Tangled Webs

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

More Blackwater

This is the best summary I've seen thus far of what happened in the "Blackwater event" in Iraq:

Despite all the new details revealed in the NYT's lead story, it's still unclear why the shooting began in the first place, or who even fired the first shot. But the fateful events of the day seem to have started when "a single bullet apparently fired by a Blackwater guard" killed an Iraqi man who was driving. His foot apparently remained on the accelarator and his car began to move toward the Blackwater convoy. Blackwater guards then began shooting in different directions as panicked Iraqis tried to escape from the scene. In what seems to be the most shocking revelation of the story, after that round of shooting stopped, one Blackwater convoy moved north and began firing at cars again.

By all accounts, the shooting was as intense and indiscriminate as it was sudden. "The shooting started like rain," an Iraqi witness said. The NYT interestingly points out that it seems early reports that talked of a woman who was shot holding on to her baby were wrong. It appears that she was holding the driver, who was her son (the man's "charred remains … were mistaken for an infant," the NYT explains).

...

The WP interviewed people familiar with the workings of private security companies in Iraq, as well as U.S. officials, and off-leads word that many believe contractors use their weapons far more often than what has been reported. Current and former employees say it's fairly common for contractors to open fire, frequently without provocation, and that most of these incidents are simply not reported. Even the man who is tasked with monitoring shooting incidents acknowledged that many companies don't report all of them, which doesn't seem to bother him much.

Don't you like that last line?

But of course it doesn't bother him that all incidents aren't reported. It's silly to apply our civilized standards to Iraq which is one big war zone. It would be a little like asking a police detective in a crime ridden city to pull out all the stops to investigate a burglary. Anyone who is shocked by the revelations of how far down in the jungle Iraq has fallen is simply naive.

Programming

The Chicago Tribune has a good article about Kucinich. I was struck by something as I read in comment after comment from people who think Kucinich is right on and the kind of man they want in the White House yet in the same breath they say he can't win.

How complete is the influence of the corporate media. It has convinced people that the candidate they want, the candidate they yearn for, can't win.

This is just incredible. This candidate expresses everything people say they want to happen, from the withdrawal from Iraq to health care to the environment to help for the middle class... on and on. And yet thousands of people are convinced he can't win simply because the media tells them so. As Marc Maron says, Wake up sheeple. The first step to reclaiming your nation is to take that bold move and vote for the candidate who truly represents you—regardless of what the media is telling you. They have a vested interest in keeping him out of power. He is not corporate America's friend. He is yours.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Rambling Thoughts

I've only got a couple for the time being.

First, the whole MoveOn/Rush Limbaugh dust-up is rather tiring. I understand why it's happening, and I don't blame liberals for fighting fire with fire. I just think it's too bad that all the hyperbole surrounding both issues actually works and is even necessary.

Second, will the religious right run a third party candidate? If I were them I would. The odds of a Republican winning the 2008 Presidential election are dim and dimming, no matter what the religious ~~nutbars~~ right does. The RR routinely threatens to split the conservatives, then doesn't. Put another way, the threat is getting pretty empty. But why not carry it out this time? You get the benefit of carrying out the threat during an election cycle where it may not matter much.

There is one downside to going third party for the RR. A very weak showing would go a long way towards burying the myth of the religious right's influence on 2000 and 2004. But this would seem to be a small risk, at least according to the ~~nutbars~~ religious right leaders who think they have a very large following.

Repeat After Me ....

More and better Democrats, more and better Democrats, more and better Democrats:

Digby on the weak response of Dems to the whole MoveOn/Rush Limbaugh dust up (Rush came out firing yesterday):

I'm tired of defending Democrats against this stuff. They seem to like looking like total assholes and having the public --- and especially the military --- see them as pathetic Charlie Browns who can't even defend themselves against a drug-addled gasbag.

They should have removed Rush Limbaugh from the taxpayer supported Armed Forces Radio before, but most especially this week when they had the chance to teach the Republicans a lesson about the perils of fucking with free speech. Taking out their flagship scumbag (something that should have been done long ago) would have been a hard shot, right in the nose, and would have put them in their place. Instead, the Dems chose to beg for their Republican friends to sign a letter asking Rush's boss to make him apologize for being mean. And what they get in return is this slander beamed directly to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan on our dime. Wow.

I'll repeat what I wrote last week: this election apparently boils down to whether the nation can overcome its inherent revulsion for ineffectual chickenshits to vote once again for a corrupt, failed political movement that's past its prime. I'm assuming they're tired enough of Republican failure to vote the other way by simple default. But they are getting no inspiration and there will be no mandate, so don't get your hopes up. The Republicans will continue to rule the country from the minority.

A Billion Here, A Billion There ....

Another $150 Billion down the tubes .....

The House has to agree and it looks like there may be a fly in the ointment:

Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) said today that he will not report out a war supplemental spending bill this year unless the White House makes drastic changes in its Iraq strategy. Obey demanded three conditions: 1) the White House would have to establish a goal to end U.S. involvement in the country, 2) ensure that troops receive adequate downtime between deployments, and 3) begin a “broad scale diplomatic offensive” involving other countries in the region. Obey also said he will soon unveil a “surtax,” designed to raise $140 billion to $150 billion. “We need to stop pretending that this war doesn’t cost anything,” he said.

