Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Bush's EPA: Leaded gas may return, along with lower standards

I'm filing this under WTF? I'm not sure I even have a comment on it, aside from the desire to throw up after reading this story. From CNN.Com:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is considering doing away with health standards that cut lead from gasoline, widely regarded as one of the nation's biggest clean-air accomplishments.

The Environmental Protection Agency said this week that revoking those standards might be justified "given the significantly changed circumstances since lead was listed in 1976" as an air pollutant, claiming that concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades. Battery makers, lead smelters, refiners all have lobbied the administration to do away with the Clean Air Act limits.

But Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, called on the agency to "renounce this dangerous proposal immediately," because lead, a highly toxic element, can cause severe nerve damage, especially in children.

The Bush administration wants to bring back lead in gasoline, simply because the concentrations of lead have dropped for the past 25 years? Who in this administration has thought up this boondoggle for more pollution? Even better yet, who is paying the Bush White House for promoting this insane idea?

How about the corporate interests building batteries, smelting lead, and energy refiners? I wonder how much they paid into President Bush's campaign coffers?

Convert or Die--Get your Left Behind 'shoot-em-up' game at Wal-Mart

I'm not exactly sure what to say about this story. This is from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Liberal and progressive Christian groups say a new computer game in which players must either convert or kill non-Christians is the wrong gift to give this holiday season and that Wal-Mart, a major video game retailer, should yank it off its shelves.

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution and the Christian Alliance for Progress, two online political groups, plan to demand today that Wal-Mart dump Left Behind: Eternal Forces, a PC game inspired by a series of Christian novels that are hugely popular, especially with teens.

The series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins is based on their interpretation of the Bible's Book of Revelation and takes place after the Rapture, when Jesus has taken his people to heaven and left nonbelievers behind to face the Antichrist.

Left Behind Games' president, Jeffrey Frichner, says the game actually is pacifist because players lose "spirit points" every time they gun down nonbelievers rather than convert them. They can earn spirit points again by having their character pray.

"You are fighting a defensive battle in the game," Frichner, whose previous company produced Bible software, said of combatting the Antichrist. "You are a sort of a freedom fighter."

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the retailer has no plans to pull Left Behind: Eternal Forces from any of the 200 of Wal-Mart's 3,800 stores that offer the game, including just seven in California. The nearest are in Chico and Redding.

"We look at the community to see where it will sell," said Tara Raddohl. "We have customers who are buying it and really haven't received a lot of complaints about it from our customers at this time."

Clark Stevens, co-director of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, said the game is not peaceful or diplomatic.

"It's an incredibly violent video game," said Stevens. "Sure, there is no blood. (The dead just fade off the screen.) But you are mowing down your enemy with a gun. It pushes a message of religious intolerance. You can either play for the 'good side' by trying to convert nonbelievers to your side or join the Antichrist."

The Rev. Tim Simpson, a Jacksonville, Fla., Presbyterian minister and president of the Christian Alliance for Progress, added: "So, under the Christmas tree this year for little Johnny is this allegedly Christian video game teaching Johnny to hate and kill?"

Now I can understand the American public's interest in violent video games as a means for escapism--look at the popularity of Grand Theft Auto, Medal of Honor, World of Warcraft, or even the longevity of Doom. But even I'm surprised at the hypocrisy of the Religious Right in endorsing this violent game as a means of spreading "Christian values." That is the problem I have with this Left Behind video game--Left Behind Games' president, Jeffrey Frichner, says the game actually is pacifist because players lose "spirit points" every time they gun down nonbelievers rather than convert them. They can earn spirit points again by having their character pray. There is no pacifism in this game--you go in and kill bad guys! When your health or life points start getting low, you stock up by picking up some type of health item--such as a medical kit in the video game Doom--or performing an action such as praying in the Left Behind video game. And then you can go back to killing monsters and bad guys. This talk of pacifism is total crap!

Continuing with the Chronicle story:

Both groups formed in 2005 to protest what their 130,000 or so members feel is the growing political influence and hypocrisy of the religious right.

In Left Behind, set in perfectly apocalyptic New York City, the Antichrist is personified by fictional Romanian Nicolae Carpathia, secretary-general of the United Nations and a People magazine "Sexiest Man Alive."

Players can choose to join the Antichrist's team, but of course they can never win on Carpathia's side. The enemy team includes fictional rock stars and folks with Muslim-sounding names, while the righteous include gospel singers, missionaries, healers and medics. Every character comes with a life story.

When asked about the Arab and Muslim-sounding names, Frichner said the game does not endorse prejudice. But "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" -- and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game.

"That is so obvious," he said.

The game does not endorse prejudice, however you get to blow away bad guys with Arab and Muslim-sounding names because "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" -- and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game. More hypocrisy here. Continuing on:

Left Behind is a real-time strategy and adventure game. Players don't role-play like in Grand Theft Auto -- it's more like the board game Risk than Clue.

Frichner said more than 10,000 retailers -- including Sam's Club, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, GameStop, EB Games and various Christian stores -- offer the game. He said sales are terrific, though he wouldn't reveal figures.

Protesters are targeting Wal-Mart, where the game retails for $39.96, because it is one of the biggest video game sellers in the United States.

More than 60 million copies of books in the series have sold since the first volume came out in 1996.

Jeff Gerstmann, senior editor at Gamespot.com, an online publication, said the game isn't popular. The game itself, which Gamespot rated 3.4 out of a possible 10, has lots of glitches.

"And it's kind of crazy," Gerstmann said. "One of the evil characters is a rock musician. ... If you get too close to him your spirit is lowered."

But Plugged In, a publication of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, gave the game a "thumbs-up." The reviewer called it "the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior -- and use to raise some interesting questions along the way."

Frichner said that is precisely his company's ultimate goal in offering the game: to bring parents and kids together to talk about the Bible. He said most teens are playing video games, so it was natural to turn the books into one.

His business partner, Troy Lyndon, created Madden Football, one of the top-selling sports video games. Left Behind Games Inc. is based in Murrieta (Riverside County).

I just love how Focus on the Family is calling this game "the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior..." Mom, Dad, and Junior can get together to kill Arabs and Muslims in the name of Jesus Christ. Of course, Junior can't play those evil violent games as Doom, or World of Warcraft, or even Harry Potter, since they espouse views that are opposite of what the Bible teaches us, or they are used by Satan to lure away good Christian kids like Junior away from God. And what is even crazier is how the Focus on the Family is encouraging parents to talk to their kids about God and the Bible as the kids are considering blowing away them evil Arab or Muslim nonbelievers with a machine gun, a shotgun, or even a tank?

You have entered the world of the Twilight Zone.

Army and Marines are getting short on manpower--they now want full control of the National Guard

Disasters! Disasters! Disasters! This one is a real boondoggle. From the Washington Post:

The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.

In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.

Think about this for a moment. The Army wants full access to both the Army National Guard and Army reserves, which will allow the Army to start involuntary call-ups to these soldiers to bolster their already deteriorating forces in Iraq. Continuing with the WaPost article:

The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.

"The Army has configured itself to sustain the effort in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan. Beyond that, you've got some problems," said one of the senior Army officials. "Right now, the strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines."

The strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines. In other words, the Army can not enlist enough new recruits to replace those soldiers already serving in Iraq, or who are getting out when their contracts have expired. Young Americans are not signing up in the military. Because of falling enlistments, the Army has been forced to lower their own standards, just to meet their own limited recruitment goals. Consider this October 9, 2006 MSNBC story, titled Army tops recruit goal by lowering standards:

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army recruited more than 2,600 soldiers under new lower aptitude standards this year, helping the service beat its goal of 80,000 recruits in the throes of an unpopular war and mounting casualties.

The recruiting mark comes a year after the Army missed its recruitment target by the widest margin since 1979, which had triggered a boost in the number of recruiters, increased bonuses, and changes in standards.

The Army recruited 80,635 soldiers, roughly 7,000 more than last year. Of those, about 70,000 were first-time recruits who had never served before.

According to statistics obtained by The Associated Press, 3.8 percent of the first-time recruits scored below certain aptitude levels. In previous years, the Army had allowed only 2 percent of its recruits to have low aptitude scores. That limit was increased last year to 4 percent, the maximum allowed by the Defense Department.

[....]

About 17 percent of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said.

Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for “moral” reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7 percent were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs.

