Bankin' Off of the Northeast Winds!

This is pretty heady stuff. I can't pretend to have any innate understanding of the relationship between the Military Times papers and the military power strucure. Much as I have been very surprised and encouraged by some of the positions taken by various staffers at the Army War College in the past few years, it catches me off guard to have the M Times be voicing rational positions at odds with the going ideology of those in power. It is a great relief to find that even some of our military-associated institutions will eventually under incredible duress talk back to obviously blatant and outrageous authoritarianism. See if this doesn't put a little gitty-up in your stride as we head into the elections:

The Military Times speaks truth to power and to America with its call for Rumsfeld to go. This is the beginning of the end for the Republican policy of failure, arrogance, corruption, dishonesty and war partisanship.

On Monday Marine Corps Times, Army Times, Navy Times, and Air Force Times are taking the extraordinary and courageous step of calling for Rumsfeld to go.

The voice of commanders, the troops and their families will speak. This madness must end. This policy must change. Rumsfeld must go. Enough is enough.

The pre-election timing of this statement is extraordinary; that the voice of our military and families would speak so powerfully for change, in the hours before the nation votes, is a breathtaking and decisive statement of how strongly they feel that this madness must end.

To save any semblance of rationality for American policy in Iraq new leaders, a Democratic Congress and the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld are urgently needed.

This past week something extraordinariny and ominous happened. An American soldier was kidnapped. Going all out to leave no one behind, our mlitary established checkpoints.

What happened next? The government in Iraq under the control of pro-Iranian Shi'ite leaders, surrending to the will of murderous Shi'ite militia, ordered the checkpoint closed.

This is the government that more than 2800 Americans have given their lives for. This is the government of rampant corruption. This is the government that has virtually no police force to speak in the fourth year of this war and whatever police force does exist is heavily infiltrated by even more of these murderous military.

Meanwhile sectarian violence and bloodshed continue to rise in November and every day brings news of more carnage and corruption. And the Republican Congress now wants to cashier even the Republican Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, to protect those who have been stealing, pillaging, misusing, losing and corrupting more than $10 billion of our money.

Now, in one of the most extraordinary and important moments in the history of this war, the Military Times newspapers are calling for the removal of Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.

Marine Corps Times, Army Times, Air Force Times and Navy Times are taking a principled and courageous stand sending a powerful pre-election message about what must be done.

-clip-

Monsters to the Right

There seem to be no limits to what I can say here other than those defined by those hoary old 18th century documents related to the country's establishment. Fascinating. Almost like free speech.

Aside from the fact that those same documents seem to be non grata with the present administration. I am going to ignore that. They will likely die eventually no matter how many elections they steal. I'm going on basis that we still have free speech.

To get down to business, has there ever been a circumstance that devalued the Executive Branch of the Federal Government more than having the VP and P choose to be interviewed by such as Rush Limbaugh, as reportedly was to happen this week?

That is the debate topic for tonight.

This is at least an order of magnitude more dreadful in terms of sullying these offices than any previous media encounters or even petty sexual episodes I am aware of. I could not come up with anything vaguely comparable in history. Hell, I'm struggling to come up with comic analogue.

Nixon and Presley meeting did come to mind, but really there's no comparison. Rasputin is more like what we need - for both the 'viewer and the 'viewee. But now that I think of it, it is a huge disservice to R to even link him to Rush. A true slime-ball is needed, and I'm concerned that RL may have more or less ass-ipied the entire low ground for this role. Is there any entity with even vaguely close loathsome qualities? We're not likely to get that - must be more out-of-the-box.

So, you readers, zero in count, please weigh in with suggestions! Has any pres or vp ever more sullied their office in terms of publicly communing with wastrels (and that is of course being far too kind to subject addict)?

Unadulterated Bullshit

Far more interesting than the "Getting Us" scandal is the CENTCOM graphic published this week by the New York Times. As with so many of these things, the vital message of the graphic - that DoD folks acknowledge that conditions in Iraq are steadily deteriorating and have gotten perilously close to "chaos" - is at risk of being blacked out by the appalling fecalstorm of reaction to the release of the graphic from the deranged radical right, increasingly hunkered down with hands over ears and heads in unspeakable locales.

