Office of the Independent Blogger

Fred Kaplan, one of my favorites, is writing about the UN’s recent resolution for a cease-fire and occupation in Lebanon. He wonders out loud whether or not it’ll work (possible, but difficult), and then says that there’s one major problem: if this doesn’t work, it could “collapse” the Security Council of the UN. I disagree: while the Lebanon resolution sets firm principles on the table, this sort of declaration is nothing new for the Council. In fact, I’d say the only major affect this could have is if the UN succeeds at maintaining peace in Israel. Otherwise, if it fails that is, it’s business as usual. Maybe Republicans in America will be surlier when someone proposes UN Intervention, but they’re surly as is, so surely there’s little over which to worry.

As far as business as usual goes, Bush is all for smaller government, and it shows!

A provision tucked in a federal defense bill would allow the president to take control of a state’s National Guard, without the governor’s consent. The bipartisan National Governors Association is right to object to this attack on state authority. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, said the provision violates “200 years of American history” and is part of a larger federal effort to make states no more than “satellites of the national government.” The U.S. government has had the power to federalize Guard troops during emergencies, ranging from enforcing desegregation laws to responding to natural disasters. But the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act broadens that power beyond comfort. The legislation gives the president the right to take control when there is “a serious natural or man-made disaster, accident, or catastrophe.” This language, which is not in the Senate version of the bill, should be rejected when a conference committee finalizes the bill next month.

Even if it gets rejected, it’s amazing what the President will try for. He’s working under a principle my friend Wesley told me about, regarding women: “if you ask out every woman you know and meet, you’re bound to find a ton of willing women.” I’d imagine that George Bush figures, “If I reach for every bit of power I can get, I’m bound to receive more than I got.” For shame.

Given that I absolutely despise French Aristocrats and philosophers, it is strange that I am reading the works of the Marquis de Sade, and it is stranger still because I have no sexual desire that could be classified as sadistic. I am reading his overall-disgusting works because I am curious about what they entail, exactly, that keep them banned in French society even to this day. But, enough about that. I found it strange in an other-worldly sort-of way when I saw John Dickerson’s latest column in Slate about President Bush.

On his summer vacation in Crawford, Texas, George Bush read Albert Camus’ novel The Stranger. I’m not sure what to make of this. It’s usually college freshmen who suddenly take up the French existentialist’s slim volume, and then usually to impress some literature major with wavy hair. Perhaps it was an act of glasnost: Bush has spent much of his presidency dismissing the French, so now he reads one of the country’s literary heroes and goes public about it. But in Crawford? The president and his aides have long characterized the town as the kind of sensible place where anyone caught reading heady foreign literature-philosophy would be driven to the county line. Maybe that’s the idea—challenge the prevailing stereotype about the president’s favorite place and his intellect?

I call bullshit. In the 2000 campaign, Bush claimed to have read a biography of Dean Acheson, but when asked, knew nothing about him. His aides tell incoming workers that the President “doesn’t read much,” and he can’t be bothered to read memos (Price of Loyalty, Paul O’Neill). You’re telling me that the world’s most powerful dunce has all of a sudden gained a literary edge? I might buy it if, say, his wife were upset with him, threatened to cut off his sex life if he didn’t read a book of her choosing, but I doubt it. Oh, sure, there are rumors that the President has cheated on his wife (this President, not the past Presidents that we know cheated on his wives), but I don’t buy it. George Bush strikes me as the type of man who’d see his wife reading in bed, say, “Whachoo need books for? Iss time for some nighttime!” while snatching the book and taking command.

In other words, I think the President is severely challenged intellectually, incapable of tellling the truth, and has symptoms of misogyny.

Slate, today, didn’t just serve as catalyst for a discussion about George Bush’s sex life and pea brain, but also gives us a brilliant analysis of Leftist Trends in the Democratic Party. With the Lieberman pantsing in Connecticut, I have already heard rumblings for more Conservative types that the Democratic Party is becoming George McGovern’s People’s Republic yet again (if it ever truly was, considering that most Democrats didn’t even vote for him in 1972), but Michael Tomasky discredits that.

Hold on to your hats, folks. Next month, the peacenik, McGovernite, appeasement-happy Democratic voters of yet another state are primed to take out another pro-war senator! Yes, that’s right: Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who voted for the October 2002 Iraq war resolution, is fighting for her political life against intraparty challenger Hong Tran, a public-service attorney from the state who backs “the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq” and ups the ante by arguing that Cantwell, after serving as George W. Bush’s handmaiden on Iraq, has now “proudly cosponsored legislation with Republican Senator Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) that lays the groundwork for military intervention in Iran.” Private polls put Tran within striking distance, and my sources in Olympia contend that we may well see a replay of what just happened in Connecticut.