The Army is applying a Band-Aid to a severed limb. They have lowered the enlistment standards to about as low as they can go, and yet they still can't get enough recruits to ship to Iraq. Therefore, the Army will ratchet up the backdoor draft by taking control of both the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves. The problem with the Guard and the Reserves is that once the Army does start using up those troops; both the Guard and Reserves will have their own problems in re-enlistments and recruitments. Consider this in the MSNBC story:

The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve both fell slightly short of their recruiting goals. The Reserves recruited 25,378 of the targeted 25,500; and the Guard recruited 69,042 of the targeted 70,000.

If the regular Army forces the Guard and Reserve soldiers into serving multiple tours in Iraq, then you can bet that the Guard and Reserve recruiting numbers will also start dropping off.

But there are even more interesting details regarding the Army and Marine Corps woes. Going back to the WaPost article:

At least two-thirds of Army units in the United States today are rated as not ready to deploy -- lacking in manpower, training and, most critically, equipment -- according to senior U.S. officials and the Iraq Study Group report. The two ground services estimate that they will need $18 billion a year to repair, replace and upgrade destroyed and worn-out equipment.

Equipment problems. The war in Iraq has used up all of the Army's equipment. Here's a December 5, 2006 Washington Post story through MSNBC, titled Army battling to save equipment:

ANNISTON, Ala. - Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot -- the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.

The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.

The depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear, officials say. Partly as a result of the shortages, many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy, officials say, raising alarm in Congress and concern among military leaders at a time when Iraq strategy is under review by the White House and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

[....]

The military's ground forces are only beginning the vast and costly job of replacing, repairing and upgrading combat equipment -- work that will cost an estimated $17 billion to $19 billion annually for several more years, regardless of any shift in Iraq strategy. The Army alone has 280,000 major pieces of equipment in combat zones that will eventually have to be fixed or replaced. Before the war, the Army spent $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year on wear and tear.

[....]

The Army's five depots carry out the highest level of maintenance for Army gear ranging from rifles and other small arms to tanks, helicopters and missile systems. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Army has left behind hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment in Iraq and has relied heavily on field maintenance facilities in Kuwait.

But as the war has continued, Army leaders have recognized that they cannot afford to wait for a drawdown of troops before they begin overhauling equipment -- some of it 20 years old -- that is being used at extraordinary rates. Helicopters are flying two or three times their planned usage rates. Tank crews are driving more than 4,000 miles a year -- five times the normal rate. Truck fleets that convoy supplies down Iraq's bomb-laden roads are running at six times the planned mileage, according to Army data.

Equipment shipped back from Iraq is stacking up at all the Army depots: More than 530 M1 tanks, 220 M88 wreckers and 160 M113 armored personnel carriers are sitting at Anniston. The Red River Army Depot in Texas has 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 450 heavy and medium-weight trucks, while more than 1,000 Humvees are awaiting repair at the Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania.

Is it no wonder that our military is being used up here? This is the equipment that is needed to be repaired at the Army depots--it is certainly not counting the equipment that is currently being worn out in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't have enough new recruits enlisting in the military, forcing the Army to take control of both the Army National Guard and Reserve in order to maintain the current operations in Iraq. What recruits that are joining the military are lower quality recruits--not the best and the brightest. And finally, the military equipment that the Army needs to fight its war in Iraq is being worn out and piling up at Army depots--just waiting to be repaired or replaced. All of this points out to a simple fact that the U.S. Army is unable to defend our country. Let's go back to the original WaPost story--Army, Marine Corps to ask for more troops:

If another crisis were to erupt requiring a large number of U.S. ground troops, the Army's plan would be to freeze its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and divert to the new conflict the U.S.-based combat brigade that is first in line to deploy.

Beyond that, however, the Army would have to cobble together war-depleted units to form complete ones to dispatch to the new conflict -- at the risk of lost time, unit cohesion and preparedness, senior Army officials said. Moreover, the number of Army and Marine combat units available for an emergency would be limited to about half that of four years ago, experts said, unless the difficult decision to pull forces out of Iraq were made.

"We are concerned about gross readiness . . . and ending equipment and personnel shortfalls," said a senior Marine Corps official. The official added that Marine readiness has dropped and that the Corps is unable to fulfill many planned missions for the fight against terrorism.

Our military can't defend us against the Great War on Terrorism. If the Army ships a large number of Guard and Reserve troops to Iraq, then the military can't defend us against natural disasters of floods, hurricanes, fires, and such. We certainly wouldn't be able to stop a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Or the many other smoldering spots in Cyprus, Kashmir, Lebanon, Balkans, or Sudan that can erupt in violence.

Another disaster.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

CBS News Poll--More bad news for Bush

I'm just amazed at how the latest poll numbers are showing the same trend regarding American's views on the Iraq war. This is from the CBS News Poll:

(CBS) Americans believe the war in Iraq is going badly and getting worse, and think it's time for the U.S. either to change its strategy or start getting out, according to a CBS News poll.

Forty-three percent say the U.S. should keep fighting, but with new tactics, while 50 percent say the U.S. should begin to end its involvement altogether. Only 4 percent say the U.S. should keep fighting as it is doing now.

Just 21 percent approve of President Bush's handling of the war, the lowest number he's ever received, and an 8-point drop from just a month ago. Most of that drop has been among Republicans and conservatives. Three-quarters of Americans disapprove of how the president is handling Iraq.

Opposition to the war is now taking on historic proportions, with 62 percent saying it was "a mistake" to send U.S. troops to Iraq — slightly more than told a Gallup Poll in 1973 that it was a mistake to send U.S. forces to Vietnam.

Americans generally agree with the assessment of the Iraq Study Group, which called the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating." But fewer than half — 46 percent — think Mr. Bush will seriously consider the bipartisan panel's recommendations; 43 percent think he will not.

Seventy-one percent say the war is going badly, including 39 percent who believe the war is going very badly. Just 25 percent say it's going well. The negative assessment of the war was shared by a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents.

Half of all Americans believe the situation in Iraq is getting worse, while fewer than one in 10 think it's getting better.

Only 15 percent of Americans — the lowest number ever — say the U.S. is currently winning the war. And for the first time, a majority (53 percent) believes it's not likely that the U.S. will ultimately succeed.

Sixty percent think that Iraq will never become a stable democracy — the highest number ever — while 85 percent now characterize the situation there as a civil war.

Fifty-seven percent say Mr. Bush needs to make major changes in his Iraq policy, while 29 percent think only minor changes should be made. Just 8 percent think no changes in U.S. policy are needed.

By a 2-1 margin, Americans now say they have more confidence in congressional Democrats to handle the war than in the president.

Nearly six in 10 Americans want to see some kind of a drawdown in U.S. troop levels, including 25 percent who want all U.S. forces removed from Iraq.

Only 39 percent of Americans now say taking military action against Iraq was the right thing to do, tying the lowest number ever, while 55 percent say the U.S. should have stayed out. The country was evenly divided on this question as recently as a year ago.

A PDF file showing the results of the poll can be seen here.

Now there are some interesting little details regarding this poll. CBS News asked the question What should U.S. do in Iraq now? It is this question, the gave this split response of "Forty-three percent say the U.S. should keep fighting, but with new tactics, while 50 percent say the U.S. should begin to end its involvement altogether." While there is a clear majority of Americans wanting to get out of Iraq, the majority is only seven percentage points. In a sense, the American public is stuck trying to figure out how to resolve Iraq. One interesting aspect is how the American public has latched on to the Iraq Study Group as a resolution--with 48 percent of the American public agreeing with the recommendations in the ISG report, 19 percent disagreeing, and a high 26 percent who do not know. This statistic is pretty much in line with the December 9th Newsweek poll. There is one number that really surprises me, and that is the 85 percent of Americans who "now characterize the situation there as a civil war." So not only does the American public disapprove of President Bush's handling of Iraq, are willing to embrace the ISG recommendations, but a majority now believes that Iraq is in a civil war. None of this is good news for a Bush White House more intent on spinning the Iraq news, rather than trying to find a resolution to Iraq. Already, President Bush has postponed his major Iraq speech until after 2007:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — The White House said Tuesday that President Bush would delay presenting any new strategy for Iraq until early next year, as officials suggested that Mr. Bush’s advisers were locked in internal debates on several fronts about how to proceed.

The absence of an immediate new American plan for Iraq is adding to anxiety among Iraq’s moderate neighbors, who identify with the country’s minority Sunni Arab population, and has opened the way for new proposals from many quarters, in Iraq as well as in Washington, about the next steps. But several administration officials said Mr. Bush had concluded that the decisions about troops, political pressure and diplomacy were too complicated to rush in order to lay out a plan to the nation before Christmas.

[....]

