The Big Time Messenger Blames the Small Time Messengers

Our sage of conventional foreign policy wisdom, Mr. Jim Hoagland offered these comments in his recent Washington Post column:

"The most vindictive bloggers and many others eager to push the mainstream media, established politicians or other remnants of the status quo off a stage that they want to occupy smash reputations with abandon to call attention to themselves. What do they have to lose in the unpoliced badlands of the ether? They contribute to a general deepening of cynicism in the land at no perceived cost to themselves.

But deeply polarized nations that devote an inordinate amount of their time and energy to hunting and prosecuting both real villains and convenient scapegoats -- at the expense of failing to recognize and respect heroes and helpers of the common good -- do pay an enormous collective price. Such nations descend into easily manipulated despair and resentment that inevitably lead to ever-greater destruction. Americans would do well to ponder that in a summer of doubt and division."

I am not one to deconstruct line by line the comments of our pundit class as other bloggers may. However, these comments do deserve some response from one of the so-called "vindictive” bloggers who promulgate "in the unpoliced badlands of ether."

Columnists like Mr. Hoagland have been found out. He was wrong about Iraq War. He was wrong about George Bush. I am not one to tar and feather someone for his or her views. I will not engage in name-calling. But he is wrong and for many of the conventional wisdom pundit class, this is a very hard pill to swallow. When the vast majority of Americans know that this Iraq thing is a "bad thing," are they being "vindictive" when they disagree with the administration's policies?

The cynicism Mr. Hoagland decries was not invented by the bloggers from "the badlands of the ether." Its roots are in the false and erroneous reasons created to start the Iraq War invented by the neo-conistas and carried out by the Bushie sycophants. Every justification for the war, every policy adjustment during the war, and every benchmark established to measure progress has been either been proven false or is failing. Its not surprising that reasonable people watching this morass unfold become a little suspicious, little jaded.

Mr. Hoagland ends his piece with “Such nations descend into easily manipulated despair and resentment that inevitably lead to ever greater destruction.” I say who is manipulating whom? Again, his so called “despair and resentment” are not the result of bloggers. The deepening sadness and nihilism readily apparent in the body politic is because most Americans have lost confidence in our ruling classes to solve the Iraq mess. The bloggers of ether land are only an artifact of this deepening despair.

Instinctively, we know the Iraq morass will hurt our standing in the world for decades. We know the war has created more people who are willing to strap bombs on themselves, walk in to crowds and kill innocents. We see the carnage and billions of dollars lost or squandered. Our country is moving into unchartered waters with no one to guide us.

Mr. Hoagland and his ilk have led us to this dark and awful place and do not have the courage to stand up and admit they were wrong. Nor do they really have idea how to get us out. I find it ironic that one nationally recognized messenger, James Hoagland, uses the old canard “to blame the messenger.” This war and the lack of national leadership have created the despair and resentment he decries and not the Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo or Firedoglake.

A Little Irreverence to Start the Weekend!

The Beautiful People of Washington DC..An Classic Oxymoron!

The "inside baseball" publication for all those who need to know about politics in DC is "The Hill." The journal has just released its most important investigative article in years listing the 50 most beautiful people on capitol hill. Anyways, I just wanted everyone to know that 30 of the 50 selected in this prestigious competition were Democrats.


Unfortunately, Congressmen Steve Chabot and Congresswomen Jean Schmidt, both from my hometown of Cincinnati, did not make the list. I wonder why? Do Democrats have more cute genes?

It's a Fun Day, a Family Day

Our friends in the New Hampshire Republican Party are planning a fundraiser for the whole family. Participants are invited to come and learn how to shoot machine guns and Uzis. What a wonderful way to celebrate the 2nd Amendment! The organizer, Mr. Jerry Thibodeau, calls this outing "a fun day, a family day."

I wonder if Mr. Thibodeau will invite Dick Cheney to join the festivities?

