Voter Caging

Here's what motivated the DOJ attorney firings: They were rigging the 2004 election.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072607A.shtml

Previously undisclosed documents detail how Republican operatives, with the knowledge of several White House officials, engaged in an illegal, racially-motivated effort to suppress tens of
thousands of votes during the 2004 presidential campaign in a state where George W. Bush was trailing his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry.

The documents also contain details describing how Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign officials, and at
least one individual who worked for White House political adviser Karl Rove, planned to stop minorities residing in Cuyahoga County from voting on election day.

The efforts to purge voters from registration rolls was spearheaded by Tim Griffin, a former
Republican National Committee opposition researcher. Griffin recently resigned from his post as interim US attorney for Little Rock Arkansas. His predecessor, Bud Cummins, was forced out to make way for Griffin.

This is another reason to impeach.

Another set of documents, 43 pages of emails, provided to Truthout by the PBS news program "NOW," contains blueprints for a massive effort undertaken by RNC operatives in 2004, to challenge the eligibility of voters expected to support Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in states such as Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Pennsylvania.

One email, dated September 30, 2004, and sent to a dozen or so staffers on the Bush-Cheney
campaign and the RNC, under the subject line "voter fraud strategy conference call," describes how campaign staffers planned to challenge the veracity of votes in a handful of battleground states in the event of a Democratic victory.

Furthermore, the emails show the Bush-Cheney campaign and RNC staffers compiled
voter-challenge lists that targeted probable Democratic voters in at least five states: New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Voting rights lawyers have made allegations of so called "vote caging," against Republicans previously. These emails provide more evidence. One Republican operative involved in the planning wrote "we can do this in NV, FL, PA and NM because we have a list to run against the Absentee Ballot requests, and should."

I'm really angry about this. I work as an Inspector during every election, doing my very best to make sure that all votes are accurately counted and that all eligible voters get to vote. I may be totally partisan the rest of the year but on election day I am completely unbiased.

Vote caging is an illegal tactic to suppress minorities from voting by having their names purged from voter rolls when they fail to respond to registered mail sent to their homes. The Republican National
Committee signed a consent decree in 1986 stating they would not engage in the practice after they were caught suppressing votes in 1981 and 1986.

And while I rarely turn on my TV, I'm going to watch this one:

A full examination of this issue will be the topic for this week's program, "Voter Caging" on "NOW" airing Friday, July 27 on PBS (Check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html.).

Un-News

I swear, some days I really wonder why I crawl out of my cave. NPR is reporting "Do your friends make you fat?" at me. I'm sure that's the most important question in the news today.

Refugees

This graphic is an example of how our shrub cares about the Iraqi people:

Given that our invasion has created over 2 million refugees, you think we'd be able to help a few more. Shameful.

More Scandals

Another day, another scandal:

U.S. construction giant Bechtel National Inc. arrived in Iraq in 2003, on the heels of U.S. troops, with a fat contract awarded by the U.S. Agency for International Development to rebuild the country.

Then in 2004 the company won a second contract, worth a potential $1.8 billion. Wearing white construction helmets labeled "Bechtel," the company's construction supervisors oversaw work on hospitals, schools and bridges, and tried to get the water flowing and the electricity turned on.

A new federal audit released Wednesday, however, found that a big chunk of Bechtel's reconstruction work for USAID, the federal agency that issued the contract, was never achieved on the second contract. Auditors checked the 24 jobs Bechtel was supposed to complete.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19962288/

It's hard to keep up with all the failures in Iraq. But I'm sure Bechtel will be held accountable, right?

"Ten did not achieve their original objectives," the auditors found. In another three projects, "we were either unable to determine what the original objectives were or the achievements were unclear."

The cost to American taxpayers for unfinished efforts was high: the U.S. government approved a total of $180 million dollars in payments for Bechtel’s ten allegedly unfinished projects. They include a $24 million water treatment plant in Baghdad's impoverished Sadr City, a $26 million children's hospital in Basra and a $4 million Baghdad landfill that was never built

"The Bechtel audit is emblematic of the reconstruction problems in Iraq," said Stuart Bowen, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, whose office conducted the audit.

One of the many things that I saw as a really stupid plan for Iraq was the bringing in of American companies to rebuild Iraq. There were plenty of Iraqi construction companies capable of reconstruction, and if we had have employed Iraqi's to rebuild Iraq we might be facing less resistance today. I'm not sure if the American people realize that, prior to our invasion, Iraq was a modern industrialized nation. Yes, years of war and sanctions had weakened their infrastructure, but they still had one of the highest per capita education levels in the region. Now most of the highly educated population has fled the country.

It is a Constitutional Crisis

OK, I'm beyond being shocked by anything from our shrub's mis-administration. But we're now at a point where congress must stand up or become irrelevant.

Alberto On Thin Ice

Democratic Representative Jane Harman ☼, formerly the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee contradicted Alberto Gonzales’ testimony Tuesday about a congressional briefing in 2004 regarding the Terrorists Surveillance Program. Then Wednesday night, Gonzales was busted by the Associated Press and tagged for perjuring himself at Tuesday’s testimony. Arlen Specter has already warned Gonzales against perjuring himself. And Pat Leahy has now threatened a perjury probe.

When the head of our law enforcement decides that he is above the law he must be removed.

Otherwise there is NO LAW.

Nowhere is the Republican ability to lie, cheat and use dirty tricks to get what
it wants more obvious than in the person of Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
and longtime Bush-pal. He's in the position of an inveterate liar who can't recall all the lies he's told anymore. So he's dropped the ball on the existance of more secret warrantless spying programs that even the last AG thought were illegal, pretended to be dumbfounded by unprecedented authority over the DoJ by administration officials when he signed the order for it, and generally left himself in a position where impeachment looks like the best option.