Does he have the power to get away with this? Will it actually happen? I'm not optimistic, but you never know .....

The War Is Over!

I'm sure you've heard the headlines trumpeting the drop in casualties in Iraq. Indeed, there was a drop last month. Juan Cole gives us the details (I simply refuse to listen to or believe the mainstream media on the subject) .... and like him, I hope it's a trend:

Sep-07 842
Aug-07 1,674
Jul-07 1,690
Jun-07 1,345
May-07 1,980
Apr-07 1,821
Mar-07 2,977
Feb-07 3,014
Jan-07 1,802
Dec-06 1,752
Nov-06 1,864
Oct-06 1,539
Sep-06 3,539
Aug-06 2,966
Jul-06 1,280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1,119

It is true that the September '07 numbers are lower than at any time since June of 2006. But it is also true that June of 2006 was a fluke, followed by an alarmingly rising death toll in August and September. Deaths also fell in 2006 during Ramadan (which started 11 days later being as it is on a lunar calendar) compared to the previous period. Despite the widespread conviction that Ramadan is an especially violent month, in fact it is a time of fasting, prayer and family get togethers and not at all propitious for sneaking off to blow things up.

The other thing to observe is that the September death count for Iraqi civilians and security forces is 842! This is a number at the upper limits of averages for months during the year 2005. If you go back and look at the headlines and commentary in 2005, nobody thought that level of violence acceptable. That is, so far the numbers have fallen back down to merely horrible from having been, in much of 2006 and 2007, truly monstrous.

As many have pointed out, there are now many fewer mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad, so that faction-fighting and death squad activity at that level has declined, because it was aimed at ethnically cleansing the neighborhoods. Baghdad was about half Sunni and half Shiite in 2003. By January of 2007, it was 65 percent Shiite. It is now 75 percent Shiite. A lot of the violence in the figures above was committed in the subterranean War for Baghdad, which the Sunni Arabs decisively lost in the past eight months. The American troop escalation does not appear to have interfered with the displacement of tens of thousands of Sunni Arabs. In fact, my guess is that it unwittingly abetted it, since the Americans disarmed or chased away the Sunni Arab militiamen who defended their neighborhoods from the Shiite onslaught. When the Americans weren't looking, the Shiites took advantage of this weakening of their foe to push Sunni Arab families out of mixed neighborhoods.

If the trend toward less violence holds, and I hope it does, the question remains of whether it can be maintained when the temporary US troop escalation ends, beginning approximately 8 months from now. Some 30,000 extra US troops should make a difference, especially in Baghdad, but their sacrifices will only have been rewarded if Iraqi security forces can effectively continue their work. Likewise, without genuine progress on the front of political reconciliation, the improved security situation will risk deteriorating again.

Unfortunately the trend in Afghanistan is definitely going in the other direction:

WASHINGTON — Afghanistan is currently suffering its most violent year since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, according to an internal United Nations report that sharply contrasts with recent upbeat appraisals by President Bush and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai.

"The security situation in Afghanistan is assessed by most analysts as having deteriorated at a constant rate through 2007," said the report compiled by the Kabul office of the U.N. Department of Safety and Security.

There were 525 security incidents — attacks by the Taliban and other violent groups, bombings, terrorism of other kinds, and abductions — on average every month during the first half of this year, up from an average of 425 incidents per month in 2006.

Last year was the most violent since the U.S. post-September 11 offensive that ousted the hard-line Taliban Islamic militia from power and drove Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida terrorists into neighboring Pakistan.

Hill On Thomas

Good for her. That asshole Clarence Thomas is out all over the place pushing his book that attempts to reinvent himself. Let's not forget the reality:

The NYT publishes an op-ed by Anita Hill, who says that although Justice Clarence Thomas "has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir ... I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me." Hill says Thomas includes several unsubstantiated claims about her and his descriptions are full of inconsistencies. Still, she is not surprised as "this kind of character attack on women and men who complain of harassment and discrimination in the workplace" is fairly common.

Are They Listening?

There's a new poll out on support for the war:

The WP fronts a new poll that reveals most Americans don't want Congress to fully fund the administration's request for $190 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although a majority think Congress hasn't done enough to pressure Bush to change his Iraq policy, "there is no consensus about the pace of any U.S. troop withdrawals."

Interestingly, Congress seems to reflect this poll. There's pretty much a concensus that nobody likes the situation, but there is no concensus on what to do about it, although I think the American people are a bit clearer about getting out.

Blackwater

Anyone who's a reader of this blog knows that I'm no friend of Blackwater. But I'm going to defend them for a moment:

From Slate:

The report on Blackwater ultimately paints a picture of a "security enterprise that almost routinely opens fire in Iraq's streets, occasionally attempts to cover up its transgressions, and frequently is protected from censure and prosecution by U.S. State Department overseers," the LAT summarizes. The Blackwater guards seem to care little about Iraqi civilians as they infrequently stopped to help those who may have been wounded by their actions. The NYT and LAT note that Blackwater guards fired first in 163 of the 195 shooting incidents, even though the company's contract states force should be used only defensively.

