Olmert Laid Out updated

This story actually broke earlier today in the
Jeruselum Post and the Guardian,
with the Washington Post chiming in for tomorrow.

An official Israeli investigative committee on Monday accused Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of “a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence” in taking the country to war in Lebanon last summer. The interim findings of the Winograd Committee also sharply criticized Defense Minister Amir Peretz for not grasping “the basic principles of using military force to achieve political goals” and accused Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, the army chief of staff at the time, of acting “impulsively” in advocating an “immediate, intensive military strike” to secure the release of two captured Israeli soldiers. Failures by Israeli Leaders Detailed Panel Sharply Critical of Premier, Defense Minister and Army Chief –Don't miss the photo at the link above.–

The over the top abuses of the Olmert government in handling
the Lebanon
conflict last fall were atrocious,
but he had some
help from Mr. Bush. Words fail me as I remember the
days unfolding from
over here. Bush responded like it was another
Katrina. I covered the entire sorry mess, which got worse with each passing
day. From Lebanon to Iraq you could see the Saudis
falling by the wayside, as Bush becomes smaller and smaller in our once faithful allies eyes.

The simple truth is that Olmert let Hezbollah play him, but it goes deeper
than that simple assessment. The report says that the Israeli army “was
not ready for this war.” This is a very damning and dangerous criticism
given that Israel's bluster is always on high and their enemies surround them. Is it any wonder that rumors
have been flying about Olmert wanting to talk with Bashir Assad, while Mr. Bush
and the neocons find that their worst nightmare to contemplate? Speaker
Pelosi going to the region put a spotlight on some changing dynamics in
there that the Bush neocons do not want to have manifest, but which have unfolded under Mr. Bush's incompetent foreign policy. Ms. Rice running around the region in planes is hardly a policy. But it is one reason
I believe Olmert
sandbagged Pelosi at Dick Cheney's request. Democrats doing diplomacy is a no-no.

It's the never ending contest of who is more pro Israel? But I digress.

Of course Ehud Olmert
is not the only one getting creamed in the new report. Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz is also being asked to resign. Fat chance.

Waiting in the wings is the current foreign minister Tzippi Livni, Sharon's protégé, who is reportedly
not going to try to oust Olmert, but who is also making it clear that she's
ready to lead.

Meanwhile, don't count the neocons out just yet, because if Olmert falls and Livni can't hold
things together you just might see the rise of everyone's favorite Israeli neocon:
Binyamin Netanyahu. …and you think things are bad now?

UPDATE (5.1.07): Glenn Greenwald writes it up today.

Share

Murtha on “Face the Nation”

Now he’s really done it. Yesterday on “Face the Nation” Murtha said
the “i” word. That’s right impeachment.

Is that a blast at Bush’s broadside or is Murtha just sending a not so subtle
message? Whatever, but it seems like the news is just now catching some attention.

Murtha doesn’t sound like he’s endorsing the idea to me. What he says is that it’s a means of holding a president accountable. However, even bringing up the “i” word on the Sunday shows is yet another bridge crossed. No one, least of all Murtha, believes anything is more important than bringing the troops home from Iraq and solving the war issue. So don’t get sidetracked by the shot.

Share

No Joy for Maliki bumped & updated

Maliki is in trouble, which means so are we. Now Saudi’s King Abdullah is ratcheting
up the pressure (and no doubt the presidential panic) by dissing al-Maliki.
After calling U.S. efforts in Iraq an “illegitimate occupation” no
one should be surprised.

In a serious rebuff to U.S. diplomacy, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has refused to receive Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on the eve of a critical regional summit on the future of the war-ravaged country, Iraqi and other Arab officials said yesterday. The Saudi leader’s decision reflects the growing tensions between the oil-rich regional giants, the deepening skepticism among Sunni leaders in the Middle East about Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government, and Arab concern about the prospects of U.S. success in Iraq, the sources said. The Saudi snub also indicates that the Maliki government faces a creeping regional isolation unless it takes long-delayed actions, Arab officials warn. For the United States, the Saudi cold shoulder undermines hopes of healing regional tensions between Sunni- and Shiite-dominated governments and producing a new spirit of cooperation on Iraq at the summit, to be held Thursday and Friday in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, the sources warn. … .. Saudi King Declines to Receive Iraqi Leader

The Thursday and Friday summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh is
looking symbolic at this point. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul will not
attend, with rumors that Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki won’t either.
Bush and his girl Condi can’t seem to get any of these guys to sit down and
talk. Gee, I wonder why.

But as for the Saudi’s continuing rift with al-Maliki, no doubt part of the
problem is the report that is making the rounds today.

A department of the Iraqi prime minister’s office is playing a leading role in the arrest and removal of senior Iraqi army and national police officers, some of whom had apparently worked too aggressively to combat violent Shiite militias, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad. (snip) “Their only crimes or offenses were they were successful” against the Mahdi Army, a powerful Shiite militia, said Brig. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, commanding general of the Iraq Assistance Group, which works with Iraqi security forces. “I’m tired of seeing good Iraqi officers having to look over their shoulders when they’re trying to do the right thing.” The issue strikes at a central question about the fledgling government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: whether it can put sectarian differences aside to deliver justice fairly. … .. Maliki’s Office Is Seen Behind Purge in Forces Some Commanders Had Pursued Militias

Maliki’s behavior and this report can’t exactly be news to the Saudis.

Iraq is the colossal disaster that just keeps on giving and giving and…

UPDATE: Almost forgot, don’t miss William F. Buckley’s column on the “Waning GOP.” It’s a must read.

Share

Stephanie Miller on MSNBC updated & bumped

UPDATE: Crooks & Liars now has some video up of today’s show. Don’t miss it.

Today Ms. Miller debuted on MSNBC. The clip above of Miller on Ann Coulter is hilarious, though it’s not from today’s show. It will give you an idea of what Miller and her team can do.

