Fitzgoldlake!

Fitzlurkish

Fitz is mine, sayeth the Lord.

Dang - EPU’d on a post to EPU. The universe laffs and laffs and laffs at me.

Amen Scott on the regime change. That is what it is all about and the concept that you get a pro US regime in place, kept there by anything less than the most brutal means, by initiating bombing, war, murder of diplomats and civiians, and possibly even tossing in a nuke or two — well, it’s what Bush does best. Suspension of reality.

Note re: Ritter’s criticisms of Cindy Sheehan and the peace movement. He’s right. It’s divided, and artificial standing is given to too many people who don’t deserve it.

People aren’t marching in the streets because we benefit from oil, and our whole society and infrastructure depend on cheap oil. Our aggression in the MidEast is a war for energy at its lowest common denominator, so we have built-in cognitive dissonance that restrains us as a country. In Vietnam, we were fighting an abstraction. Iraqi oil is not an abstraction. I burn it in my car and go buy groceries with it.

“When Americans can start parsing out the different Kurdish factions, tell me their history, who they’re politically aligned with, the nature of their own internal conflict, when they can spell out the huge number of Shi’a factions and tell me the difference between a secular Sunni and a tribal Sunni and a religious Sunni, then we can begin to come to grips with the complexity that is Iraq. But right now Americans, if they even know anything about Iraq, will simplify in terms of Kurd, Sunni, Shi’a, and, again, that’s just reflective of an overall ignorance of a very, very complicated situation.”
Great, great post, thank you Taylor.

Thanks Taylor, for posting this reference to Ritter’s analysis.

I think it is especially relevant to previous discussion here in FDL where the scare of “nukes in Iran†seems to have captured some commenters, rather like the earlier scare-effect that WMD in Iraq was supposed to have.

Ritter’s analysis points instead to the need for always keeping in mind the broader geo-political aims of the Bush Administration and the ways in which their propaganda machine ratchets up the fear factor as a cover for its real goals and intentions.

Wasn’t it Wolfowitz who said that there was no danger of factional fighting in Iraq? Numbnuts.

With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are.

Our political system is so pathologically sick that this statement is self-evidently true.

Thanks, JohnCasper, very much.

The Green Lantern - You nailed it exactly. The broader geo-political aims of Bush, Rummy and Deadeye are the big picture items. Something to add… We haven’t even begun to talk about CHINA, which I believe is also in here somewhere, amidst Bush’s toxic foreign policy formula.

The biggest problem with the Iraq war is that our government misunderestimated the damage, the task, the culture we were entering and the history of the people Bush and the neocons wanted to drag into democracy.

Taylor, you are being far too generous to the BushCo screwups — there was no misunderestimation on their part, because there was no comprehension that this would be anything other than a flowers and chocolate cakewalk. To the BushCo ideologues, the world is nothing more than theater props in their little set piece dramas.

With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change.

Iran is not Iraq, and an unprovoked attack will turn out much worse for everyone. My guess it that a USA regime change is a more likely outcome than one in Iran.

And those who get the superficial coverage in the news say, “Oh, well, Iraqâ€â€”they can say three words about Iraq: Sunni, Shi’a, Kurd. And now they think they understand Iraq.

So, so true.

And few people have sought to explore the multiple effects that this ridiculously simplistic view of Iraq has had on that country’s post-Saddam politics.

the people Bush and the neocons wanted to drag into democracy

I have a serious problem with this part of an otherwise good post. There is not one shred of evidence that this Administration has ever had the slightest interest in “democratising” Iraq, or any other part of the Middle East. This war had nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with democratising or humanitarian aims.

Rove indictment draws nigh. I can just feel it. Bring it on, Fitz.

Scott Ritter was right 4 years ago and I have no doubt that he’s right now. He has spent actual time there with boots on the ground, he knows the history and the politics, and his opinions were not formed by preexisting political beliefs, but by his experiences in the Middle East. He’s the Cassandra of our time!

