Further Evidence That Fox Doesn't Want Romney

They're going so far as to talk smack about invading Iran if Romney says he's for it.

To be fair to poppa bear, I don't know what his thinking has been on the subject in the past. Maybe this is perfectly consistant. Anybody wanna help me out here?

I'm Not Pleased About Libya

Humanitarian crisis notwithstanding, invading a country with weapons to prevent the death of civilians is absurd. It's roughly as absurd as the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize to spearhead invasions in two countries in as many years.

And I might as well admit it - if there's a credible alternative to Obama in 2012 I'll vote for him/her. Even if they call themselves Republican. The trick is that the candidate has to be less Republican than Obama.

No, this isn't a novel position.

Republicans, Joke That This Guy Should Be Killed

Because "Curveball" caused a few problems for you.

As US secretary of state, Colin Powell gathered his notes in front of the United Nations security council, the man watching — Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, known to the west's intelligence services as "Curveball" — had more than an inkling of what was to come. He was, after all, Powell's main source, a man his German handlers had feted as a new "Deep throat" — an agent so pivotal that he could bring down a government.

As Curveball watched Powell make the US case to invade Iraq, he was hiding an admission that he has not made until now: that nearly every word he had told his interrogators from Germany's secret service, the BND, was a lie.

Everything he had said about the inner workings of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons programme was a flight of fantasy - one that, he now claims was aimed at ousting the Iraqi dictator. Janabi, a chemical engineering graduate who had worked in the Iraqi industry, says he looked on in shock as Powell's presentation revealed that the Bush administration's hawkish decisionmakers had swallowed the lot. Something else left him even more amazed; until that point he had not met a US official, let alone been interviewed by one.

"I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime," he told the Guardian in a series of interviews carried out in his native Arabic and German. "I and my sons are proud of that, and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."

So at the time of writing this, an estimate of what this guy has cost Americans is $774 trillion dollars. For the current estimate, click here. That's just money. The cost in Americans themselves is around 5000 casualties. Iraqis have lost about 100k of their number.

And YOU, Republicans, were behind it all the way. It lost you the 2006 and 2008 elections and you're still hurting from it. Sure a lot of Democrats were for the Iraq war as well, but as far as I can see, it was ALL y'all. Plus you insisted on invading a country based on this one guy's story rather than trusting some second opinions. Hans Blix, for instance. So the point is, if anyone is interested in revenge, it should probably be you. Send Cheney after him.

Free Enterprise

Time to renegotiate them contracts, boys.

Good News, The Sign Has Been Returned

Russ Feingold and I Agree

From The Situation Room:

FEINGOLD: ...The president says, we're doing this. We're adding 30,000, 35,000 troops to finish the job. And I ask the question, "What job?" because the president has been so eloquent in pointing out our issue is fighting al Qaeda.

The argument falls apart when you realize that al Qaeda does not have its headquarters in Afghanistan anymore. It is headquartered in Pakistan. It is active in Somalia, and Yemen, North Africa, affiliates of it in Southeast Asia.

Why does it make sense to have a huge ground presence in Afghanistan to deal with a small al Qaeda contingent, when we don't do that in so many other countries where we're actually having some success without invading the country and attacking those that are part of al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense.

BLITZER: Well, here's how the president responds to that. I will play this clip from his speech last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: I guess the main point he's trying to make is, if -- if the U.S. were to lose, let's say, in Afghanistan, just walk away, all those al Qaeda operatives who have crossed the border into Pakistan would simply go back to a pre-9/11 situation that the Taliban would control and give them that safe haven in Afghanistan.

FEINGOLD: That's an incredibly unlikely scenario, in my view, that al Qaeda would find that to be the ideal place to return to. The notion that the Taliban would automatically welcome them with open arms is questionable, in light of the fact that in the first place they came into Afghanistan with the Taliban's blessing because they had a lot of money to pass around.

Now they are hiding in caves in Pakistan. And I'm wondering why the president thinks he shouldn't have ground forces and troops in countries all over the world that are not only potential, but current safe havens for al Qaeda. Why aren't we doing that approach of a huge land presence in those places, as in Northern Africa, in Yemen and Somalia? It doesn't make sense. Why this one place, where it's not the place that al Qaeda actually is headquartered in?

Word, my man.

Troop Buildup

I'm often criticized for worshipping everything Obama does (by people who literally cannot ever find a complimentary thing to say about him, even when he does exactly what they want him to do) so it's a weird pleasure for me to say this. I wish we weren't sending more troops to Afghanistan.