A senior administration official said Mr. Bush had decided over the last two days to prolong the deliberations based on a concern that a pre-Christmas announcement might quickly be overtaken by events. That happened to Mr. Bush in late 2005 after he used a series of speeches to unveil a “Plan for Victory” for victory in Iraq.

“The president knows he’s got only one shot at this speech,” said a senior administration official involved in the debate. “He didn’t want to make half-way announcements.”

Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said the administration was continuing to “whittle away at options” and seeking more information from advisers, but already had a clear idea of the general outlines of his new approach. Mr. Bush also wanted to allow more time for Robert M. Gates, the incoming defense secretary, to weigh the military options he will ultimately have to carry out, the spokesman said. But Mr. Snow acknowledged that the debate continued.

“Look, there is one camp — it is the camp that works for the president,” Mr. Snow said. “Now, people are going to have disagreements, and there may be some areas on which there are still going to be debates, but most have kind of been ironed out. I would not rule out the fact that there may be some discussion on some points.”

The Bush marketing spin continues--only problem is that nobody seems to be listening.

7 out of 10 Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq

This is off The Washington Post:

In a new Post-ABC News poll, seven in 10 Americans disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation in Iraq -- the highest percentage since the March 2003 invasion. Six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting.

While both gauges on the war have been negative since late 2004, Bush's approval rating on Iraq has deteriorated further since early October, likely weakened by recent high-profile criticisms of the administration's Iraq policy.

The bleak appraisals of the war include the release last week of the much-anticipated report from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan government advisory panel, which described conditions in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating."

In other words, the American public has been digesting the Iraq Study Group, and has decided that they still don't like President Bush's "stay the course" strategy. Some more details with the WaPost story:

In this poll, 36 percent approve of how Bush is handling his job, which is the second lowest percentage in Post-ABC polls since Bush took office in 2001; 62 percent disapprove.

And as has been true throughout this year, the intensity of sentiment runs starkly against the president: Those who strongly disapprove of Bush's job performance outnumber those who strongly approve by nearly a 3-to-1 margin.

While Bush enjoys significant support among Republicans (77 percent approve), just three in 10 independents, and three in 10 moderates, approve of his job performance. Democrats continue to give an overwhelmingly negative assessment of how Bush is handling his job (86 percent disapprove, 75 percent do so "strongly").

Attitudes about the Iraq war also showed a deep political division. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, while most Republicans -- 69 percent -- say that on balance the war was worth fighting.

Overall, 61 percent of Americans feel the war was not worth fighting. Half of Americans feel "strongly" that the war was not worth fighting, double the number who strongly believe that it was.

I should also note how this WaPost poll has the same results as the December 9th Newsweek poll, and the December 8th AP-Ipsos poll. The American public is now opposed to this war--no amount of Bush marketing spin can change that cold hard reality.

And yet, the Bush administration is completely blind to this. Here is part of the transcript to December 11th White House Press briefing with Tony Snow:

Q There's a new Newsweek poll that says that 67 percent of Americans would support keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq for no more than another year or two. Now we know that the President doesn't like to take very much notice of polls, and this week he's talking to a lot of experts and listening to them, but it seems that the American people are also speaking very loudly. I'm wondering how much is he going to factor in what they seem to be saying?

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way --

Q And is he going to be listening to them?

MR. SNOW: The President has listened, but the other thing that will be interesting is what I talked about before. Public opinion is not something chiseled in stone. Quite often it's shaped by, among other things, political campaigns. And now there's an opportunity for both parties to work together.

And I think when the President comes out and has an opportunity to make clear what the goals are -- and, again, I don't know that there's widespread disaffection with the notion of a free, democratic Iraq standing on its own, with the United States supporting that, and as Iraq becomes more capable having American forces move out, and to do those swiftly as possible. I think that's something that the American public can support, and Democrats and Republicans alike can support.

We understand right now the anxiety about the situation in Iraq. And the President shares it. But on the other hand, the costs of leaving short of victory could be utterly catastrophic for the region and for the United States. The President has outlined that many times, therefore understanding not only what the stakes are for not completing the job, but also with the promise for completing the job. It's important for people to consider.

In other words, the Bush administration is not going to listen to what the American people are saying. Public opinion is not something chiseled in stone. Mr. Snow is actually right on this topic--public opinion can change, be shaped, and adapted according to political policies and events. The big problem for both Tony Snow and President Bush is that American public opinion has changed to a negative liability against the Bush administration over the long term. What was once American support for the war has changed to American opposition. And yet, the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge the American people's desire for change--for getting out of Iraq. In fact, Snow actually deflects the question of the American public's dissatisfaction of the U.S. war in Iraq with a supposed "disaffection with the notion of a free, democratic Iraq standing on its own...." The question was never about American public opinion on a free, democratic Iraq standing on its own. The question was that the American public would only support keeping American troops in Iraq for no more than two years--the American public wants a timetable for withdrawal. And the Bush administration still refused to accept a timetable. Continuing with the White House transcript:

Q So seeing as they're also saying that they do want a timetable -- both CBS and the Newsweek poll are saying that --

MR. SNOW: Well, as I said, Victoria, let's wait for the President to deliver his speech. My guess is that you will see, when the President is addressing the American people and addressing many of the concerns you're talking about, it will create a basis of support.

More White House spin here--let's not talk about timetables now. Let's wait until the president makes his big Iraq speech--whenever that will be. And after President Bush makes his big Iraq speech, the American people will embrace him and throw flowers at his feet. And of course, when the president does make that big speech, the attention will be focused on whatever the president said in his speech, whiles the American public's desire for a withdrawal timetable will be forgotten--at least until the next public opinion poll.

Civil war in Iraq continues....

This is off The New York Times:

BAGHDAD, Dec. 12 — At least 56 people, most of them Shiite laborers looking for work, were killed today when a pickup truck packed with explosives was detonated in a crowded square in the city’s center this morning, Iraqi officials and witnesses said. At least 220 more were wounded.

Also today, a bomb was discovered at the Golden Shrine in Samarra, a holy site for Shiites, the American military reported. A large bomb that was detonated there in February by Al Qaeda severely damaged the shrine and set off waves of sectarian killings and reprisals across the country.

The bomb found today by the Iraqi police went off while it was being removed, causing minor damage to a doorway but no injuries, the military said.

In Baghdad, the latest of a series of bombings aimed at the city’s Shiites took place in Tarayan Square, a market across the Tigris River from the government Green Zone that has become an informal hiring site, luring mostly workers come from the city’s eastern, predominantly Shiite side. It has been the site of previous blasts.

In recent weeks, American military officials have described the battle for control of Baghdad as a steady stream of individual killings of Sunnis carried out by Shiite death squads, punctuated by bombings and larger attacks carried out by Sunni insurgents or Al Qaeda members against Shiites.

And the dead keep piling up....

Monday, December 11, 2006

Another pastor resigns after admitting to having gay sex

Is there something in the water or air in Colorado that is making these evangelical pasters to quit after admitting to having gay sex? This is from the New York Times:

The senior pastor of a suburban Denver evangelical church resigned Sunday after admitting to having had sexual relations with men. The move apparently came after the pastor was confronted by another minister in his church who had been alerted by an anonymous caller, The Denver Post reported.

The resignation of the pastor, the Rev. Paul Barnes, from the pulpit of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel megachurch in Englewood came by way of a tearful, 32-minute videotaped address to his congregation.

His departure occurred a month after the Rev. Ted Haggard quit as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs when a former male prostitute disclosed that Mr. Haggard had had a sexual relationship with him.

Dave Palmer, the associate pastor of Grace Chapel, told The Post that the church received a call last week from a person who had overheard someone speak of “blowing the whistle” on other evangelical ministers in clandestine homosexual relationships, among them Mr. Barnes. Mr. Palmer then spoke with Mr. Barnes.

A spokeswoman for Grace Chapel said that church leaders had declined to comment further. A statement issued by the church on Sunday said that Mr. Barnes, who founded Grace Chapel 28 years ago, had confessed to infidelity; it did not mention homosexuality.

Mr. Barnes said in his address that he had struggled with his attraction to men since he was 5, The Post said. The only time Mr. Barnes said he had talked to his father about sex, his father told him what he would do if a gay man, for which he used a derogatory term, walked up to him.

I guess that is what the church leaders in Grace Chapel are probably asking, now that Barnes resignation has come just on the heels of Ted Haggard's admission to both having gay sex and abusing drugs. I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy here among the evangelical church leaders--I won't say yet if Haggard and Barnes are among the, but not would not be surprised--who were probably screaming that them gay sinners were going to hell, while at the same time having gay sex on the side.