Meanwhile, back at the White House, the Cheney advisor who was doing Fourth Branch's dirty work in bacckstabbing Condi Rice and convincing people to talk Bush into attacking Iran is resigning - and finding it difficult to get a new job.http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/

The pattern of arrogance has been expanding over recent months. The administration has thumbed it's nose at congress for way too long.

There are three steps for the House to bringing contempt charges against an
individual: committee approval, a floor vote in the House, and a referral to the
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

The House passed step one

Impeachment is the only means left to save our constitution.

Added: The senate has taken the first steps:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats called for a special counsel to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied under oath and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove Thursday in a widening probe into the dismissal of federal prosecutors.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

They dispatched the letter shortly before Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced the subpoena of Rove, the president's top political strategist.

"We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year," said Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_go_co/congress_gonzales&printer=1;_ylt=AuU6KPTF.HIrjf5.8iOgl4OMwfIE

Blaming Iran

Is there anything they can't blame on Iran?

The U.S. military has noted a "significant improvement" in the aim of attackers
firing rockets and mortars into the heavily fortified Green Zone in the past three months that it has linked to training in Iran, a top commander said Thursday.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_military&printer=1;_ylt=Ajq5FtMwD4zmEKEiVVXHCOQUewgF

The increase in accuracy couldn't be because they've had lot's of practice. It couldn't be the result of having spotters inside the green zone. No, only the Iranians know how to accurately target mortar and rockets.
Also, the Iranians are responsible for my internet running slowly today and some of my bread went moldy before I got to eat it.

Discussions

In my talks with Zymurgian about Iraq, and the history of Mesopotamia, this made sense. I had to post this:

Victory, DefeatIraq makes it to the Asian Cup finals for the first time ever:

Iraq reached their first Asian Cup final on Wednesday night, beating South Korea 4-3 on penalties after an action-packed semi-final had ended goalless after extra time.

But the celebrations in Baghdad didn't go so well:

Two suicide car bombings struck soccer fans in Baghdad as they were celebrating Iraq's victory in the Asian Cup semifinal on Wednesday, killing at least 27 people and wounding more
than 100, officials said.

The victims were among the thousands of revelers who took to the streets of the capital after the country's national soccer team beat South Korea to reach the tournament's final against Saudi Arabia on Sunday in Jakarta, Indonesia.

Thanks, rorschach.http://nocapital.blogspot.com/

History

Via the BBC, we get a reminder of the family history of our shrub:http://www.atlargely.com/2007/07/bbc-grandpa-bus.html

Yes the coup is old news... so old, in fact, that most people have never heard of it (making it actually new again). But the new news here is grandpa Bush's role in the coup (unless this latest horror is old news as well that I somehow missed while watching the current fiasco unfold - see above update).

And since grandson Bush is the current President of the United States and has
implemented what can reasonably be called a fascist agenda of state and corporate interests united... then such news would be even more important for the American public. One would think...No?

"The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."

You can listen to the radio report on the FDR coup HERE.

Fascists to the core, 'ol Prescott was good at war profiteering:

I mean it is known that Prescott Bush funded the Hitler regime (unless you did not know this, then it is new news to you):

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy."

But now we find out that Prescott Bush was involved in the FDR coup as well?
At least we now know that fascism appears to be genetic.

While our shrub may be different from his gramps, he sure seems to share his ethics.

happy tortoise tuesday!!!

Hi- it's Zymurgian. After having been way outta town for a week, I is so damn glad me live in a quirky isolated mountain town, among damn cool folks and evenings and pine trees and such. Still America, still insane, but much of this nation is (too humid) really really insane. One may most perspicaciously glean this in airports, methinks. Especially airports.
The code was orange. I guess that means we should all be more scared than we usually are, but not neccesarily terrified. I was standing in a security checkpoint line that stretched from the flight gates to Aldeberaan. The only person about who was not glued to a cellphone, blackberry, i-pod, or corporate fast food or their own self importance, was a little girl about five or so. She had no qualms whatsoever about engaging me in conversation, which i found delightful. We talked about pirates and Harry Potter.
"We all have to wait in line to take off our shoes because of nine eleven," She explains to me.
"Yep."
When the indomitably cute child exclaims "I Hate Nine Eleven!" - the line is long and patience is a long way off for her, folks in line shift their weight... cross their arms, stare out the windows at the depressed, paranoid, apathetic, ocher haze of the Nation.

Hometown

Without comment.

At The Bar

Best line at the brewery tonight:
"Christians:2, Lions:0
we need more Lions"
from Ducky, who more than deserves his own blog.

Iceberg Tips

This one is no surprise. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this guy was a small timer:

An Army major has been arrested on charges that he took $9.6 million in kickbacks and anticipated receiving $5.4 million more for rigging military supply contracts.

Federal authorities arrested Maj. John Cockerham, a contracting and procurement officer, and his wife, Melissa, on Monday as they returned from Louisiana to Fort Sam Houston.

The two are charged with accepting bribes, defrauding the United States, money laundering and conspiracy.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Mathy ordered them held without bail pending a bond hearing scheduled for Wednesday. The couple asked for court-appointed lawyers, which Mathy granted.

John Cockerham, 41, is assigned to a division within U.S. Army South, which is headquartered at Fort Sam Houston. Melissa Cockerham, 40, is accused of accepting bribe payments for her husband and helping conceal them, according to criminal complaint affidavits unsealed Monday.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Sierra confirmed the arrests but declined to comment beyond the affidavits.

