God Save the Republic

She makes me want to VOMIT with every fraudulent moment of her existence.

"Watch your future's end..."

Stunned and Disgusted

It is a dark day for America. I'm not a liberal democrat by any definition. But I have to confess that I find Obama's candidacy exciting and different. I'm disgusted that the clinton machine has steamrolled him in New Hampshire. Everything about the clintons oozes phoniness and greasy self-absorbed self-righteousness. There is nothing at all about their character that balances the complete lack of moral guidance and complete lack of personal integrity. I find them to be the embodiment of everything that is wrong with American politics.

In stark contrast is Barack Obama. He is inspiring. He is someone I like watching. I don't agree with a thing he says, but I find him to be such a phenom and harbinger of difference that I cannot for the life of me understand why ANYONE would wish to travel back in time to 1992 and relive the depressing self-absorption and obsessive me-generation of the clintonian years.

The crying fit did it, I'm told. And yet no matter how many times I watch that performance, I can't figure out how any self-respecting American can observe clinton in all her fakeness complain that life for her is hard and actually believe she is genuine. Nothing about the clintons is genuine. Any of the advisors that have spoken candidly about the clintons note as a primary character trait their complete lack of honesty and that every single word and action is political in nature. Everything she does is engineered to play on emotion or place a doubt or raise a hope. She is the definition of fake. I hate her with such a passion that I would become a citizen and vote for Obama if I thought it would mean that no one named clinton would ever occupy the White House again.

Shock. Disgust.

How can machine politics so decisively overcome and defeat such a wave of hope and optimism? I don't think I'll ever understand people who support the clintons. People who think of the 1990s as the halcyon days. I just don't understand people who think of the clinton years with nostalgia. It doesn't make any sense at all to me.

They just won't go away.

I fear for the Republic when a hillary clinton can defeat a Barack Obama.

Now we have to suffer through her irrepressible 'comeback kid' nonsense where she talks about how she's a real person who has a heart and deeply wants to make a difference and how she has 35 years of experience and blah blah blah. God help us all.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, hillary, Obama, New Hampshire

Social Engineering Redux

I heard this on BBC World this morning and nearly shat myself: Put carbon tax on babies: academic says.

Does this smack of failed social engineering projects of the last century or what? It is very thinly veiled attempt to force human civilization into a box of robotic obedience to crackpot theories. It is a truly dystopian future that looms ahead if we are going to seriously put ecological well being ahead of human existence.

It is the latest in a string of theoretical nonsense that seeks to manage the relationaship between population and consumption of resources. It is also frequently the realm of science fiction.

"The seeds of the Little War were planted in a restless summer during the mid-1960s, with sit-ins and student demonstrations as youth tested its strength. By the early 1970s over 75 percent of the people living on Earth were under 21 years of age. The population continued to climb — and with it the youth percentage.
In the 1980s the figure was 79.7 percent.
In the 1990s, 82.4 percent.
In the year 2000 — critical mass."

It is Last Day!

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, greens, children, crackpot theories, social experiment, dystopian future, Logan's Run

My Thoughts Exactly

After a disheartening start to the day wherein I sat bewildered in front of The Morning Joe listening to a bizarre argument over waterboarding (replete with Junior High School -esque types of arguments), I was happy to get to work and read Dennis Ross' latest: The Can't-Win Kids

As usual, for me he has captured the essence of this issue. Unfortunately, the next time anyone takes Iran's nuclear program seriously will be as a mushroom cloud rises over Tel Aviv.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, Iran, nuclear weapons, Dennis Ross, The Media, George Bush

The Can-Do Attitude

Nicolas Sarkozy woos America - Telegraph

I've not said anything about the alleged thaw in our relations with france. I don't think I need to, to be honest. The proof of said warming will be if she follows through.

That being said, important note is made of this by The Telegraph. What will Britain's reaction be to the thawing? Historically, America doesn't move closer to both England and France simultaneously. There is an unwritten mutual exclusivity in relations with those countries. If Uncle Sam's policy is to unabashedly allow france to kiss his ass, expect Britannia's reaction to be one of distancing. My opinion. Informed by history.



Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, France, Britain, Sarkozy, Lafayette, George Bush

German Insight

West Wing: The Comeback of a War President - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

Never thought about things quite like it is spelled out in this article. I mean, nothing in it is a surprise. But the analysis is something I haven't seen before. I have some quibbles, but overall I think he's got it right. It sorta seems obvious if you stand back and look at it. A generational war. Not a season of 24.



Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, politics, George Bush

Um, Okay....

The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

So which is more lame; 1) the fact that they can't get a few drunk rednecks in Iowa to come out to celebrate Al Gore; 2) they can't get more than 15k signatures in California to get Gore on the ballot; 3) there is a FOLK SONG about Gore.

Hmm. All equally lame in my book.



Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, Al Gore, lame, Iowa, Politics

Things Just Keep Getting Worse...

Why are there so few optimists in the world today? I think I'm one. Not a hopeless romantic optimist. But a positive-thinking realist. I guess I just don't go searching for negative news. As a result, I tend to think things in the world are better than does, say, the media.

Chronic Homelessness Down 12%

Productivity Surges by 4.9%

3Q GDP grows at 3.9%

You'll notice that good news about the US economy almost invariably avoids crediting the person who's been the chief executive of the Federal Government for the past 7 years. Not even a minuscule amount of attribution. Not one drop of imputation. Bad things in the world are naturally the result of something George Bush has done. Good things happen mysteriously and without causality.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, economy, productivity, GDP, The+Media, George Bush

The End of the Mortgage Universe, According to the BBC

Not that I'm surprised, given their propensity to designate every other day as the end of American civilization, but it seems the British press has a case of Chicken Little hysteria:

The Independent: Markets fear banks have $1 trillion in toxic debt

BBC: Foreclosure wave sweeps America

The Telegraph: Arch critic calls for Citigroup to be broken up

Foreclosure wave? Yeah, I've notice that the rates have gone up (and down, and up, and down again), but I guess I'm living in my bubble again where this immense tidal wave has yet to penetrate. The BBC is actually using THIS photograph to illustrate how bad things are in America:

That's allegedly a picture of every house in America. The article later explains that it is probably a picture of some place in Cleveland. Well Cleveland is not America. In parts of Cleveland, subprime mortgages (i.e. mortgages given without a wisp of care for things like income, assets, debt, demonstrated responsibility or a JOB), represent a significant majority of mortgages given out in the past few years. That isn't the case in my town or, I imagine, your town. But if you live in a constant jealous snit of superficial arrogance in some formerly great country overseas, then this is surely the image you'd prefer to think of when faced with American supremacy.

I don't think I live in a bubble. I have gone through the mortgage application process several times. It is supposed to be rigorous. If a company chooses to award risky loans, and it goes tits up when people default or when the prime rates change, then I'm not sure I have a terrible amount of sympathy. Luckily father government is there to catch the people falling through the collapse of companies selling sub-prime mortgages. Lucky that Uncle Sam has such an enormous capacity to spend my tax money in such wealth redistribution schemes of cosmic proportions. Hey I have an idea. Instead of just bailing everyone out, why don't we negotiate a settlement whereby people (with the aforementioned thing called a job and some semblance of responsibility) can keep their houses at a reduced interest rate that is sufficient for subprime mortgage companies to either stay in business or sellout to some other, more solvent company (one with a better financial strategy, it is assumed).

And by the way, if your house happens to look like it is an abandoned and vandalized depression-era project, then my apologies. Aside from Cleveland and some places in New Jersey (Newark! I'm talking to you!), I think the magnitude of the 'disaster' is somewhat overstated. As are so many 'disasters' the press leads us to believe will end the universe as we know it.

I'm surprised I haven't seen an article blaming Dick Cheney and George Bush for this latest 'end of the universe' situation we are allegedly in.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, sub prime, BBC, The Telegraph, The Independent, Citigroup, Cleveland, mortgages

Glory!

Sox win! Sox win!

I love my baseball team. But I admit I was holding in reserve a small hope that the Rockies might edge the Sox out long enough so that they could win at home, at Fenway. There hasn't been a world series win at Fenway Park since 1918. I think the old girl is due something.