ObBushcation-The Politics of Dismeaning

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004


Rather prophetic wouldn’t you say? I do not want to dwell on the stupid things that come out President Bush’s mouth. There are far too many websites that provides extended lists that continue to grow and grow and grow.

His misquotes, examples of incoherent logic, and, at times, fabrications have really served him well. His inability or unwillingness to provide a cogent, complete argument for any of his policies has permeated his administration for the past 6 years. It has severely damaged the ongoing political discourse in this country. We have such low expectations for him. When he ignores facts or makes up his own somehow we have been trained to give him a pass. When he changes his justification for the war in Iraq (almost daily), we have collective amnesia. Somehow we forget his spurious talking points about Iraq’s WMDs or nuclear programs, links to Al Qaeda, or need to create democratic institutions. They are in yesterday’s news cycle. And besides, we don’t expect W to have the ability to link today’s sound bites to yesterday’s sound bites. He has mastered the art of low expectations and intellectual dishonesty. W is winking at us as he reads the prepared statements some speechwriter puts in front of him. His frat boy demeanor only reinforces the notion that he is play-acting and bored with it all. We turn away fully aware that he doesn’t mean what he says.

The awful truth is that his limbo stick of intellectual curiosity is so low we don’t even try to reach down to pay attention anymore. And sadly, his administration is filled with others who have adopted his reality stretching tactics I call obBushcation. His bagman Alberto and our Attorney General is W’s master student. Tony Snow, Stephen Hadley, Condi Rice, and Fran Townsend would all get passing grades at W’s school of diminishing rhetorical returns.

They too have given up making a real sense. They now understand that the goal is just to say something, anything that promulgates fear or perpetuates the cult of low expectations. Intersperse hot buttons words such as Terror, Al Qaeda, 9-11, with non-sequiturs such as “fight them there so we don’t fight them here,” “We have confidence in (you fill in the blank), he/she did a marvelous job presenting the administration’s case,” or “Leaving now will create a haven for _____.”

The Washington Press Corp has given up trying to hold W and minions to any kind of intellectual standard. It really isn’t surprising that Lindsay’s, Brittany’s and Paris’ escapades are given as much print and air time as W’s policy pronouncements. They all are fluff and lack substance. The twenty-hour news cycle and the plethora of newspapers, magazines, talking head shows need to fill up the space.

W has created obBushcation. Is it premeditated or just fortuitous? Either way it continues to work very effectively.

"Iraq is a very important part of securing the homeland, and it's a very important part of helping change the Middle East into a part of the world that will not serve as a threat to the civilized world, to people like—or to the developed world, to people like—in the United States." —Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

We just roll our eyes and groan.

Playing the Race Card

I recently had a heated discussion with some friends about race and how it affects our work lives, politics and the broader popular culture. Frankly, most everyone at the table was suffering from some form of “race fatigue.” We think of ourselves as reasonable and socially responsible liberals and yet, when the topic of race comes up our reactions and comments are grounded in those deeply rooted prejudices we all learned at an early age.

It is the nature of prejudice and how we have internalized so many negative stereotypes and fears during our developmental years that shape our reactions as adults. Whenever we have a “racially tinged” experience, we often throw out our adult reasoning and react to the situation in a manner that reinforces our collective prejudices. It’s insidious and very frustrating.

Once those prejudices are deeply planted in our collective psyches, they never go away!

I made the statement that so much is about race in all that we do or experience. Not surprisingly, I did not get a ringing endorsement from my friends. I heard, “I’m tired of people playing the race card.” “When will we ever get over it.” “How long will we need to live with affirmative action?” “How long will I have to be held responsible for all the past injustice?” “I am tired of all it!” It is race fatigue in all its shapes and forms.

Frankly, I sympathize with those sentiments. I too suffer from race fatigue. I was not advocating that we need to own all past injustice or permit race to be used as excuse when it isn’t appropriate. Although I didn’t do a very good job, my general point was that the issues of race continue to permeate all aspects of our lives. We cannot escape it.