Is the Democratic Party out to immolate itself? Is there no end to this contagion? There’s one problem with the above scenario. It isn’t true. Yes, Cantwell is a real senator; yes, she voted for the war (the Iran bit is news to me). Yes, Hong Tran, a woman of Vietnamese-American extraction, is a real person of apparent accomplishment, and she is indeed running against Cantwell chiefly on an anti-war platform. But there are no “private polls” that put Tran “within striking distance,” and I have no “sources in Olympia.” It’s all but certain that Cantwell will waltz to renomination. On Aug. 6 the Seattle Times ran a profile of the “quixotic” challenger that reported Tran had raised a mere $18,000 from just 20 donors. “Confidence, Tran doesn’t lack,” reporter Alex Fryer concluded. “It’s money and support that seem a little thin.”

I think by now you’ve caught my point. At this minute, eight Democratic Senate incumbents who voted in favor of the Iraq resolution are seeking re-election: Cantwell, Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Tom Carper (Del.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), and of course Joe Lieberman (Conn.), now as an independent. And of those eight, exactly one—Lieberman—faced or is facing a serious primary challenge because of the war. Remember the shock you felt back in June when Dianne Feinstein was defeated by that lefty nutjob in California? Or the fervid chants of “Bring Them Home!” ringing out from the Omaha night when Ben Nelson lost to his anti-war challenger? Didn’t think so. That’s because Feinstein won renomination with 87 percent of the vote, and Nelson didn’t even face an opponent.

Now, while it’s true that these candidates haven’t faced serious Liberal opposition, it’s also true that they all have significant war-chests, financially. Still, I agree with the thrust of the piece, but I’ll wait until 2008 to declare which direction the Party is going in, but I will note this: the Democratic candidate in 2008 is likely to be anti-Iraq War, or anti-continuation of it, at least, probably a “Peace with Honor” sort like Richard Nixon (Hillary Clinton?). It’s important to note that the Democratic Party isn’t moving to the Left on anything but Iraq, and on Iraq, the country is moving Left, in case you haven’t read the polls.

On an entirely different note (from politics to War), the cease-fire’s in effect in Lebanon, and aid to that country is coming slow because of all the destroyed roads. Bush claims Israel defeated Hezbollah, while Hezbollah takes responsibility for Israel’s “defeat.” I think they should all go to their knees and pray for forgiveness.

For anyone wondering what the title means, click away to your heart’s content, and figure it out.

Israel says it’s fine with the cease-fire proposed and passed by the UN yesterday, but in the last hours before it comes into effect, the fighting has escalated dramatically. Tomorrow, we’ll see what happens, but with Lebanon playing it coy and keeping their cards to themselves, and Israel continuing to provoke and be provoked by Hezbollah, there’s no reason to jump and celebrate before the fact.

I’d like to take this entry as an opportunity to welcome Mahmoud Ahmaniac to the blogosphere, as Israel’s President has taken to blogging. On it, Ahmaniac is running a poll asking if Israel and America are intent on starting a third World War. I am told from secret sources that his next survey will ask, Do You Think I’m Sexy and the final one will be, Am I Sexier than the Infidels?

Seriously, is there a bigger egomaniac than Ahmaniac? Hell, another thing: what’s with these Dictators in Cyberspace? Kim Jung Il spends his time downloading Hollywood movies and porn, and Ahmaniac is asking people a question that will receive obvious answers from his fanatics in Tehran. I’m assuming that there aren’t a ton of people in Iran with Internet access, which makes this that much more of a stupid stunt. An attention whore with bipolar disorder runs Iran; a pervert with a butch hairstyle runs North Korea.

I’ve always maintained that Iran is a dangerous dog down the block, but that, as of now, we’re best suited through diplomacy, because when the day comes that Ahmaniac begins biting, we’re going to need the credibility that talks give us. Until that day comes, the correct course is diplomacy and containment, but, I say, it gets harder and harder to advocate that when he does such obnoxious things as to make a restrained fellow like me want to punch his dishonest face.

Good news: Israel will halt its offensive in Lebanon on Monday. So it has been said, and so we shall see.

This entry will be brief, and its subject is the adventure in politics that Bob Novak’s latest column is. It gives a rundown of a handful of political situations, from a secretive House member running a shadowy and under-fire campaign for the Senate to two Activists who Connecticut Democrats fear will sink them in the Senate. Even better, it ends with a Republican who once wrote, “For Freedom’s Sake, Eliminate Social Security!”

It couldn’t be a more complete article if it outed a CIA Agent.

Actually, it’s an interesting look at a few of the tighter races in politics today, and it can give you a better understanding of politics today. Take Sharon Marie Renier, mentioned in the article as an opponent to a Conservative Republican in Michigan. She’s running a campaign that is in debt, and so she doesn’t have any cash to battle with. It’s sad how that works, isn’t it?