The case broke open in December, when agents seized a ledger at the couple's home on Fort Sam Houston, the affidavits said.

Investigators with the Army's Criminal Investigations Division and the Defense Department's Criminal Investigative Service, as well as the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies, are examining all contracts handled by John Cockerham. They're trying to determine the companies he allegedly took bribes from, according to court records.

According to the affidavits, the bribe payments included hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash delivered to Melissa Cockerham and others in bags and briefcases. Investigators say many of the payments occurred in 2005, and the money was deposited in banks in the Middle East and then moved to banks in the Caribbean.

"In total, the ledger records that J. Cockerham received $9.6 million in bribe payments from at least eight contractors and anticipated receiving $5.4 million more," the affidavits said.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_re_us/army_bribery_probe&printer=1;_ylt=AmAbHqoqk0BkQUkSnnl1LzZH2ocA

On the heels of this guy:

Standing bolt upright in federal court in Austin on Monday, his cleanly shaved head shining above a charcoal gray suit, retired Army Maj. John Allen Rivard pleaded guilty to bribery and other charges for receiving kickbacks on contracts he administered while serving in Iraq.

[snip]

In all, court documents say, Rivard received $238,000 in cash bribes during an 11-month deployment as a top contracting official at Camp Anaconda, near Balad in northern Iraq.

[snip]

The administration of Defense Department contracts has been a key contributor
to fraud, waste and abuse in the Iraq war effort, Comptroller General David Walker testified to a congressional subcommittee in April.

Walker said that though the United States "relies heavily" on contractors in Iraq, the Defense Department cannot quantify the use of contractors or explain how much they are needed to sustain military operations.

Walker also said military commanders do not receive sufficient training in how to effectively manage contracts and contractors in Iraq.

It is unclear what training Rivard received before he was named acting chief of contracting at Camp Anaconda.

Before being activated for deployment in Iraq, Rivard worked painting
ornamental iron fencing in Georgetown, according to his roommate at the time, Pete Walkerhttp://statesman.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Former+Army+officer+admits+accepting+kickbacks&expire=&urlID=23164719&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.statesman.com%2Fnews%2Fcontent%2Fnews%2Fstories%2Flocal%2F07%2F24%2F0724rivard.html&partnerID=525

I'm willing to bet that a lot more corruption cases will be coming out over time. Any takers?

Call Your Congress Critter

The call for impeachment just got louder:

Bree Walker told me, on the air, that Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members backing impeachment, and he’ll move on it, even without Pelosi. I asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H Res 333 to 17, or adding 3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn’t know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.

Either way, this target of three more members seems perfectly doable. It’s safe to assume, I think, that we’re talking about impeaching Cheney first. But, even if Conyers is talking about Bush, the target is perfectly achievable.

Here's the contact info:
Senate:http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
House:http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Added for fun:

How Our Government Works

There are three branches of government: the Executive, The Legislative, and the Judicial. The Legislative and Judicial branches both report to the Executive (see chart). Underneath are various other parts of the government, like the Department of Justice, the Federal Courts, and
the Republican Party, who all report to the Office of the President, who reports to the Office of the Vice President.

How to Win in Iraq

That's the title of an article in "The American Conservative" magazine by William S. Lind, and he makes a hell of a lot of sense. Much of the article reflects ideas that I've written, but Mr. Lind is much more articulate than I am. So, of course, he'll be ignored.http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_07_16/article1.html

The starting point, despite the disastrous course of the war to date, is to realize that the only possibilities for victory lie at the strategic level, not the tactical level. In part this is because we have botched the tactical level beyond redemption. While the efforts of General Petraeus and the Marines in Anbar province to apply classic counter-insurgency doctrine and protect the population instead of brutalizing it are laudatory, they come too late.

In larger part, we cannot win at the tactical level because this kind of war is not additive. You cannot win at the strategic level simply by accumulating tactical successes, as our Second-Generation, firepower/attrition-oriented military automatically assumes. The strategic level follows its own logic, and strategic victory requires a sound strategy. When, as is currently the case, we have no strategy, this fact works against us. If, however, we adopt a prudent strategy, it can work for us. Because a higher level of war trumps a lower, we can yet redeem our many tactical failures at the strategic level. In other words, we can still win.

Lind points out that a stable Iraq is possible, but a "pro-American, pro-Isreali" Iraq is not possible.

To devise a successful strategy, we must begin by defining what we mean by winning. The Bush administration, consistent with its record of military incompetence, continues to pursue the folly of maximalist objectives. It still defines victory as it did at the war’s outset: an Iraq that is an American satellite, friendly to Israel, happy to provide the U.S. with a limitless supply of oil and vast military bases from which American forces can dominate the region. None of these objectives are now attainable. None were ever attainable, no matter what our troops did. And as long as those objectives define victory, we are doomed to defeat.

Fortunately, another objective, the one that actually matters most, may, with luck and skill, still be achieved. That objective—restoring a state in what is now the stateless region of Mesopotamia—must become our new definition of victory.

Winning the war in Iraq therefore means seeing the re-creation of an Iraqi state. I say “seeing,” not “re-creating,” because our strategy, if it is to have a chance of success, must proceed from a realistic understanding of the situation in Iraq. We do not now have the power to re-create a state in Iraq, if we ever did. That is due in part to military failure, but it has more to do with a problem of legitimacy. As a foreign, Christian invader and occupier, we cannot create any legitimate institutions in Iraq. Quite the contrary: we have the reverse Midas touch. Any institution we create, or merely approve of and support, loses its legitimacy.

