don't want to hear about this president anymore. He's an embarrassment to the nation. Get rid of him. Look, he even promised he wouldn't politicize this speech, then, when I listened to it, he seemed to spend more time on Iraq than on what he was supposed to talk about, 9/11.

Get rid of him!

Just in case you think Bush was behind use of the "g" word in Darfur

It's a black thang:

Almost two years ago when the U.S. Congress declared the atrocities Genocide, I was so elated and proud, believing that we were going to do something to save lives. I was so sure that this time around it was going to be different, assuming we learned from Rwanda. I must confess I never thought I was going to succeed even getting the resolution passed in the House, let alone see our government declare Genocide.

That's from "Africa: Remarks of Congressman Donald M. Payne - 36th Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference" as reported by AllAfrica.com

Bush's real priorities

Here it is, from Yahoo! News.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush hopes to revive his plan to overhaul the U.S. Social Security retirement program if his Republican party keeps control of the Congress in the November midterm elections, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

That's right, Bush doesn't care any more about national security than he did before the last election, and as soon as this next one's over he's going to go after Social Security instead.

Despite polls suggesting Democrats have their best chance in years to regain control of the House of Representatives, Bush told the newspaper in an interview he was confident a power shift was "not going to happen."

And that's right, too. Preprogrammed voting machines are in place to keep the Republicans in power until Kingdom come. Let's hope that's soon.

Dems lay into Bush about bin Ladin

Here's the webad!



Of course, some people think the US government is actually going after bin Ladin. How do we explain to these people that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or bin Ladin, that we took our troops out of the search for bin Ladin in Afghanistan to put them in a needless, counterproductive war in Iraq, and that that's why we can't find bin Ladin?

Where do people get this?!?

from CNN

Asked whether former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 52 percent [of Americans] said he was not, but 43 percent said they believe he was. The White House has denied Hussein's 9/11 involvement -- most recently in a news conference August 21, when President Bush said Hussein had "nothing" to do with the attacks.

So if Bush denies that Saddam was involved, and they have NEVER said he was, where the &%$#! do 43% of Americans get the idea that he WAS involved?

I mean, people, PLEASE, if Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, he has gotten off too lightly.

But please, somebody, tell me WHERE THE &%$#! DO 43% OF AMERICANS GET THE CRAZY &%$#! IDEA THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS INVOLVED IN THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS?!?!?

Has half the country gone stark raving lunatic?

Darfur on the brink?

There are serious predictions of an impending bloodbath. Kofi Annan is trying to get UN troops in but the Sudanese government won't cooperate. They've even thrown out the AU troops that they said they had no objection to. According to the very reliable BBC the AU has agreed to get out. But according to the VoA Nigeria is sending more troops without asking the Sudan's permission. The Sudanese government, on the other hand, is launching a major new offensive.

PlameGate isn't over yet!

It seems that Armitage wasn't the only one to finger Plame:

But officials at the White House also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence. Karl Rove confirmed to Novak that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and days later offered the same information to Time reporter Matt Cooper.

So Armitage was one of the sources, but not the most important one, or the one who kept the story out running for so long.

Darfur, D-Kos and diaries

(crossposted at Securing America)

At least two D-Kos diaries (1, 2) about the UN vote on Darfur have already scrolled offscreen. That's typical of Darfur diaries on D-Kos, but nothing has appeared about it at the Clark site, either. I reckon y'all were a-waitin' for me? ;-)

from Aljazeera (the island? the peninsula? It obviously refers to the "Arab island" that Mecca is on, so it doesn't include the Sudan, but I digress)

The UN security council has approved a resolution authorising the deployment of up to 17,000 peacekeepers to Darfur, with the Sudanese government swiftly rejecting the plan.

from the Beeb:

The Sudanese government has vehemently rejected a UN Security Council resolution that would send a UN force to Sudan's Darfur region.

from Monsters and Critics:

Acting in the shadow of the Rwanda genocide, UN Security Council members said Thursday their decision to send troops to Sudan's Darfur region without government consent is aimed at protecting civilians caught in the conflict despite the Sudanese government's objection.

from The International Herald Tribune:

Sudan on Thursday rejected a U.N. resolution giving the world body authority over peacekeepers in the war-torn region of Darfur on condition that the government in Khartoum gives its consent.

from Africa Action via AllAfrica.com:

This morning at the United Nations (UN) Security Council, a resolution authorizing the deployment of peacekeepers to Darfur passed with a vote of 12 in favor, with China, Russia and Qatar abstaining. This resolution, introduced two weeks ago by the U.S. and the U.K., was altered in negotiations this week to include a provision requiring the consent of the Sudanese government. Africa Action, which has been calling for the deployment of UN peacekeepers for more than two years, recognized the importance of this step and expressed concern that the resolution will be rendered useless without a diplomatic action plan that ensures Sudanese consent for a UN intervention.

Just to be fair and balanced, here is the article from Faux News:

The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution Thursday that would give the United Nations authority over peacekeepers in Darfur as soon as Sudan's government gives its consent — which it has so far refused to do.

The resolution is meant to give more power and funding to a force, now run by the African Union, that has been unable to stop the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur that has killed more than 200,000 people and continues to worsen.

background from the Beeb:

Rwanda's army spokesman says there have been delays in paying peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region because the African Union is short of cash. Some of the Rwandan troops who make up over 2,000 of the 7,000-strong AU force in Darfur have complained they have not received their $25 daily allowance.

Maj Jules Rutaremara told the BBC the AU mission is reliant on international funding which has not been forthcoming.

and I can't help editorializing that it would be MUCH CHEAPER AND MORE EFFECTIVE to fund the AU force that is already there on the ground than to authorize a UN force. It is hard for me to avoid the suspicion that the Bush administration is just grandstanding. What UN forces are they going to send? They don't have enough forces for Lebanon!

Here is an analysis from Sudan Tribune:

Will the supporters of Al-Qaida strike in East Africa Sooner than later??

By Scott A. Morgan

August 31, 2006 — The supporters of Al-Qaida and their supporters and colleagues in the upper Nile Basin must realize that they may soon be in a target rich environment. They are having a currently successful campaign to consolidate their power within Somalia, Reports indicate that the Government of Eritrea is currently arming the currently successful Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) as they attempt to install the Government that they want. Sudan whose Government is under current Pressure from the UN Security Council to accept a more powerful peacekeeping force for the long-standing strife plagued region of Darfur.

What would embolden these groups to take such actions? There are two answers that are plausible. First is the current situation within Iraq where successful insurgency has tied down thousands of Amercan troops with over a thousand fatalities. The second answer is the recent war in Lebanon. This conflict which can be seen as a Public Relations Disaster for Israel and major coup for Hizbullah demonstated that it was possible to tie down their enemies in a protracted Miltary Campaign. US Forces have been in Iraq since 2003 and the UN stepped in to end the violence in Southern Lebanon

And I can't help but add my comment (they were almost identical) from the two D-Kos diaries:

UN resolution says they "invite" Sudan's approval

but isn't clear whether said permission is required or not. Now the lawyers have to argue about it. However, even if we can pressure the Sudan's government into approving it means little because:

1. What troops are they going to send? Butros Butros-Ghali wanted a permanent military force under the office of the S-G (himself) along with tax powers to fund it. (This is the same B B-G who was so upset that African genocide doesn't get the attention that genocide in Europe does.) Jesse Helms went ballistic and considered the UN making an explicit threat to US sovereignty. (This is the same Jesse Helms who was upset about the United States's threat to North Carolina's sovereignty, i.e. the Civil War.)

2. How are they going to fund the troops? There are troops already there on the ground, the African Union force, but they don't have enough money to do their job. They could be augmented with more troops and do a better job for less money than a UN force of troops from outside the continent, they have already been approved for the job, even by the government of the Sudan, but they don't have enough money for the force that is there now. Who is going to pay for it?

This UN resolution is simply a way for the US to wash its hands of the mess without doing anything, while convincing Arab conspiracy theorists that it is all a US plot against the "Arab nation". If they really wanted to do something they would pony up some more $$$$$ for the African Union force that is already there and call the Arab League's bluff about helping finance the AU force. In the meantime, Darfur is a test case for the AU. If it doesn't act, it should be replaced by a United States of Africa that can act.