Thanks for posting this Taylor. Ritter really knows what he is talking about, and his comments on the way the administration is pushing a false characterization of a threatening Iran are extremely significant. His points are exactly the perspective that has been missing in every single discussion of Iran that I have heard since Condoleeza and Company brought it onto the front burner. Every talking head who wants to spout out their version of the Iran situation should be first forced to explain why they shouldn’t just shut up and listen to Ritter and Cole.
peace,
jim

Apologies for repost from last comment thread, but I wonder what public attitude would be towards US/Iran nuclear impasse if they knew no direct talks have occured or being considered?

Apparently US has not, and is not now even considering having direct talks with Iran since last offer was rebuffed. Unless something back door and secret is going on. So, why should we trust BushCo that military option will be last resort, when one of the first resorts (direct talks) is not being used, and apparently will not be resorted to? That is why a post on the fake up shake up in WH is interesting to me. This is evidence that the advertised shake up really is a fake up: nothing substantive will change.

Maybe worthy of an FDL post?

Here is link, via Talkingpointsmemo post today:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c...../008657.ph p

I don’t get the criticism of Sheehan. How does she not have standing? His simply stating she does not doesn’t make it so. If she doesn’t, or any parent of a soldier doesn’t, the who does? I don’t know what the answer is. Do I have standing? Anyone else here? What gives you that right. Personally, I think her son serving (and being killed for that matter) do give her standing, but that is me. His argument that he was an “adult” is specious. Assuming he was 18 or 19 when he joined up, you would think that he might ask his parents whether they thought he was doing the right thing. Hell, look at any recent US Army TV ad, and they ALL show the prospective recruit talking it over with a parent, convincing their parent is the right thing, the good thing, to do. Hmmmmmmmm.

Dis the peace movement as much as you like, but to disparage someone over their standing (or motivation) is specious. It is the same as asking what my standing is to want repugs out of power.

Mary - I saw your post. Of course, everyone in this universe is free to find distraction where ever they find it.

But anything can be overanalyzed, and sometimes to the point where sight is lost of what it really going on, what is really important. I didn’t even bring up the issue of the “mistake” or “amendment” or whatever it was to Fitz’s recent filings. You and I may know that that happens all the time and is meaningless in 99.99999999% of all cases, particularly ones where the amount of evidence is voluminous, but others don’t have the benefit of having ever practiced any kind of law.

Which not pursued case are you referring to? I know there was something in FLA? Let me know and I’ll give you an opinion.

Now, that is one American Patriot and a very fine Marine. He talks, I listen. The story from the New Yorker and today’s Raw Story revelations are in total support of his premise of regime change. It is all part and parcel of the PNAC, neocon plan. IIRC, he said nothing bad about Cindy Sheehan and did speak to the lack of an organized anti- war movement. He is dead-on correct, imho.

Her words:

Being a so-called anti-war movement leader (at least to the MSM), brings much responsibility and so much love for the people and the groups who are working hard to end this insane occupation, but is this enough?

Recently, a blog written by an aquaintance, Scott Ritter, on AlterNet was called to my attention, where Scott, who is a self-proclaimed Republican, conservative who courageously opposed this war from the beginning, is predicting the eminent demise of the anti-war movement.

At first, I was highly offended and defensive at what I thought was Scott’s arrogant attack on the movement that I am so intimately and overwhelmingly involved in. But then after my knee-jerk reaction, I realized that for all of the wrong reasons, Scott was partially correct.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0407-20.htm

Did anyone just catch that rant by Chris Matthews on the CIA leak/lead-up to the war? That was worthy of a rant here. If you missed it catch it on the replay if you can. It’s in the first 7 or 8 minutes.

“If they want to have an exercise video,†snorted Ritter, “then why don’t they come here and say it to my face and I’ll give ’em an exercise video, which will be called, ‘Scott Ritter Kicking Their Ass.’â€

Ha! I remember that like it was yesterday.

Taking Iraqi oil off the market just made the oil companies their greatest yearly profits in history. The Bush Admin. doesn’t care that there is/isn’t bloodshed in Iraq, its a win/win either way for them. They could care less about the troops or balancing the budget.

The oil companies are directly responsible for our addiction to oil. Why don’t we have a concrete plan to wean ourselves off oil? Why don’t we have excellent trains, trollys and trams in every city? Because the vested interests of oil and the car manufacturers rig the game in D.C. do we DON’T have it.