They're of course arguing for investigations - if not hit-squads - for anyone who revealed this information. As it happens, there appears no conceivable basis for even designating this "news" (and our expectations there have obviously been steadily lowered to the point of no expectations at all - hey! is that where the Stones got that title?) . But this certainly reaffirms the bush administration's pathological need to lie about any and everything. Does this sound familiar? As any smart creature (standard: squirrel?) has realized by now, the only time "security risk" is invoked by the bush folks, it means they have a dirty secret regarding their criminality or political hijinks to hide. If it were really a matter of national security, they would not have bothered.

This is another one of those cases where I must apologetically boost Larry Johnson's entire post. I worked at an excerpt, I did, but all said and done you need the Whole Thing.

When the history of the U.S. debacle in Iraq is written, the week of 30 October 2006 will be seen as a critical turning point in the gullibility of the American voter to the hogwash spun from the Bush White House and the Rumsfeld Defense Department--i.e., victory is at hand. Most Americans now realize that the odor emanating from the White House briefing room is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Just one week ago our commander on the ground, General Casey, helped push the propaganda by insisting that:

The Baghdad security plan continues to have a dampening effect on sectarian violence. . .Extra U.S. troops dispatched to Baghdad have had a decisive effect. . . Iraqi security forces operating in and around Baghdad also are making significant contributions in reducing the violence, he added.

When October ended Iraqi insurgents had killed 105 American soldiers and wounded over 900. We have not seen casualties like this since January of 2005. So much for reduced violence. But that is only the tip of the iceberg of mayhem that is now Iraq.

Besides mounting U.S. and Iraqi casualties, this week was marked by three other ominous developments:

Iraqi Prme Minister Maliki sided with the militia of Moqtada al Sadr and ordered U.S. troops to end their siege of Sadr City.

Major U.S. contractors (e.g., Bechtel, Kroll, etc.) announced they are withdrawing personnel from Iraq because it is too dangerous. (I guess they missed General Casey's upbeat assessment.)

Central Command military analysts peg the situation as sliding towards chaos.

Maliki's move to restrict the operations and movement of U.S. forces in Iraq is only the first shoe to drop. Until now the United States has enjoyed unfettered access to plan and conduct counter terrorist operations. The ambush of Al Zarqawi in June, for example, was carried out without prior permission or coordination with the Iraqis. We are now on the path where U.S. forces will face growing restrictions on what they can do and where they can do it. This will enable the various terrorist forces to regroup and will feed a growing spiral of violence.

Maliki's order to open Sadr City also is a reminder of the power Moqtada al Sadr wields behind the scenes. It was only two weeks ago that al Sadr's forces stormed into the Iraqi city of Amara, burned several police stations and killed several police. It may not be the only militia in Iraq but it is certainly one of the most powerful and clearly has the ear of Prime Minister Maliki. Oh, and someone under Sadr's direct control is holding a U.S soldier prisoner. In light of our own questions about the legitimacy and applicability of the Geneva Convention when you are fighting terrorism, we have trouble persuading the Shia militia to treat the U.S. soldier humanely.

And then there is the retreat of U.S. corporations from Iraq. Rather than wait for helicopters landing on the roof of the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone to effect their strategic retreat, I guess they have decided preemption is a better course of action. Would they be leaving if things were going well and victory on the horizon? No and hell no.

Finally there is the leak of a powerpoint slide from Central Command's daily intelligence assessment. The media and pundits were all atwitter over this but they are like cave fish who have discovered that the sun rises every day. This is not a new briefing. Central Command, the military command in charge of Iraq, has been tracking this activity for more than two years. The analysts have given weekly assessment tracking these trends. Like all good analysts, they are telling the truth as they know it rather than the fantasy their bosses would like to hear. In fact, this information was available to the nitwit General Casey, who announced last week that things were swell in Iraq. I don't know who leaked the chart, but God bless them. It divulges no sources or methods. But it does blow the bullshit whistle on the White House and DOD spin.

So what is our metaphor to capture this moment? Have we crossed the Rubicon? The Romans' point of no return? Or, are we thrashing about in the Styx, the river in Greek mythology, "where the wrathful and sullen are punished by being perpetually drowned in the muddy waters"? Given our goober of a President, I thing a more apt image is Shit Creek. We're up it without a paddle. Let us pray that next week's elections pluck our Republic from danger and put our feet back on solid ground.

Incredible - Kick it up a Notch!

Yeah, yeah, yeah (Emeril's voice) he might have muffed it a little. But isn't it incredible (wish I could properly emote the French version of that - always loved the sound - like on-cry-eeb) what the reaction has been!

