Karl Rove is set to leave the White House at the end of August, and the news asks more questions than it answers. I don't really understand it, and I don't really like it, although I feel like I should like it. I've been waiting for this guy to be out for five years, but I always hoped it would be under some cloud of suspicion, or as the result of one of his many scandals. This farewell is downright joyful, and the guy (according to Bush et al) is set to go down as some sort of national hero.
Now I know that Bush would say he was a hero no matter the circumstances. Witness Rumsfeld and all the other incompetents who WERE forced out in shame, only to be immortalized by a wonderful speech from Bush. But this departure really does smack to me of Rove simply realizing that there is nothing more that needs to be done with this Presidency. I mean, the guy has less than 18 months left in office, which pretty much means that he can't be impeached. It's just too late, unless somebody finds a 12-year-old boy handcuffed and ball gagged in one of the Lincoln bedroom closets. If the scandals thus far haven't been enough to finish him, nothing will be.
Likewise, it has become pretty clear that we will still be in Iraq when Bush leaves office. If the Democrats haven't sacked up and made the move thus far, it is unlikely they will be able to before they get a Democratic President.
Every other issue on the table has clearly already been won or lost. Immigration is not getting fixed before Jan 09, the tax breaks aren't getting repealed, social security will still be broken, gay marriage will still be illegal, abortion will still be legal, etc, etc, etc.
So Rove leaves with a bit of a victorious smirk on his fat, balding face. Fuck that guy, I hope he has a heart attack and dies tomorrow. He's in a neck and neck race with Cheney for evilest guy in the country.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
One Crystallization of our basic problem in Iraq
A huge Shia march is planned for this week in Iraq, and there is significant (and justified) fear about a Sunni attack on the column of pilgrims. One of them had the following to say:
Sami Faraj, a 52-year-old government employee, said they would march nevertheless. "We do not care about the bombings and the terrorists. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the cause and for the sake of the prophet's descendants," Faraj said.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070807/iraq/
By the way, this guy isn't a zealous preacher. He's the Iraqi equivalent of the fat guy with the lazy eye and hippie beard who takes the bus to work at the Department of Ecology. He's a nobody.
And yet he's talking in personal terms about the basic disagreement of a religious dispute that has been going on for nearly two thousand years. The furor over the succession of Mohammed was THE reason the Shias and Sunnis became the Shias and Sunnis, and this guy announced into a microphone that he was willing to die for it. And he MEANT it. There is a measurable percentage chance that some Sunni nutjob puts a bomb in the middle of that march. That's how personal this conflict is t the average Iraqi.
Ask yourself how many people you know in America would march for their religion. Not even march against abortion or something, just march for being right. Now ask yourself how many people in this country would bomb religous marchers. Finally, think of how many of those few (I assume it is few, unless you live in Utah) people-willing-to-march that you know would STILL MARCH if they knew there were people in the same CITY that were fully planning if possible to, in fact, kill them.
It is beyond folly to think that Sunnis and Shias are EVER going to live in the same physical space. They are fundamentally different than we are. They have not had a revolutionary event (In the Jeffersonian sense) to galvanize them into caring more about Iraq than about Mohammed. Until and IF they do, we have no shot, and it's irresponsible of politicians to pretend otherwise.
Sami Faraj, a 52-year-old government employee, said they would march nevertheless. "We do not care about the bombings and the terrorists. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the cause and for the sake of the prophet's descendants," Faraj said.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070807/iraq/
By the way, this guy isn't a zealous preacher. He's the Iraqi equivalent of the fat guy with the lazy eye and hippie beard who takes the bus to work at the Department of Ecology. He's a nobody.
And yet he's talking in personal terms about the basic disagreement of a religious dispute that has been going on for nearly two thousand years. The furor over the succession of Mohammed was THE reason the Shias and Sunnis became the Shias and Sunnis, and this guy announced into a microphone that he was willing to die for it. And he MEANT it. There is a measurable percentage chance that some Sunni nutjob puts a bomb in the middle of that march. That's how personal this conflict is t the average Iraqi.
Ask yourself how many people you know in America would march for their religion. Not even march against abortion or something, just march for being right. Now ask yourself how many people in this country would bomb religous marchers. Finally, think of how many of those few (I assume it is few, unless you live in Utah) people-willing-to-march that you know would STILL MARCH if they knew there were people in the same CITY that were fully planning if possible to, in fact, kill them.
It is beyond folly to think that Sunnis and Shias are EVER going to live in the same physical space. They are fundamentally different than we are. They have not had a revolutionary event (In the Jeffersonian sense) to galvanize them into caring more about Iraq than about Mohammed. Until and IF they do, we have no shot, and it's irresponsible of politicians to pretend otherwise.
Petraeus blames bookkeeping for the missing weapons
Check this article on WashingtonPost.com:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701726.html?hpid=topnews
Petraeus blamed record-keeping errors for the loss of weapons in Iraq, then he said something that floored me. With regard to the lack of proper record-keeping procedures during the building of Iraqi forces, he said:
"We occasionally likened it to building the world's largest aircraft while in flight and while being shot at," the general said. "But we gradually started putting those procedures into place."
Really? When did you liken it to that? And who were you speaking to when you did it? I pay pretty close attention to the news, and I'm willing to bet you didn't say it to a reporter. All I seem to remember any administration spokesman saying was how great the Iraqi security forces were doing, and how much progress we were making over there.