If you didn’t see Miller today, she airs tomorrow and Wednesday from 6-9 a.m. eastern, which means 3-6 a.m.
pacific. That’s almost impossible for much of her west coast listeners, but that’s
the reason TiVo was invented. She’s funny, smart and has a great team with her, so it seems to me a great reason to turn on MSNBC Tuesday and Wednesday.

This clip of Howie
talking to her on “Reliable Sources” about the boundaries of radio
after the Imus brouhaha is, let’s just say, priceless. No doubt it’s ironic that
Miller ended up guesting in his spot just a couple of weeks later.

As a progressive radio show host without a home (except streaming), what Miller
and other progressives like Randi Rhodes have accomplished is just amazing.
Now it’s time to show her a little love, if the Monday spirits move you.

Watch tomorrow if you can. Then same drill. Let MSNBC know you appreciate her
presence. If anyone has any tape of Miller today please let me know in the comments.

Share

Here it comes.

If you want to know why John McCain's presidential hopes are tanking, today
is a good example. New problems for Mr. Bush arrived today as well. Republicans
are getting the message, swallowing hard and finally facing up to reality. Today on Fox “News”
Sunday Bill Kristol even suggested that Bush might have to compromise with Democrats,
because after all he's a good commander in chief. I almost lost my breakfast. But Republicans are giving it up, one by one. Iraq has not been ours to win in a very long time. Welcome to our world.

Andrew Sullivan has been a long time critic, but today's post and column goes
a step further. Biden just may be right and get his loose federation sooner than his predicted six months.

If this war ends with a messy soft-partition, but in which various groups of Iraqi Muslims start to take on the war against al Qaeda for their own sake, it could still end up as a relative success. We will have precipitated a situation in which the real war here – within Islam, between mainstream Islam and al Qaeda – will finally be joined. We should do all we can to help from a distance, maybe even a small distance. But this is their fight not ours. We cannot win it; only they can. Our goal should not be our victory against al Qaeda; it should be their victory against al Qaeda. It will only be their victory if we are clearly on the road out. If that happens, we change the narrative of this war decisively – in our favor. But indefinite occupation prevents that scenario from taking place. Ending the occupation and winning the war, in other words, are not opposites. They can be complements. It's a tricky process, but by far the most feasible now on the table. The Exit and Anbar

The next comes from Rick
Moran.

I have come to the conclusion over the last few days that, due to domestic conditions here in the US and the inability of the Iraqi government and society to deal in a timely manner with the political problems that must be solved if Iraq is to have a viable, multi-sectarian society the United States is on the verge of suffering a humiliating defeat in Iraq. A perfect storm of almost non-existent public support for our war aims coupled with US pressure on the Iraqis to shoehorn radical changes in their society, their constitution, and their politics into an unrealistic and inevitably, an impossible time frame will ultimately doom our efforts to take any military success achieved via the surge and turn it into progress on the political front. If we had 3 or 4 years and the political will to maintain troop levels where they are now, then we would have a real chance to make the difference. But our commitment to the military aspects of the surge will be measured in months, not years.

Moran then quickly wrote a “clarification” post, which is defensive
when he needn't be. I say this not because he finally sees Iraq reality in his
first post or because he believes Democrats can lead on Iraq, he does not; even as we do that very thing. But because Moran got the criticism
he knew would come from his right, so he felt the need to shore up his reasoning.
He needn't have bothered. That wouldn't have kept one
wingnut from declaring “But big men don't cave in to fear and regret,
deserting even bigger men they sent off to war.”

Deserting the troops is a common charge among the wingnuts, but Moran is hardly guilty
of that, fear or regret. Self interest is a powerful motivator. Republicans better come to grips with what's
going to happen or they will see their party lying in shambles for the rest
of our adult lives. Moran is being practical. Period. Kristol showed some of that very
practicality this morning. Has a memo gone out?

Of course, all their posturing is shameless, because it's all about Bush and
their precious political party. Missed in all the Republican and further right
wingnut musings is the reality of what Iraq is doing to our national security
health. They're so caught up in Bush's legacy and what it will bring in fall
out for '08 that none of the Republicans seem to give a hoot about our force
structure collapsing and how dangerous this is for our country. Our armed forces
are in deep, deep trouble. We will be redeploying out of Iraq because our Army, Marines
and National Guard can't take the strain of Bush's unending failures as commander in chief.

The other issue is that if Republicans don't wake up they will be the party
singularly responsible for destroying our all volunteer force. If the draft
is needed the responsibility will lie with Republicans. That would be political death and finish off what Bush began with his pathetic presidency.

But when you get down to it, frankly, I don't care how or why the Republicans
and the far right wingnuts are seeing the light on Iraq, as long as they see it and soon.

Share

Angels From The Sea: The Soft Power of the United States
guest post by Mash

Today the Washington Post reports on another example of the Bush administration’s disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. While Katrina victims suffered the Bush administration failed to make use of the massive outpouring of aid from foreign countries:

As the winds and water of Hurricane Katrina were receding, presidential confidante Karen Hughes sent a cable from her State Department office to U.S. ambassadors worldwide. Titled “Echo-Chamber Message” — a public relations term for talking points designed to be repeated again and again — the Sept. 7, 2005, directive was unmistakable: Assure the scores of countries that had pledged or donated aid at the height of the disaster that their largesse had provided Americans “practical help and moral support” and “highlight the concrete benefits hurricane victims are receiving.” Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies’ offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina’s victims. Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent.

The failure of the Bush administration to respond to Katrina is consistent with its inept handling of almost all other crises that has faced this government – Iraq is but just one other example. They have consistently emphasized public relations and politics over performance. Everything is a talking point and reality is its victim.

And everything has an excuse:

In a statement, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that the U.S. government sincerely appreciated support from around the world and that Katrina had proved to be “a unique event in many ways.“ “As we continue our planning for the future, we will draw on the lessons learned from this experience to ensure that we make the best use of any possible foreign assistance that might be offered,” Casey said. [Emphasis added by me.]