But quite apart from that small issue I have, what a freaking win! They essentially redid 2004 only this time they were playing a better team in the ALCS.

God I love baseball.

Breaking News From Australia...

If you have kids, you'll understand why this is the biggest news story of the day, perhaps the week. From the AP:

Reports: the Wiggles' Lead Singer May Quit
Nov 29 1:31 AM US/Eastern

The hugely popular children's group The Wiggles is expected this week to announce the departure of its lead singer because of a serious illness, media reports said Wednesday.

The Australian supergroup has reportedly scheduled a press conference for Thursday in the western city of Perth to make a "major announcement relating to members of the group," according to the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Associated Press and the online edition of Sydney's The Daily Telegraph newspaper.

The reports said the group was likely to announce the departure of the "Yellow Wiggle," Greg Page, who has been frequently absent from touring since undergoing a double hernia operation in December.

The 34-year-old known for his bright yellow T-shirt has been undergoing medical treatment since June after experiencing fainting spells and lethargy, the reports said.

Calls to the group's publicist were not immediately returned Wednesday.

The Wiggles were Australia's top-earning entertainers last year, ahead of No. 2 AC/DC and No. 3 Nicole Kidman. The four men in brightly colored T-shirts, accompanied by a cast of characters including Dorothy the Dinosaur and Wags the Dog, grossed $39 million last year.

Page, who was replaced by an understudy when he pulled out of The Wiggles' U.S. tour in July, reportedly said he needed to rest and seek medical advice for the fainting spells.

"I have had numerous bouts of this over the past eight months but they are getting more frequent, and more concerning," he was quoted as saying by The Daily Telegraph. "So I have decided that I must go home, rest and seek further medical advice to assure myself that I will be OK for future tours."

Publicist Dianna O'Neill told The Sydney Morning Herald that doctors had not been able to identify Page's illness.

Page helped found The Wiggles in 1991 after he and two other members met while studying early childhood education at Sydney's Macquarie University.

The group has franchised its enormously popular recipe to several non- English speaking countries, including Taiwan.

When we took the kids to see the Wiggles two weeks ago in Columbia, Greg was not with the group. Instead, Wiggly Dancer Sam Moran was performing in the Yellow Shirt. He looks a lot like Greg and sounds like him too. So if that's who they choose to drive the Big Red Car, then I think it has the seal of approval from my boys.

The Wiggles



Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, The Wiggles

Navy Confused About 'Intent' Of Chinese

From the Navy Times:

Navy confirms Chinese sub spotted near carrier
By Philip Creed
Staff writer

The Navy did spot a Chinese submarine near the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group last month in the East China Sea, the Navy said Monday afternoon, verifying parts of a Monday morning article in The Washington Times that said a Chinese submarine had come within "firing range" of the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk on Oct. 26.

"While conducting operations, a Chinese navy Song-class submarine was sighted near the strike group by a U.S. Navy aircraft," said Navy spokesman Lt. Sarah Self-Kyler, who would say only that the incident occurred in "late October" near Okinawa, Japan.

Both ships were operating in international waters at the time, Self-Kyler said, and "there was no communication" between the submarine and any U.S. Navy vessels after the sub was spotted. The Kitty Hawk group was conducting routine carrier training at the time of the incident, Self-Kyler said, adding that the strike group was not conducting anti-submarine warfare operations during the exercise.

Ding ding ding. Wait a second. Are you seriously going to tell me that we deploy trillions of dollars worth of military hardware in the form of a Carrier, two Cruisers, several Destroyers and Frigates and dozens and dozens of aircraft, not to mention thousands of US Sailors, even for training or other non-warfare missions, and WE DON'T BOTHER TAKING BASIC ASW PRECAUTIONS ??? Whoever has that policy as the standard operating procedure should be fired immediately. Does that sort of incompetence and laziness and overconfidence smack of 1941 to anyone but me?

When you read the new Bill Gertz article in today's Washington Times, the statement goes like this: "The carrier was not engaged in anti-submarine warfare exercises at the time and thus did not have active patrols for submarines. As a result, submarine defenses for the carrier and its accompanying warships will be reviewed." What the FUCK? We're saying that because they weren't actively patrolling for submarines that they don't take any other measures? They can't detect enemy subs within 5 miles unless they're actively patrolling for them? That without a concerted effort to look for enemy subs that they were sitting ducks? Shouldn't passive defense at the very least be standard at all times out of port? Well officer, I was reading the newspaper while I was driving, so I couldn't possibly have seen the other car...

The Washington Times report claimed that the submarine "shadowed" Kitty Hawk, surfacing within five miles of the carrier before it was finally spotted by an aircraft.

Self-Kyler would confirm only that the sub was "in close proximity" of the strike group and could not say how long the submarine remained on the surface after being spotted.

News of the submarine spotting comes as Pacific Fleet Commander Adm. Gary Roughead is visiting China to meet with civilian and military leaders. Roughead arrived Sunday for the weeklong visit, which includes a visit to the amphibious transport dock Juneau during a joint search-and-rescue exercise with the People's Liberation Army Navy, according to a Navy release.

According to an Associated Press report, Roughead "really would like to know what the intent is in some of the developments" he's seen in the navy of the People's Liberation Army. A Pacific Fleet spokesman would not comment Monday afternoon whether the sub incident would be among the subjects discussed by Roughead.

Kitty Hawk and a number of 7th Fleet ships are currently taking part in the AnnualEx 18G, the largest annual bilateral exercise between the Navy and Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force, according to the Navy.

The Kitty Hawk departed its home port of Yokosuka, Japan, on Oct. 17 for a fall deployment.

Hey Admiral Roughead! I think the intent of the Chinese is to gain enough intelligence and operational experience to eventually sink the 7th Fleet when the shit hits the fan! I'm not sure why you're confused about the 'intent' of this future enemy. The intent is to test and gauge and probe and assess. Our intent seems to be simply to let them! But hey, whatever. Keep on schmoozing with the warlords of the dictatorship. I'm sure they'll love visiting the USS Juneau and seeing how we conduct operations. Maybe you could just give them the keys to the Situation Room at the Pentagon? I mean why not. The Chinese already seem to have free roam of our top secret nuclear weapons labs at Los Alamos. Just escort them into the war room and let them see everything. Let them see the big board! I mean my God, the big board!



The Washington Times' intrepid reporter Bill Gertz has a new column about the military's response to his piece yesterday. Read it here. I think the funniest part in this column is where Gertz reports:

The submarine encounter also took U.S. intelligence agencies by surprise because of years of analyses that continue to portray a benign China, said a defense official.

"Our China analysts appeared to be stunned that China would shadow a U.S. carrier as far away as Okinawa," the defense official said."

Well. Doesn't THAT make our collective selves look stupid. They were stunned?! Anyone following public news reports over the past ten years or reading official statements of the PLA and the Communist dictatorship would have recognized that the Chinese intend to challenge our control of the East Asian sphere. I wonder if these are the same intelligence officials responsible for WMD and Bin Laden? God help us all.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, China, Bill Gertz, Military, War With China, USS Kitty Hawk, Dr Strangelove, Pearl Harbor

Goodbye Rummy, I'll Always Love You

And there goes the first casuality of the election.

Naturally this is, and has been, expected. It is the correct political decision for a President faced with a hostile Congress controlled by the other party. It is politically wise and demonstrates that Bush isn't inflexible after all. Let's not forget the political skill of the man.

Politcally wise, yes. Militarily wise? I'm not as sure. Losing Rummy is a big deal. He takes with him incredible depth of knowledge of the Pentagon and a great deal of skill in managing the DoD. Despite what his critics and other partisans say, the man has been transformational, perhaps revolutionary, in his role over the past 6 years. He took an organization that was a lumbering dinosaur, still waiting to fight massive tank battles against the Soviets on the plains of Northern Germany, an organization unwilling to change or adapt to the modern method of warfare, and he turned it upside down. Like the French behind the Maginot Line, the military of the 1990s was still fighting the last war. Rumsfeld took that ossified structure and transformed it, or began transforming it, into a lightning fast, rapid reaction, long range lethal weapon. The changes he institutionalized are massive force multipliers that give us tremendous advantage over any adversary or possible combinations of adversaries.