People (okay stupified bush lemmings), the man got it right even when you do your best to misconstrue it (you do risk looking stupeed indeed!). As a college student, screwing up and flunking out could be scary, since all the menial jobs have been sent overseas and there ain't no work today. Hay now say now etc. Sign up with the Army. There's no judgement one way or the other on whether you're dumb - or that the folks in the military are dumb. They are actually probably a pretty good cross-section of the populace. Except of course for the wealthy elite who have gotten 99+% of the tax breaks. And, oh yes, the politicians in DC, to the limited extent they don't fit into category A. There's no representation in the armed forces by those two categories.

Summing up, in the worst possible (obviously wrong) interpretation, an obvious whacko-job that would never fly even in Podunk, Kerry's mini-flub ends up describing reality as the republicans have made it.

Take a gander at the inimitable David Horsey's take on this.

Trick or Treat!

I ran across an enticing note in a Digby column yesterday regarding a revolt of educated conservatives in a major suburb. It being sourced in Bellevue brought it all back home. I was delighted to find the original was an article in the Times (that's NYT) by NW local. I clipped and saved both, as potential material for post.

What originally grabbed me, aside from local connection, was the reality that there probably are more than a few folks with science/technology background throughout the country who tended to feel that voting their interests in the past meant necessarily voting republican. Hell, my record has a blemish or two on it also, from a time when an over-idealized concept of what a free market meant and an embarrassing naivete about the "ethics" of the corporate world and bottom-line mentality had me blind. It is encouraging to think they too may be beginning to see the light even if there is still a somewhat narcissistic rather than community emphasis. And publicity via NYT has to help in spreading the idea that maybe there are alternatives to those votes that could be more in line with their education and work practice.

But before I could get around to posting tonight, here came that topic again, so I will now be posting a post about a post about a newspaper article, each in my opinion adding interesting value. Now, hmm, how would I add further value? I guess only in the sense of setting up and with proper panache working the catapult.

With apologies, to you and Neiwert source both, I am featuring entire post. It is too much of a piece to be well-served by some arbitrary parsing on my part. And do check out at least the Digby and NYT full texts.

The New York Times' Jodi Kantor has a profile of Bellevue voters and the race between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert today that is remarkably tuned in:

"I am a Republican and have traditionally voted that way," Tony Schuler, an operations services manager at Microsoft with a Harvard M.B.A., said as he sat with his wife, Deanna, in their home above Lake Sammamish. But Mr. Schuler abhors what he sees as a new Republican habit of meddling in private affairs.

"The Schiavo case. Tapping people without a warrant. Whether or not people are gay," he said. "Let people be free! It's not government's job to interfere with those things."

In Bellevue, the professional is political. Rather than religion or culture, what unites the diverse population -- a quarter of residents are foreign born -- are the values of their workplaces: technological innovation, accuracy, efficiency.

And this year, one issue incenses them above all others: restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.

It is a matter of concern across the country, even across parties. But for many engineers and their ilk, restriction of stem cell research is what gay marriage is to conservative Christians, a phenomenon so counter to their basic values that they cannot vote for any candidate who supports it. After all, for Bellevue's professionals, science is not only a means of creating wealth but also an idealistic pursuit, the most promising way they know of improving the human condition."

For hundreds of years, science has had its own jurisprudence over the truth. It's called peer review, and it works pretty well," said Mr. Mattison, whose father had Alzheimer's and his uncle Parkinson's disease. "I'm outraged that a mere politician would interpret science for me."

As Digby says:

The Republicans and the Christian Right are leading America on a backward march into the Dark Ages --- and that is stepping on our dreams. As a culture, we have always been idealistic about progress and inspired by new discoveries to improve the lot of the human race. We're about invention and reinvention. It's one of our best qualities.

These people are telling us that those days are over. We have to depend upon brute force, superstition and ancient revelation. Science is dangerous. Art is frightening. Education must be strictly circumscribed so that children aren't exposed to ideas that might lead them astray.

It isn't just suburbanites who recognize what's happening to the Republican Party -- it's true of farmers and small businessmen in rural areas as well. And the abuse of science by religious fanatics throughout the "conservative movement", and most of all within the ranks of the Bush administration, is the kind of thing that will shake them out.

Still, in a place like Bellevue -- full of engineers and technology folks -- Reichert's recent stumbles on global warming (he says he's not so sure that it's being caused by human activity) only make him seem a captive of the fundamentalists.