I don't know what else to say but, WTF?

Food Safety under the Bush Administration--another disaster?

I found this story in the Washington Post, titled Outbreaks Reveal Food Safety Net's Holes:

Over the past three months, fresh produce has been the culprit in one episode of food-borne illness after another, the latest an E. coli outbreak that appears to be linked to green onions served at Taco Bell restaurants in the Northeast. More than 60 people have been sickened in that outbreak.

The patchwork of federal and state regulations that is supposed to ensure food safety has become less effective as the nation's produce supply has grown increasingly industrial. Three months after the spinach scare, there is no agreement on what should be done to reduce health risks from the nation's fruits and vegetables even as each episode of illness has heightened a sense of urgency.

The number of produce-related outbreaks of food-borne illness has increased from about 40 in 1999 to 86 in 2004, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Americans are now more likely to get sick from eating contaminated produce than from any other food item, the center said.

It is interesting how the number of food-borne illnesses have doubled between 1999 and 2004. What the WaPost article doesn't say is what the number of food-borne illness have been before 1999. Nor can I find a comparison statistic regarding this increase on the Center for Science in the Public Interest's website.

But what is even more interesting in this WaPost story is the relationship between food inspections and the increased in food-borne illnesses. From the WaPost:

Although meat and dairy products are regulated by the Department of Agriculture, the safety of fruits and vegetables is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration and the states. But they have jurisdiction only over processing plants. Food safety at the farm level is largely self-regulated.

That has left government regulators in the position over the past eight years of nagging the produce industry to improve food safety by publishing voluntary guidelines and sending letters of admonishment.

The FDA's critics say the agency doesn't have the manpower to do more. From 2003 to 2006, the budget for the agency's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has fallen 37 percent, according to agency data. That has meant fewer inspectors and less frequent inspections. In 2005, the FDA conducted 4,573 inspections of domestic food-processing operations. For 2006, the agency said, it hopes to conduct 3,400. There are more than 12,000 such plants in the nation.

"The reality of FDA's situation is they don't have the basic inspectors to inspect the food supply they're in charge of," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "They just don't have the people . . . to manage this problem at the farm level."

There are two big problems here. The first is that there is no regulation or inspection of food at the farm level--no regulation of the harvesting of the food. What we have at the farm level is "voluntary" guidelines. The federal government needs to get involved in food safety at the farm level. One possibility is for the government to create mandatory guidelines for food safety at the farm level--backed up by spot inspections, and penalties for food safety violations. The second problem I see is the budget cuts at the FDA and Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. When you have the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's budget cut back by over a third, you can bet that there will be fewer inspectors inspecting the food, resulting in more bad food coming into the market, making more Americans sick with food poisoning. If you want to stop the food poisoning, then increase the food inspectors' budget.

Then again, I guess it is more important to spend $8 billion dollars a month in Iraq, rather than providing safe food for the American public.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Get your black market Iraqi weapons here--prices are going up!

Get your red-hot Iraqi weapons here--fast! Because prices are going up! Here's the latest New York Times article:

SULAIMANIYA, Iraq, Dec. 8 — The Kurdish security contractor placed the black plastic box on the table. Inside was a new Glock 19, one of the 9-millimeter pistols that the United States issued by the tens of thousands to the Iraqi Army and police.

This pistol was no longer in the custody of the Iraqi Army or police. It had been stolen or sold, and it found its way to an open-air grocery stand that does a lively black-market business in police and infantry arms. The contractor bought it there.

He displayed other purchases, including a short-barreled Kalashnikov assault rifle with a collapsible stock that makes it easy to conceal under a coat or fire from a car. “I bought this for $450 last year,” he said of the rifle. “Now it costs $650. The prices keep going up.”

Prices just keep going up! You better act fast if you want to get that weapon's deal of a lifetime! Continuing with the Times article:

The market for this American-issued pistol and the ubiquitous assault rifle illustrated how fear, mismanagement and malfeasance are shaping the small-arms market in Iraq.

Weapon prices are soaring along with an expanding sectarian war, as more buyers push prices several times higher than those that existed at the time of the American-led invasion nearly four years ago. Rising prices, in turn, have encouraged an insidious form of Iraqi corruption — the migration of army and police weapons from Iraqi state armories to black-market sales.

All manner of infantry arms, from rocket-propelled grenade launchers to weathered and dented Kalashnikovs, have circulated within Iraq for decades.

But three types of American-issued weapons are now readily visible in shops and bazaars here as well: Glock and Walther 9-millimeter pistols, and pristine, unused Kalashnikovs from post-Soviet Eastern European countries. These are three of the principal types of the 370,000 weapons purchased by the United States for Iraq’s security forces, a program that was criticized by a special inspector general this fall for, among other things, failing to properly account for the arms.

The weapons are easy to find, resting among others in the semihidden street markets here, where weapons are sold in tea houses, the back rooms of grocery kiosks, cosmetics stores and rug shops, or from the trunks of cars. Proprietors show samples for immediate purchase and offer to take orders — 10 guns can be had in two hours, they say, and 100 or more the next day.

“Every type of gun that the Americans give comes to the market,” said Brig. Hassan Nouri, chief of the political investigations bureau for the Sulaimaniya district. “They go from the U.S. Army to the Iraqi Army to the smugglers. I have captured many of these guns that the terrorists bought.”

The forces propelling the trade can be seen in the price fluctuations of the country’s most abundant firearm, the Kalashnikov.

In early 2003, a Kalashnikov in northern Iraq typically cost from $75 to $150, depending on its condition, origin and style. Immediately after the invasion, as fleeing soldiers abandoned their rifles and armories were looted, prices fell, pushed down by a glut and a brief sense of optimism.

Today, the same weapons typically cost $210 to $650, according to interviews with seven arms dealers, two senior Kurdish security officials and several customers. In other areas of Iraq, prices have climbed as high as $800, according to Phillip Killicoat, a researcher who has been assembling data on Kalashnikov prices worldwide for the Small Arms Survey, a Geneva-based organization.

So the American taxpayer purchased 370,000 weapons for the Iraqi security forces. And instead of going to the Iraqi security forces, these weapons have found their way into the black market there, where Iraqis are buying them up for protection as Iraq has exploded into civil war. Demand for these American weapons outpaces the supply--hence the $800 Kalashnikovs, or the $650 Glocks.

Of course, the U.S. government and military are to be seriously blamed for their own incompetence when they started sending these 370,000 weapons to the Iraqi security forces. In an October 30, 2006 New York Times story, the U.S. military completely failed in both registering the serial numbers and providing a tracking system for almost a half million weapons that were shipped to the Iraqi security forces. Within that original Times story, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction concluded that of the 505,093 weapons given to the Ministries of Interior and Defense, only 12,128 serial numbers for these weapons were properly recorded. This included the 370,000 weapons that were purchased by the American taxpayer under the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, or I.R.R.F. This Times article continued, saying " There were also significant discrepancies in the numbers of weapons purchased and those in Iraqi warehouses. While 176,866 semiautomatic pistols were purchased with American money, just 163,386 showed up in warehouses — meaning that more than 13,000 were unaccounted for. All 751 of the M1-F assault rifles sent to Iraq were missing, and nearly 100 MP-5 machine guns." The pilfering of these weapons were already taking place through the Iraqi supply chain--possibly since this I.R.R.F program was implemented. Unfortunately, the U.S. military can't say where these weapons have gone, since they have no registered serial numbers to track.

When I first read this NY Times article and posted it on my own blog Oh Well: A Commentary, I pretty much knew that the weapons went into the black market--why didn't the U.S. military even consider this possibility? In fact, I saw an incredible contradiction here--the sending of U.S. supplied weapons to the Iraqi security forces that are winding up in the hands of Iraqi terrorists and insurgents. Now we've got the possibility that these weapons are currently in the hands on the insurgents--who are killing American soldiers with weapons purchased by the American taxpayer.

It appears that the statement is starting to come true with a thriving Iraqi weapons' black market. Continuing with the current NY Times story:

Prices began moving upward in the summer of 2003 as several classes of customers entered the market together, Iraqi security officials and the arms dealers said. Western security contractors, Sunni insurgent groups, Shiite paramilitary units and criminals who were released from prison by Saddam Hussein before the war all sought the same weapons at once.

Kalashnikov prices quickly reached $200, they said. Since late last year, prices have been moving up again, as sectarian war has spread. Militias have been growing at the same time that more civilians have been seeking weapons for self-defense — twin demand pressures that pushed prices to new heights this fall.

