How (not) shocking

"Senate Panel Accuses Bush of Iraq Exaggerations"

In a report long delayed by partisan squabbling, the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday accused President Bush and Vice President Cheney of taking the country to war in Iraq by exaggerating evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Um, how much money and time did the government waste on this? Isn't this really old news? Thanks, NY Times and Federal Government, for sharing this late-breaking news.

Baghdad Burning Update

If any of you haven't read Riverbend's Baghdad blog in the last few months - you really should. She and her family decided that they had to leave Iraq. Last time she wrote in early September, they had crossed into Syria.

Good job, Bush. Good job, Rumsfeld. Good job, Cheney. Way to drive those educated, caring Iraqis from their home country. Those are the people Iraq needs if they ever want to rebuild and move forward and make progress. And you're driving them away. You're forcing them to leave, tearfully, reluctantly, with heavy hearts.

Gives yourself a round of applaud and wave that flag. Well done.

Surprise - It's Dick!

Cheney's made an unannounced visit to Baghdad. He wants to "get a sense of things" and urge the Iraqi Parliament to work together.

A couple of comments on this statement:

1) When's the last time Cheney went anywhere announced?

2) Is he really the person to preach harmony and unity between dissonant groups? I've got another great idea: Cheney should take them all hunting as a male bonding activity. That's a good idea.

I think instead of sending over more troops - depriving more states of their National Guard personnel and equipment during forest fire and tornado seasons - we need to send over Mediators Without Boarders. If that organization doesn't exist someone should create it, stat.

Or, we could just all hold hands across the Middle East and sing "We Are the World." Where's Bono? He could start. And although everyone in the US finds Michael Jackson a joke, globally he's still revered as a superstar - he could be our secret weapon. Send them Michael Jackson.

Tragedy

There's an interesting summary of international reaction to the terrible events at Virginia Tech on CNN.com. The article highlights press coverage from India (there are many Indian students that Virginia Tech, and of the professors killed was Indian), South Korea (they worry about backlash against Korean communities in America), and Britain (which focuses, unsurprisingly, on American gun laws. They conclude, sadly, that nothing much will change).

The emotional side of me who remembers my college years still quite clearly can't even manage what it must be like for students on campus, for the families of the victims. Just awful.

The more aloof and cynical side can't help but think that there Karl Rove is thrilled that this opportunity has arisen for Bush to play the concerned, fatherly, in-charge figure that played so well post 9/11. I'm sure the administration can't help but welcome a short break from the constant criticism.

I can't help but wish that Bush would show the same level of compassion and sympathy for the 1000s of innocent Iraqi who have lost their lives in what many consider the same senseless way. And the 10,000s Sudanese in Darfur. How does any of that make more sense?

I'm not saying it wasn't a terrible, horrible event. But when you step back and look at it on a global level (which I can though I know many can't, understandably) it's unfortunately just a tiny drop of blood compared to the pool that the world amasses daily from war and disease.

Hypocrisy Never-Ending ...

... and the soldiers pay the price.

Conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, (the main U.S. military hospital) have not improved for veterans suffering with physical and psychological problems, reports the latest Reuters article (it's a good article. You should read it!).

The Bush Administration says it's a crying shame -- and then points fingers at the Democrats who are "threatening" to limit Iraq spending (which has nothing to do with funding for the Walter Reed).

The White House has irked the new Democratic majority in Congress by suggesting
that they would be hurting American troops if they made any effort to cut
off funds for the Iraq war, which faces growing public opposition.

Very classy, I'm sure. The real issue is that Bush has no problem buying guns but he has a real problem with publicly-funded health care (which, is after all, what military medical centers are).

I love the response from the White House:

"I can tell you that we believe that they deserve better," White House spokesman
Tony Snow told reporters. "Of course, there's outrage that men and women who
have been fighting have not received the outpatient care."

I'd like to believe that Bush does want them to receive all the care they need. He just doesn't understand how it all works. At worst I'd like to give him credit for just being a bit dim - otherwise he's just a heartless jerk.

How Long Does it Take for History to Become Repeatable?

Hopefully longer than five years ... because if we start a war with Iran it'll be Iraq all over again, only worse.

There's a good article in The Australian (hey, I get quality news where ever I can) that discusses recent conflicting statements made by Bush and his Administration. Y'all should read it (especially those whose main news source is the Green Bay Press Gazette).

Mr Bush reacted sharply yesterday to questions implying that his administration was tampering with intelligence material to justify a military strike against Iran.

"The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs (improvised explosive devices) is preposterous," he said, emphasising that the claims were "not a pretext for war".

Don't you love how the administration is so offended when we accuse them of tampering with evidence? As if we had no reason - no right - to do so?

Far too many of us were complacent the first time around and our country slipped into war.

We can't let it happen again.

Iraq

My friend - a soldier over in Iraq (more importantly: coming home on a couple weeks of leave in a month) sent me a link to a New York Times article. My friend was part of the squad on the operation the article is about. It's a good article. Read it.

Thankfully, he's OK ("minor" injuries ... I know someone with schrapnal ... that's just wrong), but one soldier was killed.

I find it distressing that the Iraqi soldiers didn't seem to take the operation seriously. Maybe sending in more troops is not a good idea. Maybe we should make the Iraqis take control.

I don't know ... I don't know anything. I just want my friend to survive.

An Offer to the Media

Although the following is an idea that has been rattling around my head for quite awhile now, yesterday's quote from the president (admitting - or at least saying the words - that we are not winning in Iraq) secured the idea firmly in the front of my mind.

Media, I beg of you:

IGNORE THE PRESIDENT!

What would happen if everyone just stopped reporting on the inane, obvious, and insincere soundbites that dribble from his mouth? What if the media focused on the actual events of Iraq and not the homespun, 2nd-grade reading level version that issues forth from the White House every day (a never-ending sewage canal of verbal and ethical waste)?

The Bush Administration's idiocy isn't news. The soundbites he utters are devoid of meaning without appropriate context (such as: President Bush admitted today that we are not winning in Iraq. He went on to say that we're not losing, either. As most of the world had come to the same conclusion at least a year earlier, Bush's statement highlights the Administration's ineptitude more than anything else.)

OK, so maybe that's editorializing a bit.

But seriously. Why encourage the Administration in their attempts to do whatever it is they're trying to do? It's ridiculous. It's like praising the kid in the back row of the class for blurting out the answer an hour after everyone else had already answered it.

The Bush Administration is the back row of Remedial Current Affairs 101.

Thank heavens that there are repeat episodes of House to watch and pairs of socks to knit to save my sanity.

Just Stop It!

People, stop killing other people!

This means you, World.

Honestly. I just read an article in Ontario, Canada's Hamilton Spectator. Yesterday gunmen shot and killed THREE CHILDREN who were on their way to school. Their father is an intelligence officer who is considered an "enemy" of Hamas. The father wasn't even in the car (so much for Hamas intelligence).

Three, six, and nine. Dead. Just like that.

There will, of course, be more violence to follow.

Hundreds continue to die every day in Darfur. Bombings in Baghdad killed and wounded over 300 people.

How is this supposed to solve anything?

Here's some more lingo for you: carnage.

Stop it, people. Grow up.

Whoa

I picked up the October Harper's Magazine the other day. There was a really interesting article about Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, drawing correlations to Iraq and now, scarily, Iran.

Definite must read, and currently available on Harper's website: The Next War, by Daniel Ellsberg.