His positive influence on the DoD and the armed forces will be deeply felt for generations. Americans should consider his contributions while they're busy booing his supposed mistakes in conducting the War. He's a patriot of the first order and his departure diminishes the Executive...

...but not politically.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Blog, Election 2006, Rumsfeld, George Bush, Politics, Pentagon, Iraq, DoD

Defeatist of the Day

In a morbidly eerie recasting of Chamberlain's 'Peace in our Time' announcement, the Times (of London) is running an opinion today that advates we concede defeat by Iran and attempt to engage them with rewards and trade and other goodies. I'm glad this sort of sentiment isn't yet prevailing today. While the whiff of the late 1930s is almost certainly in the air, we still have some Churchillian-esque backbone left that may avert total catastrophy with appeasement as the vehicle.

The author is the London Times' chief commentator on economic and financial issues. He is also a highly educated mathematician who has been involved in the financial sector for a number of decades. I don't dispute his economic forecasts about the price of oil given the scenarios he describes, but I do absolutely dispute with vigor the scenarios themselves.

The Iranian paradox: to gain victory the West must first concede defeat
Anatole Kaletsky

DEFEAT IS NEVER pleasant, but often it is better to lose than to win. Defeat in the Second World War was the best thing that ever happened to Germany and Japan in their thousand years of recorded history. For America, losing in Vietnam was also a blessing in disguise. While defeat seemed to shatter the illusion of an "American century" of global dominance, it was followed by 30 years of almost uninterrupted prosperity, a political renaissance for conservative values and America's total victory over communism in the Cold War.

Such thoughts may not offer much consolation to George Bush, Tony Blair and Ehud Olmert as they contemplate their defeat at the hands of Iran and its Hezbollah allies. But the ordinary citizens of America, Britain and Israel should try to draw some constructive lessons from history, even while their leaders make ever greater fools of themselves with their idle threats against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Whoa. Wait a second. Defeat at the hands of Iran and Hezbollah? Nothing has been 'lost' here. The issue is certainly not resolved, but to date Hezbollah has not resumed its previous positions and efforts to destory Israel. So far Iran is still politically isolated, contained and viewed increasingly as a rogue pariah. The United Nations is engaged and various other diplomatic efforts are underway to enforce the resolutions passed by the Security Council. So to say civilization was defeated by barbarians, that Rome has been destroyed by the Visigoths, is silly and premature. This is definately not a time to grab the girl in Times Square and give her a full blown kiss, but it surely isn't the last helicopter leaving Saigon either.

Furthermore, our leaders are not making fools of themselves by trying to implement a policy other than outright concession to and appeasement of a religious fanatic who has repeatedly called for genocide and world domination. The fool is the one who attempts to aquiesce in the vain hope that he won't have to deal with Iran if he simply gives Iran what it wants. History is far more replete with examples of failure due to appeasement than of failure due to aggressive defense.

The "international community" is now totally powerless in its nuclear confrontation with Iran, even more so than with North Korea. Pyongyang needs food and fuel to survive and is therefore susceptible to pressure from China. Iran, at the moment flush with oil wealth, needs nothing and is not dependent on anyone.

The sort of economic and diplomatic sanctions being ominously debated by the UN Security Council - curbing investment in Iran's oil industry or banning exports of machinery and luxury goods - would be worse than ineffective. They would actually strengthen the regime of Iran's fanatically anti-American and anti-Israeli President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This is factually incorrect. Iran is highly dependent on gasoline imports, for example. Iran's leaders cannot remain in power if the people's necessities are denied them. The issue isn't of the ability of sanctions to change behavior in regimes, the issue is the ability of the world to obey UN resolutions prohibiting trade with Iran. Sanctions against North Korea work very effectively. The problem is that we aren't willing to starve the people there into submission. We aren't willing to cut off energy supplies and medical supplies. In Iran's case, the sanctions wouldn't need to go nearly that far. Iran is a highly educated society with a high percentage of young people who are not at all religious and not at all happy with the current state of their nation. Denying them gasoline, cell phones, automobiles, chewing gum, jeans, sneakers, etc. etc. will produce a far faster reaction with a much greater intensity then could be achieved in North Korea where the people have absolutely nothing to begin with.

Economic sanctions would help Ahmadinejad by adding to the xenophobic paranoia that always tends to reinforce nationalist extremists, at least in the short term. In the case of Iran, however, there is another, more important, reason why sanctions would be counter-productive. Far from defeating Iran through economic exhaustion, sanctions would make the country, or at least its Government, even richer and more powerful than it is today. This paradox, which has never before arisen in the use of economic sanctions for diplomatic purposes, arises because of the state of the global oil market today.

Oil prices have more than doubled in the past three years because steadily rising demand, especially from China, has run up against the limits of global production capacity. If Iran, which is the world's third-largest oil producer after Russia and Saudi Arabia, had even a small part of its exports removed by sanctions from world markets, the oil price would shoot up to $100 or more. As long as the percentage increase in oil prices was higher than Iran's percentage loss of export volumes, sanctions would result in the Government's total revenues going up, instead of down.

Again, this is only an issue if sanctions aren't enforced. They are pretty tight on North Korea. They have been for quite a while. They were also pretty tight on Libya. Sanctions are a viable punishment for rogue behavior if enforced and adhered to. The reality is that China and Russia won't abide by sanctions even if they claim they are (since they think nothing of lying to just about anyone about anything). THAT is the truth about sanctions. However, that being said, prohibiting the importation of gasoline is something that may be enforceable and may achieve part of the desired effect. After all, the average Iranian doesn't care if China violates the sanctions by selling Iran some missiles now and then. But Joe Iranian DOES care if he can't drive is car to the coffee shop.

Iran also controls the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow strip that separates the country from the Arabian peninsula and which provides a passage for roughly 40 per cent of the world's internationally traded oil. If Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz or otherwise threaten foreign shipping in response to an attempt to impose economic sanctions, the oil price would jump not just to $100 a barrel but probably to $150 or beyond. As a result, the Iranian Government could quite conceivably double its present revenues after the imposition of sanctions. Thus sanctions would provide President Ahmadinejad with even more money to buy popularity among his domestic voters, and unleash an even greater torrent of oil money to finance Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and anti- American Shia in Iraq.

Um, newsflash for the London Times. Iran does NOT control the Straits of Hormuz. The 5th Fleet controls the Straits and has since 1995. Even if Iran was able to temporarily (and somewhat magically) close the straits, rest assured that they would rapidly be reopened. The author is quite correct in that nearly half of the world's oil supply transits the Straits of Hormuz. If it were to be threatened, even the Chinese would send ships to prevent the interruption of the flow of oil.

But if sanctions are doomed to failure, what about military options? As a last resort, couldn't America or Israel stop the nuclear programme by threatening to bomb Iran? Sadly or happily (depending on your worldview), the answer is a very clear "no". Militarily, America and Israel have now shot their bolts in Iraq and Lebanon respectively. They have neither the firepower nor the willpower to do anything to stop Iran's nuclear programme - and even if they did have the capacity to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, they could not afford the risk of destabilising their other Middle Eastern interests even further by taking military action. Moreover, both America and Israel now understand that a bombing campaign that could not be backed by an infantry invasion would only reinforce the existing regime's grip on power.

Again, the Times seems to be disconnected from reality here. Implying that the United States cannot bomb Iran into the stone age at a moment's notice is factually incorrect. Whether we would or not is the question. That we have insufficient ground strength (at current force levels) to mount a full blown invasion and occupation of Iran is probably true. That we don't have the ability to send substantial ground forces into Iran is not true at all. Trust that the United States has plenty of capacity to inflict hell on her enemies from the air, sea and land.

The last argument against a military strike, but by no means the least one, brings us back to the oil issue. If the US or Israel were to bomb Iran's nuclear installations, Iran would have the strongest possible pretext to ramp up the oil price to $150 a barrel or higher by closing or restricting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Thus a military attack on Iran, just like economic sanctions, would increase the Government's capacity to finance global terrorism and curry favour with the Iranian public. It would also cause potentially catastrophic disruption to the world economy when the American public is already turning against the Iraq adventure and Republicans face a potentially disastrous electoral defeat.