Is this really any different than the behavior of our military? That, itself, doesn't excuse the actions. But the fact is that we have fighting forces (private and military) in an impossible situation. It's urban warfare with a heavily armed, unidentified enemy and in a context in which the occupiers not wanted. Who's not going to shoot first? And just like in the military, there will always be cowboys who like to shoot first. Put these highly trained killers (private and military) in anarchy and what do we expect?

As with most issue Iraq, the fault lies at the Oval Office. The people on the ground have been put in an impossible situation and are responding to survive like humans will do. I'm not sure I can be too condemning of their actions.

Monday, October 1, 2007

History Lesson

Read it and weep.

Unfortunately, I remember it. And that was a time of "more maturity" in our leadership than now.

Compare And Contrast

A. MoveOn puts a controversial ad in the newspaper

B. Congress (with a majority of Democrats) condemns MoveOn.

A. Rush Limbaugh makes an outrageous statement about phoney soldiers.

B. House members introduce a resolution commending Rush Limbaugh.

Democrats play it safe politically, Republicans unify.

Quote Of The Day

Huckleberry Lindsay Graham:

Graham told Time Wednesday that the Iraqi leaders have 90 days to start resolving their political differences with real legislative agreements or face a change in strategy by the U.S. “If they can’t do it in 90 days,” he said, “it means the major players don’t want to.” […]

Graham, who is up for re-election in 2008, said he will not wait forever. “If they can’t pull it together in the next 90 days,” he said, “I don’t think they are ever gonna do it.” He followed that prediction with a promise: “If they don’t deliver in 90 days, I will openly say the chances for political reconciliation are remote.” […]

“If they can’t do it by the end of the year,” he said, “how do you justify a continued presence?”

LMAO ... LOL .... LMAO .... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ........

See Friedman, Thomas.

Buzzzzz

Boy, the blogosphere buzz about the Sy Hersh article about ~~Cheney~~ Bush bombing Iran is at high pitch today. No great revelations beyond what I wrote the other day, just everyone noticing the high likelihood of such an event after a serious ratcheting up of anti-Iran rhetoric.

Urban Scourge

Some time ago I attended a city sponsored seminar on "green building". One of the presenters did a complete hour presentation on what he called the single biggest mistake ever made in urban planning: parking regulation. Salon has a nice, relatively short article on the subject that I think you'll find interesting.

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Cough It Up

Give up some Starbucks and give to these guys in honor of two dead soldier.

Billo

The Army of Dude has a nice pictorial message showing a bunch of phoney soldiers in Iraq for Billo O'Reilly.

Third Party

I've often speculated that if Republicans nominate someone like Guiliani, that religious right nutbars would attempt a third party candidacy.

It looks like they're threatening that. I would put the odds pretty low though. When it comes to ideology vs. political power, they go for the power everytime. But who knows. If it looks like Republicans are a losing cause anyway, a good third party challenge would pay political dividends as a validated threat in future races.

Attack Iran .... Again

Seymour Hersh has another piece up about plans to attack Iran. It would be easy to say, so what? The rumors of an attack have been around for quite awhile.

I'm of the opinion that publications done by Hersh and others have been instrumental in actually stopping previous plans for attacks. Hopefully this one will have the same effect.

It's a good read particularly as a backgrounder on the Iran/Iraq/U.S. situation. The short version is that Cheney is now favoring "surgical" bombing strikes on Iraq after portraying the U.S. as a victim of Iranian attacks inside Iraq. Afterall, we wouldn't want a foreign power to be meddling in Iraq, now would we?

Nothing like an escalation of the escalation to keep things boiling in the Middle East eh?

Another Insurgent

It's bad enough that we are fighting insurgents in Iraq, but it also appears that mother nature is conspiring to get us to go home too:

The young Army medic would not stop bleeding.

He had been put on a powerful regimen of antibiotics by doctors aboard the hospital ship Comfort in the Persian Gulf. But something was wrong.

He was in shock and bleeding from small pricks where nurses had placed intravenous lines. Red, swollen tissue from an active bacterial infection was expanding around his abdominal wound. His immune system was in overdrive.

How odd, thought Dr. Kyle Petersen, an infectious disease specialist. He knew of one injured Iraqi man with similar symptoms and a few days later encountered an Iraqi teenager with gunshot wounds in the same condition.

Within a few days, blood tests confirmed that the medic and the two wounded Iraqis were all infected with an unusual bacterium, Acinetobacter baumannii.

This particular strain had a deadly twist. It was resistant to a dozen antibiotics. The medic survived, but by the time Petersen connected the dots, the two Iraqi patients were dead.

It was April 2003, early in the Iraq war -- and 4 1/2 years later, scientists are still struggling to understand the medical mystery.

Quote Of The Day

A Pentagon Officer describing the adjustments made by the U.S. to the use of IED's in Iraq:

"The Flintstones are adapting faster than the Jetsons."

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)