The United States and France have agreed on a UN Resolution, and it’ll be voted on today. Read more here, but don’t get your hopes up. Whatever the result of the vote, any and all events from here on out will vary depending on Israel and Hezbollah. Because of this, it’s best to cool your coup and drink your soup, as Israel is already preparing an expanded offensive. You see? Wait and see.

In a bizarre turn, an artist has sculpted a model of Hillary Clinton’s bust, and says he hopes it “sparks a discussion” about sex. It’s kind of funny that Clinton and Katherine Harris are the sexiest women in politics today. Hey, I had a crush on the Senator from New York when I was younger, and that, my friends, is the most ridiculous story of the day! Except for this.

The world’s wealthiest nations have come under scathing criticism for their inaction after billionaire Bill Gates made a new pledge this week to spend $500 million on the global fight against HIV and AIDS. “When the richest man on earth provides such generous support, the risk is that some donor governments may mistakenly think they are now off the hook,” says Joanne Carter, legislative director of RESULTS, a U.S.-based advocacy group. Carter and other activists associated with a number of public advocacy groups say the Gates pledge must be seen as a challenge to wealthy countries, most of whom have failed to match their words with deeds. “We will never break the back of AIDS, tuberculosis (TB), and malaria without robust increases in donor government support,” says Carter, noting that even with Gates’ hefty donation, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS is currently short of the funds it needs to achieve its targets.

I think it’s wonderful of Gates to provide such funding for AIDS research. I think it’s awful that that’s what it takes in today’s day and age, whereby big governments with large pockets won’t spend money on humanitarian and medical ventures in the rest of the world. Whether it’s AIDS funding or money for waterholes, whether it be support to stop a genocide, even, the UN and large governments can’t quite be counted on.

The United States has repeated its demand that rebel groups in Darfur quit killing each other. Washington also said a strong and mobile UN peacekeeping force must be in the Sudanese region by October 1 to make them stop such attacks. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack on Thursday condemned the violence and said a peace deal reached in May holds the key to solving the three-year-old problem. McCormack said the United States condemns the violence that is killing civilians including humanitarian workers.

He demanded that rebel groups abide by the peace accord and a ceasefire negotiated in N’Djamena, Chad’s capital, and cooperate with peacekeepers of the African Union. He said, however, the peacekeepers have tried hard, but “the situation has evolved and become much more complex and difficult.” “Consequently, a UN peacekeeping force must deploy without delay. Only a large, robust, mobile, and fast-reacting UN force is capable of stopping the violence and protecting innocent lives” and bringing general peace and security under the peace agreement. “The African Union has consistently called for transition to a UN operation without delay.”

It’s embarrassing to me that this is still going on. From AIDS research, to stopping a genocide, to intervening in Lebanon, Bush’s government has been a bust in ways that a future-Clinton Presidency, a Gore Presidency, a Democrat Presidency, wouldn’t be.

Tactically, the 9/11 Attacks were planned impressively by al-Qaeda, as they didn’t do much but take what we already had and flip it. It didn’t take a ton of weapons, just simple boxcutters. It didn’t take much money, just living expenses. It was an extremely well-planned attack, but, after it, I was under the impression that barring a terrible mistake by law-enforcement, our concerns over airplanes being hijacked or bombed could be soothed. After reading this news story, I’m not so sure.

Terrorists planned to concoct an “explosive cocktail” using MP3 players and sports drinks to blow up as many as 10 jetliners bound for the United States, authorities said Thursday. U.S. intelligence officials said the plotters hoped to stage a dry run by Friday, The Associated Press reported. The actual attack would have followed days later, the officials told AP. A senior congressional source said it is believed the plotters planned to mix a British sports drink with a gel-like substance to make an explosive that they would possibly trigger with an MP3 player or cell phone. The sports drink could be combined with a peroxide-based paste to form a potent “explosive cocktail,” if properly done, said a U.S. counterterrorism official.

I’m not entirely sure what to make of this. Scientifically it’s possible, although I’m not so sure it’s feasible in practice. That is to say, that it’d be easy to do. Operational. Guess it’s something that the big boys in Washington and personnel in airlines’ll have to deal with, although it isn’t the only problem had by the Department of Transportation.

A laptop computer used by the Department of Transportation to combat fraud was stolen in Doral last month, putting the sensitive personal information of almost 133,000 Florida residents at risk of the criminal activity the agency was trying to guard against. Social Security numbers, birth dates and addresses were on the laptop assigned to a special agent in the Miami office when it was stolen from a government-owned vehicle on July 27, acting Inspector General Todd Zinser wrote Gov. Bush in a letter on Wednesday.