I don't doubt that oil would go up. I don't doubt that it would be a tricky and complex socio-political issue to resolve this by force. But the temporary high price of oil is not reason enough to allow Iran to possess the bomb. Internal American politics cannot dictate whether we allow Iran to have a nuclear arsenal. The American public would be incensed if Iran was allowed to build nuclear weapons while the world leadership stood idly by.

What then should America and its allies do in the face of Iran's nuclear defiance? The answer is clear: concede defeat. Iran has won this tussle and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Instead of trying to stop Iran's nuclear programme, the international community must bring Iran back into the civilised world. The only way to do that is to stop issuing empty threats and to start offering Iran real incentives for co-operative behaviour - non-aggression guarantees from America and Israel, removal of the residual US economic sanctions dating back to the 1980s and the prospect of steadily improving treatment in investment and trade. Of course, such a U-turn seems inconceivable while President Bush remains in office. But remember President Nixon's historic opening to China as he was losing the war in Vietnam. To paraphrase Johnson, a politician's mind can be concentrated wonderfully by the knowledge that he is faces defeat.

Try reading this last paragraph without gaping in astonishment. First of all, it is funny that the author extolls the wisdom of LBJ (who ramped UP the Vietnam war that his buddy Kennedy started) and attributes blame for the war's failures to Nixon. Surely there's no bias there. It is also bizarre that the esteemed author believest that Ahmadinejad is interested in non-aggression guarantees and the lifting of residual US sanctions or even in investment and trade. He wants nothing less than to generate chaos and wage religious war in an effort to destroy the world order. He has no interest in participating the existing global structure. He wants to overturn the status quo, not join it.

But quite apart from that, we are to allow a Islamo-fascist extremest regime to possess a nuclear weapon when it has already made clear several times that it will use it against Israel? Give up in our efforts to prevent Iran from triggering a tremendous conflagration in the Middle East as they already have tried to do via Hezbollah? Concede to Iran anything they wish in order to curry favor with the regime and somehow thereby with the people? Guarantee Iran that we will not use force to prevent her leaders from committing genocide, destabilizing the entire region and attempting to conquer her neighbors as her leaders have repeatedly said they wish to do? If this isn't advocating a Munich Pact with Iran, then I surely don't know what it is. This is defeatism in all its glory, folks.

I don't think the solution for Iran is give the enemy what he wants and then hope he doesn't use it against you later. I think the solution is to undermine the enemy at every point possible. Internal Iranian discontent is quite high, even if open dissent is forcibly suppressed. We should be figuring out how to help support and enhance the dissenters and then focus our every dollar we can toward helping them succeed in forcing changes from the inside. The economy there is in shambles and we ought to be figuring out ways to further increase the misery of the Iranian people and at the same time convince them that it is the fault of their leaders. Sanctions alone won't achieve that. It is necessary to wage a war of soft power against Iran. It involves media campaigns, information warfare, financial warfare, harrassment on every front and at all times. We should wage a cold war against Iran. One that involves the gradual undermining of the legitimacy of their government and checks the international adventures of that regime. Oppostion and insurgency should be encouraged everywhere Iran has interests. We need to grab them by the balls and poke them in the eyes. Wherever a mullah goes, he should be scared shitless that the CIA is watching him and may pull the sniper trigger at any moment. The Iranian diaspora must be employed to help in this effort.

I know in my heart that on this side of the Atlantic we have the wherewithal to achieve this. But whither Churchill in Britain? If only he were here to remind his kinsfolk: "Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Iran, GWOT, Appeasement, Churchill, Politics, Media

Today's Required Reading

The Daily Mail has a great article in today's edition. Written by Ann Leslie and located in the 'Comment' section, it frames the issue of Iranian nuclear weapon perfectly to my mind. But beyond that, it puts the entire question of Iran and Almadinejad into context.

I think this summarizes it nicely:

So why shouldn't Iran have nuclear bombs to deter attack from the 'Great Satan', America, let alone the two 'Little Satans', Israel and Britain? Sounds reasonable. But that pre-supposes that the Iranian regime is reasonable.

The mullah-mafia lied through their teeth for 18 years, denying they had a nuclear programme, despite their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And all the evidence shows that they are lying now when they say they only want nuclear power for 'peaceful energy purposes', despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world.

But, alas, there's nothing which we would recognise as 'reasonable' about President Ahmadinejad, the small, bearded blacksmith's son from the slums of Tehran - who denies the existence of the Holocaust, promises to 'wipe Israel off the map' and who, moreover, urges Iranians to 'prepare to take over the world'.

I hope our leaders and policymakers are reading these types of reports and fully understand the stakes.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Iran, Media, Ahmadinejad

Oh Fidel, Your Grasp is So Strong!

Does this slightly disturb anyone but me?

Oooh, the shaft is so straight!

Purportedly this is a picture of Hugo Chavez bequeathing Simon Bolivar's sheathed dagger to Fidel Castro. But given the devilish grin on Chavez's face and the soft upward gaze, the longing expression on Fidel's face, combined with the enormous fallus made me lose my appetite for breakfast this morning.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Cuba, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Simon Bolivar, phallus

Mike Wallace Gives Ahmadinejad Time of Day

In a bit of delighted self-congratulatory self-promotion, CBS news is reporting that Mike Wallace has just wrapped up an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and that this wonderful tidbit of reporting will air Thursday and Sunday.

I can't fathom why anyone would grant this idiot airtime to spew his nonsense and in effect become his mouthpiece. Mike Wallace is an American isn't he? This is akin to Dan Rather interviewing Saddam Hussein at the height of another crisis. CBS sure is batting a thousand.

Why do journalists see themselves as world-firsters so eager to educate us in America with the wisdom of the rest of the world? If I were granted an interview with Ahmadinejad, you can be damn sure I'd strangle the little bugger with the nearest wires. Wallace, I'm sure, enjoyed the tirades against the United States. I guess we'll find out on Thursday.

(CBS) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat down with Mike Wallace in Tehran on Tuesday in a rare, exclusive interview with a Western reporter.

In the wide-ranging interview, the Iranian leader comments on President Bush's foreign policy, the lack of relations between Iran and the United States, Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iraq.

Speaking about President Bush's failure to answer his 18-page letter that criticized U.S. foreign policy, Ahmadinejad said, "Well, (with the letter) I wanted to open a window towards the light for the president so that he can see that one can look on the world through a different perspective. We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate. You see that his approval rating is dropping every day. Hatred vis-a-vis the president is increasing every day around the world. For a ruler, this is the worst message that he could receive. Rulers and heads of government at the end of their office must leave the office holding their heads high."

On what the "conducive conditions" would be for Iran to establish relations with the U.S., the president said, "Well, please look at the makeup of the American administration, the behavior of the American administration. See how they talk down to my nation. And this recent resolution passed about the nuclear issue, look at the wording. They have given us - presented us with a package which we are studying right now. We even gave them a date for our response. Ignoring that, they passed a resolution. They want to build an empire. And they don't want to live side-by-side in peace with other nations. The American government, sir, it is very clear to me they have to change their behavior and everything will be resolved. (George W. Bush) believes that his power emanates from his nuclear warhead arsenals. The time of the bomb is in the past, it's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges."

Portions of the interview will appear on the CBS Evening News on Thursday, Aug. 10 at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT. The entire report will be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Does this make anyone else sick to their stomachs?

How can we fight for our freedom and the protection of our children when our own media eagerly spreads the nonsensical propaganda of the enemy? Why does CBS use language like 'Speaking about President Bush's failure to answer his 18-page letter...' implying that it was a tragic mistake, a 'failure' of foreign policy to have not written a nice letter back to his new penpal. Ahmadinejad is a thug who participated in the taking of American hostages and was placed into power by theocratic totalitarianists seeking to destroy the world order. He is unworthy to recieve a letter printed on White House paper. He's unworthy to recieve a bag of White House toilet paper. He's certainly not worth Mike Wallace's time and he should be shunned and isolated, not treated like some kind of legitimate and responsible head of state.