It is the same excuse. Somehow the latest failure is always something that is “unique” or “new”. To say that this is a failure of imagination by the Bush administration would be kind. It is not a failure of imagination; it is a failure of will and a failure to harness the collective experience, knowledge and capabilities of the United States government. It is the “best and the brightest” run amok. The collective arrogance of the Bush administration has led to a failure of execution and a failure to capture hearts and minds at home and abroad.

It was not always so.

Let me tell you a story of a disaster that you have probably never heard of and the overwhelming American response that you should know about.

In late spring of 1991 a US Navy Amphibious Task Force (ATF) returning from the Persian Gulf war was diverted, on order of President George H.W. Bush, to the Bay of Bengal.

A Bangladeshi citizen, rumor has it, on seeing the ATF approach from the sea, called them “Angels from the Sea.” Thus began Operation Sea Angel, one of the largest military relief operations ever undertaken.

Less than two weeks ago, on the evening of April 29 1991, Cyclone Marian, a storm with top sustained winds of 160 mph (Category 5), made landfall as a strong Category 4 storm (155 mph) along the coastline of Bangladesh. The resulting 20 foot high tidal wave killed over 138,000 people and left over 5 million people homeless. Marian was one of the deadliest tropical cyclones on record.

The new democratically elected government in Bangladesh, overwhelmed by the massive scale of the devastation, requested urgent assistance from foreign countries. While relief goods had been stockpiled before the cyclone, most of Bangladesh’s lift capability and almost all of the infrastructure had been wiped out by the force of nature’s onslaught.

The United States responded on May 10 1991 by launching Operation Sea Angel, a relief operation that involved over 7000 US soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen. The man leading the effort, Lt. General Henry Stackpole, declared, “We went to Kuwait in the name of liberty, and we’ve come to Bangladesh in the name of humanity.”

Operation Sea Angel was massive in scale and massively successful:

Within 24 hours of a request for support from the government of Bangladesh, Operation Sea Angel was launched, and advance teams from the III Marine Expeditionary Force arrive in country for initial liaison. Operation Sea Angel began on 10 May and involved over 7,000 US soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. A fifteen-ship amphibious task force composed of Amphibious Group 3 and the 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, homeward bound from five months of operations in the Persian Gulf, was diverted to the Bay of Bengal to assist. Over the next month, 6,700 Navy and Marine Corps personnel working with U.S. Army, Air Force, and multinational forces, provide food, water, and medical care to nearly two million people. The relief efforts of U.S. troops are credited with having saved as many as 200,000 lives. … Two days after the President’s order, LtGen. Stackpole arrived with a small CJTF element. A Special Operations Forces (SOF) Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) arrived later that day. The next day five UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters arrived from Hawaii, along with a Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit. Other joint assets continued to flow into the area, as required. Fifteen soldiers of B Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, already deployed to Bangladesh to construct schools, were diverted to Chittagong. The bulk of US forces were from the ATF consisting of the 4,600 Marines of the 5th MEB, 3,000 sailors of Amphibious Group 3, and 28 helicopters. The MEB also brought four Landing Craft Air Cushioned (LCAC) vehicles, which proved invaluable in delivering aid to isolated islands. Immediately upon his arrival in the capitol city of Dhaka, LtGen. Stackpole began an assessment of the situation, and identified three critical concerns: First, the intelligence needed to adequately assess the situation was unavailable; Second, the problem of distribution quickly became apparent, and was considered the most pressing by the Joint Task Force (JTF) staff; Finally, the issue of Bangladeshi sovereignty required that the GOB be clearly viewed by the populace as being “in charge”. LtGen. Stackpole proceeded to develop a Campaign Plan consisting of three phases. After initial survey, liaison, and reconnaissance, Phase I (one week) entailed initial stabilization of the situation (delivery of food, water, and medicine to reduce loss of life). Phase II (two weeks) entailed restoring the situation to the point where the Bangladesh government could take control of relief efforts. Phase III (two weeks) was the consolidation phase in which the Task Force would depart and the Bangladesh government would take complete control of all relief efforts. … In the final analysis, Operation SEA ANGEL proved to be unique in several respects. It was almost entirely sea-based, with no more than 500 service members on shore at night. It was conducted in a benign environment; no weapons were carried by US forces, except for some sidearms carried by guards of cryptographic materials. It was also the first time that a Marine air-ground task force (MAGTF) was used as a joint task force nucleus. Finally, a unique effective command and control structure was used to synchronize the efforts of US, British, Bangladeshi, and Japanese nongovernmental organizations, and other organizations such as the US Agency for International Development (AID) and a Chinese assistance element.

The US effort not only saved lives, but it also won hearts and minds. A Bangladeshi human rights blogger, Rumi Ahmed, who lived through the events recollects in a post commemorating the events:

The first American I have ever met was a soldier, probably a member of US marine corps. I saw him in Bangladesh. He was dispatched to Chittagong, Bangladesh after the deadly storm of April 29 1991. I was hustling across [t]he crowded lobby of Chittagong medical college hospital when I spotted an area where the crowd is a little denser than the rest of the lobby. A well built Caucasian man in battle gear, sun burnt skin, walking across carrying a Bangladeshi toddler on his shoulder. The toddler, clearly a victim of the recent cyclone, was vomiting all over the marine’s body. The soldier was in Chittagong as a part of operation sea angel.

In response to Rumi’s post, it is heartening to see comments from some of the American servicemen and women who took part in Operation Sea Angel. Sixteen years after they first won hearts and minds, they continue to do so.

In just over one month the United States military executed what would become a blueprint for successful relief operations. The success of Operation Sea Angel contributed to the establishment of military doctrine on relief operations and on inter-agency coordination during joint operations, both of which provided ample lessons learned that could have been applied to Katrina and Iraq.

