What Is, Was, and Might Have Been

Seventeen commanding, emphatic, and inspirational minutes that include a blunt presidential imperative that America end its "addiction to fossil fuel":


What might have been:


What was:


Citizen K. is off to Washington D. C. to attend a conference on Cancer Survivorship Research: Recovery and Beyond. From there, he'll shuffle up to Boston to visit #1 son. Citizen K. is also very happy to announce that he has been accepted by the University of Washington as a candidate for a Master's in Health Care Administration...

Waitin' for a superman...

Take it away, Leon! (Who is that banjo player, anyway?)

Disbar The Torture Lawyers

Tell me this isn't torture. I saw a film clip of that awful man -- our former president -- on Keith Olberman's show last night justify the CIA interrogation "program." He -- the awful man -- actually smirked when he said "program."

Seeing him always gives me these mixed feelings of personal satisfaction and civic shame. He never fooled me: I remember telling a conservative friend before the the war that the Bush Administration did not have anything close to the political skills to pull off rebuilding Iraq and that we would be sorry we had ever heard of the place. I've had people tell me "you were right and I was wrong." Then I think of the destruction he wrought at home and abroad...Why did we do it? Why did we put the leadership of the country in such brute, psychotic hands? As Dr. House might put it, there are answers to everything. But will we as a country ever have the courage to face up to these questions, much less the answers? The Bush presidency was the biggest failure of democracy since Adolf Hitler took power in 1932...

JUST A SONG: Follow the evolution of "I Fought The Law" from rockabilly burner to punk anthem. See fetishistic go-go dancers while you're at it!...

Another Historic Day at Fenway Park: Michael Dukakis observes the Red Sox' 500th consecutive sellout and explains the secrets to the Sox success: Strong ownership, a commitment to Fenway Park, and serious community involvement...Is Big Papi back? If he is, the Red Sox will be mighty tough...

Is the Rolling Stones' Get Your Ya-Yas Out the best rock live album? If not, it's one of the best...

Roy's World has the most erudite blog entry I've ever read...

More proof that if you haven't seen a Gulf Coast sunset, then you haven't seen a sunset...

Who wants a public option? We do. Who do Americans trust on health care issues? Let's just say that the Republicans are the Washington Nationals of the health care debate...

New First Lines above. If you didn't notice, the last ones were from Frederick Exeley's 60's classic A Fan's Notes..

The Dictionary of Word Verifications

consp: A conspiracy nipped in the bud.

elsestsp: Else's Teaspoon. Reference unclear. Thought to be the quantity of "or else" administered to anyone crossing their mother.

fartines: Bean-based soda crackers.

flument:  A virus intended for another person but that infected you instead.

frool: 1. What you are if you drool in public. 2. The involuntary expectoration of a male of the species completely bewitched by a female of the species.

gratorsa: Latin: Being thankful for the body you have.

iache: Def: 1. A sore ego.  2. iPod induced tinnitus.  3. Archaic: Any wound inflicted by Iago or an Iago-like person.

mootion: Cow-etry in motion.

olest: Not as bad as "molest," but the next worst thing.

puzzlia: 1. Brain cramp caused by the Saturday New York Times crossword puzzle.  2. Proper noun: A city in the land of Baffledom.

retyll: Archaic English form of "retail." See Chaucer, "The Merchant's Tale."

soymethi:  Organic form of Greek crystal meth.

visorath: Rage of the Visigoths.

An incredulous Campbell Brown shreds Bush's claim that the government responded quickly to Hurricane Katrina:

The Mahalia Jackson Theatre for the Performing Arts reopens this weekend. At one time, the Katrina damage to the theatre was thought to so extensive as to render the theatre a total loss. Here, Mahalia Jackson sings her overwhelming version of "We Shall Overcome:"

"Waterboarding is torture." So testified Attorney General nominee Eric Holder in as clear and unambiguous a statement as anyone could want. It's sad that something so obvious took so long for someone in an official position to recognize. There may be no greater indictment of the Bush Administration's cynicism than its continual claims that it was not pursuing torture as a policy...

"I am not a number. I am a free man." R. I. P., The Prisoner, Patrick McGoohan...

If you're in New Orleans this weekend, don't miss the Danny Barker Centennial Celebration: 

Danny Barker (1909-1994) was a tireless torch bearer of the unique culture of his home town. Barker's long career spans much of the history of Jazz; he had tap danced in infamous Storyville and later migrated to New York where he performed on more than 1000 recordings with such diverse artists as Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Cab Calloway, Charlie Parker, Lena Horne and his talented wife Blue Lu Barker. Danny's work with young talent in the creation of the Fairview Baptist Church Band was pivotal in the brass band revival of New Orleans in the 1980s that still flourishes today...

Check out Danny's version of "Saint James Infirmary:"

High Praise!

This morning, I received a very nice email praising my recent review of a Hank Williams collection. The writer added that he had linked to the review from his blog, called A Hank Williams Journal. I checked out the blog and found that not only had he linked to my review, he wrote that 

A blogger known as Citizen K has written the best review of “Hank Williams The Unreleased Recordings” that I have read yet.

I’m including in this opinion the articles written in major national and international publications which I posted links to in an earlier post.

Wow! Talk about making my day! Anyway, check out A Hank Williams Journal. A great place to start is the two-part entry about Williams and Leonard Cohen, here and here...