Next time we should send Colbert to do the interview.

Full story here. Linked to OTB's Traffic Jam here.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Iran, Ahmadinejad, CBS, Media

What Lieberman's Defeat Is NOT

I guess I'm alone in seeing Joe's defeat as a ho-hum event. I don't think it is watershed. I don't think it is a foreboding harbinger of the revolution coming in November. If anything, I see it as a product of the same grassroots effort that led to the phenom that is Howard "Aiiieeee!" Dean.

The New York Times, predictably, sees it differently. Since this article is an Editorial and not an 'opinion' or 'letter to the editor' I can only assume it represents the collective thinking of the newspaper.

Revenge of the Irate Moderates
Published: August 9, 2006

The defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman at the hands of a little-known Connecticut businessman is bound to send a message to politicians of both parties that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. The primary upset was not, however, a rebellion against the bipartisanship and centrism that Mr. Lieberman said he represented in the Senate. Instead, Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House.

Well first off, I suspect that the defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman at the hands of a little-known Connecticut businessman is bound to send a message to politicians of both parties NOT that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq, but that democratic primary voters in one of the bluest states in the nation are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. In my part of the country, voters are not angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq, they are angry and frustrated over the media apologist conspiracy, largely based in the bluey-blue northeast, to portray America as wrong in every way, every shape, every form. Angry and frustrated over the attempts to portray the sentiment in elite Fairfield Connecticut (the ultra-rich, intellectual, ultra-elite part of Connecticut deemed to be largely responsible for Lamont's victory) as representative of the entire nation's feelings. My part of the nation is arguably more angry that we haven't killed every last Muslim that we can find, nuked the shit out of Iran and turned North Korea into a wasteland. But of course, we all just redneck rubes down here that don't know any better. We don't have none of that ther edumacation. If we did, surely we'd all be Democrats.

Secondly the Times, isolated in its ivory tower bubble of elitism, views this defeat as a reaction to the 'perversion' by George Bush of time-honored moderate values. Well, no bias there. This argument would imply that Connecticut Democratic primary voters rejected moderation, centrism and bipartisanship not because of Joe Lieberman, but because of George Bush. The Times doesn't say that Lieberman DOESN'T embody those concepts, it says people are angry because George Bush perverted those concepts. So it seems if you think Bush is a right-wing extremist who has perverted your cherished centrist views, the solution is to reject your centrist views (embodied in Lieberman) and embrace left-wing extremism. It is a totally illogical argument put forth by someone writing from ideological impulse rather than journalistic rationalism.

Ned Lamont, a relative political novice, said he ran against Mr. Lieberman because he was offended by the senator's sunny descriptions of what was happening in Iraq and his denunciation of Democrats who criticized the administration's handling of the war. Many other people in Connecticut may have felt that sense of frustration, but no one else had the money and moxie to do what Mr. Lamont did. Mr. Lieberman was stunned to find himself on the defensive, and it was only in the last few weeks that the 18-year veteran mounted a desperate campaign to reclaim his party's support.

Wait a second. Ned Lamont is not a relative political novice, he's a relative political insect. Relatively speaking, in comparison with Lamont Lieberman is one of the political giants of our time. Mr. Lamont's rationale for running against Lieberman, that he was upset by how Lieberman saw progress in Iraq, is bewildering. Has Lamont been to Iraq? Lieberman has. If anyone is qualified to speak on the course of events there it would be Lieberman, not Lamont. So here the Times is implying that a viable position for a candidate is one that is based on inexperience, total lack of knowledge in a subject area and distaste for what they see and hear, regardless of facts. All one needs is money and 'moxie' and you too can run for office. Wow. Brilliant political analysis there boys. No wonder you have all the news that's fit to print.

Senator Lieberman says he will run as an independent in November, taking on Mr. Lamont and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger. Mr. Schlesinger is a very weak candidate, but Mr. Lieberman should consider the risk of splitting his party if the Republicans are able to convince Mr. Schlesinger to drop out of the race in favor of a stronger nominee.

The Times here demonstrates it's total lack of a grasp on reality. In their dreamy world the GOP will attempt to defeat Lamont with a stronger Republican candidate. The reality, of course, is that they don't have to do that and in any event a Republican cannot win in Connecticut even if they had Jesus Christ on the ticket. Lieberman as an independent will handily win the election. This will achieve several GOP goals. It will highlight the ongoing failure of the MoveOn.org/DailyKos radicals in the eyes of the mainstream Democratic party and throw the party into a disarray of hand-wringing. It will reduce the Democratic representation in the Senate by 1. It will elevate Lieberman to the status of McCain-ite independent able to attract a wide swath of America (potentially as a GOP running mate) and provide the next President with a credible bi-partisan resource with vast experience. These things all occurring t a simple stroke. It is an absolute windfall for the GOP. It's amazing that anyone in the party allowed Lamont to run!

Mr. Lieberman's supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It's hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it's hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.

Huh? Which Connecticut is the Times talking about? Alright, I admit, compared to Berkeley, Hartford is comparably un-radical. However, suggesting that MoveOn and DailyKos-esque bloggers are not radical is plainly bizarre. They themselves advocate overthrowing the Democratic Leadership Council's centrist positions and moving to the left. Doesn't the Times read their websites? Do they know the kinds of things that are said by backers of Lamont? The fact is that they are not only radicals advocating a shift far to the left, they are self-described, self-avowed leftists. Lieberman's supporters don't have to try to depict Lamont's backers as radical, they depict themselves that way. Lieberman doesn't have to depict these groups as turning the party disastrously to the left, it is political reality that this has happened. It is the hottest topic being debated in the Democratic political spectrum as of late. The turn left is a reality embodied in the activist efforts by these groups. Nobody has to pretend the drift left exists, it is there in plain sight and is advocated by these groups. The bizarro world that the Times operates in simply doesn't exist.

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

First of all, 'umoderate' is not a word as I'm sure the deeply intellectual and highly educated editorial board is aware. Secondly, the rebellion against Lieberman was an uprising by those who want the US out of Iraq, George Bush out of office, the Republican party out of power, the destruction of organized religion, free health care for everyone, income redistribution, ecological theocracy, imposed multinational world-ism, and the forced modification of society so that it's perfectly okay to do anything that feels good, irrespective of things like responsibility and tradition. These positions are not centrist. They are not moderate. They are left-wing and they are extremist. This is the liberal fundamentalist position and it is not what most of America thinks or feels as evidenced by several decades of elections at all levels.

The war did not begin at the President's choosing as the Times opines, it began 5 years ago on a sunny September morning. It has only degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess if you choose to read only those news reports that encourage such a belief.

The war and George Bush have not turned the world against the United States. The world has always been against the United States. The war simply revealed the divide and exposed the illusory utopian world view as being false.

I agree the Administration has contempt for some international agreements. And they, along with the rest of America, SHOULD have contempt for international agreements that seek to dilute the supreme authority of the Constitution and the absolute sovereignty of this nation. To have wholesale support for international agreements such as the 'World Court' is by definition anti-American and un-constitutional as it accepts an un-representative authority higher than the US Constitution.

The Times implies that the Administration should be subservient to 'Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the Courts' which totally ignores the principles enshrined in the founding documents of this nation. The three separate branches have three built-in, reactive centrifugal ambitions to supersede each other. That is how the system was designed. They each act in their own interest and in how they view the people's interest and are held in check by the various legal mechanisms that prevent any one of the branches from gaining an upper hand. To suggest that the Administration is eroding domestic law because it is acting Constitutionally is another weirdly illogical argument that was clearly not well thought out.