Operation Sea Angel demonstrated the tremendous soft power of the United States. It also demonstrated the lighter side of force projection. It showed the capability of the United States government to respond to natural disasters anywhere in the world when there is will within the executive branch to commit the resources necessary to recover from a humanitarian crisis. The United States military overcame significant barriers of lack of infrastructure, broken communications lines, challenges due to massive flooding and collapse of levees, lack of coordination between local and central governments, and the demands of a large population on the brink of starvation and in need of immediate relief.

All of those lessons learned from Operation Sea Angel could have and should have been brought to bear on Katrina. Instead George W Bush fiddled while New Orleans sank and while people pleaded for their government to rescue them. The richest country in the world, under competent and less arrogant leadership, was able to come to the aid of one of the poorest countries in the world in a time of need. Yet, faced with a challenge within its own homeland, the United States government, under incompetent and arrogant leadership, failed to come to the aid of its own citizens. That is simply inexcusable.

 

Share

John Edwards may not have had the most stellar debate night, but he got out
in front on something very important. This has been widely missed.
I didn’t catch it until earlier today (likely because I was dealing with a massive tech crash all day Thursday and beyond). So I wanted to make sure it got some attention. Edwards earned it with this remark.

Edwards aide David Ginsberg confirmed that the former North Carolina senator had not raised his hand in response to Brian Williams’ question,”Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?” He also noted that Edwards elaborated later in the debate. “I believe — and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago — global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly, but we have more tools available to us than bombs. And America needs to use the tools that are available to them so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit, the next generation, get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We’ve had no long-term strategy, and we need one, and I will provide one.” Edwards: No Terror “War”

It’s a beginning. Democrats should take Edwards’ lead and continue to build
on it, challenging Mr. Bush and the neocons every chance they get.

Since I’ve been critical of Mr. Edwards’ performances lately I feel compelled to add something here. Does it seem to you that on many risky issues Edwards continually comes out to lead? He was the first to publicly apologize for his Iraq vote. He was the first to walk away from the Fox debate, long before anyone else, when it was still quite risky. He’s got Bill-O targeting and attacking him as a result. Now he’s the first to boldly and openly challenge the neocons and Mr. Bush on their whole notion of the “global war on terror.” Not for nothing, people.

As I said before, the
“global war on terror” is a Republican talking point that hasn’t
made us safer. Does anyone believe at this point that military action or war
can solve the problem of terrorism? If it did Iraq would be an unqualified success and terrorism would have ebbed by now.
But as we all know the Iraq war has only fueled the furor of our enemies. As
Edwards said, it will take more than bombs to defeat terrorism. The first step
is defeating neocon rhetoric, which includes the “global
war on terror” and all GOP talking points associated with it.

Share

“September Dawn” trailer.

You know Osama bin Laden is really so yesterday’s news isn’t he?

“It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. …” – Mitt Romney

By Mitt’s theory of reality, history is just such a nuisance, isn’t it? So let’s just move on, bury the evidence, forget what’s in the past, shall we? It’s more convenient that way and if Romney is for anything he’s for the convenience of his own opinions. It makes it easier for him to morph his talking points into today’s thinking.

There should be no illusions that catching Osama would stop the unholy violence
that has been unleashed since 9/11 and Bush preemptively invading Iraq (with
help from the Democrats). But you never let a murderer get away;
especially not one who attacked the U.S. on our own soil, killing thousands,
while launching an international jihad against the west. Ask any law
enforcement official; you never let a murderer go no matter how long it takes
you to hunt him or her down and make the thug pay for the crimes committed.
Under Mitt Romney, however, Osama is just not worth the time, money or effort. Romney just can’t be bothered. Imagine if a Democrat said such a thing.

It’s no secret around here that I think Mitt Romney’s politics of convenience is worth covering and mocking, but his unethical silences are too. It infuriated me that when Warren
Jeffs was on trial Romney remained silent. He doesn’t want to talk about
the FLDS.
At least Harry
Reid wrote Gonzales about addressing the issue of child bride rapes and
other horrendous atrocities being perpetrated by the fundamentalist
LDS sects out here in the west. Jeffs’ FLDS cult and others like his are far removed
from Mormons, but it is my opinion that the Church of Latter Day Saints was
lazy and remains far too hands off on their fundamentalist outcasts since LDS separated
itself from the practice of polygamy. The LDS leaders basically cut the polygamists
off, but they also didn’t do anything to rein them in, report or actively help law enforcement with regard to FLDS’ continued
abuse of women from young through middle age. Silence is action by default. Most Mormons
are all too eager to defend their LDS leaders, saying what could we do? It is more convenient to just act like they don’t exist.

The Mormon behavior of secrecy and silence toward FLDS is reminiscent of the Catholic hierarchy hiding their pedophile scandal, isn’t it?

There is something else that troubles me about a Mitt Romney presidency. Now I don’t
care what religion Romney is (I’m a rebel Episcopalian with a penchant for mediation), but I absolutely do care about the secrets that
Mormons protect when one of them is seeking the highest post in the land. I
understand that Mormons have sacred services etc., but I do not understand
and will never accept their dogged efforts to keep some parts of their religion secret. With Romney running for president this is a real issue. My professional experience is now exhibit A, because
I dared to simply link to Jesus’ General who posts on Romney and Mormonism often. As a result of one link, I was censored by my (former) tech team, who happened to also be Mormons and didn’t approve of the content associated with the link. Censoring content is un-American. It also makes me worried about Romney and what his connections to radio giant Clear Channel will mean. Some radio hosts are already concerned that they can’t cover Romney without retaliation. I feel their pain, believe me. So the secrets that swirl around
Mormonism need to be exposed and shown in the light of day, not censored, just like in any
other religion in this country, particularly when one of their most powerful church members is running for president. There are just too many things unknown about Mormonism. Reveal the truth and let the chips fall where they may. That’s fair.

One long held Mormon secret, some would say hidden scandal, is about
to get the big screen treatment.