I like the idea that we're at least setting a goal for leaving that country, but the time we spend between now and 2011 (assuming we're not trapped then) will likely be wasted. It won't improve conditions, it won't prepare the Afghans to defend themselves. Nothing can. Nobody has ever whipped that place into a civilization and I can't imagine we will either. Most likely we're just going spend the next few years funneling surplus weapons to warlords, which they will use to kill each other with after we're gone.

And yes, they will blame the Americans for it.

If we pulled out now, the place would wind up in the exact same chaos only with less of our descendants' money wasted. On the plus side, like all wars, this one could stimulate the economy. It's government spending to create jobs! I'm for that; I just prefer the spending that gives me a bridge or a dam or something and doesn't kill a bunch of people. Call me irresponsible.

A Good Reason To Not Send More Troops

If you're planning on withdrawing troops! My favorite leak of the month:

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

Assuming we can't win there, and the Afghans are too destroyed after 20 years of continuous bombing to be a threat, this makes plenty of sense. In addition to freeing up troops for more useful work, this would also plug up a considerable hole in that budget the Freepers and Tenthers and Teabaggers keep screaming about.

And don't believe that nonsense about Afghanistan being the "central front in the war on terror". Even is Afghanistan is made into a smoking hole (wait, it already IS a smoking hole) there are terrorists everywhere. We ain't gonna stop 'em by destroying the countries they live in.

If this is a trial balloon sent up by Obama, tell him I approve.

Kicking A Man When He's Down, By Proxy

The Bush Legacy project took another hit today when a democratized, liberated Iraqi reporter hurled shoes at the president during a press conference. If you like your hostile gestures half-full, at least it proves Bush was right about something: he never should have started giving all those press conferences!

"This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," the journalist shouted (in Arabic), Steven Lee Myers of The New York Times reported in a pool report to the White House press corps. Myers reported that the man threw the second shoe and added: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."

Hopefully this will the be the coda to the whole misbegotten enterprise - Bush blamed for it all and America's role in it ignored. After all, we're already spending good tax money to protect Bush for the rest of his life. Protecting the whole country from things that Iraq might want to fling (terrorists, 'cause they ain't got no weapons) is a much pricier job.

The trip to Iraq has been described as a "victory lap" by the White House. Running shoes are therefore an appropriate parting gift.

Half-Full

A number cruncher at the University of Chicago Law School suggests that it's very possible that civilian deaths in Iraq may have been greater if we hadn't invaded. (He also points out that they have more commercial TV stations, a greater "freedom index" and other positives.) Which is great. But you still have to wonder - we committed our troops and a large portion of our GDP for what, to make life better in Iraq? What have they done for US lately? (h/t Andrew Sullivan)

The Trouble With Going Pro

Publius took issue with my post yesterday, opining that I took the occasion of Veteran's day to promote an anti-war agenda. Though that wasn't my intention (as I pointed out, war is often necessary) it got me thinking - should one be pro-war? I mean let's face it - war is costly and it damages people; often as not, it kills people. How can anyone root for that? It's just as wrong to always deny war is an option. Personally, I think the Iraq war is a mistake - the prosecution was bungled, the rationale for going in the first place, if we ever find out what it was, will probably turn out to be flawed. On the other hand, the war that messed my dad up so much was clearly necessary, and I'm awfully glad we went in.

It's not dissimilar to the abortion argument. No rational person is for abortion, but many believe it should be an option in certain situations.

"Pro" and "anti" are binary terms that we apply too frequently to analog situations. Life is too complicated for an up-or-down vote.

Veterans Day

I was going to wish everybody a happy Veterans Day... instead, please have a thoughtful one.

Me, I'll be thinking about my Dad, one of a handful of survivors of the USS Wasp, a battleship which went down in the Pacific during WWII. He trod shark-infested waters for three days before help arrived, a skinny underaged kid who was accepted into the Navy because this was the Great War and sometimes you use the rule book to prop up a leg of the registration tables.

He came out of the Pacific Theatre with a purple heart and serious drinking problem, spared from the fate of most of his fellow crewmen by sheer capricious chance and his own survial instinct. Even when he was at his happiest, a dark cloud followed him around; he smoked like a chimney and the only reason that lung cancer didn't eventually kill him was that he drank himself to death first. He died in 1977, the year STAR WARS came out. In essence, he'd been living on borrowed time for 33 years.

Frequently war is necessary but it has a terrible cost. When you honor our veterans, praise them all the more for the chunk of their souls that they gave up while acting as human shields for you.