My response to any fool talking about going into Iran is “Wheres Osama?” You’d think the Democrats would be nailing them about this daily.

Taylor #10,

China is the secret decoder ring to most every neocon-BushCo foreign policy move. China is the only threat large and credible enough to keep the machinery of our security apparatus rolling out new products, and they and Russia are the natural topological inheritors of Iran’s oil. Invading Iraq forced Russia, China, smaller oil states, and to some extent India to form a security alliance. It’s called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Now Iran is joining, and we’re eventally going to hear a lot more about it:

http://atimes.com/atimes/China/HD18Ad02.html

Ah, but KM, you are thinking about the textbook version of ‘democracy’: one-person/one-vote; not the neocon’s idea, where our ‘democracy’ that depends on stolen elections is able to remote-control distant puppet governments that exist only to serve our corporate agenda. It’s classic marketing doublespeak: we call our system democracy because it sells well in the marketplace.
And humanitarian aims are voiced only if the neocons can use it for PR toward the same agenda, like the women’s rights bit in Afghanistan. Like the neocons ever cared.

EPU, I’m for Cindy Sheehan, and for the peace movement. I’m agreeing with Ritter that it’s divided, and that Cindy Sheehan became twisted into a media pretzel.

The peace movement here, to be effective, must be much more united than it is with much more specific resistance. I don’t think that will occur until there are oil and gas shortages.

Kevin Drum, via Josh:

…With that as background, here’s my suggestion: quit letting Cheney’s crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran. After all, the administration’s ideologues killed an opportunity to ratchet down tensions three years ago, and since then things have only gotten worse: Iran has elected a wingnut president, they’ve made progress on nuclear enrichment, gained considerable influence in Iraq, and increased their global economic leverage as oil supplies have gotten tighter. So why blow another chance? If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you’re trying to leave no alternative to war?

MarcLord - I’ve been reading a lot on the subject lately, but for some reason I’d missed that link. Thanks for supplying it.

I remember the desperate, salivating war monger Paula Zahn telling him he had drunk Saddam’s Kool aid– the little tag on my TV that said Mitsubishi is still missing from the rage I exhibited at that moment…

MarcLord - I don’t have any issue with the comments on the peace movement. I do take issue with questioning Cindy Sheehan’s standing or motivations.

I am not MAD about what he said about Cindy Sheehan. He just doesn’t get it. And he never will. Why? He is not a mother, or even a woman. If he were a mother, he would understand. As a man, and a rather macho one at that, he doesn’t understand that losing your CHILD is worse than losing your own life.

As time goes by, he will understand better. Now it seems he is still in “macho young man” mode.

MarcLord #5 & #24

I don’t believe that the Iraq war is about cheap oil; per PNAC, it’s about controlling China’s access to oil. The price of light, sweet crude is about to triple what it was when The Decider took office. Besides, it helps him and his oil patch pals to keep the price up via some constriction of supply. Even as reserves begin to look shaky, their financial value grows exponentially. All the better for Bandar and the Boyz.

As for the greater peace movement, my take (FWIW) on Ritter’s criticism is that the goal isn’t yet bigger than the personalities nominally pursuing it. When it becomes so, we’ll see some unity. As for the Dems, check out the latest from Billmon. Talk about chicken lips…!

OT - Did you guys see this:

Russert: And then, someone very close to the President said to me, you know, he won’t fire Rumsfeld because it would be the equivalent of firing himself. He can’t acknowledge that it was such a big mistake, in so many ways. And so Rumsfeld will stay. And that’s the decision that the President has made and I think Rumsfeld will stay and try to see this through.

The full take is on Crooks & Liars.

Thanks, Taylor, for another great, thought-provoking post. I’ve been muttering (lately, screaming) at the TV for weeks that the Bush administration doesn’t give a flying fig whether Iran does or does not have, or even intends to have, nuclear capability, and that if he were so all-fired interested in it, he would be participating in direct talks, not sitting on the sidelines. And he would not have pulled out of every non-proliferation or arms treaty he could find.

I still cannot believe that people are bellying up to the table, ready to swallow whole the same crap Bush fed us in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Do I think Ahmadinejad is a dangerous leader? Absolutely - but I also think he and Bush have more in common than people want to admit.