Even when someone exclaims that the race card is being played out, this is again is a clear example of how race is still part of our collective experience. Prejudice becomes racism when those who hold power use their power to control those whom are the objects of their prejudices. The long years of institutional racism and oppression have left their scars on both sides of the equation-for the oppressor and the oppressed.

The race card can only “be played” in a racially, overheated context. The race card is not an invention of the oppressed. Its roots are in the nature of structural racism that has flourished in this country for over 230 years. Without that racial pathology, my friends and I would never so readily label a person’s actions as “playing the race card.”

As the dominant culture we grant privilege and dole out punishment. It is not surprising that the oppressed have defined their relationships with us by using our structural racism to their advantage. I probably would to if I could get away with it.

We all find our ways to rationalize our shortcomings. Who among us wants to confront our own deficiencies? Placing blame is easy. Children learn the behavior at a very early age. Politicians practice deflection everyday. Drug addicts and alcoholics have mastered the art.

Isn’t it rather interesting that whenever a person of color justifies his or her shortcomings by declaring racism, we are the first to label it? Playing the race card is just another American past time of placing blame and not taking responsibility.

When members of the dominant culture engage in inappropriate behavior, they often plead that they are not responsible for their failings. David Vitter blames the press for hounding him about his sexual indiscretions. Ted Haggard and his followers can always turn to Satan for a good excuse. Mark Foley can obscure his pedophilia by declaring he is an alcoholic. I am sure each of these guys would have used the “race card” if they could. Unfortunately, they are the ones who set up the rules in the first place. The oppressors can’t blame the oppressed for their collective failings.

Yes, the race card is played more often than it should be. Unfortunately, there are acts of racial injustice and discrimination that always give fodder for future card players. Without a legacy of institutional racism and our deeply ingrained prejudices, “the race card” would not exist.

My Fortune

I just came back from lunch. Normally, the place I go to has good, moderately priced Chinese food. I haven't been there for several months. Unfortunately, with many restaurants, things changed very quickly. It was not very good.

I did though open my fortune cookie. Here is my fortune: "You are the center of every group attention."

Why We Fight!

Our champion of Iraqi democracy, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, declared last Saturday that Iraqi forces are ready to secure his country. American troops can begin to withdraw. “We say with confidence that we are capable, God willing, of taking full responsibility for the security file if the international forces withdraw in any time they wish,” Mr. Maliki said.

Mr. Maliki has offered many other interesting predictions over the past few months. Just a week ago he declared that the British could turn over Southern Iraq and Basra to the Iraqi Security Forces. All British bases in Basra came under mortar fire over the past day -- a frequent occurrence in the city -- the British military said Wednesday. No casualties or damage were recorded.

In November 2006, Prime Minister Maliki declared "I cannot answer on behalf of the U.S. administration but I can tell you that from our side our forces will be ready by June 2007." He again made the same statements in July 2006. Foreign troops could leave within months.

Apparently, Mr. Maliki is a master prognosticator. He has an uncanny ability to foretell the future events regardless of how few of his predictions are grounded in reality. Last year, the Iraqi Defense Forces declared that it had 10 functioning and equipped battle ready battalions. This year, there are less than 6 due to desertion and the expunging of Shiite militia members. Over the past two years, 11,000 Shiite militia members had to be purged from the Iraqi Army and Police.

Perhaps Mr. Maliki knows more than other mortals. Let’s take a look at some of his other recent predictions to get a better sense of his supernatural abilities.

In commenting on the future prospects of Brittany Spears' and Kevin Federline’s marriage, Mr. Maliki offered this assessment. “God willing, Brittany and Kevin will find happiness, live a long life together, and spawn many offspring.”

He also knew that Senator David Vitter’s marriage would be much stronger once he asked God for forgiveness. “Senator Vitter is now in God’s hands. He will return to his wife and children more God-fearing, no longer seeking the affection of harlots or garments of babies.”

Prime Minister Maliki is something of an American baseball fan. “Barry Bonds is an instrument of God. He will smote the ball of vengeance out of the market more times than Mr. Aaron.”