One hundred fifty years ago, a glorious September morning in the Utah mountains morphed into Mormonism’s darkest hour when a militia opened fire on a wagon train, leaving more than 120 men, women and children dead in a flowery field. Now the “Mountain Meadows Massacre” is becoming more than a subject of somber reflection within tight-knit Mormon circles. Two new films and a forthcoming book aim to tell the nation what happened, why and — perhaps most important — whether the revered Mormon prophet Brigham Young ordered the killing. (snip) Throwing down the gauntlet June 22 is Christopher Cain’s movie “September Dawn,” which opens that day in more than 1,000 theaters nationwide. Although the romantic storyline is fictional, the film claims to be accurate in tracing the massacre to Young and portraying 19th-century Mormons as obedient, bloodthirsty fundamentalists. In one scene, for instance, an angry mob ignores a report that the wagon train’s “gentiles” are friendly and chants for “blood atonement” in the form of death. Other renderings, however, convey a more complex picture. The PBS documentary “The Mormons,” which airs Monday and Tuesday, explains that Mormons had suffered bloody persecutions, which prompted their westward trek in the mid-1840s to settle in the Salt Lake Basin. By 1857, federal troops were marching on the Utah territory to depose the theocratic governorship of Young, and his followers were gearing up to defend their turf from yet another assault. In that touchy environment, bullets flew and travelers died. The ensuing massacre ensured that no adult witnesses would survive. … .. Debating History: Did Brigham Young Order a Massacre?

“September Dawn” and the PBS special are likely to cause Mitt Romney and his supporters a good deal of discomfort. But the attention also has the potential of engendering a backlash that could manifest in wide pro Romney support. We’ll know soon enough. The point is that shedding light on any subject is a good thing. The American people are more than capable of judging for themselves. Censorship is never the answer, even when religious secrets are supposedly revealed.

If I was still with my former tech team it is doubtful I’d even be able to discuss this movie. They censored me for a simple link, so it’s doubtful they’d allow me to discuss the secret scandal of the Mormon massacre, let alone link to the trailer of the movie.

I understand the sacred nature of religions, but I do not accept
the right of secrecy of a religion when a man (or woman) is seeking higher office
and his religion is the fundamental driving force in his life. After
Bush, especially, I want to know everything there is to know about Mormonism.

But the real issue is Romney’s politics. How a man who is devoutly Mormon can
be adamantly pro choice, then pro life because it’s convenient; then say he’s
had a gun all his life when that’s a lie because he only shoots “varmints”;
with another flip flop around the corner no doubt, raising questions about
the man’s very integrity and truthfulness.

It will be very interesting to see how Romney handles the new movie coming
out in June, “September Dawn,” which dares to rip the well healed scab of secrecy off of the Mormon massacre that took place so long ago. I wonder, will Mitt ignore it just like
he did Warren Jeffs? Or maybe Mitt thinks the history of the Mormon slaughter is as yesterday’s news as Osama. Place your bets.

Share

This has been playing on Rush for weeks and weeks. TPM,
welcome to my world; radio, that is. They put a video together of Rush's latest racist
worsts, so I couldn't resist offering it up.

Wingnut radio and Fox “News” have been switching back and forth between
smearing and swiftboating Mr. Obama for weeks. Part of Rush's inspiration came
from LA Times.

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House. But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the “Magic Negro.” The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist,” reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro . Obama the 'Magic Negro'

The rest came from the basic racist vein in the Republican Party.

But with due respect to Greg Sargent, it's really not about what Republican
goes on Rush Limbaugh. It's also not about targeting advertisers, with due respect
to the commenters over at TPM. Rush is one of the untouchable Republicans who
is too powerful to attack with any real outcome unless he burns a flag or something
and even then I'm not so sure it would matter. The only offense is to give Rush
the coverage he deserves, which is to mock his political impotence. Nobody in
the Republican Party pays any attention whatsoever to Rush's philosophies or
suggestions. They use Rush, his show and his audience, period, and
he lets them do it because he has to. It's the most toxic codependent relationship
in politics. Rush's reward is money. That's the only god he worships. Oh, and
maybe Titleist, too.

Share

It’s a man! It’s the president! It’s Terror Guy!

From NBC’s Chuck Todd While Mark noted the lack of guns in the Edwards, Clinton and Obama households (something that won’t be a plus in a general), that same trio all agreed that there is indeed such a thing as a “global war on terror,” which is something not all Democratic activists believe.

No one took Brian’s bait. Terror
Guy and his bunch didn’t get a gaffe.

When Williams asked the “global war on terror” question last night
he might as well have asked Who wants the headline tomorrow that you don’t
believe the “global war on terror” is real, with the surety that this clip will be played
over and over again in negative ads against whomever wins the nomination? In
a forum where sound bites rule, thank goodness Democrats didn’t take the bait.
It was an open invitation to hand Republicans the political gift of the ’08 season.

But since the debate last night there have been rumblings about the question
on the “global war on terror” and the Democratic candidates’ response.
There is a difference between having a philosophical debate as opposed to a
political debate with a bunch of candidates where you get two minutes or less
to express yourself. Pushing back on the “global war on terror” meme
isn’t conducive to a sound bite. This phrase is so ingrained in the public’s
consciousness that it will take substantive deprogramming to get the job done.
A presidential debate is not that forum. Some people just do not understand
the political trap being set for our candidates in questions like this one.
Perception is reality in politics, particularly in these types of events. There
is no mileage in having a philosophical discussion in a debate forum that times
your answers and doesn’t hold room for clarifications and rebuttals. This is
better suited for a town hall discussion between a candidate and the audience
where he or she can talk at length about the problem with the “global war
on terror” meme.

Take a look at this tape of George Soros (
whom I’ve spoken with, as have other bloggers) who has written a book about
the “global war on terror,” which I reviewed after receiving an advanced
copy. Not even Soros can sound bite the problems with the “global war on
terror” talking point. The video clip has multiple cut aways. It’s a tough subject to sound bite.