The surge is evident across a spectrum of arms. Pistol prices have nearly tripled since 2003. Western 9-millimeter pistols now sell for $1,100 to $1,800 in the bazaars of this city. Sniper rifles cost $1,100 to $2,000, the dealers said. In the West, similar pistols sell for $400 to $600.

We've got a classic supply and demand curve here. Iraq is erupting into civil war, and as such the demand for weapons has certainly increased. Iraqi civilians, militias, insurgents, criminals, are all in the market for buying weapons. One major supplier for new Iraqi weapons has been the U.S. government, in trying to supply these weapons to the Iraqi government and security forces. I would say that the U.S. government is the either the primary supplier, or only supplier of weapons inside Iraq, considering that the U.S. military is occupying the country, and the Iraqi government is considered a puppet to the Bush administration. I'm not sure what information exist regarding Syria and Iran funneling weapons into Iraq--if such information even exists--nor do I really want to get into a debate on this subject. So if the only weapons that are coming into Iraq are through the U.S., then you can bet that there will be a premium price being placed on these weapons--especially if they are new pistols and assault rifles. If prices are tripling, then you can bet that Iraqis, who can get their hands on these weapons through the supply chain, or being issued within the Iraqi security forces, are also going to send them into the black market:

Arms dealers say that rising prices have led to more extensive pilfering from state armories, including the widespread theft of weapons the United States had issued to Iraq’s police officers and soldiers.

“In the south, if the Americans give the Iraqis weapons, the next day you can buy them here,” said one dealer, who sold groceries in the front of his kiosk and offered weapons in the back. “The Iraqi Army, the Iraqi police — they all sell them right away.”

No weapons were displayed when two visitors arrived. But when asked, the owner and a friend swiftly retrieved six pistols, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and three Kalashnikovs from a car and another room.

The rifles and the grenade launcher were wrapped in rice sacks. He slipped two of the rifles out of the cloth. They were spotless and unworn, inside and out, and appeared never to have been used. They had folding stocks and were priced at $560 each.

The dealer said they had recently been taken from an Iraqi armory. “Almost all of the weapons come from the Iraqi police and army,” he said. “They are our best suppliers.”

One pistol was a new Walther P99, a 9-millimeter pistol that the dealer said had been issued by the Americans to the Iraqi police. It was still in its box.

Glock pistols were also easy to find. One young Iraqi man, Rebwar Mustafa, showed a Glock 19 he had bought at the bazaar in Kirkuk last year for $900. Five of his friends have bought identical models, he said.

When asked if he was surprised that the Iraqi police and soldiers sold their own guns, he scoffed.

“Everything goes to the bazaar,” he said.

Supply and demand here. It is especially ironic how the Iraqi police and soldiers can sell their guns for a high profit, and then go back to the Iraqi government to request replacement weapons. And since these are Iraqi police and soldiers, the Iraqi government will certainly issue replacement weapons to them--also supplied by the U.S. government. But what I find even more amazing within this story is the U.S. government, and the U.S. military's incompetence in dealing with this problem:

Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, agreed that weapons provided by the United States had slipped from custody.

“I certainly concede that there are weapons that have been lost, stolen and misappropriated,” General Dempsey said. He noted that the inspector general had estimated that 4 percent, or about 14,000 weapons, were lost between arriving in Iraq and being transferred to Iraqi forces. Most of the weapons were pistols.

The general said that he thought the estimate was high and that accountability was improving. A weapons registry was being created, he said. “Serial numbers are being registered,” he said.

But the estimate of a 4 percent loss did not include weapons that were lost or stolen after being issued to Iraqi units. The arms dealers said this was the main source of their goods.

Only 4 percent of the weapons have been lost between arriving in Iraq and being transferred to the Iraqi security forces? Is the American military in Iraq that stupid? It is the Iraqi soldier and police officers who are selling their weapons on the black market, and then going back to their units to report that their guns were stolen. This "stolen gun" is sent up through the supply chain, where the Iraqi government will need more American-supplied weapons to protect Iraq from the insurgents and terrorists--who are also being supplied by these American weapons through the black market. It doesn't take that much of a genius to realize just how much of a mess we've made in Iraq. If we are the only weapons suppliers in Iraq, then this problem of weapons pilfering and black-market trading of American-supplied weapons will remain with their high prices. If we open Iraq up to the free trading of weapons, you can bet that Iraq will flooded with guns going to Iraqi civilians, militias, insurgents, criminals, and terrorists. Prices for these weapons will drop, but it is certain that the flood of new weapons will be used both against the U.S. occupation troops, and within the ethnic civil war. In conclusion, we are damned either way.

Incredible.

Newsweek Poll: Americans back Baker-Hamilton Report

Well, here is a Newsweek poll regarding Bush, Iraq, and the Baker-Hamilton report:

Mission accomplished. According to the new NEWSWEEK poll, Americans back the ISG’s recommendations by a two-to-one margin. In interviews with 1,000 adults done Dec. 6 and Dec. 7, 39 percent of Americans said they generally agree with the group’s 79 recommendations, while 20 percent said they disagree. (Twenty-six percent said, in effect: “Report, what report?”)

What is the new consensus? Nearly two out of three Americans (65 percent) concur with the Iraq Study Group that the U.S. should threaten to reduce economic and military aid to the Baghdad government unless it meets benchmarks for security and development. Fifty-seven percent believe Washington should reach out to its adversaries Iran and Syria in an effort to stabilize Iraq. And 61 percent believe Washington should launch a new and sustained effort to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[....]

That places the president in a distinct minority. According to the NEWSWEEK poll, more than two out of three Americans believe the United States is losing ground in Iraq (68 percent), versus 21 percent who say it is making progress—the most pessimistic assessment the NEWSWEEK poll has ever recorded. A near-record 53 percent believe invading Iraq was a mistake, compared to 39 percent who say it was the right course of action.

In fact, the public goes farther than the Baker-Hamilton report. Sixty-two percent of Americans want the Bush administration to set a timetable for withdrawal. And not in the distant future. Forty-eight percent of Americans want U.S. soldiers and Marines to come home now or within the next year. Add in the 19 percent who say they would support U.S. troops remaining in Iraq one to two years more and 67 percent of Americans say they would support keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq for no more than another year or two.

Only 23 percent of Americas sound like the president, arguing that troops should stay in Iraq “as long as it takes to achieve U.S. goals,” the lowest percentage ever recorded in the NEWSWEEK poll.

The Newsweek poll supports the AP-Ipsos poll results in yesterday's posting--Americans want out of Iraq. Now, the AP-Ipsos poll was taken before the Iraq Study Group report was published, while the Newsweek poll was taken afterwards. The ISG report has become the workable solution that Americans want for getting out of Iraq. This Newsweek poll came out on the weekend just after the ISG report was published last Wednesday, which explains the 26 percent of Americans who did not know of the report. But take this percentage of Americans who didn't know of the report out, and you still have a strong majority of Americans who agree with the ISG recommendations. You still have a majority of Americans who believe that the U.S. is losing in Iraq, and who want the Bush administration to set up a two-year timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Americans want to change course regarding Iraq.

And what is the Bush administration's response to this? It is pretty straight forward:

That’s bad news for President George W. Bush since it’s unclear whether the new consensus has been adopted by the White House. Though the president called the Baker-Hamilton report “constructive,” in a press conference on Thursday with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush’s closest ally, the president signaled resistance to at least two of the key proposals: drawing down U.S. combat troops in Iraq by early 2008, and talking to Iran and Syria. “One way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust and say it’s just not worth it,” said Bush, adding, “I believe we’ll prevail.”


We’re staying the course dammit because I said so!

Friday, December 08, 2006

AP Poll: Few Expect Victory in Iraq

Hey folks--Let's check out the latest poll numbers regarding Iraq. This is from The Washington Post:

WASHINGTON -- Americans are overwhelmingly resigned to something less than clear-cut victory in Iraq and growing numbers doubt the country will achieve a stable, democratic government no matter how the U.S. gets out, according to an AP poll.

At the same time, dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an alltime high of 71 percent. The latest AP-Ipsos poll, taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations for a new course in Iraq, found that just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.

"Support is continuing to erode and there's no particular reason to think it can be turned back," said John Mueller, an Ohio State University political scientist and author of "War, Presidents and Public Opinion." Mueller said that once people "drop off the bandwagon, it's unlikely they'll say 'I'm for it again.' Once they're off, they're off."