On his predictions for the Republican Presidential race, Mr. Maliki said this, “Mohammed has told all true believers to have many wives. God willing, Mr. Romney will follow the example set by the other pious candidates and embrace his religious heritage. He must invite more wives into his harem. Only by planting seed, will God help Republicans.”

And finally, Mr. Maliki said this about Vice President Cheney two years ago. “Vice President Cheney is our friend and a righteous man. Like Allah has offered to me, he is a man of visions that others cannot see. I will stand with him to fight the forces of darkness in our country. I will go to the Tigres River to gather fishes with this man. I will not go hunting with him.”

I am so glad we are depending on Prime Minister Maliki to bring democracy, peace and prosperity to Iraq. By the way, is the Iraqi Parliament still on vacation?

This is Shameless!

The State Children's Health Insurance Program, or "S-CHIP" was established in the 1990s to provide health care to poor kids and their families. Most Republican Governors and and a collection of bi-partisan Senators want to expand the program to provide basic health care to poor children. The program works and congress wants to add another $35 billion over the next five years to expand coverage to more families.

Unfortunately, our friends in the White House don't want to expand S-CHIP. Why? They claim it is too expensive and will only lead to more government funded health insurance. Something our conservative friends are inherently against.

The sad truth is S-CHIP works and provides insurance to many of the working poor who cannot afford or do not have access private health insurance. Bush and minions what to limit S-CHIP to only those whose incomes are 200% below the official proverty line.

I really don't buy the argument that S-CHIP costs too much. One could easily pay for it with increasing taxes on cigarettes and taking away subsidies to the pharmaceutical companies that are making a fortune from the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. The real underlying concern among Bush and his conservative idealogues is that S-CHIP really is the first step to federally funded universal health care.

This is a classic example of ideology trumping good public policy. God forbid that the federal government provides health care coverage to poor chidren. The Bushies and fellow travelers would rather stand by their increasingly specious arguments than support a program that really makes a difference.

Even though Iraq remains the 600 pound gorilla that consumes all our attention, don't let the neo-cons pull a fast one. S-CHIP is good public policy that is cost effective. Tell your congressmen and senators you support it.

Ahead of the Curve

It is a nice feeling to be ahead of the NY Times. In Sunday's paper, the featured article was entitled "The Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age."

Fatboy Tom did a blog on this topic a few months ago labeled "The Richer Get Richer and the Poor...from Another Planet." The NY Times validated many of my assertions.

"Only twice before over the last century has 5 percent of the national income gone to families in the upper one-one-hundredth of a percent of the income distribution — currently, the almost 15,000 families with incomes of $9.5 million or more a year, according to an analysis of tax returns by the economists Emmanuel Saez at the University of California, Berkeley and Thomas Piketty at the Paris School of Economics.

Such concentration at the very top occurred in 1915 and 1916, as the Gilded Age, was ending, and again briefly in the late 1920s, before the stock market crash. Now it is back...."

In the article, Paul Volcker, former Chair of the Federal Reserve, contends that the increasing concentration of wealth in the upper 5% of Americans is not due to the enterprise and business acuity of the superrich. It's really is an artifact of the bull market and stock options afforded to so many CEOs.

"'The great fortunes today are largely a result of the long bull market in stocks,' Mr. Volcker said. 'Without rising stock prices, stock options would not have become a major source of riches for financiers and chief executives. Stock prices rise for a lot of reasons,' Mr. Volcker said, 'including ones that have nothing to do with the actions of these people.'

'The market did not go up because businessmen got so much smarter,' he said, adding that the 1950s and 1960s, which the new tycoons denigrate as bureaucratic and uninspiring, 'were very good economic times and no one was making what they are making now.'”

A very interesting read. As I have always said, great fortunes breed complacency, entitlement and increasing isolation from the larger society.

Many are Asked...Few Show Up

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Col., was the sole Republican candidate to address the NAACP convention. He was flanked by lecterns with placards for nine other GOP candidates -- all no-shows. The Convention took place in Detroit, MI, July 7-12.