Chuck Peña, who is a “libertarian” (small ‘l’ according to
Chuck) and an expert, has written and spoken on the subject many, many times,
including here
on TM.com. Take a look at this
video of Peña talking about the “un-war,” aka the “global
war on terror.”

One reason the “global war on terror” is misleading and the wrong framing is that it implies
military action will solve the problem.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had “objected to the use of the term ‘war on terrorism’ before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.” He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that “terror is the method they use.” Washington recasts terror war as ‘struggle’

The “war on terror” was concocted
by a bunch of girlie men who want to keep the nation in fear and suckling
at the great Republican national security teat, which has now run clean out of nectar. Clear enough for you? Democrats serving up sound bites to help them revive themselves is not the answer. That also doesn’t mean the “global war on terror” talking point hasn’t been effective in seducing people into believing there is such a thing as the
“global war on terror” that we must fight. Republicans have been in power for over five years pushing and pimping the “global war on terror” at every opportunity, using 9/11 to do it. Democrats
aren’t going to dismantle the meme during a sound bite night. It’s absurd and political suicide to think they should even try.

Terror is an emotion. If you don’t know by now let me remind you yet again
that this is what the wingnuts trade on every day. Emotion.
Listen to talk radio for awhile. Watch Hannity. There is an emotional tie, even
an investment, with the phrase “global war on terror” at this point,
which connects to 9/11 and military action that must be dismantled one link
at a time. Look how long it took to disengage the American people from Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Terrorism, however, is real. But we all know you can’t defeat terrorism with
war alone. We’ve proven that in Iraq. But the need to target terrorism and the
purveyors of this violence is something to which Democrats are very aware. We
just don’t have the phrase that defines something actionable targeting the creators
of carnage plaguing the Middle East and beyond. Let’s face it, phrases aren’t
our strong suit so here we sit. The Republicans hooked on to the “global war on terror” and made it stick. Launching a discussion on how the “global war on terror” actually incites terrorism is where we need to turn and now that we’ve gotten back in power we can begin the shift away from the Republicans’ destructive and self defeating language and the policies that follow, which have become ingrained in the American psyche, but now are being wholly rejected.

There are multiple levels of debate that will go on from now until the primaries
and then into the general election. The debates and TV forums do not lend themselves
to philosophical airings, but they sure do reveal who’s got sound bite game
and who is savvy enough not to get tricked by set up questions meant to draw
a candidate into a conversation in a setting where he or she will never be able
to fully explain their stance on fighting terrorism. But our candidates do have
an obligation to lay out where they differ from Bush and the neocons on the
“global war on terror” and should do so one step at a time, one sound bite at a time, until the case is built. No one is even close to doing that now. Make
no mistake about it, the sound bite war and the YouTube fear of being caught
mid sentence is not eliciting conversational bravery from any candidate on this
subject. That Democratic and progressive activists do not appreciate our candidates’
dilemma isn’t shocking, because there is understandable impatience for them to move away from the Republican “global war on terror” talking points that have been so destructive to our country and foreign policy. But it is annoying and could even be potentially self defeating for us to discount the challenges in our candidates doing so during a heated campaign when Republicans are waiting to pounce on any half quote.

The “global war on terror” was created by the neocons for Bush and his bunch, then
shoved down the people’s throat for over five years and counting. It can’t be dismantled
in one night, two or even three. But the conversation is one of the most important
ones we can have and Democrats running for office should be willing to at least
come up with a sound bite and maybe even a question to ask the American public
listening in on the pre primary conversation: The “global war on terror”
is a Republican talking point. Does anyone believe at this point that military action or war can solve
the problem of terrorism? That type of response is just a start, because this debate can only play out
over time.

I just hope no one expects Democratic candidates to settle the debate while
running for commander in chief.

Share

A Very Good Night for Clinton updated & bumped

The first Democratic debate.

Hillary Clinton did what she needed to do and then some. She sounded strong and made it over the most important bar of all: Hillary Clinton passed the commander in chief test. The personality bar was an easy one for her, too. She looked good and was strong on every question, including on guns, not afraid to take it on. Clinton hit the right note on self deprecation as well, saying she’d made many mistakes in the last years.

Joe Biden had the moment of the night. He was also the strongest on Iraq. He
was short and concise, which was good for him. I thought he was second strongest by far.

Obama phoned it in and lost me, especially on the details of response. It reminded me of what I saw at the health care forum. Just not aggressive enough and slow on the draw. He came off very much a senator, but not a commander in chief. Also, Axelrod was on afterwards with Matthews on MSNBC. I got the distinct impression he was making excuses for Obama’s lackluster performance. Matthews offered Obama a whole hour for a college tour show. Axelrod wouldn’t even accept. There is something very careful about this “personality” campaign that smells of handlers protecting their candidate. It’s a mistake. If they’re trying to keep Obama away from too many question and answers they’re succeeding, but the image being portrayed isn’t good.

Edwards wasn’t on his game. I don’t know if he’s trying to appear serious, illustrating his gravitas, but it comes off as lacking in energy.

Richardson was just plain awful.

Dodd was good but didn’t stand out.

The noise, and I mean that in a good way, came from Kucinich who was strong, with Mike Gravel the pitbull of the pack.

Once again, the candidates’ websites: Gravel, Biden,
Richardson, Dodd,
Kucinich, Obama,
Clinton, Edwards.

photo by J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Share

River sounds like she’s leaving Iraq. Gee, I wonder why.

I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn’t know what our neighbors were- we didn’t care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night. On a personal note, we’ve finally decided to leave. I guess I’ve known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where? Since last summer, we had been discussing it more and more. It was only a matter of time before what began as a suggestion- a last case scenario- soon took on solidity and developed into a plan. For the last couple of months, it has only been a matter of logistics. Plane or car? Jordan or Syria? Will we all leave together as a family? Or will it be only my brother and I at first? After Jordan or Syria- where then? … .. The Great Wall of Segregation…

Share

Apropo of nothing I offer the video. From Bush to Tenet to Cheney to Condi
and beyond, these people are a bunch of clowns.