Even so, Americans are not necessarily intent on getting all U.S. troops out right away, the poll indicated. The survey found strong support for a two-year timetable if that's what it took to get U.S. troops out. Seventy-one percent said they would favor a two-year timeline from now until sometime in 2008, but when people are asked instead about a six-month timeline for withdrawal that number drops to 60 percent.

There is a couple interesting items regarding this poll. First is overwhelming American opposition towards President Bush's handling of Iraq--with 71 percent opposing the president's handling, verses 27 percent of Americans who approve of the president's handling of Iraq. What is more interesting is that this poll was taken just as the ISG report was being released--I would be especially interested in seeing this poll conducted again next month, just as Americans have had a chance to digest the details and conclusions of the ISG report.

The second interesting detail here is the American public's support for a withdrawal timeline--Seventy-one percent said they would favor a two-year timeline from now until sometime in 2008, but when people are asked instead about a six-month timeline for withdrawal that number drops to 60 percent. No matter how you crunch these numbers, a majority of the American public wants a withdrawal timeline. The difference here is whether the public favors a six-month timeline, or a two-year timeline--and even there, the difference is 11 percentage points.

But there are even more disturbing parallels here in the survey:

The AP-Ipsos survey of 1,000 Americans, taken Monday through Wednesday, underscores growing pessimism about Iraq. Some 63 percent did not expect a stable, democratic government to be established there, up from 54 percent who felt likewise in June. Skepticism was considerably higher among Democrats, with just 22 percent expecting a stable, democratic government, compared with half of all Republicans. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The latest numbers evoke parallels to public opinion about the war in Vietnam four decades ago. Just 9 percent expect the Iraq war to end in clear-cut victory, compared with 87 percent who expect some sort of compromise settlement. A similar question asked by Gallup in December 1965, when the American side of the war still had eight years to run, found just 7 percent believed the war in Vietnam would end in victory.

If the history of the Vietnam war is any guide, we can pretty much guess that the opposition towards the Iraq war could increase as Iraq continues to be a meat-grinder with no end to the conflict--just as the opposition grew during the Vietnam War.

And George W. Bush is completely oblivious to this opposition.

Bush: NYET to Iraq Study Group

This also should not be much of a surprise here, but I have to wonder if this is what comes out of Washington in the form of political humor these days. This is from The Washington Post:

President Bush vowed yesterday to come up with "a new strategy" in Iraq but expressed little enthusiasm for the central ideas of a bipartisan commission that advised him to ratchet back the U.S. military commitment in Iraq and launch an aggressive new diplomatic effort in the region.

On the day after the congressionally chartered Iraq Study Group released its widely anticipated report, much of Washington maneuvered to pick out the parts they like and pick apart those they do not. The report's authors were greeted with skepticism on Capitol Hill, and Democratic leaders used the occasion to press Bush to change course without embracing the commission's particular recipe themselves.

Sometimes you just have to laugh at this. President Bush expresses "little enthusiasm for the central ideas of a bipartisan commission" that have basically told him to get out of Iraq. And now the Washington pundits and politicians are cherry-picking the details from the ISG report they like to support their own arguments for staying or leaving Iraq.

And President Bush is really playing up the marketing spin here. Here's another section of the WaPost article:

At a news conference with visiting British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush called himself "disappointed by the pace of success" and said that "we'll change it if we want to succeed."

"The American people expect us to come up with a new strategy to achieve the objective which I've been talking about," Bush said.

Yet, while the president called the Iraq Study Group's ideas "worthy of serious study," he seemed to dismiss the most significant ones point by point. He noted that Blair is heading to the Middle East to promote Arab-Israeli peace, but he gave no indication that he plans an aggressive new push of his own as proposed by the commission. Bush said he, too, wants to bring U.S. troops home but noted that the group qualified its 2008 goal by linking it to security on the ground.

And he repeated his refusal to talk with Iran and Syria unless Tehran suspends its uranium-enrichment program, Damascus stops interfering in Lebanon and both drop their support for terrorist groups. "The truth of the matter is that these countries have now got the choice to make," Bush said. "If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy: Just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict."

In other words here, Bush has pretty much rejected the entire ISG report.

And even Bush is now getting into cherry-picking parts of the ISG report--he even admitted it during the press conference:

With the commission -- led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.) -- having advanced 79 recommendations, Bush made clear that he intends to cherry-pick some and ignore others. "I don't think Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton expect us to accept every recommendation," Bush said. "I think they expect us to consider every recommendation."

But what is really disgusting here is both Hamilton and Baker's responses towards the Bush administration's rejection of the ISG report:

Actually, Baker and Hamilton said on Wednesday that they do want the president to accept the commission's plan as a whole, not simply pieces of it. But they lowered their expectations yesterday and welcomed Bush's comments. "Every single statement the president has made that I have seen . . . has been positive," Hamilton told reporters. "Now, he didn't jump and embrace the report and say 'I'm going to enact all 79 recommendations.' We didn't have that expectation."

My question to both Hamilton and Baker is why did even spend so much time and the American taxpayer's money writing this report--and then kissing the president's ass, just after he pretty much wiped it with the report? Every single statement the president has made...has been positive? Excuse me Mr. Hamilton, but the president had pretty much tossed the entire report into the White House trash bin. He's not going to enact a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. He is not going to negotiate with Syria or Iran regarding Iraq. In fact, President Bush is going to continue his "stay the course" policy, and allow his successor to clean up the mess that he has made over the past six years. And now we have both yourself and Mr. Baker kissing the president's ass right after this report has been released. And yes, even Jim Baker is kissing President Bush's ass here:

Still, Baker said, "the last thing in the world" he is interested in is "backing the president into any corner" on Iraq. "That's not the purpose of this," he said. Unlike the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Baker said his panel does not intend to stay around to monitor the implementation of its recommendations. After appearing on Sunday talk shows, he said, "I'm finished."

Mr. Baker, if it wasn't the purpose of pushing the president into any corner for getting the U.S. out of Iraq, then what was the purpose of this Iraq Study Group? If you're not going to stay around as the Bush family's consigliore to help clean up this mess that Bush Junior has made, then why even take the post as the ISG's co-chairman? Why don't you put Junior's feet to the fire and push him to implement these ISG recommendations that you approved of as the co-chairman of the ISG? Or is the ISG a Bush family's CYA attempt to protect this failed president from the disaster he has created for this country? Because this country has descended into a disaster of such a magnitude by a failed, incompetent son of a family that you helped placed into the White House.

I sometimes have to wonder just how incompetent and stupid Washington is these days.

Panel Finds No Rules Broken in Foley Case

Talk about doublespeak here! This is off the New York Times:

WASHINGTON -- The House ethics committee has concluded that Republican leaders were negligent in protecting male pages from ex-Rep. Mark Foley's improper advances but did not break any rules in handling the Foley case.

The committee was releasing its findings Friday.

The aide, who was not authorized to be quoted by name, was made aware of the committee's findings.

"The Republicans did not break rules but were negligent in protecting the pages," the aide said.

A four-member investigative subcommittee interviewed dozens of witnesses, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to determine whether majority Republicans took strong enough action against Foley when they learned of his questionable e-mails and other computer messages.

[....]

The ethics committee, evenly divided by party, had to resolve several conflicts in the case.

Hastert's aides could have learned of Foley's inappropriate e-mails as early as 2002 and as late as 2005, depending on who is recounting the events.

The speaker said his aides first learned in the fall of 2005 about questionable e-mails between Foley and a former page from Louisiana. Foley's former top aide said he told Hastert's chief of staff about the Florida lawmaker in 2002 or 2003.

Also, Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Republican campaign chief Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., said they told Hastert about Foley's inappropriate behavior last spring. Hastert said he could not recall those conversations, and did not learn of Foley's conduct until late September when the matter became public.

In other words, this whole "ethics" report is just another sham--a major CYA for the incompetence of this Republican-controlled Congress regarding this scandal. In this case, it was party politics over ethics, as the Republicans wanted to keep Foley in the House as a means to maintain Republican control of both the House and Congress--just as Iraq is exploding, the Abramoff and DeLay scandals are making headlines, and the image of the Republican's "culture of corruption" was dragging down the Republican-controlled Congress' poll numbers. The Foley scandal really showed the dirty underside of this new 110th Congressional Republican House leadership--a Republican House leadership which will now containJohn Boehner as the House Minority Leader. You can bet that the last thing the current 109th Congressional Republican leadership will want to do is to open their new House Minority Leader to charges of ethics violations. So we get this slap-on-the-wrist excuse of, "Well, technically they didn't break any laws, but they really should have known better."