Ah. yes, the big tent Republicans are always trying to reach out! John McCain was too busy replacing his campaign staff. Mitt Romney couldn't find Detroit on Mapquest. His father, George, only was the Governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1968. Rudy Giuliani was commited to a fishing derby in some God-forsaken town in South Carolina.

Benchmarks for the Punditry Class

The various Washington pundits are trying to slowly slither away from the imploding morass in Iraq. Their recent columns and sound bites reveal that they are shedding their former skins. They are desperately trying to generate a new outer casing that reflects the very best newly reconstituted conventional wisdom on the Iraqi War.

Our collective memory is so short and news cycle is increasingly fast. They do not need assume responsibility for their past judgments, simplistic analysis, overly optimistic projections and inability to conduct critical thinking. After all, we were all duped by bad intelligence, blind patriotism, and a need to remain friends with all the other indigenous DC Copperheads, Water Moccasins and Rattlesnakes.

Since benchmarks are the rage, I thought I would offer some examples where the punditry class has not met our collective expectations. In fact, some pundits have laid too many eggs and are known as a species to eat their young! They may have shed their skins but they still are just snakes with new skins.

Our “the World is a Fiat” friend Tom Friedman is the master equivocator. Three years ago he offered his compelling analysis of Bush’s strategy in Iraq.

Big Tom was slammin’ down benchmarks faster than Jenna Bush drinks Cosmos at a Friday night Happy Hour.

From our friends at Fairness and Accuracy in the Media:

A review of Friedman's punditry reveals a long series of similar do-or-die dates that never seem to get any closer.

"The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
(New York Times, 11/30/03)

"What I absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a UN-approved Iraqi-caretaker government made up of—I know a lot of these guys—reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? Can we let this play out, please?"
(NPR's Fresh Air, 6/3/04)

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."
(CBS's Face the Nation, 10/3/04)

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election—that's my own feeling— let alone the presidential one."
(NBC's Meet the Press, 9/25/05)

"Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time."
(New York Times, 9/28/05)

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together."
(CBS's Face the Nation, 12/18/05)

Has Tom met his punditry benchmarks? Hell no. But who cares, his fellow pundits gave him a pass like he does for them. Now, what is Slammin’ Tom saying now?

In August 2006, here is Slammin Tom’s take in a column for the NY Times:

“It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war” and it’s time to “disengage…[T]hree years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means “staying the course” is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.…But the administration now has to admit what anyone — including myself — who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can’t throw more good lives after good lives…..The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.”

And as any effective pundit, Slammin’ Tom can find a way to slither out of any accountability for his woefully stupid analysis. He creates a strawman! In a January 2007 response to caller on an NPR radio show:

“Look, I understand people who opposed the war. Some opposed it for military reasons, because they’re against war, some opposed it because they hate George Bush, some opposed it because they didn’t believe Arabs are capable of democracy. I wasn’t in that group. I really believed that finding a different kind of politics in collaboration with people in that region was a really important project….I’m really sorry. ….I promise, I really promise, I’ll be a better liberal. I’ll not in any way support any effort to bring democracy to a country ruled by an oil-backed tyranny. I promise I will never do that again. I promise I’ll be a better liberal. I will view the prospect of Arabs forging a democracy as utterly impossible. They’re incapable of democracy. I agree with you on that now.”

What a completely stupid thing to say that I opposed the war because I hate George Bush or I don’t believe Arabs are capable of democracy. Many of us opposed the war for slightly more nuanced reasons that Slammin’ Tom articulates. “The World is a Fiat” Tom always gets a pass even though he didn’t meet his self-proclaimed benchmarks.

Here is another slithering pundit who missed his benchmark–Richard Cohen.