So, get this. The laptop was stolen from the agent’s car while he ate lunch. Brilliant. I do hope that the FBI, CIA, and DHS crew are better at protecting their protectables than the Department of Transportation is. This is embarrassing.

Apparently, Mike Wallace will be airing an interview with Iran’s President this Sunday, and I’ll be watching it. Until then, there’s an excerpt released, and it’s quite the excerpt.

“But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate. You see that his approval rating is dropping every day. Hatred vis-à-vis the president is increasing every day around the world. For a ruler, this is the worst message that he could receive. Rulers and heads of government at the end of their office must leave the office holding their heads high.”

Clearly he has no understanding of Democracy. A ruler can leave with his head held low as the public shrieks at him, if that is what must happen. Popularity doesn’t mean anything, and I’m astounded that Mahmoud would say it does. Even more incredible is the following, however:

Ahmadinejad also accuses the U.S. of “talking down” to Iran, saying that Bush “believes that his power emanates from his nuclear warhead arsenals. The time of the bomb is in the past, it’s behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges.” Where does the “death to Israel” part come in, I wonder? Oh, right, that kind of cultural exchange.

Right.

If I may, I’d like to announce the unveiling of my poetry. I’ve posted a ton of it on the page just linked, as I have written a ton and figured I’d share.

I have a couple of thoughts: first, Joe Lieberman lost his primary battle in Connecticut, and he is, barring a successful run as an independent, at an end to his Senatorial career. I’m sad to see it, as I never liked his opponent and always liked Joe, but it happened, and it’s time to put up the speechbook. However, there is an orchestrated campaign currently to “unseat” Joe Lieberman from his current committee seats, and I have a major problem with this. Until his opponent is sworn in, Joe is a Senator, and deserves to be treated as such. Lieberman will always have my respect and admiration. I do think his attempts to win as an independent are misguided, but at the same time, I’d vote for him. If he wins, good. If not, it’s still all right. If he causes a Republican to win the state of Connecticut, that’s fine by me, too. Lieberman has every right to run, and every reason to want to settle the score with Lamont. If he’d like to take the fight to the entire state, rather than just the people in the Party, I can’t say I blame him, and I wish him every bit of luck. He’ll certainly need it!

In the Middle East, the Israeli Cabinet has okayed a deeper invasion of Lebanon, and the White House has too, presumably. As I have been with this entire War at every stage, I am disappointed, but that’s to be expected when this President is involved.

Here in Illinois, the Tribune reports that there are serious problems in regulating Doctors, but the Department in charge of this says, naturally, that the problems aren’t serious, just minor. Of course they’d say that. Personally, whenever I hear of this sort of thing, I wonder why the state doesn’t have a better centralized database. It can’t possibly be that hard to create a network of computers, can it? No reason for this sort of thing to happen regarding doctors.

The FDA made an interesting announcement recently, and I’ve got a few thoughts.

The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday said it has formed an internal task force to focus on the use of nanotechnology materials in drugs, medical instruments, and other products regulated by the agency. “As this exciting new area of science develops, FDA must be positioned to address both health promotion and protection challenges that it may present,” the agency’s acting commissioner, Andrew von Eschenbach, said in a statement. “Through this task force, we are leveraging our expertise and resources to guide the science and technology in the development of nanotechnology-based applications.”

I’m not sure what the purpose of this task force is. The FDA’s job is to regulate; it isn’t in their line of duty to create new medicines or innovate technology, is it? Does this then mean that, before this task force was assembled, the FDA didn’t have a panel that focused on nanotechnology? If so, that’s crying incompetence, but I’ll be writing the FDA in a moment with my questions, and if they answer, I’ll post it here. If they don’t, then we can make assumptions.

On an apolitical, final note, a truckful of penguins flipped over and they died. Sad day.

If I have one, just one, embarrassing-but-other-people-say-it’s-adorable-habit, it’s The Seal Clap. When something hilarious is said, or something clever done, I’ve been known to clap a couple of times like a seal. When I was younger, I wrote a story entitled Drunk Penguin and it was set in Arctic Ice City, with the villain being Seal E. Despite my casting of a seal as villain, I hold no ill will toward seals, and like George Bush seeks to save the whales, I seek to save the seals. I’d heard, before, about people “clubbing” baby seals to death, but I never realized how widespread it was — or how much brutality seals face from “hunters” — until a friend contacted me about it.

Take this story, for instance, about seals being clubbed brutally in Namibia, and the practice of slaughtering seals goes on even in Canada. I’m no PETA-ninite, and I am not a vegetarian. I just think that there are certain things that are simply wrong, and the pictures at this site are disturbing, and I’m not the only one who thinks so: in 1972, fur taken from clubbed Cape seals was made illegal in the United States, and the practice banned. For all of Canada’s positives, in this regard, it is backward. Just goes to show that Liberalism in governments worldwide comes in all sorts of packages.