What do you expect from a corrupt Republican congressional leadership investigating their own political party members in this scandal?

Friday Fun Stuff--How the Grinch Stole Christmas

After this weeks release of the Iraq Study Group, to which the Bush administration has pretty much said "NYET" to, we definitely need something special and fun to keep our Christmas cheer up. And I found a good one here--the complete How the Grinch Stole Christmas on YouTube! We're talking the original 1966 Dr. Seuss special with Boris Karloff narrating the story, and great Chuck Jones (Looney Tunes, Wile E. Coyote and Roadrunner) producing and directing this timeless classic. If there are two Christmas specials that I can never grow tired of watching, the first would be A Charlie Brown Christmas, and the second one would be the Grinch.

So here it is--How the Grinch Stole Christmas:

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Gates' confirmation--the reasons behind Bunning and Santorum's NYET vote

I found this through Shakespeare's Sister, and even I'll admit that it is just too much. The original source is from CNN.com:

Two Republican senators -- Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Jim Bunning of Kentucky -- cast the only no votes.

[....]

"Mr. Gates has repeatedly criticized our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, without providing any viable solutions to the problems our troops currently face," Bunning said in a statement entered into the Senate record.

"I am concerned with the message he is sending to our troops and our allies around the world."

Bunning also said Gates "believes in directly engaging rogue nations such as Iran and Syria that are known sponsors of terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza."

"I do not support inviting terrorists to the negotiating table," he said.

After Gates was confirmed, Santorum -- who lost his seat in the November election amid a wave of unhappiness about the Iraq war -- took to the Senate floor.

He delivered a nearly hourlong speech, warning of the dangers of not confronting "Islamic fascism" and its budding alliances with anti-American countries such as Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba.

"We are sleepwalking through the storm," Santorum said. "How do those who deny this evil propose to save us from these people? By negotiating through the U.N. or directly with Iran? By firing Don Rumsfeld, (and) now getting rid of John Bolton? That's going to solve the problem?"

He said he felt Gates is not "up to the task."

Is it too early in the morning to start drinking Kool-Aid?

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Gates confirmed as Secretary of Defense

The second big non-news story of the day is Robert M. Gates confirmation as Secretary of Defense. This also really didn't surprise me here, since Gates was one of the real politik officials from Poppy Bush's administration. So this is from the Washington Post:

The Senate overwhelmingly approved Robert M. Gates yesterday as the new defense secretary to replace Donald H. Rumsfeld, sealing a swift confirmation with a vote of 95 to 2 that reflected bipartisan confidence in his willingness to overhaul U.S. strategy in Iraq.

Senate Democrats and Republicans lauded Gates's frankness after a day of testimony Tuesday in which he acknowledged that the United States is not winning in Iraq, and said that historians would have to judge whether the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was correct. He also pledged to take a fresh approach to Iraq in which "all options are on the table."

Two Republican senators -- Jim Bunning (Ky.) and Rick Santorum (Pa.) -- voted against Gates, with Bunning saying that Gates's criticism of "our efforts in Iraq" sends the wrong message to U.S. troops and allies.

Rich Santorum voted against Gates' confirmation? Now that's a surprise! Then again, I guess Santorum wanted to use this vote as a protest against the adults taking over this Iraq disaster from the neocon children in the Bush White House. Then again, who knows what goes on within Santorum's twisted, half-crazed mind.

Report from Iraq Study Group is out!

Well, the final report from Jim Baker's Iraq Study Group is out. Here is the full 160-page report through the New York Times.

And here is the report broken down by the Washington Post into the Full Text, Appendices, and the Executive Summary.

I have yet to read the entire report, but from what I've read in both the New York Times and Washington Post stories, it appears to be bleak. I'm going to start with the Washington Post story:

Faced with what it described as "deteriorating" conditions in Iraq and the prospect that a "slide toward chaos" could topple the Baghdad government, a bipartisan panel urged President Bush today to fundamentally change the U.S. military mission in Iraq and launch a new diplomatic effort involving the country's neighbors, including Iran and Syria.

In a long-awaited report presented to Bush and Congress, the Iraq Study Group warned that "current U.S. policy is not working," and it recommended shifting the basic U.S. military mission in Iraq from combat to training.

Surprise, surprise, surprise--the current U.S. policy is not working. Anyone with half a brain, who has been regularly reading the news reports--and perhaps even the blogs--would have probably realized that that Iraq has been a disaster for the past year. I looked back at what I said in my first posting regarding Iraq on Oh Well, dated May 30, 2005:

This war has been a failure. Created by a Bush Administration controlled by neoconservatives with their own imperialist ambitions, and marketed to the American public using lies, deceit, and terrorism fears, the Bush White House has dragged this country into a wasteful war which has killed some of our best young citizens and wasted so many countless billions of dollars. We did not need to invade Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism--it is now after the invasion. Saddam was never a global threat--he may have been a regional threat in the Middle East, but he was also contained by a U.S. military in the region and the no-fly zone. There have been so many lies out of the White House, that the American public seems almost de-sensitized to it. The White House continues to link terrorism to Saddam Hussein while bludgeoning the American public with terrorism fears and warnings. The American media doesn't challenge any of the statements from the Bush Administration, but rather they follow along complaisantly reporting the lies. It is a never-ending story.

Looking back at this comment, I realize that it is still as relevant today as it was when I wrote it--the 11th posting in my blog. The main difference in that first post is that I never saw Iraq exploding into a civil war that we have today. And now we have this Iraq Study Group finally saying that the "deteriorating" conditions are causing Iraq to "slide towards chaos."

I'm almost tempted to say there is nothing of value in reading this report.

But perhaps there is some good to come from this report. Consider this from the WaPost:

[Former secretary of state James A,] Baker, the group's Republican co-chairman, said the report "doesn't bind anyone," but he suggested that its recommendations carry extra weight because they have "complete bipartisan support."

"We do not recommend a 'stay the course' solution," Baker said in summarizing the group's findings at the news conference. "In our opinion, that approach is no longer viable."

In other words, Jim Baker has pretty much shredded Bush's "stay the course" arguments. That has been the only argument that the Bush White House could even make as Iraq descended into chaos--stay the course to keep Iraq from falling into the control of al Qaeda terrorists! Stay the course to create a stable democracy in Iraq. Stay the course to stabilize the government of Iraq. Stay the course and not allow Iraq to explode in civil war! Stay the course.

There is just one small problem. Baker's Iraq Study Group doesn't go far enough. Continuing with the WaPost article:

Except for the recommendations on Iran and Syria, the panel appeared to steer away from language that might inflame the Bush administration, which has said that it will consider the Iraq Study Group report as part of its own review of strategy and tactics in Iraq. The panel did not, for instance, set a formal timetable for troop withdrawal, instead setting 2008 as a goal for the withdrawal of U.S. combat brigades based on an estimate by U.S. commanders for when Iraqi forces will be ready to take charge of the country's security needs.

In other words, Jim Baker's ISG report pretty much backed down from confrontation on the Bush administration's "stay the course" policy. Instead of demanding a timetable for an American withdrawal from Iraq, we get this "goal" of withdrawing American troops before the 2008 presidential elections--like this administration has succeeded in accomplishing any of its post-war Iraq reconstruction goals. And the Bush White House even knows that they can shove Baker's ISG report in the trash. Also in the WaPost:

For his part, Bush thanked the Iraq Study Group and described its report as "an opportunity to find common ground." But he offered no immediate endorsement or rejection of any of its recommendations.


And from the New York Times here:

While the panel was careful to modulate its wording to avoid phrases and rigid timelines that might alienate the White House,’ it also clearly attempted to box the president in, presenting its recommendations as a comprehensive strategy that would only work if implemented in full. That appeared to be a warning to Mr. Bush, who in recent days has said he would consider the independent panel’s findings alongside studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and has suggested he would pick the best elements of each of them.


You can bet that the Bush White House won't do anything regarding this report. And what is even more amazing is that the ISG members even know how much of a failure Iraq has become. Here's the New York Times article on this report:

Members of the commission said they believed their recommendations would improve the prospects for success in Iraq, but they said there was no guarantee that the American effort there would not end in failure.

“The current approach is not working, and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing,” [retired Democratic congressmen from Indiana, Lee H.] Hamilton said at the news conference on Capitol Hill. “Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward.”

[....]

Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton wrote that “there is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq.”

I seriously wonder if both Baker and Hamilton know that the Bush White House will not do anything to endorse the ISG's recommendations for resolving Iraq, or even develop a withdrawal timetable. I'm pretty much betting that the Bush White House will support the recommendations from their own National Security Council report, or from the Joint Chiefs of Staff report, which will probably provide a more upbeat assessment of Iraq over that of the ISG report. So I seriously wonder if this report has been a complete dud.