OK, enough about me. This morning, Barack Obama held his third press conference in three days. As usual, he was poised, confident, and articulate. Among other things, he gave the right answer to a question about why he has turned to veterans of the Clinton Administration for part of his economic team. Obama reminded the questioner that this was the only Democratic administration since 1980 and that he was hardly going to keep on members of the current administration. Obama added, correctly, that had he not looked to experienced Democrats, he'd be criticized for the lack of expertise on the team. Then he got to the real point, which is that Barack Obama will be president, not the members of his team, and that he will set direction. Obama added that he wanted a mix of experience and new blood to advise him and that he had gotten just that...

Listening to Obama, I wondered how George Bush was taking all of this. Whatever delusions Bush may hold about the vindication of history, he knows that the country repudiated him. And as far as his replacement is concerned, Bush can't invoke the "majesty of the office" stuff, and has to deal with Obama as peer. And even the stunted, entitled mind of George Bush must have figured out that his successor is in every way his intellectual superior. I'll say this much: Watching Obama in action is a reminder of the great extent to which Bush has been in over his head. People aren't missing that, either...

Speaking of people in over their heads, don't miss today's Doonesbury (click to enlarge):

Then there's this TV ad -- apparently on the level -- slated to run today in Alaska and cable outlets:

What can you say? It's like watching an episode of Green Acres, only minus the comparative drollery...

9/11 And After

Andrew Bacevich discusses the lessons and legacies of 9/11. He points out that the war has been a complete failure based on the Bush Administration's own stated goals:

More from Bacevich here...

The Seven Minutes:

Keith Olbermann on the Bush/McCain/Republican exploitation of 9/11:

Olbermann makes a good point: If John McCain really knows how to capture Osama bin Laden, why doesn't he fill the Administration in on it now instead of waiting to see whether he gets elected president or not...

As for the men and women who have given their bodies and their sanity for the hubris of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Feith, and Wolfowitz, the organization formed to support them is more interested in its bureaucratic prerogatives than in meetings their needs...

Meanwhile, the Coalition of the Willing is becoming a Coalition of One...

Blasted

Western Europeans pay around $8 a gallon for gas. They pay higher taxes than we do. And yet, they enjoy a standard of living comparable to or better than ours and receive social services like comprehensive health care. How can this be? Well, for one thing, European economies aren't saddled with the crippling burden of a massive defense establishment. No one has made this point with more eloquence than newly elected President Dwight Eisenhower did back in 1953:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?

The full text of the speech, which was broadcast on radio and television, is here. In the speech, given at the April 16, 1953 meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower laid out a set five guiding principles for the United States as it engaged in the post-war world. We would all be better off had the Bush Administration taken particular heed of the second and fourth precepts (italics mine):

"First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

"Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

"Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

"Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

"And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations."

In 1953, President Eisenhower could expound these principles confident that he spoke for the great majority of Americans regardless of their party affiliation. In 2008 after 20 years of the scorched-earth politics of Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove, the president can't assume that. In fact, the president -- whoever he or she may be -- cannot speak of any widely held American ideals. We've been turned against each other by the interjection of wedge issues not only in our politics but in our daily lives. One of our close family friends growing up was a rock-ribbed Republican. It's sad to think that that can't happen today, but it likely couldn't.

The president we have now, of course, doesn't want or care to make such a speech, and he couldn't do it with any credibility anyway. He'd rather impugn the patriotism of millions of Americans who belong to a different political party than risk his delusional self-image as a warfighter pilot landing on a carrier after a hazardous mission. Historians will spend decades delving into the stunted psyche of George Bush and the dark paranoia of Dick Cheney. The twisted combination moral certitude, the need to exceed a parent's accomplishments, the fear and ignorance of the outer world, the pathologies of power and greed have a hideous and irresistible fascination that will transfix researchers and be the cause of endless debate. Today, we're sure paying a price for all of this...

Pulitizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind writes in a new book that the White House knew before the invasion the Iraq had no WMDs. Moreover, Suskind's on-the-record investigation reveals that Bush personally ordered the CIA to create a false document linking Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. The White House calls Suskind's assertions both "absurd" and "gutter journalism," absurdity and the gutter admittedly being two things that it has more than a passing familiarity with. Which illustrates two things about the Bush Administration: 

1. It's knee-jerk mendacity has become so transparent that people (the ever-gullible MSM excepted) routinely assume it lies; and
2. It doesn't care whether people think it lies or not. The strategy of constant, brazen dissembling has a numbing affect after a while, so it says whatever suits it and reality be damned.

167 days and counting...

The Cudgels Of Certitude

Spending a month away, among people who had a lot of questions about where the United States is heading, made me realize more than ever what a colossal, nearly impossible job the next president has. Not only have Bush and Cheney driven the country into a ditch, the wheels have pretty much come off the car. And we all know how expensive it will be to fill it with gas.

When they're not spending their last days trying to exploit high gas prices to produce one more quick profit for their buddies, Bush and Cheney try desperately to bog us down in Iraq indefinitely while they rattle sabers at Iran. Having put us in a ditch and removed the wheels, they now want to dig the hole as deep as possible between now and January 20. Should Barack Obama be elected, it's a foregone conclusion that the Administration will be up to something nefarious and brazenly unconstitutional right up until he says "so help me God."

