Monday, January 31, 2005
Well, at least the recount would be easy
From the blog Scriptoids:
The Big Story With John Gibson: Interview (Fox News)
JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The historic day just around the corner now, Sunday. Polling stations (search) are in place and security's gearing up, but just because you build it doesn't mean they'll come. It's now up to the Iraqis to make their democracy work by showing up to vote.
Joining me now, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and co-author of "No True Glory," Bing West. Mr. West, today's big question: so quantitatively, how many Iraqis need to vote for the election to be declared a success?
BING WEST, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: One.
GIBSON: One?
The Big Story With John Gibson: Interview (Fox News)
JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The historic day just around the corner now, Sunday. Polling stations (search) are in place and security's gearing up, but just because you build it doesn't mean they'll come. It's now up to the Iraqis to make their democracy work by showing up to vote.
Joining me now, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and co-author of "No True Glory," Bing West. Mr. West, today's big question: so quantitatively, how many Iraqis need to vote for the election to be declared a success?
BING WEST, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: One.
GIBSON: One?
Friday, January 28, 2005
shell game
Well, according to President Bush and, it would seem, 99% of the American media, the historic elections in Iraq on Sunday represent some sort of turning point. And we, in our credulity, forget the fact that there have been dozens of such "turning points" over the past two years, without much tangible results. Well, sure, the Iraqis are now a "sovereign" people - not only that, they're SO "sovereign" that alls they have to do is ask and we'll gladly withdraw our troops ... if that's what the newly elected government wants. And just because I'm forgetting the reason the $1,500,000,000 American embassy in Baghdad is nothing at all like a Colonial headquarters, doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist.
But the nitty gritty is this:
Military Leaders Cautious on Iraqi Vote
An unremarkable headline, to be sure. But remember, this comes mere weeks after we were told that the increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq was necessary due to the violence focused around the upcoming elections. Now they're quietly warning us that it's going to be very possibly MORE violent AFTER the elections.
Huh.
Since we have the collective attention span of lint in this country, I have no reason to believe that if we are still in Iraq at these troop levels, casualty rates, and empty promises in one year, any of us will remember the turning-the-corner rhetoric of today. Oh well, it's just a TV show anyway.
By the way, according to icasualties.org, the last 10 months have each been deadlier for U.S. troops than the corresponding months the year before. In other words, April 2003 (12 days after the initial invasion) was less deadly than April 2004; May 2003 was less deadly than May 2004; and so on until January 2005, in which twice as many military personell have died in Iraq compared to January 2004. This will almost certainly be true in February and March, which during 2003 were relatively quiet months. However, if the same holds in April (April 2003 having been the deadliest month for U.S. troops before this past November) then it must be said finally that we are headed in the wrong direction; at that point, there will be no doubt. And the longer we wait to get out, the worse it will be for all involved.
(P.S. As for the coalition of the willing, just note that more U.S. troops have died in the past two months than troops from all other members of the coalition during the entire war. Didn't Bush say he was going to get us more help after the American elections? Where are those interested parties???)
But the nitty gritty is this:
Military Leaders Cautious on Iraqi Vote
An unremarkable headline, to be sure. But remember, this comes mere weeks after we were told that the increase in U.S. troop levels in Iraq was necessary due to the violence focused around the upcoming elections. Now they're quietly warning us that it's going to be very possibly MORE violent AFTER the elections.
Huh.
Since we have the collective attention span of lint in this country, I have no reason to believe that if we are still in Iraq at these troop levels, casualty rates, and empty promises in one year, any of us will remember the turning-the-corner rhetoric of today. Oh well, it's just a TV show anyway.
By the way, according to icasualties.org, the last 10 months have each been deadlier for U.S. troops than the corresponding months the year before. In other words, April 2003 (12 days after the initial invasion) was less deadly than April 2004; May 2003 was less deadly than May 2004; and so on until January 2005, in which twice as many military personell have died in Iraq compared to January 2004. This will almost certainly be true in February and March, which during 2003 were relatively quiet months. However, if the same holds in April (April 2003 having been the deadliest month for U.S. troops before this past November) then it must be said finally that we are headed in the wrong direction; at that point, there will be no doubt. And the longer we wait to get out, the worse it will be for all involved.
(P.S. As for the coalition of the willing, just note that more U.S. troops have died in the past two months than troops from all other members of the coalition during the entire war. Didn't Bush say he was going to get us more help after the American elections? Where are those interested parties???)