The need for diplomatic engagement with Iran is an important component.

The reason a strategy to win in Iraq must begin with a rapprochement with Iran is that any real Iraqi state is likely to be allied to Iran. Even the quisling al-Maliki government cowering in the Green Zone is close to Iran. A legitimate Iraqi government, which is virtually certain to be dominated by Iraq’s Shi’ites, will probably be much closer.

A restored Iraqi state that is allied with Iran will quickly roll up al-Qaeda and other non-state forces in Iraq, which is the victory we most require. But the world’s perception will still be that the United States was defeated because its main regional rival, Iran, will emerge much strengthened. If Iran and America are no longer enemies, that issue becomes moot.

A rapprochement with Iran may encourage Tehran to use its influence in Iraq to promote the revival of a state, but that is in Iran’s interest in any case once it is clear American troops are withdrawing. Conversely, until it is clear that America has given up its ambitions for large, permanent military bases in Iraq, Iran must continue to promote instability in its neighbor.

And he sees Moqtada al-Sadr much as I do, as a key to Iraq's future.

At present, the United States works to suppress any elements that challenge the al-Maliki government. We teeter on the verge of open war with the most prominent of those elements, Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. On the ground, al-Sadr is the leader most likely to restore an Iraqi state, and thanks to his steadfast opposition to the American occupation, he has legitimacy. While he may not have the support of a majority of Iraq’s Shi’ites, majorities do not make history. He is the leader of the Shi’ites who count, which is to say the young men willing to fight. Nor is al-Sadr merely a Shi’ite leader; he has kept open channels of communication to at least some of the Sunni insurgent groups—and perhaps channels not of communication only. Some of the Sunni insurgents clearly have benefited from Iranian support, which may have come through al-Sadr. Of late, al-Sadr has taken care to restrain his followers
from revenge attacks against Sunnis, stressing Shi’ite-Sunni unity against the foreign occupier. He has had his eye on the brass ring, the supreme leadership position in a restored Iraqi state, from the beginning. Now he may see it as within reach.

Our new strategy would let him grab it. Under his leadership, or that of anyone else in Iraq with a shred of legitimacy, a restored Iraqi state will not be a friend of America. Given what we have done to that country, we can hardly expect it to be. But our new strategy has no such unattainable objective. Its objective is solely the restoration of a real state, and that al-Sadr may be able to accomplish. If he can, we will have little to complain about in terms of his toleration of al-Qaeda or other Fourth Generation elements. Nor will his close relationship with Iran be a problem, given that we will no longer regard Iran as an enemy.

Also, the need to withdraw American troops as quickly as is safely possible.

The third and final element of a strategy for winning in Iraq is to withdraw all American forces as rapidly as possible, which means within 12-18 months. That is the only way we can create the space necessary for al-Sadr or someone else to re-create an Iraqi state. If we remain and work against him, a dicey task becomes that much harder, undermining both him and our strategic goal. And if we work for him, he loses legitimacy, the sine qua non for re-creating a state in Iraq.

In this strategy, our withdrawal is not that of a defeated army. It is a strategic withdrawal—a necessary part of our strategy. That distinction is a critical for our prestige in the world, for the future health of America’s Armed Forces, and for our domestic politics, which could be roiled beyond what any conservative would desire by a vast military defeat.

If our new strategy works and our withdrawal is followed by the restoration of a real Iraqi state, we will have learned our lesson about wars of choice, but avoided a catastrophe. If it fails and Mesopotamia remains a stateless region, Iraq is no worse off than it is now, and our troops will be safely out of the mess.

It's rare that I find a conservative that I agree with, but Mr. Lind is such a rarity. Of course, he's not optimistic.

There is no chance the Bush administration, locked in a Totentanz with its dreams of world empire, will adopt this strategy. But the presidential debate season has already begun, and a bevy of candidates in both parties are looking around for something, anything that might get us out of the Iraqi morass without accepting defeat. If just one of them picks up on it, those yawningly dull debates might get a lot more
interesting.

Well worth reading, even though it's not what is going to happen.
Added: I've read several other blogs deriding Lind's article because 1. he's right-wing and 2. it's not going to happen. Both are true, but I don't think it refutes the basic common sense that Mr. Lind expresses.

A new book

This one's gonna be a "must have":

I just received an advance copy of my new book, Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East. I'm a proud parent and breaking out the virtual cigars. I think Palgrave Macmillan did a stellar job with the editing and production. The actual publication date is August 7.



This episode, all too little known, was the first instance of a modern European country attempting to invade, occupy and "liberate" an Arab, Muslim Middle Eastern region.

I have started a historical blog on the book as a place to put up some materials that
might interest readers of the book, as a sort of supplement. If I get time I may do some translating or posting of translated texts.

The first posting is of the relevant portion of a PBS documentary on Bonaparte, which covers the Egyptian expedition.

Enjoy!http://www.juancole.com/

I love reading Middle East history, and I love reading Juan Cole, so I'm sold. I've been trying to reduce my book hoarding (you should see my house-filled bookshelves on every available wall), but sometimes you have to indulge those guilty pleasures.
And, yes, you should read Juan Cole EVERY DAY.

Thought for the day

Q. How many members of the administration does it take to change a light bulb?
A. We're not going to tell you. Executive privilege.