There's nothing like being abroad to make one think about what one's country stands for. From 1946 to 1980, the United States was virtually synonymous with scientific achievement. The Reagan Administration began the politicization of science, but the Bush/Cheney cabal has carried this to an unimaginable extreme. And it starts at the top with a president who believes that the jury is out on natural selection, a scientific certainty along the same lines as water being two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. 

When I was in Brooklyn earlier this year, a German woman asked me incredulously if it were really true that many Americans -- including Bush -- did not accept evolution as scientific fact. She found that frightening, and I took her point: If the leader of the most powerful nation in the world takes crackpot quackeries like Intelligent Design seriously, what does that say about the intellect and judgement of the man with his finger on the nuclear trigger?

And this is merely the canary in the coal mine. We've become inured -- at least the punditocracy has -- to the endless parade of news reports about the White House political operation directing the scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency to alter or suppress findings regarding climate change. This gang of trolls lurks under the bridge of science with cudgels of certitude, ready to beat facts into lies.  They approach science with the same absence of objectivity with which they evaluate the battlefield: If the facts don't align with political exigency, they dismiss the facts. It's frightening, it's one of many things that the press ought to be screaming about, and it's one of many things that the Administration gets away with by virtue of the sheer volume of falsehoods that they daily perpetrate on the world. 

Perhaps no falsehood is as egregious as Bush's insistence that "we don't torture." And according to the narrow, legalistic opinion provided him by Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, he's right. Of course, this leaves him and the country resting on a moral foundation akin to the legalisms that permitted Kristallnacht. According to any half-human grasp of the realities of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and extraordinary rendition, we do torture, and any assertion to the contrary is an insult to the name of humanity. 

Watch this repellent video of the interrogation of 16-year old Omar Khaddr, a Canadian who has now been in U.S. custody for six years. How about we get together tomorrow for a talk, his interrogator says. Whatever happens between then and tomorrow reduces Omar to an abject wreck begging for his mother. An interrogator orders him to put his shirt on, a form of torture in itself because Omar can't lift his shoulder without experiencing excruciating pain. Watch it, if you can stomach it:

This is what we've come to. Forty years ago, our country dared to put a man on the moon. Forty years later, we've extinguished the beacon of science on our way to the dungeons of Torquemada. 

Note: Don't miss Dahlia Lithwick's account of the linguistic contortions Administration apparatchiks apply to convince themselves and their Republican enablers in Congress that we don't torture. The corruption of language is yet another of their many affronts to decency. Again, words do matter.

Levee Of Lies

"That levee of lies couldn't hold back the truth."

Sonny Landreth, from "Blue Tarp Blues"

As the extent of Hurricane Katrina became apparent, Karl Rove orchestrated a campaign to deflect attention from the meager response of the Bush Administration. In this excerpt from his book Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise & Fall Of Karl Rove, Paul Alexander details how Rove sought to politicize the disaster by blaming it on Louisiana Democratic governor Kathleen Blanco. Alexander breaks down these events on a riveting day-by-day basis, beginning with Katrina making landfall Monday, August 29:

• That morning, FEMA Director Michael Brown assures Blanco that his agency is prepared to provided everything necessary.
• Bush, vacationing in Crawford (Texas), makes a speech in Arizona about the importance of staying the course in Iraq.

Tuesday, August 30

• Still unaware of the extent of the unfolding catastrophe, Bush gives a similar speech in Coronado (California) on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Japan's defeat in World War II.
• Meanwhile, the promised Federal assistance to New Orleans does not materialize. The sole official response comes from the Lousiana State Police and the Louisiana National Guard.
• By now aware of the Administration's tardy and inadequate response, Karl Rove acts -- by devising a strategy to praise Republicans and blame Democrats. The strategy hinges on spreading false rumors (for example, that Blanco had not declared a state of emergency when in fact she had three days before Katrina struck) and exploiting a schism between Blanco and New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (who were political enemies). 

Wednesday, August 31

• Blanco calls Bush to request federal assistance. He agrees, but sends only a general and a few staff members to act "in an advisory capacity."

Thursday, September 1

• New Orleans remains under water. No federal help has arrived.
• Members of the national media assail Blanco's staff, questioning their handling of the disaster. Eventually, she tells the staff to ignore them and focus on the job at hand.
• The White House informs Blanco that, in exchange for help, she must federalize the Louisiana National Guard and law enforcement agencies, effectively accepting blame for the unfolding catastrophe.

Friday, September 2

• Bush visits Mobile (Alabama), where he tells Michael Brown, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." Brown remains unaware that 25,000 New Orleansians have taken refuge at the Superdome.
• In Missippi, Bush praises Republican governor Haley Barbour's handling of Katrina. He requires neither Barbour nor Alabama Republican governor Bob Riley to federalize their National Guards as a precondition of federal assistance.
• Bush meets with Blanco and again pressures her to federalize the Louisiana National Guard. As this is her one bargaining chip in what has become a negotiating process, Blanco refuses. Instead, she personally gives Bush a 2-page letter detailing the state's needs. (Later, when none of the needs had been addressed, Blanco released the letter to the press. A "frantic" Bush aid called Blanco, who realized that Bush had lost the letter.)
• Bush, Blanco, Nagin, and Louisiana senators Mary Landrieu (D) David Vitter (R) tour the 17th Street Canal to watch vigorous recovery efforts being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Saturday, September 3

• Bush announces the deployment of federal troops to New Orleans.
• The Louisiana National Guard completes the evacuation of the Superdome and the Convention Center.
• Late in the day, Landrieu escorts television commentator George Stephanopoulos by helicopter to the 17th Street Canal to show him that some progress is being made. All that remains of the previous day's activity is a single crane. "I could not believe that the president of the United States...had come down to the city of New Orleans and basically put up a stage prop...They put the props up and the minute we were gone they took them down. All the dump trucks were gone. All the Coast Guard people were gone...At that moment, I knew what was going on and I've been a changed woman ever since."