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

What is the Bush agenda? Immigration reform, strong national security, globalization, free trade, low taxes, pro-growth economic policies, tax reform, social security reform, prescription drug benefits, education reform... These things seem like something I would be proud to be 'captive' to. I am proud that MY representatives in Congress are 'captive' to this agenda. I think most people in the country would argue in favor of most of these 'captivating' agenda issues. I fail to see or understand how a person's right to a day in court, habeas corpus, or Constitutional law has been subverted by this 'captivating' agenda. So far the process has worked as designed. When the Supreme Court has felt that the Administration or the Congress was acting beyond its authority, it has exercised its own authority to check and balance the other two branches. I'm unaware of any new law or judicial precedent that has been set in the past few decades that restricts my liberty or dilutes my rights. As far as I know, I still have the right to a day in court. Perhaps the Times cares to illuminate us all with historical facts, the new laws decreed by the dictatorship of George Bush, that suggest otherwise.

Not fighting the war on terror or its aggregate battles because we don't know in advance how to win them is a strange notion. Good thing we didn't surrender to Japan on December 8, 1941 because we weren't sure how to beat them. I think it demonstrates the Times' complete lack of knowledge of military affairs that they would advocate staying out of wars you don't know in advance how to win. War is defined by a series of unknowns and unplanned events. It is the nature of war to be vague, fogged over with uncertainty. War is not a video game with a pre-ordained ending. If you had asked Roosevelt in 1941 what the plan was, he probably would have cried. Our plan going in is the same plan anyone has at the onset of conflict. The plan is win by defeating the enemy. That's the plan. Whether or not we can execute is always up for debate. But insinuating that having no pre-ordained plan is evidence of George Bush's extremism is a weak argument to make.

I'm likewise unaware of when or where it was decided by our courts that the President is acting extra-legally as alleged by the New York Times. They say plainly that he is acting illegally and only chooses to obey the law when it suits him. What are the legal decisions that endorse this view? What exactly is the Times alleging? Is there proof that illegal activities are taking place in the White House? As far as I know, there are none. There are no judicial decisions that demonstrate George Bush is disobeying the law when it suits him. Another false accusation by the Times. Perhaps they'd like to write a phoney Supreme Court Decision to support their claim? They don't seem to have any qualms about allowing their journalists to fabricate stories whenever it suits their agenda. Surely they have the appropriate lawyers on hand to invent a court ruling and then distribute it as proof of the law-dodging criminal activity the President is engaged in.

When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, "I haven't changed. Events around me have changed," he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation's basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back.

Well, first of all Joe's constituents do not feel the way the Times alleges. I'm sure they MEANT to say that voters in the Democratic primary felt that way. And of course those 200,000 folks don't represent the 1.4 million registered voters in Connecticut. Perhaps the Times meant to say that all the constituents in Connecticut that MATTER are Democrats. And that they ALL voted in the primary for Ned Lamont. Well, if that's what they meant then they are still wrong. Last time I checked the results, there were still 48% of those voters that felt Lieberman was representing them and their interests just fine. In fact, most of those voters have felt that way for 18 years. Sounds to me like Lieberman didn't need to change much at all. He just needed to sell his message better. And in any event, if only 52% of the Democrats voting in the primary felt unrepresented by Lieberman, it would seem far from certain that the entire body of registered voters in Connecticut, let alone the nation, harbor the views proclaimed by the Times as being the universal attitude of the people.

I think my favorite part of this article is where the Times proclaims that the 'true center' of the political spectrum is able to be defined by their editorial board. The cosmic joke that is the Times credibility, their plunging circulation, and their continuing intoxication with misleading statements and outright fabrications should be enough to jolt someone at that paper back into reality. The sad part is that it hasn't to date.

The real story of Lamont's win is that there are elements within and without the Democratic Party that are angry that the party has been TOO centrist, TOO moderate and TOO accommodating. They are vocally demanding a more aggressive party, an angrier party, more debate, less compromise and greater differentiation. All of that is fine. It is part of the natural process of politics. You surely desire that your position offers some unique quality that you hold to be superior than that of your opponent. Differentiation in the political spectrum is perfectly fine and often quite necessary in order for the system to operate properly.

But everyone, including the New York Times, must recognize that differentiating a party that is just left of center from a party that is just right of center requires the former to move further from the latter, not closer. Logic dictates that if you want the Democratic Party to be more different from the Republican Party, then the DNC must move left. It can't move right else it becomes the Republican Party in all but name.

That is the lesson of the Lamont win. It is a symptom, not a result as the intellectuals at the Times claim. They are surprisingly ignorant of this primary logic. I would have thought that their intense intellectual study and preparation at the nation's finest institutions would allow them to execute a simple logical formula.

Part of the party wants it to move left. How far left is a matter of relativity and subjectivity. But the lesson remains. What the party intends to do about it is the true story behind the event.

Coverage at TimesWatch, Outside the Beltway, and Newsbusters.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Politics,Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, George Bush, Media, New York Times, Democrats

Dose of Iraqi Reality, Army Style

As reported every day around the web, the events on the ground in Iraq are often going unreported at best or more commonly deceptively warped to serve some agenda. I read with interest the posting at Real Clear Politics this morning that detailed how the Washington Post is the latest offender. The Post apparently sent a reporter to Iraq to follow the rebuilding efforts underway in the country. This reporter followed General Bill McCoy and his team around for a few days taking notes on the various projects underway and the self-evident success of those efforts. The reporter came back to the US and wrote a particularly negative article painting the entire effort as a disaster.

General McCoy took the opportunity to respond in written form to the Post's article. He composed a letter to the editor and sent it on in. Naturally the Post has yet to publish the letter, which essentially refutes the negative spin put out by Andy Mosher in his article.

So I thought I'd reprint the letter for yall:

Sunday, 06 August 2006

To the editor of the Washington Post,

After spending almost three days traveling with and being interviewed by one of the co-writers of a very poorly written article ("Much Undone in Rebuilding Iraq, Audit says", Washington Post, August 2, 2006), I'm astounded at how distorted a good story can become and what agenda drives a paper to see only the bad side to the reconstruction effort here in Iraq. Instead of distorting the facts, let's get to the truth.

There is no flailing reconstruction effort in Iraq. The United States has rightfully invested $20 billion in Iraq's reconstruction - in the opinion of many here, we should do more. This massive undertaking is part of a wider strategy for success in Iraq that involves the establishment of a democratic government, the development of professional Iraqi security forces, and the restoration of basic essential services and facilities to promote the sustained economic development of this new country.

Yes, this reconstruction effort has been challenged occasionally by security, poor materials, poor construction program management practices, and in some cases poor performance by contractors for a variety of reasons. The Department of State and Defense professionals over here, many of them civilian volunteers, and the Iraqi associates who risk their lives every day to have a future that approximates what America has today, continuously see the challenges and develop and implement solutions. This is a core part of managing construction anywhere in the world and, while somewhat more complex here, it is successfully being accomplished. Have we been guilty of poor planning and mismanagement? The answer to that is, at times, yes. But professionals constantly strive to overcome challenges that arise and we are succeeding and making Iraq better every day!

The heart of the article rests on several old statements by the Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction which infer these are recent or recurring problems. The SIGIR knows that, in fact, program management, construction quality, progress, and accountability have all improved significantly since the early days of the effort some three years ago. Yet, the reporters' "project problems" comments infer that these are recent issues. Such actions inflame public opinion in the United States and create resentment by the very people so many conscientious Americans over here are trying to help here in Iraq and worse, embolden our very enemies.

When I arrived here a year ago we planned to complete 3,200 reconstruction projects. Today we are focusing on the completion of 3,700 projects. We've started 3,500 of those projects and completed almost 2,800 - and work is continuing! This is not a failure to meet our commitment to the Iraqi people as the article states. In some cases we are not executing the same projects - we have changed to meet new priorities of three government changes in Iraq since our arrival - but in all cases, rest assured, these projects will be completed. We discussed this at length with the reporter and he was taking notes and recording our conversations.

We told the reporter that, while 141 health clinic construction projects were taken away from a U.S. contractor who failed to perform, they were re-awarded to Iraqi contractors who are already demonstrating progress, have improved quality and shown their great desire to work with the United States to help Iraq improve - and they are doing so phenomenally!

We did talk to the reporter about on electricity. Three-quarters of Iraq gets twice as much electricity today as they did before the war. Furthermore, we are working with the Minister of Electricity to improve the situation in Baghdad daily and have doubled the hours of power from four to eight in the capitol in the last six months in spite of the fact that demand is markedly increased with Iraqis' new ability to buy personal electrical products.