In 2002, here is what Mr. Cohen wrote in his column:

“Going to war with Saddam—it’s time… The removal of Saddam is a worthy and sensible goal. He’s a beast—a hands-on murderer who rules by fear . . . . Two things are a given. The first is the nature of the Iraqi regime. It will persist in developing weapons of mass destruction the way lemmings head for the sea or junkies seek a fix . . . . Iraq is probably five years or so away from developing an atomic weapon, but why wait for that to happen? . . . For the sake of international law, for the sake of preventing nuclear blackmail, for the sake of ridding the world of a leader with Hitler’s megalomania and the weapons to fuel it, war may be the only course.”

In 2006 column, Mr. Cohen was waxing why young men must sacrifice their lives in Iraq for the past mistakes made in Vietnam.

"As with Vietnam, we are fighting now merely not to lose -- to avoid a full-fledged civil war (it's coming anyway) or to keep the country together, something like that. But not for victory. Not for democracy. All this talk of the Iraqis doing more on their own behalf is Vietnamization in the desert rather than the jungle. What remains the same is asking soldiers to die for a reason that the politicians in Washington can no longer explain. This, above all, is how Iraq is like Vietnam: older men asking younger men to die while they try to figure something out."

Mr. Cohen has never met his benchmarks. Frankly, I am not waiting to September. Stick a fork in it Dicky, you’re done!

And about Bill Kristol Clear? …A pundit for the Neo-Con Weekly Standard and ubiquitous talking head on Sunday chat shows. Here are some predictions just before we invaded Iraq:

“We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. It will produce whatever effects it will produce on neighboring countries and on the broader war on terror. We would note now that even the threat of war against Saddam seems to be encouraging stirrings toward political reform in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a measure of cooperation in the war against al Qaeda from other governments in the region. It turns out it really is better to be respected and feared than to be thought to share, with exquisite sensitivity, other people's pain. History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.”

Kristol-Clear also is an expert on intra-religious cooperation across the Islamic World.

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

In another cogent insight: “T]here are hopeful signs that Iraqis of differing religious, ethnic, and political persuasions can work together.…This willingness is the product of what appears to be a broad Iraqi consensus favoring the idea of pluralism.”

On a chat show on Faux News last year, Kristol-clear was still optimistic.

“The country remaining united (with some federation), with the insurgency under control in the sense of not being able to destroy the country or launch a large sectarian civil war. No weapons of mass destruction. No aggression against neighbors. And that's quite possible, incidentally. I think it was very possible three years ago, and I think it remains possible.”

Kristol-clear continues to stick out his chest and offer all kinds of predictions and advice to the Bush administration stuck in a policy swamp. When in doubt? Bomb them! Iraq, Iran, North Korea, California…..

These great men and their lousy predictions can take some solace in that they’re benchmark failures pale in comparison to the Vice President’s various pronouncements over the past 6 years.

Some may believe that I may be tad cruel here. But frankly, I don't care. Regardless of how many new skins they try to regenerate, these pundits remain serpents with no backbones and fork tongues.

"And if Joseph Smith have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore he is justified for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified."

- Doctrine and Covenants 132:62-63 from the Book of Mormon

Don't you think it is little curious that the only legitimate candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination who had only one wife is Mitt Romney?

Back in the Saddle

Sorry folks. I've been on vacation for a few days. Events seem to cry out for my sophomoric humor and unsophisticated analysis.

Hypocrisy is too Damn Easy! Parody is Really Hard!

David Vitter, elected in 2004 as a Senator from the Great State of Louisiana, has been linked with the D.C. Madam's Washington Escort (Prostitution) Service. Apparently, his phone number was in her little black book. Senator Vitter has asked for forgiveness.

I want to make sure I have the proper sequence of events. David Vitter got his start in national politics in 1994. He replaced Bob Livingston as the Congressmen from the 1st Congressional District in Louisiana. In 1994, Mr. Livingston resigned his seat due to the fact that he was outed in an extramarital affair just after he was annointed as Speaker of the House by the pious House Republicans. Mr. Livingston took over as Speaker from our friend Newt Gingrich who had to resign in disgrace due to his many ethical piccadillos and extramarital trysts. Phew..it is complicated and very messy.