I am as uneducated as the next person on the detailed history of Iraq and its people that Scott Ritter talks about, but you don’t have to know the intricate details to understand that we were never prepared for the consequences of war. And you don’t have to have a degree in the history of the Middle East to understand that whatever chaos we unleashed when we attacked Iraq will be dwarfed by what will ensue if we attack Iran.

I think Bush’s thrill-seeking behavior is escalating to the point where the only thing that will satisfy his thirst for bliss will be to nuke something. And while it might be understandable to have forgotten the lessons of decades-old history, it is incomprehensible to me that neither our leaders nor the media have learned anything from history that is less than five years old. Hell, they aren’t learning anything from month to month.

What, exactly, will it take to put an end to this inflammatory and irresponsible march to yet another war?

Yes, Taylor (#10), the chess game with China is a big part of the story.

Remember that 20% of China’s imports of oil come from Iran. So, China holds some big pieces in the game that’s being played out there.

And the recent draft agreement on supplying nuclear materials to India must be seen to have changed the arrangement of the pieces on the table unfavorably to China’s hand.

Bush and his advisors would be making a big mistake if they think that they will have a free hand to move unilaterally in Iran, on the heels of the debacle now taking place in Iraq.

EPU 17 - I wasn’t clear about the cases. You had mentioned that you thought political cases were sometimes pursued even more zealously and listed several to take comfort in (CUnningham, Delay, etc.) and I was just commenting that Abramoff belonged on that list too - but you couldn’t necessarily list all the cases that belong. Not that I though it had not been pursued - vice versa.

(Or did you mean the Guam case I mentioned? It is the “under the radar” aspect of the Abramoff case, IMO, that could cause a big impact is the Guam litigation and how the prosecutor was handled. But my conventional wisdom radar iw not that great (the acting US atty for Guam, Black, who had held that position for some time, began an investigation into dealings between the Sup. Ct there and Abramoff. Black contacts home base, and within days he is removed as acting, a USAtty appointed who had a relationship with some of those under investigation, and not only is Black removed, he is ordered not to investigate Abramoff anymore. Reason given: something like -they have to divert all available resources to terrorism (I am doing this from memory, so I may be a bit off on some pieces). Word out was that right after Black checked in, contacts were made via Rove’s office that resulted in the “long overlooked” USAtty slot getting suddenly filled. Supposedly it is being investigated as a part of the Abramoffinvestigation.

china’s delighted that our morons in washington [both parties] are driving our military into the ditch by letting fantasy determine our foreign policy — meanwhile china’s slowing down its purchases of american debt — our long term interest rates are starting to climb, which will pop the housing bubble & rein in the american consumer as china weans itself off exporting to america & builds up its domestic market, leaving america’s economy high & dry — who will then finance america’s warmongering delusions?

I have a friend who is an Iraqi. He was an Iraqi soldier in the first Gulf War.

His family is still in Mosul. They are Assyrians. I ask him if they relate to the Assyrians of long ago and he assures me they do.

Today Assyrians are Christians. Since the beginning of the war they have been under increasing pressure from Muslims. The women have been forced to cover up and cannot go out without a male relative. My friend says now they just keep their heads down and hope they will survive the war.

He directed me to a fascinating site called Learn Assyrian. You can learn more about their language, their culture and their alphabet. It’s well worth the visit.

“As a man, and a rather macho one at that, he doesn’t understand that losing your CHILD is worse than losing your own life.”

I lost a child, my first born daughter, to cancer. She died in my arms 8 years ago at age 30. I will never again be whole. I go on, but I will never again be whole. I cannot imagine losing a kid to the cowardly Bush’s folly.

undercoverdick #35
— meanwhile china’s slowing down its purchases of american debt —

…and they have been bankrolling so much our deficit from month to month, that is all they have to do to start making waves. As soons as China feels it own domestic demand generation is stable and growing fast enough, they won’t need our markets as much.

They are probably calculating every week how much anly slow down in T-bill purchases will increase interest rates here, how much that will dampen demand, and whether their own markets can pick up the slack in exports.

It doesn’t take a big shift in reserves, just a slowdown in purchases. I’v lost track of who other big purchasers are.