Let The Smear Campaign Begin

Colin Powell, on Meet The Press:

Powell: I’m going to support the best person I can find who will lead this country for the eight years beginning in January 2009.
Russert: Of any party?
Powell: The best person I can find.

Yeah, I always knew he was crooked. He should have made a better case to the United Nations. And I got a guy here who worked with him, who says he was never an actual General!

Leiberman Visits Iraq; "Happy with Progress"

For God's sake, someone in the state department stop these people before they pursue photo ops in Iraq! What the hell kind of message is this?

Do what the president did yesterday - build an Iraqi street in Georgia, and visit THAT. Then you can walk in your shirtsleeves. You can even have a couple of "locals" greet you as a liberator, on camera. You kiss a baby, buy a couple of rugs, maybe even wrestle a terrorist to the ground with your bare hands. Whatever. Will it seem faked? Of course, but we're used to it now!

By the way, it's apparently the 2nd anniversary of Cheney's "last throes" remark: “the level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline.” And yes it will, after a final violent spasm which is just around the corner. The country is still pretty twitchy -- two years is a long time to be in throes -- but that's why it will be too exhausted to fight us over here! We are sitting in the catbird seat, my friends. This war is as good as won. But we still should probably occupy it for at least 50 more years. Why take chances. Pulling out is dangerous, and could cost lives.

Defeatocrats

Harry Shearer, a pretty snarky guy, gets seriously nasty at Congress for backing down from Iran benchmarks and withdrawal dates here. In my experience Harry is almost always right. No change this time, either.

What the hell were they thinking? Here is how it should have played out: Congress submits funding bill with timetables. President vetoes. Repeat many, many times. Each time, Bush would say that Congress is refusing to fund the troops, and each time Pelosi would point out that they are submitting funding bills. Gradually the troops would run out of money, and Bush would have to choose between not accepting what amounts to suggestions on when to bring them home and bringing them home himself, or just abandoning the Army entirely.

However, they changed course. I'm certain that the recent poll which placed congressional approval at 29% had everything to do with it. They thought, somehow, that Americans wanted them to keep funding the war. Even though it's pretty obvious that they were elected to STOP the war.

You can learn much from GW Bush, but the biggest takeway is this - no matter how low his polls go, he will always have a core group who admire him for holding on to his insane, mistaken beliefs. He's consistent on some things, and it gives him the illusion of conviction. Would it kill Democrats to stop triangulating for a while? I'm in favor of compromising when reasonable people can disagree about things, but another thing you can learn from GW Bush is he's not reasonable.

It's also possible that congress remembers the early 90's budget showdown between Gingrich and Clinton. In that scenario, ultimately, Congress got blamed as the obstructionists. I can see the analogy but listen kids: Conservatives are ALWAYS the obstructionists. It's built into the definition of conservatism.

Anyway, I hope the current version of the bill gets voted down before it even reaches the President, because it's hella bad strategy. And I further hope that when 2008 comes around, there's a plausible 3rd party candidate.

Question The Withdrawal? Withdraw The Question!

The Senate has passed the spending bill for the Iraq war, which includes about $120 billion in pork and a little language suggesting a withdrawal date for the troops. The president will veto it.

Predictably there has been a lot of talk about how the dems are trying to "snatch defeat from the jaws of progress" as Joe Lieberman put it. The vote will be framed as the Democrats refusing to fund the troops. This is George Bush's "Now look what you made me do!" talking point, and it's very effective among those with emotional ages of 6 or below.

There is much not to like about a timetable because it's a compromise. You either believe we're winning, in which case a timetable is a terrible idea; or you believe we've already lost, in which case we should be hopping on those choppers home right now. Nobody believes at this point that we've won. And anyone who publicly suggests that we're winning is beaten down, as was John McCain this week, by a heavy pelting of facts.

So as far as most Americans go, the question is "now" vs. "soon as possible".

As an interesting side point, the funding for the war comes mostly from emergency spending bills. Why is this? Because in the real budget, the one the administration claims to be balancing, the war is utterly underfunded. A perfectly workable solution as long as congress agrees with your war plan; not so much now.

And one more side point, about that pork. That'll get a lot of play in the right wing blogs, but I'd be curious to compare it to a typical war-spending bill during the Republican years. Bob Cesca at HuffPo resurrects pictures of Bush signing the bill that introduced Ted Stevens' "bridge to nowhere" amendment. Vetoing pork hasn't been a number one priority for the big fellah. Just sayin'.