"Branding"

WTF is wrong with these people? The "problems" in Iraq are because we didn't have a good "marketing" strategy?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002163.html?hpid=topnews

In the advertising world, brand identity is everything. Volvo means safety. Colgate means clean. IPod means cool. But since the U.S. military invaded Iraq in 2003, its "show of force" brand has proved to have limited appeal to Iraqi consumers, according to a recent study commissioned by the U.S. military.

The key to boosting the image and effectiveness of U.S. military operations
around the world involves "shaping" both the product and the marketplace, and
then establishing a brand identity that places what you are selling in a positive light, said clinical psychologist Todd C. Helmus, the author of "Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation." The 211-page study, for which the U.S. Joint Forces Command paid the Rand Corp. $400,000, was released this week.

Some days I read something so mind-numbingly stupid that I wonder how the author finds their way to the restroom. Sample:

In an urban insurgency, for example, civilians can help identify enemy infiltrators and otherwise assist U.S. forces. They are less likely to help, the study says, when they become "collateral damage" in U.S. attacks, have their doors broken down or are shot at checkpoints because they do not speak English. Cultural connections -- seeking out the local head man when entering a neighborhood, looking someone in the eye when offering a friendly wave -- are key.

So now we know why the Iraq occupation isn't going so well. We haven't been marketing properly.

"We want to look at new concepts, new business practices, to see if there are things that we can learn," he said. Since his office was established after the U.S. military issued a new doctrine for urban warfare in 2002, "we've been collecting lessons learned from all over the world," he said. "Not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but places like the Philippines and South America. Wherever there have been fights, we went out and looked at them."

The challenge for the advertising study, he said, was to find "something we can learn from Madison Avenue or from the marketers, the best in the world, that might help us when we're trying to deliver a message about what democracy is." In Iraq, Schattle said, the "urban population is the center of gravity" and the problem is "how we influence them to be on our side, or at least not be an enemy" when "what they see is armor." The goal of such studies, Schattle said, is to distill what works and incorporate it into future training.

Yeah, that'll work.

Power Outage

Lost electricity twice so far today to lightning. Storm still going strong, so not much likely to be posted today.

Go for it

I know what I would do if I were in this position:

U.S. President George W. Bush (L) plays around with boxing legend Sugar Ray
Leonard (R) on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, July 20, 2007http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070720/ids_photos_ts/r3722843740.jpg

I'd be happy to do it, fully knowing that I'd end up doing time.
Yeah, even to a guy going into a colonoscopy.

Scary stuff.

38 years ago

This was 38 years ago today:

Side story: I grew up in a household without a television until the lunar mission. My father thought TV to be a waste of time. But when Apollo 11 launched, dad decided that we needed to watch so he went out and bought a TV. This scene was that important.

To this day I rarely watch TV.

Uplifting

I need something to lift my spirits.

Me. Rowing. On the San Juan.

I needed that.

By Executive Fiat

Another outrage:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Wait, the "peace and stability"? http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3666/Iraq_Security_Developments_-_Thursday

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

But of course, our shrub exempts himself:

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

This executive order basically criminalizes opposition to the war, and allows the government to seize the assets of any group opposing the war. Impeach!

Added: Sara Robinson says what I was thinking:

It's that B clause that concerns me -- and should concern all of us who blog, comment, organize, write letters, and otherwise exercise our rights to agitate against this unholy war. "Undermining the efforts" is a term that can be defined very, very broadly. And since those of us opposing this war have been told repeatedly, from the beginning, that our
efforts to change our fellow citizens' minds were in fact treasonous acts that undermined the war effort, emboldened America's enemies, and harmed our troops, it's not unreasonable to believe that those warnings are now being backed up by official action. "At risk of committing significant acts of violence" is more overbroad weasel-speak: How many of us have said things that could be construed (at least by the certifiable paranoids in the White House) as a threat of violence against the Bush Administration?http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

Boobies for Friday

A masked pair. They're calling for impeachment, too.

Beyond Outrage

What fresh new hell is it today? Because every day brings a new outrage from the administration of our shrub:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against
current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html?hpid=topnews

Did you get that? They just said that they don't have to obey the law because they control the means to enforce the law.

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

I'm old enough to remember Nixon, but even that sick bastard never claimed anything this outrageous. Shrub now claims that his word trumps the constitution.

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and
how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, I posted in favor of impeachment. We have a rogue president who must be stopped. The gauntlet has been thrown down, and if congress lets this stand our constitution will no longer be relevant.

Can't resist

So Bud will begin selling high-end bottled water:

ST. LOUIS and THORLAKSHOFN, Iceland, July 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Icelandic Water Holdings ehf jointly announced today
Anheuser-Busch will become the master distributor for Icelandic Glacial super-premium natural spring water in the United States, effective immediately. Anheuser-Busch has taken a 20 percent equity interest in Icelandic Water Holdings as part of theagreement.http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/AQW04118072007-1.htm

Their low-end bottled water will continue to be "bud light".

More thoughts on impeachment

For our 500th post (woohoo) I'm revisiting the issue of impeachment. It's an issue that I'm mildly conflicted on. Our shrub and the cheney certainly have taken so many actions for which they truly deserve to be impeached, but should the impeachment fail in the senate then their abuses of power will be the norm for future administrations. In short, any articles of impeachment must be so well crafted that it cannot be defeated. It has to be overwhelming.
There are more than enough outrages deserving impeachment. Lies about Iraq, the failures on 9/11 and Katrina, warrentless wiretapping, politicizing the DOJ, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, and the executive signing statements are just the first to spring into my mind. Hell, I just read another this morning. Remember the cheney energy task force?

In March 2001, while California's two largest utilities were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and the state's electricity crisis was spiraling out of control, Vice President Dick Cheney summoned Curt Hebert, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), to his office next to the White House for a hastily arranged meeting.