George Tenet’s book comes out on Monday. It should be a barn burner if Ignatius is correct, though
it looks like Tenet gives Bush a pass, as well as himself. Hey, why not? Bush has gotten a pass on everything
else he’s done, with Tenet and the CIA taking the blame for everything. Why would we think the former CIA chief would be critical of Bush now, medal and all? However, rumor has it he takes out after Bill Clinton. Of course.

However,
Dick Cheney and others don’t seem to get the same treatment. Tenet’s evidently
got his sights set on Dick Cheney, for one.

I love the description of supposed “tension between (Tenet) and Condoleezza
Rice offered in the Times write up. As incompetent as Dr. Rice turned
out to be I’d say “tension” would likely be a mild word. That she
has been in over her head since she arrived in Washington is an understatement
of humongous proportions.

A copy of the book was purchased at retail price in advance of publication by a reporter for The New York Times. Mr. Tenet described with sarcasm watching an episode of “Meet the Press” last September in which Mr. Cheney twice referred to Mr. Tenet’s “slam dunk” remark as the basis for the decision to go to war. “I remember watching and thinking, ‘As if you needed me to say ‘slam dunk’ to convince you to go to war with Iraq,’ ” Mr. Tenet writes. (snip) Mr. Tenet describes helping to kill a planned speech by Mr. Cheney on the eve of the invasion because its claims of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq went “way beyond what the intelligence shows.” “Mr. President, we cannot support the speech and it should not be given,” Mr. Tenet wrote that he told Mr. Bush. Mr. Cheney never delivered the remarks. Mr. Tenet hints at some score-settling in the book. He describes in particular the extraordinary tension between him and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, in internal debate over how the president came to say erroneously in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. … .. Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq

Share

Let the Debate Games Begin updated

Who won? Vote!

Starring Gravel, Biden,
Richardson, Dodd,
Kucinich, Obama,
Clinton, Edwards.

Oh and George W. Bush too, because these candidates are smart and the Senate
and House just passed the legislation that could begin our exit out of Iraq. The other reality is we’re all one step closer to getting Mr. Bush and his attack dog Dick out of office.

Bill
Scher is liveblogging the debate.

I’ll be checking in occasionally and chiming in if the spirit moves me. Let me know what you think.

UPDATE IV: Biden was the first one asked why Dems were in S.C. if the NAACP wanted them
to boycott until the Confederate flag was removed. Biden mentioned Clyburn invited
them and it was more important to show off this great school and community than
anything else. Obama said the flag belongs in a museum.

UPDATE III: On the Virginia Tech. shooting incident, Williams asked for a show of hands on who had ever owned or had a gun in the home. Edwards, Obama and Clinton have never had a gun in the house, all other candidates did. Biden said to close the gun show loop hole and go after the assault weapons ban. Clinton, Richardson and Biden all talked about mental health issues and guns. Clinton also mentioned Columbine and how she went with Bill there after the tragedy, making sure to mention that the Clinton administration worked to keep guns away from the mentally ill.

UPDATE II: Biden had the best moment so far. Williams confronted him about his verbosity then asked if he had the discipline to assure the voters he had the discipline required to be president. Do you? Biden said, “yes.” Then there was silence, with Williams looking at Biden. More. Silence. Williams smiled. Biden didn’t budge. Beautiful.

UPDATE I: Some thoughts from the candidates on the first topic. Iraq:

Right out of the gate I have to ask: Why did Clinton dress in the same color
as her male opponents. This seems like a missed opportunity to me. Not a biggie,
however, obviously.

Clinton was up first. Brian Williams asked if she agreed with Harry Reid, whose
comments have been called “treasonous.” Patton would have wiped his
boots on Reid, said Williams. Clinton responded that the people have spoken
and she’s proud

Biden, do you agree with Harry Reid. This is not a game show; not a game. The
president should start off by not vetoing the legislation and move toward a
political solution. You’ve got to decentralize Iraq. The president better get
on the game plan here.

Obama, if the war is “dumb” why did you vote for appropriations.
Obama said he’s proud of being against the war from the beginning, but if we’re
sending troops they need to have the humvees and safety goggles to fight it.
He then recalled a story of a soldier’s mother.

Edwards, you made a “high profile” apology, so wasn’t that a shot
at Senator Clinton? No, anyone who voted for the war has to ask themselves that
question. The next president must restore the “trust bond” between
the president and the American people, but also between the president and the
rest of the world.

Williams let Clinton respond. “I take responsibility of my vote. It was
a sincere vote.” If she knew then what she knows now she wouldn’t have
voted that way. Then Clinton turned to attack Bush, focusing on his veto pledge.
“If the president doesn’t get us out of Iraq, I will.”

Kucinich, can you fund the war and still be against the war? “No.”
There was no obligation to give Bush any money at all. My friends here did.
We need to end the occupation by stopping the money. Then he went after Clinton.
It’s not enough to say that if you had the information you have now you wouldn’t
have voted for the war. The information was out there.

Richardson wouldn’t have funded the war. We must end the war. I would withdraw
all troops, including residual troops by the end of this year. He talked about
the steps, including dealing with Iran and Syria.

Dodd was next asked about his co-sponsoring of Feingold-Reid. Is it possible
to get the troops out, according to FR. Yes. It’s very important that “the
Iraqi people assume the responsibility of their own future.” We need to
engage in a robust diplomacy. That is a sign of strength.

Gravel was last up in the first sweep. The war was lost the day George Bush
invaded Iraq. He wants to sit down with Pelosi and Reid and offer legislation
to make it a felony to stay in Iraq.

Obama took the first question from a South Carolinian: What would you consider
a mission accomplished status? We are one signature away from ending this war.
If he won’t sign the bill we need to gather 16 votes to override the veto. We
can’t impose a military solution on what’s a political problem.