Mary - My experience is that most prosecutors have even more zeal (and they are pretty zealous to begin with) when politicians are involved. Whether b/c they can make a name for themselves or because they find government officials committing crimes more odious than a “civilian” committing a crime.

As for “powers that be” stiffling or even ending prosecutions, I think history shows that that doesn’t really happen. Nixon is the best example, but we can use Abramoff, and others of more recent vintage. Call me an optimist,* but if illegal activities took place in Guam as part of the Abramoff illegal gift that keeps on giving, it will come out.

*You may call me one, but I am not one. As previously stated, I am a “glass empty” kind of person.

OT

Nice review of Crashing the Gate in the latest (April 27th)issue of New York Review of Books (highly recommended, by the way) by Bill McKibben. Mentions FDL along with Juan Cole, Josh Marshall, Eschaton, etc.

Sorry if this has already been posted.
Back to your regularly scheduled FDL…

Hey all, I’ve done an update, which includes a Crooks & Liars video on Ritter debunking the LA Times article that appeared back in March. Make sure you check out the update:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....html#a7843

In my earlier post, I was referencing Ritter’s earlier article at Alternet wrt to his remarks about the peace movement; I just read the source article you lined to, Taylor. I think he is talking as a Marine. They are trained to take responsibility for their actions, including signing up. I find it more a call to action by a person who feels strongly, than a real slam on Cindy Sheehan. He also posted at Alternet today about Iran:

Many in the anti-war movement seem to recognize that there is a need to expand the base of this movement to be much more inclusive of mainstream America. I suggest that the pace of current events dictate a much more dramatic solution — that the anti-war movement begin to reach out to the very institutions that it condemns and make common cause for the preservation of a way of life — the unique blend of corporate capitalism and individual rights — that is at risk from the policies of the Bush administration. It is not likely that there will be many points of agreement on the long-term path that America should take regarding achieving the ideal balance between these two competing, and somewhat contradictory, concepts. But one thing is certain: if the Bush administration has its way regarding war with Iran, both concepts will be put at risk in the chaos which will follow.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/35226/

As is clear from the Ritter interview, he knows a lot about Iraq, Iran, US policy, and WMDs, and is perfectly justified in telling people who don’t know anything about it to shut up and learn something. On the other hand, to say that Cindy Sheehan did not sacrifice anything indicates a certain ignorance on his part. Is the anti-war movement fragmented? Of course! This fact is, however, not the fault of Ms. Sheehan. The anti-war movement has its’ Rosa Parks, but hasn’t found its’ Dr. King yet. History indicates that they aren’t easy to find.
peace,
jim

BobbyG @ 37

I am so sorry for you. ;(.

As a nurse, I have seen many people die and no distinction in the actual grief I see from either gender– maybe in its visible manifestations, sometimes. I am not a parent, but don’t think it is goes easier for the Mom or the Dad. Their eyes look the same to me– full of pain and horror.

WE are ripe for regime change …

ck wrote:

Iran is not Iraq, and an unprovoked attack will turn out much worse for everyone. My guess it that a USA regime change is a more likely outcome than one in Iran.

Anyone read the whisperings of US military types, active and retired, who may effect a coup to take Sock Puppet’s military commander powers away from him? (Treat the dilemmas and loyalist vs. reformer generals debate in the (m)ass media as the scene-setting theatre and scenic props that it is.)

Anyone read whisperings that other nations’ military and spy functions are planning the Mother of All Interventions? As in checkmating a US gone loco?

I think the message is: If you American sheeple can not legally, constitutionally get rid of this genocidal maniac administration, we are not going to sit on our thumbs until you figure it out.

World to US: Let’ roll!!! hahahaha.

Deepest condolences BobbyG.

angie -

Thanks. I didn’t get the instruction book for that event. I don’t do “pity party” over it, ‘cuz the world is FULL of tragedy and heartbreak. Just have a lot of recurrent black days. She was my baby. Born the day Robert Kennedy was assassinated.

See http://www.bgladd.com/1in3

Mary in 34, as per usual, you have the facts correct about Guam, Black, and Abramoff from my understanding of them.
http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pb.....80302/1002
Linked article is from April 2006.

John Casper -

Thanks, bro’.