If you’d care to have updates on the fight for protection of Seals, go on ahead and join the group and myself. It’s absolutely disgusting. Absolutely.

Israel today openly stated that it plans to push deeper into Lebanon. So much for a short war, so much for a “two week window,” or whatever the hell George Bush pledged. This President’s word means nothing.

Richard Cohen has himself a great article in the Washington Post about our military and the Iraq War.

Among the various awards to government officials — presidential medal, etc. — let me offer one of my own: the Oveta Culp Hobby Award for a truly dumb statement. I have twice before cited the late Mrs. Hobby, the nation’s chief health official back in the Eisenhower administration, because she somehow managed to remain oblivious to the polio panic that struck each summer. When the government ran short of the new and downright miraculous Salk polio vaccine, the rich and fortunate Mrs. Hobby offered the following explanation: “No one could have foreseen the public demand for the vaccine.” For sheer inanity, the remark is almost impossible to beat. Yet three times in the past week I reached for the Hobby Award, thinking she had at least been matched. The first came when Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Sen. John McCain whether a year ago he anticipated that Iraq might be on the verge of civil war. “No, sir,” the general said.

Next McCain posed the same question to Gen. John P. Abizaid, who is in charge of everything in Iraq. He knew a year ago that tensions were high, he said. But “that they would be this high, no.” Finally, we have the remarks of Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, spokesman for the American military in Iraq. He was not at the Senate hearing, but he caught its flavor and then some. When asked by the New York Times if the United States had moved too quickly to replace American troops with Iraqis, he said, “I don’t think we moved too quickly. I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the sectarian violence.”

I’d like to make a few observations, and given that this is my blog, I’ll do just that. These answers are symbolic of failed leadership. I don’t expect the military men to supplant the President, however incompetent he may be, and these military men are no Douglas MacArthurs. When the Joint Chiefs speak today, they are speaking from the Party Line on the Potomac, and thus this points to the failure of George Walker Bush. It should be clear to everyone that the President has instructed the military to discredit any talk of Civil War in Iraq at all costs.

Make no mistake: the blinders our generals are wearing were put on them by the White House. The fact that they don’t have the nerve to say, “Our course is fatally flawed” is their own doing, but they know exactly what’s going on in Iraq. Just can’t, won’t, say it.

In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman is being decimated by the Primary, and it appears that he’s done for, politically. Given that Lieberman has been challenged due to his support of the War, it’s fair to look at the climate for Hawk Democrats, and he concludes that it doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton, who might not run now. “For the first time, it seems entirely plausible to me that Hillary will look at the terrain and choose not to run in 2008″.

Does it? I think not. Clinton isn’t going to get younger, and, if she sits out 2008, she’ll never be a candidate for President past the preliminary stages. What if a Democrat wins, or a popular Republican (oxymoron?) takes over? However, I think her lust for the Presidency is overstated in the press. I’m sure she’s interested in running, and would love to be the President, but she’s a cautious, shrewd woman, and I’m sure that her husband’s penis, the controversies that dogged her in the White House, and her age will all make her hesitant about running. Will she run? I think so, but if she doesn’t, it isn’t because she didn’t think she could win due to Lieberman’s loss: it’s because she a) doesn’t think she can win because the mood isn’t conductive to a woman/a Democrat, and/or b) she fears the reaper’s scythe.

George Bush today teamed with Condi Rice and France to create an International Odd Couple, and they’ve presented the “resolution” to the “conflict” in Lebanon.

The U.N. plan, drafted by the United States and France, calls for an end to fighting by Hezbollah, which ignited the conflict July 12 when it staged a cross-border attack and captured two Israeli soldiers, and by Israel, which has been bombing Lebanon for three weeks in an attempt to decimate the terrorist strongholds, a military campaign that has also killed civilians. A second resolution would create an international force, under Lebanese direction, to serve as a buffer while Israel withdraws its troops and the Lebanese army takes control of the area from Hezbollah.

In my blog (and, hey, this is my blog) this is common sense and simple, something that should be obvious after a minute’s worth of analysis. Condi Rice talks about it as if they were brainstorming for hours, and, apparently, that really is the time it took.

And she said there is “more agreement than you might think about how to prevent, again, a situation in which you have a state within a state able to launch an attack across the blue line.” For instance, she said, her counterparts at the U.N. agree that the Lebanese government needs to control the southern region and that there should not be armed groups able to operate as Hezbollah has since Israel withdrew its troops six years ago. Rice said the weeks of diplomacy to reach that consensus has been “time that’s been well-spent.”