Cheney had just been informed by his longtime friend Thomas Cruikshank, the man who handpicked the vice president to succeed him at Halliburton in the mid-1990s, that federal energy regulators were close to completing an investigation into allegations that Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Williams Companies and AES Corporation of Arlington, Virginia had created an artificial power shortage in California in April and May of 2000 by shutting down a power plant for more than two weeks.

Cruikshank was a member of Williams's board of directors, and perhaps more importantly, had been one of many energy industry insiders advising Cheney's energy task force on a wide-range of policy issues, including deregulation of the nation's electricity sector, that would benefit Williams financially.

Cruikshank informed the vice president he had learned about the preliminary findings of FERC's investigation during a Williams board meeting earlier in March 2001. FERC, Cruikshank told Cheney, was in possession of incriminating audio tapes in which a Williams official and an AES power plant operator discussed keeping a Southern California power plant offline so Williams could continue to receive the $750 per megawatt hour premium for emergency power California's grid operator was forced to procure to keep the lights on in Southern California.http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_071907J.shtml

That's right. They covered up the conspiracy behind the California electricity crises. They have no shame.
In spite of my earlier expressed reservations, I've come to believe we must impeach. Because the cost of allowing the administrations dishonesty to continue would be the destruction of the America we love. If we are to remain a constitutional democracy we must call the bastards to account.
DCUP at PoliTits (who I've grown to love) has some great thoughts on the need to impeach:

Finally, since I'm not an expert on the impeachment process, I went out and looked up an answer to your 2/3 question. Here's what I found:
(1) To convict Bush we only need 16 Republican Senators in addition to all the Democrats. It is quite possible that we will get them.
(2) After investigations and the trial, it will be obvious to everyone that Bush is guilty of serious crimes. At that point, many Republicans will feel compelled to vote for a guilty verdict.
(3) Many Republican politicians oppose Bush because they feel he is hurting them politically.
(4) Many Republican voters are calling for impeachment. If Senators want to get reelected they may have to vote Bush guilty.
(5) Bush committed crimes and it is our duty to oppose those crimes
and defend the Constitution regardless of our chance of success
(6) If we can force a debate on impeachment then it will expose Bush's crimes even if he is not convicted.
(7) If we can force a roll call vote and some Republicans vote with Bush then we will have them on record as being on the wrong side of history.
(8) It is better to fight for justice and lose then to accept injustice.http://politits.blogspot.com/2007/07/your-daily-reminder-that-democrats-are_18.html#links

I'm with her. We cannot let them get away with it.
While my own congress-critters are all staunch rethugs, I've decided to contact them every day, calling for impeachment. They need to here from all of us.
Here's the contact info:
Senate:http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
House:http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

Shameless

From http://www.oliverwillis.com/:

It's one of those that kind of sums up this whole horrible presidency.

Bush: No Deal On Children's Health Plan.

President Bush yesterday rejected entreaties by his Republican allies that he compromise with Democrats on legislation to renew a popular program that provides health coverage to poor children, saying that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.

Apparently "compassionate conservatism" doesn't apply to children, either.

It's what I had to say, only clearer. If the choice is between children's health and corporate profits, we know what's more important to our shrub.

My Morning

Woke up this morning, early dawn as usual, and looked out my window. There was a Fox snooping around my back yard. He/she ran off before I could grab my camera (I don't move very quickly pre-coffee), but it did make me smile. I like having wildlife in my backyard. Also, I don't have any chickens.
On an unrelated note, several people have asked where I found the pictures of tattoo'd pigs. Here's the link:http://www.wimdelvoye.be/afc.html. It's an "art farm" in china. Here's a sample:

Now I'll have to check the backyard early each morning. I really want to get a pic of the fox.

Obstruction

A fine mess continues. The filibuster of the Reed-Levin amendment succeeds, as Harry Reid could only get 52 votes on cloture. So Reid pulled the whole defense appropriation bill.

In an in-your-face response to Republicans continuing to block a full Senate vote on withdrawing American troops from Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just moments ago set aside the pending Defense Authorization Bill until the Senate's Republican leadership stops defying the will of the majority of Congress and the American people and allows votes on the Iraq occupation.

"This has been a long week and it is only Wednesday," said Reid on the Senate floor. "We have now been in session continuously for 2 days. On Monday I submitted a simple request for consent to proceed to an up or down vote on the Levin/Reed Amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. As I have stated, this amendment provides a clear, binding and responsible path to change the U.S. mission and reduce our combat presence in Iraq."

"Regrettably, Republicans chose to block this amendment. They chose to deny the American people an up or down vote on a bipartisan amendment. They chose to continue protecting their President instead of our troops – no matter the cost to our country."http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/

The reality is that the whole Iraq mess is punted down field, and our current senate wasn't going to get us out of Iraq regardless of the rhetoric. If the filibuster had been broken and the bill passed, shrub would have vetoed it. And there just aren't enough votes to override.
We need to shout "It's the republicans who are keeping us in Iraq" and "Republican obstructionism" at the top of our lungs.
So we remain stuck in the Iraq quagmire. The problem is that there are NO good outcomes for us in Iraq. When we leave, there will be a bloody struggle for power. While we stay, there will be a bloody struggle for power. We will have to leave at some point because the drain on our military and resources will simply become too great. The only question is how much blood will have to spill before we leave.

tortoise tuesday pics

...well maybe it is Jabba the Hutt. Noam would go nanners if she knew i was checking out other reptiles. She's chomping on Goethe right now.