Clinton got a rebuttal: What Barack said is right. The problem is that the
president won’t change course. We are in the middle of a muti sided sectarian
war.

Share

Pre Debate Buzz updated

MSNBC
will also be streaming the debate live. With the Iraq bill passed, it really seems to
be a day made for great quotes on the war.

“We are one signature away from ending the Iraq war. …” - Barack Obama

Think about that for a minute. It’s a chilling thought that the Democratic
Congress and the majority of the American people are with us, but Mr. Bush has
already telegraphed that he will veto the bill.

Edwards had this to say after the vote.

“They should send the same bill back to the President — and should do this again and again, as many times as it takes for him to understand that the American people are right and the war must be brought to an end.” – John Edwards

But my favorite quote so far today comes from Paul
Begala.

“Broder, of course, is a gasbag. The Hindenburg of pundits.” - Paul Begala

But if you think that’s bad, take a look at what happened to Hillary today. Disgraceful.

As for my thoughts on the debate, first Iraq, with terrorism an important component of how dangerou Iraq has been; second economic issues. It’s
a moment for Democratic populism should sing out. South Carolina has been hit
hard by lack of jobs. This will benefit Edwards because he’s so versed on poverty and the region itself. Clinton could do well too,
especially with her equal pay issue which is a winner.

I’m looking for something strong out of Mr. Obama. Frankly, he should call
Clinton out on the Iraq war. He needs to offer specifics and fewer platitudes.

Hillary needs to show some humor and enjoy herself. This is a personality debate
for her. But that said, she should definitely reveal her commander in chief
bona fides.

I’m also waiting for Edwards to talk substantively about our armed forces.
We’ll see if tonight is the night. He could go straight at Clinton, but I think he should challenge Obama instead.

Joe Biden has nothing to lose, so expect a challenge to the others on Iraq;
even stating they’ll come to his plan in less than 6 months, which is his latest
line. He’ll also challenge his opponents about what’s next in Iraq after we
redeploy.

On that note. There was an interesting
exchange (only link I could find) from yesterday today, which included CNN’s Michael Ware. The conversation
included Ware calling the debate in the U.S. on troop pullout “delusional,”
continuing that if we left we’d be giving Iraq to “Iran and al Qaeda.”
He was emphatic.

That puts Richardson in a particularly difficult spot, if you believe Ware, who has been right about Iraq for a long time. (UPDATE: One problem about Ware’s analyis is that he is talking about Iraq without considering the hit our armed forces are taking. This is part of the redeployment picture, which hits our overall national security, something Ware doesn’t cover at all.) Richardson needs to qualify his statements of no residual force a bit more
to get my attention.

Chris Dodd is an effective progressive candidate who needs to make sure people
know he’s on stage.

Kucinich and Gravel benefit because they’re on stage with the heavy hitters.
Their stature rises immediately.

Enough from me. Who do you expect to break out, if anyone?

What do you want to see and from whom?

Any other thoughts on the debate? It starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern – 4:00 p.m.
pacific on MSNBC, which will stream
it live.

Share

The Democrats are doing exactly what they were sent to Washington to do. Work
hard to get us out of Iraq. The House and now the Senate have both passed legislation
that includes all the money and more for Bush and the troops, while demanding
a timeline to redeploy our troops out of Iraq, which is also what Americans
want. Bush says he’s going to veto the bill, but that’s only the beginning of
his arrogance, which for me is a close second to his continual “progress”
nonsense that includes the insulting way he’s judging our so called “progress.”

It’s no wonder everything is coming up roses in the White House “surge”
assessments. They’re dodging reality yet again.

U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren’t counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians. Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn’t include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. … .. U.S. officials exclude car bombs in touting drop in Iraq violence (emphasis added)

If we’re not counting car bombs how do we measure the “surge” success?
Easy. You do it the Bush-Cheney way. You simply move the goal posts; change
the metrics. Shazam!

Bush administration officials have pointed to a dramatic decline in one category of deaths – the bodies dumped daily in Baghdad streets, which officials call sectarian murders – as evidence that the security plan is working. Bush said this week that that number had declined by 50 percent, a number confirmed by statistics compiled by McClatchy Newspapers. But the number of people killed in explosive attacks is rising, the same statistics show – up from 323 in March, the first full month of the security plan, to 365 through April 24.

Somebody alert the media, starting with bumblehead Broder. Because not only
is Iraq lost, but because Bush continues to ignore the facts on the ground, while also keeping them from the American public, we don’t even know just how lost it is.

Share

Remember Connie Chung’s embarrassing sign off from MSNBC? Well, Malkin just did her one better.

Can we now dispense with any pretence that Michelle Malkin should be taken
seriously? She’s finally outed herself just as Rush did during the 2006
elections. But at least Rush didn’t put on a dress and raise his pom pons; at least that we know about. (Republicans leave the cross-dressing to Rudy.)

Does Ms. Malkin actually believe this embarrassing video is effective? What was she thinking? Doesn’t she have any friends who will tell her going Connie Chung isn’t exactly a good idea?

The video link above is compliments of a reader over at Greg
Sargent’s place. Seems the wingnut
queen is taking on Sargent’s post warning of a “blogswarm” over
Broder’s column today.

Malkin is not a good analyst in the first place, but putting on a cheerleading
outfit? She can’t even get off the ground in her jumps. Oh, and never mind she
can’t spell either.

As for her “loser” line, well, I think Bush
has that one covered.

Of the 1,001 American adults polled online April 20-23, only 28% had a positive view of Mr. Bush’s job performance, down from 32% in February and from a high of 88% in the aftermath of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The current rating is his weakest showing since his inauguration.

Bill-O might have to rethink his babe after her cheerleader decent. Malkin
sits in for the “big giant head” when he’s off doing whatever it is
he does when he’s not fulminating on “The Factor.” Then again, the
falafel king will likely get off on it.

Share