What is truly amazing to me is that we took the reporter to the Nasiriyah prison project and, while it is true that we terminated the prime U.S. contractor for failure to perform, the Iraqi sub-contractor continues to work there (now directly for us) and his progress and quality have improved significantly ... and he saw that! We are not turning unfinished work over to the Iraqis as he stated in his article; we are fulfilling the U.S. commitment to the people of Iraq and using Iraqis to do it!

The reporter didn't tell you about the hundreds of dedicated military and civilian professionals he saw over here working to make Iraq better, or the Iraqis who come to work every day at their own peril because they believe in what we, and they, are accomplishing together.

He failed to tell you about Aseel or Salah who worked for the Corps of Engineers since we arrived in 2003, because they wanted to make their country like ours, but who were recently brutally murdered in the streets because they worked for the Americans.

He never wrote about the Water Treatment Plant he visited that will provide fresh potable water to over half a million people in southern Iraq in just two more months, or the one in northern Iraq that is providing water for the 330,000 citizens of Irbil.

He never told folks back home about the thousands of children that are now in 800 new or rebuilt schools, or about oil production now being back to pre-war levels and getting better everyday, or raw sewage being taken out of the streets and put back in the pipes where it belongs, or about the thousands of miles of new roads, or post offices, police stations or courthouses or ... well, he just left a great deal out now, didn't he?

Why?

Perhaps it's because some in the press don't want the American people to know the truth and prefer instead to only report the negative aspects of the news because "it sells papers."

We deserve better from those who claim the protection of the Constitution we are fighting to support and defend.

America, don't give up. You are doing much better over here than all too many of your press will tell you. If you are tired of fighting for freedom and democracy for those who so strongly long for the country we have, then think of the alternatives for a moment. Iraq will be better for our efforts and so will the world. And you are making it happen. Be proud and keep supporting this vital effort. It is the most important thing America can do.

Thank you. I invite you and your staff to come over at any time to get the facts. I took a risk with Mr. Mosher and obviously got what I consider to be a very unbalanced representation of what he saw, personally. But I still believe in general in the press and will always be open to helping you tell a balanced story.

Essayons! Deliverance!

Maj. Gen. Bill McCoy
Commanding General
Gulf Region Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Multi-National Force-Iraq

The letter is printed on the Operation Iraqi Freedom website here.

At what point does opinion reporting cross the line from mere subjectivity and bias masquerading as 'journalism' and become blatantly false lying and misleading of the public to serve a political agenda?


*****UPDATE
Oh and by the way, here's a partial list of things achieved in July:

• Al Nahrawan Irrigation Project Completed: The $2M project in Baghdad Province renovated 3 pumping stations. The new infrastructure provides irrigation water to farmers for 15,000 hectares of land in the region.
• Najaf Province Street Paving: Construction on 2 new roadways in Najaf Province began in July. The $84k project will provide important regional links.
• New Al Rasheed Police Station: The $1m project in Baghdad Province was completed in July. It will service over 45,000 people in the Al Rasheed neighborhood.
• Five Water Well Projects in Erbil: Over $400k worth of water well projects were begun in Erbil Province in July. Each of the wells include network connections, generators and concrete water tanks.
• Tameen Railway Station: Construction is complete on the $4.9m Tameen Station in Al Tameen Province.
• Bayji Joint Command Center: This $372k building provides a command center and 2 police stations to enhance the operations of Iraqi security forces.
• New Roads: Two new gravel road projects were begun to connect the cities of Al Jazeera and Ba'aj to surrounding cities. The projects will lay 26km of road at a cost of almost $400k.
• Bayji Railroad: Iraqi workers have finished clearing the sand dunes from the railroad tracks near Bayji making the railine ready for train traffic.
• Fallajah Water Main: New water main in al-Anbar province providing fresh water to 65,000 residents.
• Basra Water Lines: Almost $300k worth of new water piping is complete in Basra province, adding 7 miles to the system.
• Baghdad Fire Stations: Two new fire stations have been built in Baghdad at a cost of $1.67m. Each station can house 30 firefighters and 11 other staff members. The new projects will service 60,000 people.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Iraq, GWOT, Bush, War, Middle East.

Coherency through Conflict, Clarity from War

There is a cacaphony of nonsense flying around the airwaves and web about the Middle East situation. You have the usual low-brow simplistic crap coming from the main stream media, but you also have basically anyone with a computer becoming a pundit with oodles of self-generated 'credibility'.

I've been casting about for some sort of opinion or position that gelled the situation for me, something that lifted the shroud of relative subjectivity and revealed a clarity, a truth that in my mind exists at the heart of most human conflict. I suppose you could accuse me of trying to boil a tremendously complicated issue into overly-simplistic components. But I honestly believe in good and evil. Not that there aren't shades in between, but there are topics which do fall into one of the two extremes. From the perspective of a modern, progressive, liberal society, I view violent religious extremism and militant theocracy as falling on the 'evil' end of the spectrum.

But how to portray the current conflict? There appears to be a different view for every blog on the web. I have until today been dissatisfied with nearly every portrayal I've come upon. That's why I'm pretty pleased to have read The Times today (London, not New York). To me, the column is smack on. I haven't heard anyone reveal the nugget of truth I've sought in such a succinct manner. This is exactly what I would have written had I been able to gain this sort of clarity.

This is just the start of a showdown between the West and The Rest
Amir Taheri

MANY IN THE WEST see the mini-war between Israel and Hezbollah, now in its fourth week, as another episode in a tedious saga of an Arab-Jewish conflict that began with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, a political version of the "original sin". The conventional wisdom in the West is that the whole tale would end if Israel were to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians, allowing them to create a state of their own.

But that analysis does not reflect the Middle East's new realities. All the wars in that region of the past century, including the one between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, revolved around secular issues: border disputes, the control of territory and water resources, security and diplomatic relations. Although fought in the name of nationalism or pan-Arab aspirations, none had a messianic dimension.

The first two wars of the new century in the Middle East, however, were ideological ones. The United States toppled the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq not in pursuit of territory but in the name of an idea: democracy.

Since 2001 the region has been turned into an ideological battleground between two rival camps with global ambitions. One camp, led by the United States, claims to represent the modern global system of open markets, free elections, religious freedoms and sexual equality. The other camp is represented by radical Islam, which regards the Western model as not only decadent but dangerous for the future of mankind. It hopes to unite the world under the banner of Islam, which it holds to be " The Only True Faith".

In the Lebanese conflict, Israel and Hezbollah are the junior proxies for the rival camps. Israel is not fighting to hold or win more land; nor is Hezbollah. But both realise that they cannot live in security and prosper as long as the other is in a position to threaten their existence. A Middle East dominated by Islamism could, in time, spell the death of Israel as a nation-state. A westernised, democratic Lebanon, on the other hand, could become the graveyard of Hezbollah and its messianic ideology. And if the US succeeds in fulfilling George W. Bush's promise of a "new Middle East" there will be no place for regimes such as the Islamic Republic in Iran and Syria's Baathist dictatorship.

The present rupture in Lebanon has much to do with who will lead the fightback against the West. For almost a quarter of a century there has been intense competition within the Islamist camp over who could claim leadership. For much of that period Sunni Salafist movements, backed by oil money, were in the ascendancy. They began to decline after the 9/11 attacks that deprived them of much of the support they received from Arab governments and charities. In the past five years Tehran has tried to seize the opportunity to advance its own leadership claims. The problem, however, is that Iran is a Shia power and thus regarded by Sunni Salafists as "heretical". To compensate for that weakness, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made the destruction of Israel a priority for his regime. The war triggered by Hezbollah is in part designed to show that President Ahmadinejad is not bluffing when he promises to wipe Israel off the map as the first step towards defeating the "infidel" West.

The broader aspects of the Lebanon crisis are better understood in the Middle East than in the West. For the first time, Israel is under attack from Islamist and Arab secular radicals as "an American proxy". Writing in Asharq Alawsat, a pan-Arab daily, a Syrian Cabinet minister, makes it clear that the war in Lebanon today is between "the forces of Islam and America, with Israel acting as an American proxy".