The Filibuster

So we're getting a real live filibuster, instead just the threat of one. The last time the Senate had an actual filibuster was in 1964, to try to stop civil rights. I wrote earlier that in the Senate 60 votes are required to end debate and force a vote on a bill. The actual procedure is a bit more arcane:

The Right to Recognition

Rule XIX affords the presiding officer no choice and no discretion in recognition. As a general rule, if a Senator seeks recognition when no other Senator has the floor, the presiding officer must recognize him or her. The presiding officer may not decline to recognize the Senator, whether for reasons of personal preference or partisan advantage, or to enable the Senate to reach a vote on the pending matter.

As a result, when the Senate is considering any debatable question, it cannot vote on the question so long as any Senator wants to be recognized to debate it.

Basically, the rethugs have merely threatened to filibuster, and because the dems don't have 60 votes, the debate isn't ended. The bill simply doesn't come to a vote.

The Right to Speak at Length and the Two-Speech Rule

Under Rule XIX, unless any special limits on debate are in effect, Senators who have been recognized may speak for as long as they wish.

They usually cannot be forced to cede the floor, or even interrupted, without their consent. (There are some exceptions: for example, Senators can lose the floor if they violate the Senate’s standards of decorum in debate, or, as discussed later, they may be interrupted for the presentation of a cloture motion.) Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or on the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question.

It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that “no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.” This provision, commonly called the “two-speech rule,” limits each Senator to making two speeches per day, however long each speech may be, on each debatable question that the Senate considers. A Senator who has made two speeches on a single question becomes ineligible to be recognized for another speech on the same question on the same day.

The “day” during which a Senator can make no more than two speeches on the same question is not a calendar day, but a legislative day. A legislative day ends only with an adjournment, so that, whenever the Senate recesses overnight, rather than adjourning, the same legislative day continues into the next calendar day. A legislative day may therefore extend over several calendar days. The leadership may continue to recess the Senate, rather than adjourning, as a means of attempting to overcome a filibuster by compelling filibustering Senators to exhaust their opportunities of gaining recognition.

Senators rarely invoke the two-speech rule because they generally do not believe that there is any need to do so. Sometimes, however, they may insist that the two- speech rule be enforced, as a means of attempting to overcome a filibuster. On such occasions, nevertheless, Senators often can circumvent the two-speech rule by making a motion or offering an amendment that constitutes a new and different debatable question.

For example, each Senator can make two speeches on each bill, each first-degree amendment to a bill, and each second-degree amendment to each of those amendments as well.

In recent practice, the Senate considers that being recognized and engaging in debate constitutes a speech. The Senate, however, does not consider “that recognition for any purpose [constitutes] a speech.” Currently effective precedents have held that “certain procedural motions and requests were examples of actions that did not constitute speeches for purposes of the two speech rule.” These matters include such things as making a parliamentary inquiry and suggesting the absence of a quorum.

Nevertheless, if a Senator is recognized for a substantive comment, however brief, on the pending question, that remark may count as a speech.

By actually forcing the continued debate and not adjourning the senate for the night, Sen. Reid is forcing the rethugs to act on their threats.
(I'm trying out this "serious" blogger thing).

Bigger than I thought

I thought this was a humble little blog with only a few readers. Then I was reading Bill Scher at The Huffington Post, and I saw this:

When you're Senate Majority Leader, everyone's fighting for your ear. Today, the netroots have Harry Reid's ear, instead of the punditocracy.

The Campaign for America Future's blog -- where I also post -- has long been calling for Senate leaders to fight for bold, popular legislation and stand up to those blocking its passage -- instead of flinching at filibusters, chasing unprincipled compromises and accommodating the conservative minority.

We launched the petition last month urging Reid to do just that.

And many other bloggers -- including Digby, Taylor Marsh, Open Left, Booman
Tribune, ThinkProgress, Miles Mogulescu, FireDogLake, Leisure Guy, The
Next Hurrah, The Carpetbagger Report, Tangled Webs, Billy Creek, Politits, Talking Points Memo, South Georgia Liberal, Pygalgia, The Newshoggers, The Sideshow, Seeing The Forest and Blue Jersey -- have rallied around the effort.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-scher/reids-bold-move_b_56519.html

Wow, look who we're listed with...I mean Digby, FDL, and TPM get more visitors in one hour than we've gotton over our entire history. I don't know if I can take the pressure. I mean some of the other blogs listed are serious scholars with many thousand readers. We have Friday Boobies and Zymurgian's philosophy eating dinosaur. But it is nice to be noticed.
And good job, Sen. Reid!
Added: This is still a vanity blog, where we throw stuff out because we want to. Tattoo'd pigs? We got 'im. Woman with a Cockatoo? Got it. We're Pygalgia, and we don't need no stinkin' rules.

'Bout Time

Uhm, shouldn't you have done this four years ago?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to ask Congress Tuesday for permission to shift as much as $1.3 billion from other military programs to speed up the purchase of bomb-resistant vehicles for troops in Iraq.

According to military officials, the Army would like to reallocate about $800 million, and the Marines want roughly $500 million, to buy the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles that have been saving lives in roadside bomb attacks.

We're spending $10 billion a month in Iraq (although god only knows on what), but need another $1.3 billion for up-armored vehicles for the troops. I think there's a couple of thousand reasons why the troops should have had these vehicles long ago.

Poor Rick

Aww, my local corrupt congress-critter Rick Renzi is having fundraising problems:

WASHINGTON -- Arizona Rep. Rick Renzi's campaign cash is dwindling, giving Democrats more hope that they can take advantage of his legal woes and win his 1st District U.S. House seat.