Thursday, January 27, 2005
For your consideration...
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Please don't sue!
This was simply RIPPED OFF in its entirety from the Ironic Times:
| FEATURE: |
 |
| March 2003 Presence of Iraqi WMD force U.S. to invade. |
| March 2003 We win hearts and minds of Iraqis by bombing their cities. |
| April 2003 We're greeted as liberators, same 20 Iraqis trucked to multiple locations to dance in the streets. |
| April 2003 Rest of citizens express their joy by widespread looting. |
| May 2003 “Mission Accomplished.” |
| June 2003 U.S. promises to restore power, water real soon. |
| July 2003 “Bring 'em on!” |
| Dec. 2003 We crush handful of dead-enders still resisting by capturing Saddam. We will restore power, water soon. |
| Spring, 2004 We crush insurgency in Sunni areas, continue search for WMD. |
| Spring 2004 We crush insurgency again by torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. |
| June 2004 Interim government takes over, Iraq now free. |
| Summer 2004 We totally crush insurgency in Sunni areas, eyes peeled for WMD. |
| Fall 2004 We annihilate insurgency in Sunni areas, promise to restore water, etc. |
| Winter, 2005 No WMD. What the hell. |
| Winter, 2005 Free elections everywhere but in Sunni areas, where we prepare to restore water, etc., and totally stomp, crush, etc. |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Win some. Lose some.
Wait a second! So we get a long-awaited, key victory through a legislative body (which I wasn't even aware had been about to vote on it) ... but lose an important legal case. Perhaps the beginning of Bizarro Year for the gays? Where we start recognizing that the courts aren't the True Way and Path? Where we find our place in the rough & tumble world of majoritarian government?
Nah.
But regardless, and I don't want to celebrate too early, it's terrific that the Illinois State Senate finally ... FINALLY ... was able to do the right thing and pass the anti-discrimination bill. The House is supposedly going to do the same thing today. Blagojevich is sure to sign. Equality Illinois gets a feather in its cap. Deborah Mell acts like how a lesbian daughter of a political powerhouse SHOULD act and uses her power for good and not EVIL.
As for the Florida gay adoption ban, I'm trying to understand the 11th Circuit's reasoning. I guess it all comes down to the "rational basis" of needing a male and female parent to give a child the best chance at life? Obviously, the competing interest of the children is the most important factor here - to me, even more important than needing to protect the gays from discrimination. But I would love to know whether the state just asserted that children are better off in hetero situations (regardless of whether the parents are married); provided evidence that this was the case; or actually proved that this was the case. I'm almost positive it wasn't the last of these -- after all, I've yet to see such evidence and you KNOW the right wing would marshall it left and right if it existed. Did the lower & appellate court put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to show that the gays weren't bad for kids? I guess with a lack of higher scrutiny for gay-discrimination cases we're left with that probability. Prove a negative, bitches!
The most disgusting thing, of course, is Jeb Bush (the "good" one) calling the ban "appropriate." Because Bush is an expert on raising kids. At least, drug addict kids.
Nah.
But regardless, and I don't want to celebrate too early, it's terrific that the Illinois State Senate finally ... FINALLY ... was able to do the right thing and pass the anti-discrimination bill. The House is supposedly going to do the same thing today. Blagojevich is sure to sign. Equality Illinois gets a feather in its cap. Deborah Mell acts like how a lesbian daughter of a political powerhouse SHOULD act and uses her power for good and not EVIL.
As for the Florida gay adoption ban, I'm trying to understand the 11th Circuit's reasoning. I guess it all comes down to the "rational basis" of needing a male and female parent to give a child the best chance at life? Obviously, the competing interest of the children is the most important factor here - to me, even more important than needing to protect the gays from discrimination. But I would love to know whether the state just asserted that children are better off in hetero situations (regardless of whether the parents are married); provided evidence that this was the case; or actually proved that this was the case. I'm almost positive it wasn't the last of these -- after all, I've yet to see such evidence and you KNOW the right wing would marshall it left and right if it existed. Did the lower & appellate court put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to show that the gays weren't bad for kids? I guess with a lack of higher scrutiny for gay-discrimination cases we're left with that probability. Prove a negative, bitches!
The most disgusting thing, of course, is Jeb Bush (the "good" one) calling the ban "appropriate." Because Bush is an expert on raising kids. At least, drug addict kids.