Rove's machinations failed. Despite the massive spinning, the American public perceived Bush as out of touch and inept, clearing brush in Crawford while New Orleans screamed in agony. The truth had swept over the Administration's levee of lies.

Sonny Landreth, "Blue Tarp Blues"

When Will They Ever Learn?

The following letter -- apparently written in all seriousness -- appears in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

The news from Iraq is increasingly good and hopeful, so what are the media talking about? Scott McClellan's denunciations of the Bush administration. McClellan himself admits that the final product is not the book he set out to write and that he is a recent convert to his current views. My guess is that he succumbed to pressure from his anti-Bush publishers and sold out his soul for big royalties and media buzz. Certainly the media are hungry for new anti-Bush material.

To take only one point, the war in Iraq, Bush has already been vindicated. The war had changed the whole dynamic of the Middle East in our favor. Al-Qaida, that once powerful global network of death merchants, has been decimated. Iraq, once an enemy, is now a friend and ally. Americans, once portrayed as the enemy, are now seen by Iraqis as real people, friends, protectors and helpers.

There is another benefit to this war. America has show the willingness to act, take risks, pay a price and assume the mantle of world leadership. This is what the world has needed. Bush is one of the greats.

Plainly, this person mainlines the White House Kool-Aid. Pulling this apart is easier than knocking over a house of cards. It's just as much fun, so here goes:

• "The news from Iraq is increasingly good and hopeful." This is mother of all canards, a hoax perpetrated on a now wised-up public. I won't rebut the argument that the surge enabled some short-term security gains, although it was hardly the sole factor. But it produced no long-term political progress, which was the point in the first place.
• "The war has changed the whole dynamic of the Middle East in our favor." The war has actually changed the dynamic of the Middle East in Iran's favor, and it gave an assist to Hamas as well. Meanwhile, we're bogged down in one of the most unstable, volatile parts of the world because of our addiction to oil. We need policies that make the Middle East as irrelevant as possible to us, not ones that entangle us further.
• "Al Qaeda...has been decimated." Unfortunately, there's no evidence of this. Al Qaeda In Iraq did not exist before the war. The Pakistan-Afghanistan border remains a safe haven. The war serves as a recruiting tool. Al Qaeda has taken credit for the bombings of mass transit systems in London and Madrid. None of this sounds like an organization that has been decimated.
• "Iraq, once an enemy, is now a friend and ally." There is no Iraq. It's a shattered vessel of sects and splinter groups vying for power by fighting each other and by killing Americans. The official Iraqi government has proven unable stop them and remains in power only because the United States props it up. With friends like that...
• "Americans, once portrayed as the enemy, are now seen by Iraqis as real people, friends, protectors and helpers." Then how come so many Iraqis keep trying to kill Americans? Why can't Americans venture outside of the Green Zone unescorted by the military? Why do polls of Iraqis consistently show that they want us out?
• "Bush is one of the greats." No comment. Although the question "great what?" comes to mind.

Meanwhile, the Washington state Republican party wants to deny citizenship to children born in America of parents who are illegal immigrants. Why is it that the right wing -- which claims a monopoly on patriotism -- constantly looks for ways to tinker with the Constitution? If it's not this, it's a balanced budget amendment, a so-called defense of marriage amendment, or an anti-choice amendment. The Bush Administration's contempt for the Constitution and constitutional rights is part-and-parcel of this -- a logical extension of a generalized right-wing attitude of claiming to love America while fearing everything about it...

Quote of the Day:
"Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"
-President George W. Bush, April 6, 2oo4

Dr. John releases City That Care Forgot tomorrow. Early reviews (here and here) are highly favorable.

R.I.P, Bo Diddley...

Note to S. B.: Have you seen The Krayolas yet? And if not, whadderya waitin' for? They're at the Blue Star Brewing Company -- part of the Blue Star Arts Complex (a great place, incidentally) -- on August 1.

What About The Rest Of Us?

Yesterday, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton participated in a Faith Forum in Grantham, Pennsylvania. (John McCain declined an invitation.) They answered questions about abortion, human rights, and global warming. But the most important issue concerning faith and politics never came up, so I'll phase it here:

Many people believe that an individual's faith or lack thereof is a personal matter, something private that should be kept out of the public sphere. They believe that one can easily infer candidate's values from the positions they take, and that public professions of religious belief amount to pandering. Furthermore, they look at the historical impact of religious fundamentalism -- be it Christian, Islam, or anything else -- on public policy and find it largely negative. My questions: What distinctions do you draw between personal values and religion? Are they one and the same, or is religion one of many possible influences on personal values? At what point does religious faith become an inappropriate influence on public policy? Has this ever happened with Christianity in the United States? Has it happened recently? Please cite examples...

Fred Kaplan dissects Bush's speech last week endorsing the 45-day pause in Iraq troop drawdowns requested by General Petraeus. It's an especially interesting read because the brevity of the statement allows Kaplan to parse it word-by-word in some places. For example:

Bush: "As a result of the surge, a major strategic shift has occurred. Fifteen months ago, America and the Iraqi government were on the defensive; today we have the initiative."