Perhaps is is through the Washington DC circuit. But if the report does continue to educate the American people at just how much of a disaster Iraq has become, then perhaps there could be some good to come out of it--certainly if the American people start to pressure both the Bush White House and Congress to pull out of Iraq over the next two years. But until then, we'll just have to see.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Bush administration to be cartoon

A younger version of George W. Bush jams with his pals in "Lil' Bush." From CNN

This looks like it might be fun. From CNN.Com:

LOS ANGELES, California (Hollywood Reporter) -- Comedy Central has ordered "Lil' Bush: Resident of the United States," a cartoon satire that re-imagines President Bush and key executives in his administration as elementary school misfits.

The title character is surrounded by close pals like Lil' Cheney, who grumbles unintelligibly, and Lil' Condi, who pines for Lil' Bush and does his homework for him.

"Bush" is not without its risque moments. When Lil' Bush's school serves falafel instead of hot dogs for lunch in one episode, he and his pals torture the cafeteria employees with methods made famous during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Six episodes from writer-producer Donick Cary ("The Simpsons") have been ordered to air on Comedy Central next year.

So this Bush cartoon is going to be produced by Simpsons' writer-producer Donick Carey. The Simpsons is one of the longest-running American sitcom, and one of the longest-running American animation programs to date at 19 seasons. Carey was involved in writing seven episodes on the Simpsons, as well as writing for Just Shoot Me and the Late Show with David Letterman. You have to wonder if Carey can bring the same blend of cynicism and satire that has made the Simpsons a hit to Lil' Bush--because you can bet there are six years of Bush incompetence, scandals, and controversies to mine for this new series. Continuing with the story:

"Bush" got its start in September as six five-minute clips offered by Amp'd Mobile, a U.S.-based wireless service that packages video entertainment programming with cell phone service.

"Bush" represents an unlikely reversal of the one-way flow of programming from television to other digital platforms, where networks and studios are attempting to extend franchises in search of new revenue. That said, many a programmer has cited the Internet and mobile arenas as potential breeding grounds for fare that could translate back to TV.

"What's exciting as a developer is that content can come from so many places these days," said Lauren Corrao, executive VP original programming and development at Comedy Central.

Amp'd is licensing "Bush" to Comedy Central while retaining rights to air the series on its Comedy Central-branded video channel as well as an exclusive hold on wallpaper and ringtones that emerge from the series in any region Amp'd operates.

"We looked at it as an experiment to use mobile as an incubator that would pop to television," said Seth Cummings, senior VP content development and programming at Amp'd. "It's a huge validator right out of the gate because it's the first project we did."

"Bush" has gotten traction on viral video sites like YouTube, where the original episodes has drawn more than 230,000 streams. It won't be Comedy Central's first foray into devoting an entire series to poking fun at Bush. In 2001, the live-action spoof "That's My Bush," from "Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, had a short-lived run on the network.

The one problem I do have with Lil' Bush is the time frame. The Bush presidency is up within two years--will that be enough time to produce and air a hit cartoon series? This series is a parody of the Bush presidency--will it continue after President Bush steps down in January 2009, and a new president is (hopefully) elected into office? Or will the writers adapt Lil' Bush into a new political landscape that will reflect U.S. politics in 2009?

Top Bush aide: White House must get 'mojo back'

This is off CNN.Com:

Since the election, Bush is having to share the seat of power with the Democrats. And [White House Chief of Staff Joshua] Bolten has become his bridge to Capitol Hill.

"The election was not a happy event around here, obviously," Bolten said, sitting on a couch in his spacious corner office where light streams in through tall windows. "Everybody's disappointed, but I haven't seen a single discouraged person."

To keep the staff focused, Bolten handed out about a dozen countdown clocks that show the number of days, hours, minutes and seconds left in Bush's presidency. The clock read 1,000 days in April when Bolten started his job, saying it was time for the White House to "get our mojo back."

Six months later, the pendulum has swung the Democrats' way, Iraq is chaotic and the president's job approval rating is stuck in the 30s. There now are fewer than 800 days left -- not a long time to push the Bush agenda, especially when the president's power is slipping away.

Silver lining?

Democrats claim their Election Day victory meant the president would limp through his final two years in office.

"I don't believe any of that," Bolten says.

Then, in his soft, direct style, Bolten suggests a silver lining to the GOP defeat: In the majority, Democrats will have more of a burden to show progress, especially heading into the race for the White House in 2008. The Democrats' 51-49 majority in the Senate is slim. Republicans still control the White House. And 800 days is nearly as long as Gerald Ford's presidency.

"You'll see us accommodating to the new environment and working more closely with Democrats than we have in the past," said Bolten, a 52-year-old self-described "policy geek" who has been spending time on Capitol Hill helping draft the GOP's new game plan.

"But I do not see the president compromising on principles. There may be people in the conservative base who fear that he is going to turn on his principles, but I think they will see fairly readily that he won't."

Is there a contradiction here? First, Bolten says that the GOP defeat is a positive for the Bush White House and the Republicans since the Democrats now have to show the American people that they can make progress. Then Bolten is saying that while the Bush White House is willing to work "more closely with the Democrats than we have in the past," President Bush will still refuse to compromise on "principles." If the Bush administration refuses to compromise on the Democratic Congress' legislation, does that make it the Democrats fault for not showing progress against an obstructionist Bush White House? Because that is what Josh Bolten is saying here.

This CNN story is really a GOP "feel good" pep story--even though we lost badly, we can still feel good for trying to win one for the Gipper! At the same time. Bolten is trying to shift the debate towards the Democrats for taking control of the legislative agenda, while portraying the Bush administration as the underdog in fighting against it. This new marketing spin is for laying the groundwork on the 2008 presidential elections--blame the Democrats for six years of Bush failures, while a new crop of Republican saviors, can we all say John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, will save America from those evil, treasonous Democrats. And the mainstream media will swallow it all--hook, line and sinker--once all the happy talk of bipartisanship between President Bush and the Democratic leadership in Congress dissolves into serious partisan bickering over the major problems of Iraq, the budget deficit, and tax cuts.

But for now, let's enjoy all the happy-happy-joy-joy talk coming out of Washington. It is not going to last for long.

NASA Says It Will Set Up Polar Moon Camp

Space: 1999--Here we come!

It is about time that we went back to the moon. This is also from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA announced Monday it will establish an international base camp on one of the moon's poles, permanently staffing it by 2024, four years after astronauts return to the moon.

It is a sweeping departure from the Apollo moon missions of the 1960s and represents a new phase of space exploration after space shuttles are retired in 2010.

After consulting more than 1,000 experts from 14 different countries, NASA decided on what deputy NASA chief Shana Dale called a ''fundamental lunar approach'' that is sharply different from its previous moon missions in nearly everything but the shape of the ship going there.

NASA chose a ''lunar outpost'' over the short expeditions of the '60s. Apollo flights were all around the center of the moon, but NASA decided to go to the moon's poles because they are best for longer-term settlements. And this time NASA is welcoming other nations on its journey.

The more likely of the two lunar destinations is the moon's south pole because it's sunlit for three-quarters of the time, making solar power easier, and has possible resources to mine in dark areas nearby, said associate deputy administrator Doug Cooke.

To get to the moon, NASA envisions an all-purpose lunar lander that could touch down anywhere and can be the first part of a base camp, said exploration chief Scott Horowitz.

''The nickname I use for the lander is, it's a pickup truck,'' Horowitz said in a Monday news conference from Houston. ''You can put whatever you want in the back. You can take it to wherever you want. So you can deliver cargo, crew, do it robotically, do it with humans on board. These are the types of things we're looking for in this system.''

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia accident, President Bush announced in 2004 a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. His plan would take 16 years, twice as long as NASA's first trip to the moon took in planning. NASA has refused to estimate a price tag for the project.

There are quite a few things we can do on the moon. The big thing would be the exploration of the moon, and even the geology there. We can certainly start with the mining on the moon--starting with the search for frozen water, but also to see what other minerals are located within its craters. The moon would be a perfect observatory--can you imagine building a telescope twice the size of the Hubble telescope and placing it on the far side of the moon? The moon would be a perfect base to construct and launch spacecraft for the manned exploration to Mars, and even to advance the survival, scientific, and mining technology needed for the manned exploration to Mars. And why bother sending all that nuclear waste into Yucca Mountain, when we can also store it on the moon.