Renzi, whose family business was raided by the FBI last April, ended the last quarter with $20,418 in the bank, according to campaign finance reports covering April 1-June 30. That is just a fourth of the $80,000 he had on hand at the end of the first three months of the year and a fraction of the money he has raised in previous years.

The report, filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission, shows Renzi has spent $126,388 and owes $456,024.http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=6795846

I guess it's harder to solicit bribes after you give up your committee seats:

On the day of the raid, he stepped down temporarily from the House Intelligence Committee. A few days later, he took a leave of absence from the House Financial Services and Natural Resources committees.

I have no sympathy for you, Rick, but I will give you another pig:

Hemp Mobile

I'm only posting this to make Whig comment:

GREEN drivers may soon be travelling in “cannabis cars” which can be recycled. Ministers have coughed up £500,000 to develop the world’s first sustainable vehicle made from hemp.

The joint project between the environment department DEFRA, car giant Ford
and growers Hemcore aims to create new materials based on plant fibres to
replace metal and oil-based plastic components.

Developers Qinetiq have already designed hemp replacements for the accelerator, brake and clutch pedals. As the technology improves, it may be used
for larger car parts such as body panels.http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007320802,00.html

Any questions?

Expanding the Disaster

Today's news is grim. The Cheney wants more war, as if the one's we have aren't enough:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2127343,00.html

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

Here's a little noticed complication: How will Turkey react?

Turkey-Iran sign EU gas export deal

ANKARA: Turkey and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement to carry natural gas from Iran and Turkmenistan to Europe, Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler said yesterday.http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=187929&Sn=BUSI&IssueID=30118

We're creating more enemies throughout the region:

The LA Times reported yesterday that nearly half of the detainees in US military
custody are Saudis. Not so for the suspected jihadis held by the Iraqis. They have only 9 Saudis. About half of their detainees are Egyptian, and a fifth are Sudanese. The Iraqi security services clearly think their biggest problem is jihadi volunteers from the Nile Valley. But the picture emerging from the two sets of detainees is that the publics of the two main US allies in the Middle East, Saudi and Egypt, are the most likely to fall under suspicion of supporting the insurgency. While suspicion falls on some Iranians, they appear to be cleared quickly and released. The Daily Star writes:

"He reports that among those still being questioned, "11 were Jordanians; 64 Syrians; nine Saudis; two Algerians; six Moroccans; six Yemenis; two Libyans; 57 Palestinians; 284 Egyptians; 113 Sudanese, two Emiratis; three Lebanese and one Somali." http://www.juancole.com/

And Iraq? Who's side are we on?

The NY Times has an interesting article today on trust issues in Anbar. The Shia Army don't trust the new Sunni auxiliaries to the U.S. occupation. The Sunnis don't trust the Shias. Neither trusts the U.S. and the Sunnis are quite blatant about saying if they don't get what they want from the Americans, they will go back to killing them.

So maybe we can make it worse:

The U.S. military's top general said Monday that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is weighing a range of possible new directions in Iraq, including, if President Bush deems it necessary, an even bigger troop buildup.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_pace&printer=1;_ylt=AjvOh8LFxaHsQYygYgZ2UVcUewgF

The whole thing is making me crazy. Our country is being run by some incredibly dangerous people. If we actually attack Iran, we might as well be at war with the entire region. And in the long run, we won't win.

Our Friends, the Saudi's

I've said this many times that despite the rhetoric about Iran, our real problem in Iraq is the Saudi's. The LA Times gives the numbers:

Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

[Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times]

That's the problem with Middle East intervention. Nobody wants us there.
(BTW, this is old news in the Arabic press. Go read http://www.juancole.com/)

The Saudi government does not dispute that some of its youths are ending up as suicide bombers in Iraq....


Iraqi Shiite lawmaker Sami Askari, an advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, accused Saudi officials of a deliberate policy to sow chaos in Baghdad.

"The fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia has strong intelligence resources, and it would be hard to think that they are not aware of what is going on," he said.

Askari also alleged that imams at Saudi mosques call for jihad, or holy war, against Iraq's Shiites and that the government had funded groups causing unrest in Iraq's
largely Shiite south. Sunni extremists regard Shiites as unbelievers.


Both the White House and State Department declined to comment for this article.

Nice to know that they're our allies.

A story with pictures

Yesterday I posted a picture of a cockatoo picking at a friends teeth. Now I'll tell you the story. It was Thurs. night, and I was at my local brewery:

I was hanging out with a group of fellow whitewater rafters ("river trash" to the locals), and an old friend was in town (another boatman, don't have a picture of him). He always has a couple of his birds with him, this time an Amazonian Parrot named "Jack" and an Australian Cockatoo named "Kiwi". His birds are extremely friendly, and were a great source of entertainment.

Which led to some goofing amongst the river trash. Kiwi likes to pick at peoples teeth, and given the lack of health insurance amongst boaters (boatman's health plan: 2 aspirin, a vitamin, washed down with beer), we called Kiwi's picking "dental care".

Here's a boatman getting his annual teeth cleaning.

And here's a boatwoman taking a turn. I didn't get any pictures of my turn, but trust me...you don't want to look at my teeth. I did get Jack untying my hair:

This story of birds and river trash was brought to you by:

Gilmore drops out

Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore has dropped his bid for pres., and all three of his supporters are heartbroken. The rest of the country responded "who?", "wha?", or "zzzzz". Don't worry, the rethugs still have plenty of other wackos to choose from. Take Tom Tancredo...please.