Kaplan: "This isn't really true. Yes, "progress"—tactical progress—has been made. But U.S. and especially Iraqi forces are still, by and large, responding to crises when and where they occur. The recent (and unusual) attempt at taking the initiative—the offensive in Basra, which Bush last week called "a defining moment"—played out badly, as Gen. David Petraeus admitted at his Senate hearing on Tuesday. The operation revealed that the Iraqi army is nowhere close to being capable of leading a major fight, and it confirmed that the Iraqi police are nearly hopeless."

Bush: "Gen. Petraeus has reported that security conditions have improved enough to withdraw all five surge brigades by the end of July."

Kaplan: "I hope a few people on the speechwriting team blushed when they penned this passage. Those five surge brigades were going to pull out this July no matter what the situation in Iraq happened to be. Their 15-month tours of deployment will be up by then; they will go home; the Army has no combat brigades ready to replace them. This was always the calculation. It's the product of arithmetic, not policy."

Bush: "As Iraqis assume the primary role in providing security, American forces will increasingly focus on targeted raids against the terrorists and extremists."

Kaplan: "The key word here is the first word in the sentence: "as." As the Iraqis take on "the primary role," we'll reduce our role. The Iraqis are not close to doing this now. So we won't be shifting down for the foreseeable future, either."

Again, read the article. It's an excellent example of how to analyze and interpret political doublespeak. That's something we really can't get enough of...

''We need to think about charging some of the high-value detainees because there could be strategic political value to charging some of these detainees before the election." Attributed to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England on 9/29/06, in reference to Guantanamo detainees.

It's not big news that the Bush Administration has no problem with politicizing the judicial process, nor is it big news that the MSM appears to have completely missed the impact of this story. The Nation didn't though, pointing out that "political interference at that level would lead to indictments in any other American courtroom." But, that didn't stop them in 2006 and won't stop them this year, either. As The Nation argues, "it has become painfully clear that the Administration's concern is to have not a credible, transparent trial of 9/11 conspirators but election-year convictions at any cost."

What's also painfully clear is that this Administration figured out a long time ago that a broad assault on the democratic process will numb the mainstream media to the point of ignoring it. Either that, or take advantage of the MSM's simpleminded tendency to report everything in a he said-they said context, thus conferring legitimacy on any idea no matter how harebrained or dangerous.

45 Days And Counting...

General David Petraeus recommended today during Congressional testimony that troop "drawdown" from Iraq cease for a minimum of 45 days after the surge force completes its stint. Will the troop reductions recommence after the 45 days are up? Well, no, not exactly: After the 45 days expire, Petraeus testified, "...we will commence a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions...” So, in 45 days, "we" will commence to begin to get ready to take a look at how things are at the time and decide whether or not "we" can begin to decide whether or not "we" can start to think about further drawdowns. Got that?

If case you didn't, allow the general to clarify: "This process will be continuous, with recommendations for further reductions made as conditions permit.” Still not sure what he means? Here's the nub of it: "This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable." To do anything else would undermine the "progress" brought about by the surge. Ambassador Ryan Crocker understands why someone might not get this: “Taken as a snapshot, with scenes of increasing violence, and masked gunmen in the streets, it is hard to see how this situation supports a narrative of progress in Iraq.”

But, you see, just the fact that the Maliki governed tried and failed dismally in Basra has great strategic import ("major significance"), although Crocker doesn't explain what that might be or how the average American might recognize it. "There is still much to be done," he allows, and presumably we have to trust the Iraqi government to get around to it. Whenever that will be, it's unlikely to occur within 45 days. Luckily, the Bush Administration is making progress on the long-term agreement of a legal framework for allowing the continued presence of American troops.

What this amounts to is the fruits of yet another Bush Administration bait-and-switch. At root, Petraeus and Bush propose to make an open-ended commitment to the Maliki government. The Basra expedition wound up inserting American lives into the breech of an intra-Shiite squabble that ended only when Muqtada al-Sadr decided to call an end to it. This is what they want us to commit American lives and treasure to. Of course, the other end result of Petraeus' recommendation will be to punt the matter of troop reductions to the next president. It amounts to one more instance of dereliction of duty by the Bush Administration.

Dispatches from Blogland: Renegade Eye wants your recipes...Foxessa remembers The Wanderers while looking forward to the new novel by Richard Price...Scrumpy's Baker considers the fitness alternative offered by a Japanese game show...As Julia Sweeney anticipates the new R. E. M. album, even the thought of it makes one of her commenters feel old. I know where he's coming from: There was a time when I felt out of touch because I wasn't up on R. E. M. Now...Meanwhile, Abrogast discovers pictures of Civil War dead that resonate with contemporary eloquence...Premium T. contemplates sewing after a 10-year hiatus...

The Irrational "Hatred" of George Bush

Conservative blogs and columnists often refer to the "left's" irrational hatred of President Bush. (The "left" being anyone who reads The New York Times.) The left, according to these writers, actually want America to fail in Iraq so that Bush won't succeed, regardless of what that implies for American servicemen and women. (The left's supposed abhorrence of the United States military makes this especially palatable.) I've actually read such things. 