And then there's been his waffling and posturing on stem-cell research, despite his claims to "maverickdom" on the issue. Goldy, as always, has the scoop.

My first few years in the Seattle area I spent as news editor of the old Bellevue Journal American (the paper didn't pay enough for me to afford to live there) and my most recent book, Strawberry Days, is about the early history of Bellevue and the roots of its suburban transformation. I continued to work on the Eastside up through 2000, and my wife worked there until this month. Many of my friends live there, and a chunk of my social network is based on the Eastside.

Much of Bellevue's modern reimagining, as I detailed in my book, was based on a whites-only vision of suburban life, so in between its incorporation in 1952 and the mid-1980s, it tended to be a white-flight kind of community with well-funded schools, neatly tended cul-de-sacs, and a real racial homogeneity. But the emergence of the technology industry on the Eastside made it no longer the place people commuted from, but rather one that people commuted to. And the resulting orientation of the area's growth has meant that many, many more minorities (particularly Asian and South Asian) now call it home. More importantly, many of them are well-educated and have a view of science that reflects it.

One of the things a strong Democratic showing in the coming elections could bring about is a panicked response by the "conservative movement," which I think will drive them further to the right in search of their base; further into the arms of the religious right and their self-imposed faith-based ignorance. In which case Digby's right: this could effect the long-term identification of the common-sense segment of the voting population with Democrats.

Rove the Bluffer

I like this thinking. Indeed, there could conceivably be a plan to needlessly and unprovokedly do something like invade Iran in the next few days (Saturday, for example, might work well with media even more comatose than usual). But I am increasingly skeptical that would play like it has in the past. Would hundreds of thousands (ok, millions) of highly disillusioned voters really change their votes at the last minute because our known-to-be-losers government unilaterally made another stupid move? Even if we could conjure up some supposed smoking gun (spent uranium we littered all over Iraq being found in Iran?), I just can't quite imagine the scenario working in real life. Now in terms of cover for election cheating, there might be a little traction given the absolutely abhorrent job the mainstream media and even most Dems have done in critiquing and publicizing obvious election fraud over the past six years. But we are all going to vote so early and often (i.e. with all our friends, local and telephonically connected), are we not, that any such scam would never be sufficient to bail out the republicans?

And I think the opposition is smart enough to have worked through that too. They're too close to prison sentences already to be flirting with even more egregious violations of well-established international law. Their black-hatted vigilante band is shrinking by the day.

Josh at Talking Points Memo (quoting in toto):

I touched on this point this morning in the Daily Digest. But let me return to it because I think it's important.

All sorts of articles have been written over the last week or so with one question: Why is Karl Rove so confident? What does he know that the Dems and the pundit-predictors don't?

The answer is really, really simple: nothing. There's not anything he knows. In fact, he's not even confident. It's a bluff.

There are ten different reasons to know this. But the most compelling and sufficient one is to look at his history. In fact, go back to the second post I ever did on TPM just a couple weeks shy of six years ago. It was about a stunt Rove pulled that almost lost Bush the presidency in 2000.

Going into the big day the polls all showed a very, very close race, with perhaps ever so slight an edge for Bush. Conventional logic would have dictated sending Bush to swing states like Florida. But that's not what Rove did. He chose instead to send Bush to California and New Jersey -- states Bush could only have any hope of winning in a blow-out. The reasoning was simple. Rove figured that he could accomplish more through convincing mainly the press, but also activists and even highly-plugged voters, that Bush was going to win big than he would by sending his guy into a state like Florida for some last minute retail politicking.

It's the bandwagon effect. Psyche out the other side. Act like you're winning and you'll charge up your activists/voters and demoralize the folks on the other side. Mainly, get the press to believe your hype and they'll do the charging up and demoralizing for you. As it happened, it was a really dumb decision in 2000. If not for faulty ballots and election stealing, Bush would have lost Florida and the presidency. And given the margin, at least conceivable that Bush could have won fair and square had he spent the last few days on the ground in Florida.

Now, the situation right now is obviously very different than what Rove faced in 2000. They're on the defense. But all the same logics and principles apply. For the Republicans, the difference between a bad night on election night and a catastrophe could well turn on whether or not the party's ground troops really believe all the polls they're seeing. If they do, the demoralization will likely be crippling. And a bunch of them won't even show up. Rove has to create the impression that he knows something the polls don't to keep the Republican GOTV operation from breaking down entirely.

It's that simple.