No, Rice, it isn’t time well spent. What is this world coming to, when the people who are supposed to be the best and the brightest take weeks to come to these simple conclusions? In real life, the turtle doesn’t beat the hare, and this snail’s pace by the governments of the world (although I imagine that much of the stalling is on account of George Bush wanting to give Israel more time to root out the villains) has caused lives to be destroyed and a country’s infrastructure to be destroyed. Worse, it’s ongoing today, when a simple “Stop this now” from the President of the United States would’ve done wonders that, alas, a UN Resolution can’t match.

Going into this weekend, I had had a personal vendetta against Time for quite a while, ever since it ran a cover story about Ann Coulter (read about it here), but today I can call the past over, and I’m not angry anymore, Time, not after reading this visceral look at Baghdad.

It’s too long a narrative to excerpt, so I recommend you go over to it, print out a copy and read it over breakfast, after breakfast more like, as it’ll probably make you sick if you’re a Democrat and it ought to make you sick if you’re not.

It’s been a slow weekend for news, overall, but the biggest controversy of the weekend is one that should worry us all: a Reuters photographer photoshopped pictures and the news service ran them. I’m furious at the news, as Reuters and the AP are my two favorite services as I generally believe them bias-free and reliable. The man responsible has been suspended, but I suspect no real punishment to be forthcoming, as I believe this was probably sanctioned by the agency. This sort of “insubordination” would get you fired if it weren’t authorized, and since he hasn’t lost his job, I suspected Reuters is stalling so that people forget, casting dirt into everyone’s eyes with the suspension, and planning to wait out the storm.

Prove me wrong, Reuters. Without Photoshop, please.

I’d like to know what type of deal George Bush made with the Devil to give him the Presidency, but so far, Antonin Scalia won’t answer my phone calls, and William Rehnquist is dead!

What’s my prompt, you ask? This embarrassing story. Quote,

Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Now now, you say, they both wear the towels, so what’s the difference? Ho hum, that type of thinking is understandable if not disappointing, for people like Rush Limbaugh (the illegal-drugs carrying Viagra smuggler!) but it is simply unacceptable for a President who is intent on waging War in the country that he so happens to know nothing about. It’s completely unacceptable and a disgrace, although it isn’t a surprise, as I can a) look at George Bush and tell that he is a baboon in a suit (while Dick Cheney is a Snake on a Plane) and b) I’ve read such flattering books as The Price of Loyalty.

Off the subject of the Worst President in the 20th Century, let’s talk about the Ukraine, where Viktor Yanukovich has won the Prime Ministry. Yanukovich was the fellow defeated in 2004’s beautiful Orange Revolution, and while it might seem a step back to most, it is actually a step forward, says Time Magazine.

[K]een observers of government in the entire former Soviet Union argue it could also be seen as evidence of an unprecedented political maturity in the fledgling democracy. “The Orange Revolution was all about fair elections rather than individuals,” reminds Viktor Nebozhenko, an authoritative Kiev-based political analyst. For the first time ever in the region, Ukraine has both a President and a Premier elected in fair elections, with the first opportunity to learn what separation of powers really means. And contrary to what some people might claim, the political intrigue that led to Yanukovych’s reemergence is as much a part of democracy as fair elections, or for that matter, separation of powers. In the March parliamentary elections, Yanukovych’s PR won 32% of the vote fair and square. The Orange forces, badly split since Tymoshenko lost her Premiership last September in a feud with the OU, tried to re-build their winning coalition, along with the Socialst party, but Tymoshenko’s categorical condition was the Premiership.

Instead, in a sudden about-face, the Socialists formed a Coalition with the PR and the Communists. That left Yushchenko with the legal option of nominating the Coalition Leader Yanukovych, however distasteful to him, for Premier, or disbanding the Rada, which risked aggravating the nation’s already yawning split. With suspense growing — and with two pre-taped TV addresses to the nation, one proclaiming the Rada disbanded, the other one announcing the “Two-Viktors-One-Country” conciliatory formula — Yushchenko chose the last-minute compromise. The terms of the National Unity pact he has forged with Yanukovych’s coalition are discernable, however vague the wording: Yanukovych signed on to Ukraine’s moving closer politically to Europe, while Yushchenko agreed to improve cooperation with Russia — albeit only up to the point that would facilitate Ukraine’s trade with Russia, but won’t hurt Ukraine’s prospects for eventual WTO and EU membership. Both yielded on the divisive issue of Ukraine joining NATO: Yanukovych withdrew his avowed opposition to the move, while Yushchenko agreed to put the issue to a referendum. “Yanukovych has evolved since December 2004, while Tymoshenko mentally got stuck at the barricades,” comments Nebozhenko.