I had set all of this aside as one of those mysteries of the conservative mind that I would never grasp. I mean, plainly the idea that I or anyone else would hope for death and dismemberment of anyone in order to spite George Bush is outlandish, but they regard it as typical liberal degeneracy. However, my recent prowling of conservative blogs raised this matter again to the point that I'm starting to understand where they are coming from (a scary prospect, I admit).

The ironic or hypocritical or just plain odd aspect of all this is that the right does have what many of us perceive as an irrational hatred of Bill Clinton. So why should they get their drawers in a knot if we detest George Bush? Sauce for the goose, correct? But the labyrinthine ways of the conservative mentality doesn't see it that way. And there is a certain weird logic to their thinking as I've come to understand it.

The right saw Bill Clinton as a lying, draft-dodging, adulterous Democrat who usurped the throne of Ronald Reagan and commenced the dismantling of the shining city on the hill. They found him morally unworthy to be president, particularly commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Clinton was so unworthy that no tactic with the goal of bringing him down was off limits. In fact, not only was no tactic unjustified, the threat to the country and the military was so acute as to demand extreme rhetoric and action. Their frustration and hatred grew with Clinton's popularity; it culminated when they could not convince the rest of the country that impeachment and removal from office was a necessary and justifiable consequence of his personal shortcomings.

Since their hatred of Clinton was personal, they assume that liberals (a) must hate George Bush and (b) that it must be personal. As they did not with Bill Clinton, conservatives perceive George Bush as a good and decent man who wants to do the right thing. (I can quarrel with that, but the point is their perception, not mine.) Ergo liberal hatred of Bush is not only personal and extreme, it is -- unlike their hatred of Clinton -- irrational. That I don't care what George Bush does when the lights are low never figures into the calculus.

There was a time when I could say that while I had no personal feelings toward George Bush one way or another, I did hate what he was doing to the country. I drew a disctinction between despising Bush personally and despising his policies. However, Bush and the right's own actions have created a climate of personal animosity between Americans based largely on their perception of him. It was George Bush, after all, who made support of his Iraq policy synonymous with "supporting the troops": If you didn't support the war, you didn't support the troops, and what kind of person did that make you? It was conservatives who equated opposition to the war with cut-and-run cravenness, thus accusing millions of Americans of moral cowardice. Who wouldn't take that personally and resent it?

So, yes, I admit it: I have come to detest George Bush personally. He used 9/11 as a means to consolidate and exercise power and to impugn the patriotism of millions of Americans. He identified our country and therefore me as an American with words like "torture" and "rendition." His performance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina amounts to dereliction of duty. His contempt for public opinion, which he masks by claiming to do what he thinks -- what he knows -- is right for America, provokes public contempt for him. As for rooting for Bush to fail, well, he's done that on his own without any help from me.

Wake Up The Echo Chamber

Yesterday, I went over to Victor's in Redmond to meet a friend for a cup of coffee. Arriving first, I chose a table on which the previous occupants had thoughtfully left a religious tract. In the tract ("Big Daddy?"), a Christian student single-handedly disproves Darwin's Theory of Evolution in 20 small comic book pages. The arrogant professor, retreating in ignominious defeat, leaves the university because he "can't teach it any longer." If you don't believe me, read it for yourself here. (Never let it be said that I don't let the opposition speak for itself.

Intrigued, I visited the web site of Chick Publications, publisher of the tract. A banner of happy faces from multiple ethnic groups greeted me. Scrolling down quickly gave me the opportunity to purchase The Enchanter, an "incredible history of Mormonism" revealing the "history that Mormon recruiters don't want to tell you." (Mitt Romney, these are the boots you licked in Houston.) Scrolling down further, I discovered the availability of other tracts neatly organized by religion, so that you can easily choose your own personal hobby horse of bigotry and ignorance. These include Catholicism (natch), Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Masonry, and -- since by Chick's lights it is a religion -- evolution. (Curiously, there were no anti-Semitic tracts: Who made them the chosen people?) I also learned that the earth is some 4,400 years old and that dinosaurs still walk the earth. (It's a little vague on where, although Pensacola, Florida and "Lock" Ness appear to be likely spots.)

Meanwhile, in an astonishingly blindered, Fidel Castro-like ramble, a blogger who calls herself The Anchoress explains why George Bush is a great president with personal qualities so admirable that one might confuse him with Francis of Assisi. Iraq? What Iraq? And as for Hurricane Katrina, he warned New Orleanians to evacuate their beloved city. The presidential buck ended there. You'll be surprised to hear that The Anchoress doesn't mention torture, rendition, signing statements, the unitary executive "theory," outing a CIA agent, the ballooning deficit, the ever-growing income gap, Halliburton, Blackwater, the mortgage crisis, or the recession. She is a baseball fan, though, so we have some common ground.

As for the new Gnarls Barkley CD, I give The Odd Couple two thumbs up. Lovely ballads like "Who's Gonna Save My Soul" complement up tempo numbers anchored by rock drumming that someone had the genius to think of including. I have a feeling that this one will make my top 10 list in December.

V-I-C-T-O-R-Y

Watch this. You owe it to the Winter Soldiers and to the people they killed...

George Bush is a pathetic fantasist as well as a dangerous and incompetent leader. Were he but younger and unemployed, he says, he'd work in Afghanistan to help the "young democracy" there succeed. Why? Because it would be "fantastic" and "romantic." Whatever is happening in Afghanistan, it is by most accounts not succeeding and it's certainly not romantic. Personally, I've never heard of an evolving democracy that depended on the heroin trade for 33% of its Gross National Product. And, uh, George? When you were young and unemployed you had a chance to serve in romantic Vietnam and passed on it...