See, you don't get to spend five years telling us how great everything is, and then when something goes horribly wrong, turn around and justify yourself by saying how difficult the situation was. I didn't believe you when you said how easy it was, but that doesn't mean you get points for coming clean. Three months ago, maybe, but now the only honesty involved is that which makes your terrible mistake seem more justifiable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701726.html?hpid=topnews
Petraeus blamed record-keeping errors for the loss of weapons in Iraq, then he said something that floored me. With regard to the lack of proper record-keeping procedures during the building of Iraqi forces, he said:
"We occasionally likened it to building the world's largest aircraft while in flight and while being shot at," the general said. "But we gradually started putting those procedures into place."
Really? When did you liken it to that? And who were you speaking to when you did it? I pay pretty close attention to the news, and I'm willing to bet you didn't say it to a reporter. All I seem to remember any administration spokesman saying was how great the Iraqi security forces were doing, and how much progress we were making over there.
See, you don't get to spend five years telling us how great everything is, and then when something goes horribly wrong, turn around and justify yourself by saying how difficult the situation was. I didn't believe you when you said how easy it was, but that doesn't mean you get points for coming clean. Three months ago, maybe, but now the only honesty involved is that which makes your terrible mistake seem more justifiable.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Weapons, journalistic priorities both missing
Here's a link to a disturbing little story:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons.reut/index.html
This story is about how we have lost 190,000 weapons in Iraq, including 110,000 AK-47 Assault Rifles, and how many of those weapons are now being used to fight against American Troops. Awesome. Hope that gets in the progress report we get in September, somehow I would be willing to bet it slips through the cracks.
My question is, why isn't this a bigger story? cnn.com leads with a story of 6 miners getting trapped in a mineshaft. Tragic, but almost a quarter million deadly weapons getting lost in the most dangerous place on earth is a bigger story than 6 miners getting killed, or 60 miners getting killed. How many people will get killed with those weapons?
HuffPost leads with Rudy Giuliani's daughter's facebook page. Seriously. She joined the "1 Million Strong for Barack" facebook group, and now that's a national news story bigger than taxpayer dollars being used to arm out enemies.
Foxnews leads with the coal miners, followed by the facebook page and a twelve-year old "Messiah" getting arrested in France. Ummm...okay. What the hell is wrong with the media in this country?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons.reut/index.html
This story is about how we have lost 190,000 weapons in Iraq, including 110,000 AK-47 Assault Rifles, and how many of those weapons are now being used to fight against American Troops. Awesome. Hope that gets in the progress report we get in September, somehow I would be willing to bet it slips through the cracks.
My question is, why isn't this a bigger story? cnn.com leads with a story of 6 miners getting trapped in a mineshaft. Tragic, but almost a quarter million deadly weapons getting lost in the most dangerous place on earth is a bigger story than 6 miners getting killed, or 60 miners getting killed. How many people will get killed with those weapons?
HuffPost leads with Rudy Giuliani's daughter's facebook page. Seriously. She joined the "1 Million Strong for Barack" facebook group, and now that's a national news story bigger than taxpayer dollars being used to arm out enemies.
Foxnews leads with the coal miners, followed by the facebook page and a twelve-year old "Messiah" getting arrested in France. Ummm...okay. What the hell is wrong with the media in this country?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Obama might just be my guy
Saw this article today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/01/obamas-terrorism-speech_n_58815.html
The article chronicles Obama's efforts to break from the democratic interest groups, including: Promising to go into Pakistan is they refuse to root out the terrorists hiding in their mountains (obviously still getting us out of Iraq), Raising the social security age without privatization, putting teachers on a merit pay system, and chastising black men who abandon their children.
Apparently a lot of people are trying to say this will hurt him. I've got news for those people. It won't hurt him with me. This guy is more right on every time he opens his mouth. I'm still technically undecided with regard to my primary vote, but I'm leaning towards Obama with an option to fall at any time. This guy is saying the things I've been waiting for a politician to say for a really long time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/01/obamas-terrorism-speech_n_58815.html
The article chronicles Obama's efforts to break from the democratic interest groups, including: Promising to go into Pakistan is they refuse to root out the terrorists hiding in their mountains (obviously still getting us out of Iraq), Raising the social security age without privatization, putting teachers on a merit pay system, and chastising black men who abandon their children.
Apparently a lot of people are trying to say this will hurt him. I've got news for those people. It won't hurt him with me. This guy is more right on every time he opens his mouth. I'm still technically undecided with regard to my primary vote, but I'm leaning towards Obama with an option to fall at any time. This guy is saying the things I've been waiting for a politician to say for a really long time.
Rove testimony may be the lynchpin...
Remember those contempt subpoenas issued by Congress against Josh Bolten and Harriet Myers lat week? Well, now they're considering going after Karl Rove, and I am just delighted. Bush is trying to block Rove's testimony pretty hard...good call, Bush. For some reason, I have a gut feeling that Rove testifying would degenerate pretty quickly, for two reasons. One, the guy has his finger in every pie in the world, the level of dirty tricks he has committed is basically the same as the total number of dirty tricks played and secreted by this administration. Second, and perhaps more important, Rove is a smarmy asshole who thinks he is smarter and better than everyone else, including congress. I'll bet he would happily stoop to perjury, or at least get up there and act like he had a perfect right to choose which questions to answer and which questions not to answer. God that is a scene I would love to see on C-Span, Harry Reid screaming at Karl Rove and Karl Rove just smiling back up at his with his bald head gleaming, calmly saying something about executive privilege. Happy days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)