In tactical terms, Yushchenko smartly used Yanukovych to neutralize Tymoshenko, her blend of populism, radicalism and charisma perceived as a bigger threat. Now, however, he may be able to just as effectively use Tymoshenko’s opposition status to keep Yanukovych in check, should the latter’s evolution fail to prove sufficiently deep. The backstabbing and strange alliances might not be pretty, but they sure beat street fights, or storming Parliaments by tanks. For that reason, it can be argued, the compromise that brought the two Viktors together in power is actually the triumph, not the defeat, of the Orange Revolution.

I think this is positive, if the politicians let it be, and that is to say, this can be an effective lesson about Democratic values and Separation of Powers, as long as they don’t turn it into something else. If the Ukrainian politicians take this as a boost to Democracy, as a sign that they will have to work with their opponents at times, then this is positive. If not, then the failure isn’t the Orange Revolution, but those who would betray it.

Larry Kudlow asked as to the whereabouts of Harry Truman, and cited an alarming report in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago, and it leads to interesting discussion.

Today’s WSJ story by Yochi J. Dreazen “Audit of Iraq Reconstruction Finds Corruption Worsening” is a very tough story that suggests a breakdown of Congressional oversight. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen’s latest quarterly audit estimates $4 billion per year corruption costs in Iraq. The story goes on to report that “the Bush administration continues to wind down its ambitious Iraq reconstruction program, which has spent ten of billions of dollars on rebuilding efforts that have largely failed to restore basic services such as water or electricity to pre-war levels.”

Oil smuggling continues to siphon off revenues. U.S. Comptroller General David Walker says 10 percent of Iraq’s refined fuels and 30 percent of its imported fuels were being stolen. Additionally, Mr. Bowen concludes that “the Bush administration’s overall handling of Iraq contracting — from relying on no-bid contracts even when major fighting had ended, to failing to standardize contracting regulations to help prevent fraud — was deeply flawed.” He goes on to say that the U.S. has not provided proper contracting and procurement support necessary to manage reconstruction efforts begun three years ago. And he also sites widespread mismanagement among competing U.S. government agencies.

He goes on to ask where today’s Harry Truman is (Truman having investigated companies that might or might not have been profiting from the war in an effort to make them “not have beens”) and I will answer the question for him: he is somewhere underneath King George’s royal robe and Prince Dick’s steel boots. This is not an Administration that tolerates that sort of dissent. While it is true that “making sure there aren’t War Profiteers milking our War Effort” isn’t dissentful in any traditional sense, this is not an Administration that admires openness. Worse, it is one that would consider inquiries such as the proposed to be disloyal, and couple that with an unpopular Republican Congress in an election year, and you know exactly why there are no Truemen in Congress banging down the doors of Halliburton.

Fidel Castro, as has been noted, is ill, and most people think he’s dead. I anticipate his death because only with it can change in Cuba occur, and I dearly wish that those who have been displaced by Cuban Communism may one day be able to return home. One of my personal heroes, Jose Contreras, is one of those displaced, and I dearly wish for him and others like him to be able to go back to their homes. In that respect, I am in agreement with Peggy Noonan, who has written a column about life post-Castro in Cuba.

Use the change of facts to announce a change of course. Declare the old way over. Declare a new U.S.-Cuban relationship, blow open the doors of commerce and human interaction, allow American investment and tourism, mix it up, reach out one by one and person by person to the people of Cuba. “Flood the zone.” Flood it with incipient prosperity and the insinuation of democratic values. Let Castroism drown in it. The American economic embargo of Cuba is 40 years old. It has been called ineffective–it did not produce Fidel’s downfall. It has been called effective–it kept the squeeze on, demonstrated what communism reaped and reaps. In any case it was right to deny a monstrous regime contact with, and implicit encouragement from, the American democracy.

All fair enough. But the monster may be dead and is surely dying. In any case, what remains of Cuban communism dies with him. Cubans don’t know what they are economically except one thing: poor. Castro survived the ruin of his economy–he had the guns–and he used his resistance to isolation to enhance his mystique. Fearless Fidel faced down the yanqui. Still, he was forced to swerve and pivot. In 1994, after Soviet cash supports had ended, he was forced to allow some modest individual self-employment. With Castro gone, why not seize the moment for some wise, judicious, free-market love-bombing?

I’m in total agreement, although I do think that we should accept it if Raul Castro decides that their country will become a Socialist nation. That is not something to be afraid of, or assail. It’s time to end the embargo, and work with Cuba for a better relation between us, provided that openness between us goes on to include ideas, communication and the travel of people, instead of just American goods. It’s time.

Being that today is my birthday, I hoped to wake up and find good news abounding, but so far, it’s a beautifully rainy day on the Southside of Chicago, and a storm world. Iran, in an attempt to bank on the world’s fear of high gasoline prices, is threatening that oil will cost two hundred per barrel if they are sanctioned. I’m not sure that it would rise that high, and I’m inclined to doubt it, but if this isn’t further proof that this country has to move on, regarding oil, because the situation in the Middle East is even more volatile than usual, and is even getting more dire as Iran says that the Destruction of Israel is the only solution. A friend of mine, upon hearing the threats of Tehran, told me that “the only question is, Do we fight Iran now, or in ten years?” I don’t think it’s so simple.