Fred Kaplan explains that Bush's delusions so convolute the definition of "success" in Iraq that nobody knows what it means. As naive and far-fetched as it seems, the original idea was to oust Saddam Hussein and install a democracy in Iraq that would quickly inspire the other Arab nations in the Middle East to do the same. Bush himself lowered expectations two years later, when he said that victory in Iraq would come "when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe-haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation."

(Note the implication of this last assertion: Not only was there no safe haven in Iraq for terrorists prior to 2003, by his own words Bush created one when he invaded. Now to achieve peace, American soldiers must die to undo Bush's own monstrosity.)

Today, all of a sudden, a victory will lay "the foundations for peace for generations to come," a goal that -- if anything -- is more distant than before the war. It's certainly nothing that Barack Obama or even John McCain will sign up for. And, as Kaplan points out, we are no closer to "victory" as defined by the Administration than we were in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. No wonder John McCain thought that it might take a hundred years...

While perusing the internet to see if anyone besides BeauSoleil had recorded the Cajun waltz "Plus Tu Tourne," I stumbled across and downloaded a real beauty: Adieu, False Heart, by Linda Ronstadt and the Cajun traditional singer Ann Savoy (2006). Absolutely gorgeous, and I can't describe it any better than MusiciansNews.com does here...I wonder if Gnarls Barkley's new CD (The Odd Couple) is as good as Joan Ackerman of the Boston Globe says it is. I'll let you know tomorrow...

Daniel Gross reminds us that FDR's New Deal still works for us despite the right's fervent efforts to dismantle it. In fact, without it, the mortgage would even worse.

The Dark Side

We don't torture. So says President Bush. Except when we do, and then we don't because, well, we don't torture. That's why it was so important for him to veto a bill banning water boarding, which -- far from being torture -- is "one of most valuable tools we have in the war on terror." (It's so valuable that even the CIA doesn't do it any more.) Besides being a tool, water boarding is a "specialized interrogation procedure" reserved for the most "hardened terrorists" and innocent Afghan taxi drivers. (The account below is largely taken from the web site for the Academy Award winning documentary Taxi to the Dark Side.)

For just one example of the "proven track record" of water boarding, consider the case of suspected terrorist Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. After being wrapped in duct tape and stored in a plywood box "for his own protection," the FBI transported al-Libi to Cairo for questioning by experts in "'enhanced' interrogation techniques." After a water boarding session, al-Libi confessed that Iraq had trained Al-Qaeda in the manufacture of bombs and poison gas. Secretary of State Colin Powell used this incontrovertible information as proof positive when he informed the U.N. of the "sinister nexus" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Al-Libi later recanted his "confession" as having been under duress, and the CIA confirmed its falsity. 

[Cartoon by the Austin American Statesman's great Ben Sargent. Subscribe to Sargent's work through www.mycomicspage.com.]

Apropos of Nothing...

What did he say? "My sole criterion is, whatever we do, it ought to be in the context of success." So said President Bush while explaining that no one should expect troop withdrawals from Iraq any time soon. "Iraq" and "success" aren't typically thought as being within the same context, but there's always a first time. Anyway, the "generals" -- ours -- "ought to be concerned about making sure there's enough of a presence so that the provincial elections [in October] can be carried off in such a way that democracy advances." I don't know about you, but voting with occupying troops looking over my shoulder doesn't exactly make me think of a healthy, democratic body politic.

Fred Kaplan, one of the most prescient, articulate, and persuasive critics of the war and the occupation writes that Bush's successor will face an Iraq in worse condition than at any time during the Bush presidency. For one thing, thanks to internal Iraqi politics, there may not be provincial elections. The supposed reconciliation between factions looks more and more illusory each day. Next, the vaunted "Sunni Awakening," where Sunni tribes and militias combat Al Qaeda in Iraq may have run its course, in part because of insufficient U. S. advocacy for Sunnis with the central government. Kaplan is always good and well worth reading. 

The United States is an increasingly irrelevant presence in the never ending quest for Mideast peace...Is there any doubt about who the real winners in Iraq are?...A terrific letter to the editor here. Keep it in mind the next time someone questions Barack Obama's patriotism because he sometimes doesn't put his hand over his heart during "The Star-Spangled Banner"...Greg Oden, the 20-year old center for the Portland Trailblazers, blogs w(ith more dignity than any of the elders of the Tennessee Republican party in urging other young people to support Barack Obama. More here from the Seattle Times' Garry Washburn...Oden has more dignity than either John McCain or Bill O'Reilly, too. No doubt Michelle Obama feels better knowing that O'Reilly isn't willing to lynch her without "evidence"...Speaking of sweet swings, has anyone ever made hitting a home run look more effortless than Ken Griffey, Jr.? This will be my 47th season attending baseball games and I've yet to see that hitter.

One man's Johnny Winter collection:

The Progressive Blues Experiment (1969)

Johnny Winter (1969)

Second Winter (Legacy Edition) (1969, 2004)

Johnny Winter And (1970)

Johnny Winter And Live (1970)

Still Alive and Well (1973)

Guitar Slinger (1984)

The Winter of '88 (1988)

Live in NYC '97 (1998)

The Best of Johnny Winter (2002)

Live Bootleg Series, Vol. 1 (2007)

If you want a place to start, go with Johnny Winter and Still Alive and Well. 