Iran's "supreme guide", Ali Khamenei, expressed a similar view this week during an audience he granted in Tehran to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President. "What we see in Lebanon today represents the revolt of Muslim nations against America," he said. "Hezbollah is backed (by Iran and others) because it is fighting America." President Chávez endorsed that analysis by calling on Muslims and non-Muslim revolutionaries to unite to "save the human race by finishing the US Empire". Iran's state-controlled media has said that Lebanon would become "the graveyard of the Bush plan for a new Middle East".

Tehran believes that a victory for Hezbollah in Lebanon will strengthen President Ahmadinejad's bid for the leadership of radical Islam. A number of recent events have made his attempt to wrest control more likely. This week several leading Sunni theologians at the Al-Azhar seminary in Cairo issued fatwas that allow Sunnis to fight alongside and under the command of Shia Muslims. The fatwas came in response to a Saudi fatwa that had declared any association with and support for Hezbollah to be haram (forbidden).

More significant was a message from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two. The Salafist radical tried to get hold of Hezbollah's tailcoats in the hope of winning a share of the expected spoils of victory. He endorsed the idea of a global campaign against the "infidel", thus abandoning his previous strategy of focusing the jihad on countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. More significantly, he dropped the al-Qaeda claim of fighting a defensive war against the infidel by designating a vast area of jihad from Spain to India.

All that is good news for President Ahmadinejad, who claims that Sunni radicalism has reached the limits of its capabilities in the fight against the global system led by the US and that it is now the turn of the Shia, led by Iran, to be in the driving seat.

"Hezbollah has fought Israel longer than all the major Arab armies combined ever did," President Ahmadinejad told a crowd in Tehran this week. He also promised that Muslims would soon hear "very good news" about the jihad against the United States.

The idea of Shia leadership for the jihad was further boosted this year when Iran took Hamas under its wings. As a branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement, a Sunni outfit, Hamas has exerted its influence to win wider support for Iranian leadership at least as a tactical choice.

Many in the Middle East are alarmed by these shifts of power and dread the prospect of the region entering a new dark age under radical Islamist regimes. For this reason, there seems to be much less hostility towards Israel in the wider Arab world than we might expect in the West. There may be no sympathy for Israel as such but many Arabs realise that the current war is over something bigger than a Jewish state with a tiny territory of 10,000 square miles, less than 1 per cent of Saudi Arabia's land mass.

This war is one of many battles to be fought between those who wish to join the modern world, warts and all, and those who think they have an alternative. This is a war between the West and what one might describe as "The Rest", this time represented by radical Islamism. All the talk of a ceasefire, all the diplomatic gesticulations may ultimately mean little in what is an existential conflict.

And so the follow-on piece must be 'what are we to do?' Extermination of militant Islam is a generational effort involving military action and a huge ramp up in the application of soft power. You don't have to win hearts and minds in the same way that we did versus Communism. But there has to be a sustained, broad, deep and massive effort over decades to convince people with hate in their hearts that life, peace and liberty are preferable to death, destruction and tyranny. Because in the end we will not be conquered or cowed. Western Civilizations will never submit to rule by Islamic Theocracy based in a Mesopotamian caliphate. So that clearly cannot be the end result. Likewise it seems unlikely that an extermination of a billion Muslims by the US Army is on the agenda. So that clearly can't serve as the end result. What is the middle ground?

Any branch of a religion that instructs its adherents to murder all non-believers is not a religion at all. It is intolerable and should be extinguished. Discovering the roots of such a seemingly widespread belief system is key to its destruction. What are the underlying roots of militant Islam? Do we know? We think we do, but do we really? Israel's effort to punish militant Islam seems to be serving only to generate more of it. Is the solution simply to retreat then? That hardly seems productive. Whatever the cause, whatever the drive to murder people for holding a different belief, to cause chaos and destruction and anarchy, these roots must be found and disolved.

I have always believed that at some level economic conditions are responsible for discontent on this level. In wealthy nations where property and money are at stake, conflicts are resolved in courts so as not to jeopardize one's possessions. Naturally if one has no possessions at all, nothing to risk and nothing to lose, then violence is also an acceptable method of conflict resolution. Look at the myriad of beliefs in this nation alone. We hold our beliefs no less strongly than a Sunni Arab holds his beliefs. Why then do we seem to resolve conflicts differently? Why do we approach a conflict with an eye on preserving our wealth, property, family, etc. while the militant Islamist seeks to resolve conflict through killing his opponent and taking his land, his wealth? Economic interest is a necessary precursor to stability and peace. Without it, those have nothing will always seek to overturn the status quo.

And what of simple religious intolerance? Is that not also a driver for the militant Islamist, the extremist Jew or the fundamentalist Christian? It would seem to be an inherent part of human nature dating back to prehistory that we prefer our own kind. But if all our basic needs are met, if our dreams and desires for our lives and those of our children are accessible to us, we can go on hating The Other without feeling the need to kill him outright. For if we do, we invite reprisal that jeopardizes our property, our families, our futures.

These are my thoughts. This has always been my philosophy toward revisionist people, revisionist politicians and revisionist powers. Those who seek to overturn the existing order do so only because they are not part of it. Those already in the establishment seek to preserve it. Simple isn't it? How do we make it into a policy that helps undermine Islamic extremism? How do we translate it and modify it and morph it into an instrument to be wielded by a state, into an effort that can be made in the troubled parts of the world? Is it even possible to generate a scenario where militant Muslims feel part of the system and therefore less likely to try to destroy it?

I'd like to see a Times column on THAT subject. The article above summarizes the problem as I see it. Now all we need is the solution.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Bush, War, Middle East

The American Opportunity in Lebanon

Not to sound callous, but I don't much care whether Israel is being disproportionately brutal in its response to the kidnapping of its soldiers. To be perfectly honest, I also don't much care what happens to the Lebanese. Take that.

But what I am very concerned about is American interests. And I don't see American interests served by allowing Iran and Syria to create a terrorist state run by Hezbollah on Israel's northern border. Likewise, I don't see American interests served by allowing a newly free Lebanon to fail utterly and further discredit democracy in the eyes of the Arab street.

So where others are wringing their hands over the propiety of pounding Lebanon to dust versus the legitimate need for Israel to defend itself, I don't seem to be able to form much of an opinion. I don't really call this a crisis like some do and I'm not sure it is the flashpoint for a World War III. Probably because I don't necessarily care about the conflict itself. I care about the opportunity it affords the United States to further the creation of moderate Arab democracies in the Middle East. Because I strongly believe that doing so is vitally in our national interest.

So here are some good things I see.

First of all, other Arab states are not keen to support Hezbollah in this fight. They're terrified of Iran and their own internal militant Islamists and that gives us the advantage. Furthermore, the fact that Arab public opinion is divided on who's to blame here reinforces the notion that Hamas, Hezbollah (and non-state actors in general) are bad for the region.

Second, the spotlight being focused on Iranian involvement clearly reveals to the world the nature of the regime in Teheran. It will make dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue easier for us diplomatically. The regional actors clearly see the ambitions of Iran to destabilize the entire region and hold everyone hostage to Islamic militias. They are now less likely then ever to support an Iran with long range missiles and nuclear warheads.

Shrewd diplomacy by the Administration has allowed the United States to largely (I stress largely, not totally), escape the traditional accusation of one-sided unilateral support for Israel. We appear to be much more aloof and yet deeply engaged in the diplomatic processes underway. I think this is good for us. Clearly we support Israel, but that does not preclude us from putting Condi in Beirut with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and expressing sorrow over the deaths of the innocent, dispensing American aid and demonstrating American support for Lebanese democracy. It doesn't stop us from sending her to talks with the beleaguered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and propping up his prestige. Image and status is terribly important in the Arab world. Treating these leaders with respect and pledging to help them rebuild their tattered democracies goes a long way to shaping the American role in the region as the champion of liberty.

Of course we want peace. Interminable war simply delivers desperation, poverty and extremism. But democratic states cannot discuss peace with gangs and militias. These latter groups must be destroyed either through m