At one point or another, the World (mainly the United States) has been faced with a confrontation that could become gigantic with another nation. France in the early 1800s, England in the War of 1812, the Soviet Union in 1963 (and through most of the Cold War, really) and even Iraq throughout the 1990s. In two of those cases, we eventually went to War with the countries that had been threatening, but those wars were foolhardy. We didn’t have to go into Iraq in 2003, as it was very much a personal choice on George Bush’s behalf. When the War of 1812 occurred, England’s parliament apologized for the practice of kidnapping our sailors but the message got to the States after we’d declared war. Oops!

In the other two cases, War was not inevitable. The Cuban Missile Crisis should serve as a particular example to us, as should the Nuclearization of North Korea, that War is almost never an absolute matter. We don’t have to go to War. We might, but provided we don’t appease the Mullahs and instead work with the rest of the world to contain them, there doesn’t have to be a War. Cooler heads usually prevail when a stalemate occurs, and we should all be pushing together to keep Iran contained. Fortunately, we have been, as no one in the West is pushing for Iranian nuclear weapons. This is an issue that even the French are with us on, and as long as that is so, peace is possible.

Would you like to know what’s wrong with the government today, dear reader? The way the Press reacted to Bush entering the pressroom is a good indicator of all that’s wrong with the world today.

THE PRESIDENT: The last time I had a press conference in here, it felt like it was outside. As a matter of fact, some of your makeup was running. (Laughter.)
Q Mr. President, should Mel Gibson be forgiven? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Is that you and Gregory standing back there?
THE PRESIDENT: You know –
Q — complaining of the Jews –
THE PRESIDENT: Is that Sam Donaldson? (Laughter.) Forget it. You’re a has-been. We don’t have to answer has-been’s questions.
Q Ohhhhh!
Q Mr. President, do you want to say a little about the White House press corps, please?

I’m not a fan of Mel Gibson, and I’m not a fan of George Bush calling a reporter a has-been, and I’m certainly not a fan of the press asking these absurd questions. When the President gives absurd answers to the hard questions, you know there’s something wrong. When the press is asking absurd questions, you know that something even worse is going on. Honest to God, they hardly ever speak to him to begin with, and when they do, they ask him about Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitism? God help us all.

I’m proud to say that Chicago has joined The Clinton Climate Initiative, a new program, proposed by the former President, that could only be better if it featured an Al Gore happy hour. Twenty two of the world’s largest cities have agreed to work together and limit greenhouse gases, and I think this course of action might be better for the environment than the process involved in ratifying a Kyoto Protocol-type legislation. Locally, everyone enjoys clean air, and in the city, there’s less pressure put on politicians by oilists than there is on a national level. You won’t find oil lobbyists huddling beside the Chicago City Council, and it’s like that in most cities. Going through the cities is pragmatic and politically feasible course in ways that asking Congress to approve a treaty, and expecting George Bush to negotiate said treaty, just isn’t. Well-played game, Bill.

In Israel, the situation grows worse, as thousands of Israelis sweep the border into Lebanon. Something to ponder: if Israel occupied Lebanon for years at one point but was unable to root out Hezbollah, how will a War aimed at destroying the infrastructure of a nascent Democracy help toward that aim? It won’t, and it’s a shame that George Bush doesn’t have the balls to pursue peace. I don’t expect this to end anytime soon, because I presume that Israel will continue with its assault and eventually wind up occupying signifiant portions of Lebanon while the rest of the Middle East will pretend to care but won’t really. Why would the Sheiks and Arab Playboys in Power in the MidEast care that a Democracy (Lebanon) is being destroyed? This is a game in which there is no winner, an irrationally conceived endeavor by Israel and a tragic example of cowardice in Washington.

Now, I want to talk about campaign finance reform. I am a full believer in reforming the system, and you can count me in. I don’t believe that John McCain and Russ Feingold, however, did a darn thing worth a damn with their Campaign Finance Reform Bill a couple of years ago, as they merely exacerbated the situation, and that is undeniable. By pushing a flawed, failure of a bill they have made campaign finance reform that much harder, because people will understandably say, from here on out, that any reform is due to fail. The whole bill has been a bust, as RealClearPolitics puts it, and that should be remembered in 2008 by Republicans who will wrongly be upset with McCain for his (from their point of view) faulty intentions, and by Democrats, who should be rightly upset with him for his failure to execute. John McCain is unfit for command by Liberal and Conservative standards.