"We acted robustly"

Once upon a time, an uncooperative man named Larry predicted that a war would cost as much as $200 million. Nonsense, said manly, robust Donald, the war will cost $50-$60 million tops, depending on the breaks. And other countries will pay for it anyway. And the war killed an evil dictator and liberated a nation to live in freedom and peace and with gratitude toward Donald and his friends. And everyone lived happily ever after.

Remember those days? The Iraq war lost its fairy tale luster long ago. Now, Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Beam have produced a study detailing the true costs of this endless snuff film. (Thanks to Stone Soup Musings for calling my attention to this.) Not only are we flushing $12.5 billion a month right down the toilet, Stiglitz and Beam estimate that the final cost of the war will exceed $3 trillion dollars. (In other words, Donald was off by 6,000 per cent.) This means that:

• The Iraq war will cost more than any war in our country's history except World War II;
• World War II cost about $1,000 per troop in 2007 dollars. The Iraq war costs $4,000 per troop;
• When it comes to casualties, the Defense Department keeps two sets of books. The second set, available only via the Freedom of Information Act, shows that the actual number of casualties in Iraq may be as much as double the official list.

Now, people will argue that the expense is ultimately irrelevant: That 9/11 and national security justifies it (ignoring the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.) They'll point out that the United States didn't prevail in World War II by not spending what it took to win. Even so, this leaves more than a few questions unanswered. Why did the Administration feel compelled to lowball the American people regarding the cost of the war? Why are the costs still off budget? (Congress appropriates money for the war separately from omnibus budget legislation.) Why have taxes not been raised to pay for the war? How will the costs of the war ultimately be extracted from the American economy, as they surely will?

In World War II, there was a strategy to win. In World War II, the country mobilized to fight by raising taxes, selling war bonds, enacting conservation measures, and instituting a military draft that ensured shared sacrifice. Today, we buy SUVs while military families bleed and break under stress. The United States emerged from World War II as the most powerful nation in the world and with a shining international reputation. The war in Iraq has isolated us internationally and polarized us at home. And, sadly, the bill hasn't come due yet. The stark truth remains that the Bush Administration sold the public a short, easy war on the cheap and delivered a protracted, bloody conflict of gargantuan expense. And conservatives wonder why Bush's approval stays at 30%.

Not that I'm for a border fence, but this is typical of the Bush Administration: Take a project of dubious merit (and with little chance for success), rush it, and waste billions of dollars while enriching a defense contractor. 

This Just In: President Bush claims that the economy is not, I repeat not headed for a recession. Asserting he has already "acted robustly" (presumably he means the tax rebate) to forestall a recession, he dismisses the need for further stimulus. Given that he's at odds with most economists -- some believe that a recession has already started -- The Question again comes up: What planet is he living on? 

By the way, he looks terrible -- not at all robust. Maybe it's finally dawning on him what a complete failure his administration has been. Sure. And maybe the tobacco companies will admit that cigarettes cause cancer, too.

Correction: A friend notes that Don Mattingly's nickname is "Donnie Baseball," not "Donnie Ballgame." Even so, where do you think the idea came from?

Book of Rules

This morning, the sound system at Eddie Bauer blessed my ears with one of the greatest songs ever: The Heptones' "Book of Rules." Check it out here. Not only can you dance to it and hum it to yourself all day long, it has great lyrics in the bargain...

President Bush doesn't care much about the rules -- at least, he believes that they don't apply to him. Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) caught him trying to sneak a signing statement past the American people...again. Here's what Casey had to say. In short, the president has excused himself from obeying law set forth in the recent Department of Defense authorization bill (i.e., the defense budget). According to the president, he can ignore the following requirements of the bill:

1. Establishment a commission on wartime contractors and profiteering;
2. A ban on the funding of permanent bases in Iraq

Think of it: The administration is claiming for itself the right to enter the United States into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government -- one that would establish a more or less permanent presence in Iraq -- without consulting the Senate. In essence, they can enter into a treaty agreement on their own, something explicitly prohibited by law. Thus, the administration claims that a treaty is only a treaty when they say it is, and that the elected representatives of the people have no voice in the matter. It's a never-ending source of amazement to me that President Bush can speak with a straight face (o.k., maybe he does smirk when he says it) about democracy in Iraq when he clearly doesn't give a damn about it at home.

State of the Union

To hear President Bush tell it -- or not tell it -- the state of the Gulf Coast must be peachy keen, as he sure didn't mention it during last night's miserable performance. (Of course, 9/11 made its annual appearance.) When the president speaks, smirks and inappropriate humor fuel his journey through what must seem to him like the Burmese jungle of the English language. Nothing he says comes though more clearly than his contempt for Congress and the American people. 

He throws out the usual Republican domestic bromides and then adds his own fantasies about Iraq and the Middle East. Does he seriously believe that he can broker "a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of the year"? Once again, he kneecapped his own intelligence agencies by calling for Iran to verifiably suspend it nuclear enrichment programs. The question about all of this is, why would anyone take his word for anything? Luckily, the American people have tuned him out. Unluckily, he's still capable of inflicting plenty of damage, as Joel Connelly reports here. At least the end is in sight.

The state of a different union is bliss! G-rated honeymoon pictures are now up on my web site. Click here, then select "My Albums" and choose the Honeymoon album.