I will pray for Mr. Vitter. I am sure he will do the right thing. This is the same Congressmen Vitter who declared in 1998, “I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess” [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]. In opposition to same-sex marriage, Vitter recently stated, "Marriage is a core institution of societies throughout the world and throughout history. It's something that has provided permanence and stability for our very social structure."

I guess our Republican friends believe that public pronouncements of morality will always trump a multitude of private sins. By the way, is Mark Foley out of rehab?

Surging to Oblivion

Can we remember why the US military initiated the Surge? It was a means to an end-to increase security and stability. The Surge was the vehicle the Maliki government needed to move forward on key political and economic matters. It was NOT intended to win the war on the ground but to give the Iraqis time to resolve political disputes and form a real multi-ethnic coalition government. How are we doing so far?

From NBC News…

During an interview on "Meet the Press," David Gregory interviewed Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) about the war, and noted the political dynamic surrounding the Maliki government.

"Seventy-four members of parliament have boycotted, as you say, the 275-member body. There are 12 ministers from the 38-member Cabinet no longer attending Cabinet meetings. There was an oil revenue law where they would share between Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites that was passed but without Sunni participation, which renders it virtually meaningless, and the agreement on the oil revenue part has still not been struck. So this is that fundamental question for the government of Nouri al-Maliki: Can he actually govern a unity government?"

From CBS News…

”For four years, Iraqis have been waiting in lines at gas stations in Baghdad, waiting for their lives to get better. But, as CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan reports, the situation has gotten worse and their government is now in crisis. That has led senior Iraqi leaders to demand drastic change. CBS News has learned that on July 15, they plan to ask for a no-confidence vote in the Iraqi parliament as the first step to bringing down the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Even those closest to the Iraqi prime minister, from his own party, admit the political situation is desperate. ‘I feel there is no strategy, so the people become hopeless," said Faliy al Fayadh, an MP from the Dawa Party. "You can live without petrol, = without electricity, but you can't live without hope.’”

From ABC News…

“But while the United States may be making advances on the ground in some areas, it risks losing the battle of perceptions overall. When a truck bomb explodes in a market place and kills 150 innocent civilians, the message is: Danger can be anywhere, nowhere is safe.

Nor can Iraqis draw much solace from their own government, paralyzed and largely confined to the Green Zone, unable to provide security or basic services for everyday life in the country as a whole. In Baghdad, the provision of electricity and drinking water has actually gotten worse.

Parliament is almost completely dysfunctional — 74 of the 275 members of parliament now boycott the sessions entirely, meaning that there is rarely a quorum in parliament to vote on any laws. Iraq desperately needs to pass a new oil law that would guarantee a fair distribution of oil revenues between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. At the moment, Sunnis feel they are being denied their fair share of the national wealth. There is a draft law that has been prepared, but the parliament has not even begun to debate it. Sunnis are so frustrated about being left out in the cold that they are threatening to file a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.”


I’m waiting for the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation zealots to come forward with their various op-ed pieces defining a different justification for the Surge. Or will they invent alternate ways to define the Surge as a success? The Talking Heads on Faux News already are asking for more time to assess the effectiveness of the new military policy.

There is no political resolution for the morass in Iraq in the foreseeable future. I believe the Maliki government is completely impotent and beholden to the Shiite majorities. The Prime Minister will reshuffle his Cabinet, meet with high-level American delegations, and ask for more time. It is very clear that the Sunnis and Kurds do not trust him or believe in the existing parliamentary process.

Bush, sitting in his Crawford Bunker, may still believe that his imaginary 3rd Army will stop the Russians at the Brandenburg Gates, but I don’t. Ultimately, the Surge was a cynical political calculation to stall for time and drag the war into the next Presidential election cycle. Dump the mess on the next President to fix.

Some grownups have to assume leadership here. Are there any left in the White House? Or do they all try to escape Berlin before the Russians get there?