Great Post Taylor.

I was particularly struck by what Ritter said about American ignorance. I have been of the opinion for some time that the *real* (covert, that is) agenda of the Corporate-Religious wingnut alliance of the latter half of the last century has been the systematic and complete destruction of a viable public education system in this country. It has been going on a long time - at least since the passing of Prop 13 in California in the 70’s, but I am sure one could present evidence that it has been going on since the desegregtion of schools. And one generation later they have basically succeeded. They both win. An uneducated public is easily brainwashed - by a media which preaches consumerism 24/7 or by fire and brimstone breathing fundies.

EPU #28 — Ritter didn’t seem to be questioning Cindy’s motives, at least not by my reading. And I’m sure not questioning her motives, she’s a grieving mom making her son’s life meaningful. Ritter seems to be saying between the lines that the Iraq war veterans, and by extension himself, haven’t been given the standing they deserve. As for me, Cindy Sheehan should’ve been Time’s Person of the Year for what she did outside Crawford, but then her later activities haven’t played into strengthening the anti-war movement very much, for whatever reasons.

Have to agree with Ritter on most points. in particular, while many on the left cling to the positive aspects of Clinton, in part to hang on to a world where Republicans didn’t control 3 branches of gov’t, it’s easy to forget that many on the left didn’t think much of Clinton at the time.

Second, he’s entirely right about the reluctance of the Left to organize for fear of slighting anyone. And yet, most reasonable Americans might tune in to an anti-war protest, secretly hoping to find the “tide is turning”, only to see a motley group including “Free Mumia” cultists and anti-Zionist mobs, and, yes, some pro-choice table over in the corner. And then, the average American, who has long been more skeptical of the war than you think, rolls her eyes and turns off the TV.

If you want to oppose the Iraq war, all I ask is that you don’t use anti-war forums for advancing your own obsessions. If you want to levitate the Pentagon, someone’s got to be the General.

Related topic (and to MarcLord’s China comments): There is a diary up at Kos about what the Navy may be facing if we end up in an Iranian confrontation, under the heading
Iran Attack: Potential Disaster for US Navy

A “disaster” is probably overstating, but the anti-ship technology that Russia and China have been supplying to Iran includes supersonic cruise missiles. The diary includes the following quote, which was primarily about China’s capabilities, but now Iran is in the club as well.

No US defense vs supersonic cruise missiles
The US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups do not have any known defense against the new supersonic missiles of their adversaries. The Phalanx and Aegis ship defense systems may be effective against subsonic cruise missiles like the Exocets or Tomahawks, or exo-atmospheric ballistic missiles, but they are inadequate against the sea-skimming and supersonic Granits, Moskits and Yakhonts or similar types (Shipwreck, Sunburn and Onyx - North Atlantic Treaty Organization codenames) of modern anti-ship missiles in China’s inventory.
Not only China and Russia have these modern cruise missiles, so do[es] Iran. . . These missiles can be delivered by SU-27 variants, SU-30s, Tu22M Blackjacks, Bears, J6s, JH-7/As, H-6Hs, J-10s, surface ships, diesel submarines or common trucks.

. . .

Perhaps our defenses will be more than adequate to prevent the catastrophe of one or more US Carriers being sunk by Iranian forces. However, based on this Administration’s track record, would you be willing to bet the lives of our sailors that they’ll get it right this time?

Personally, I think it would be helpful for people to know that Iran has anti-ship missiles that only allow for about 20-30 seconds of response time. I’m sure that it is, in the end, for more helpful for people to know that Sean Hannity thinks Bush has a backbone of steel and that a bunch of talk radio guys are certain that the right course is to go out and kill a hundred million or so Muslims.

OT - but I really wish someone would publish some photos of Bolten’s Wall of W’s Hands. That is just too odd and I don’t think it is believable until it can be seen.

And shared. *g*

“With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception…“ - Scott Ritter

And in my opinion key Democrats, who should have known better, played right into this Bush agenda and contributed to the creation of “that perception” by not thinking ahead and realizing what Bush is capable of. I’m speaking here about Howard Dean, and Russ Feingold among others (although plenty of others did the same, Dean and Feingold were doing so in good faith but based on bad advice, in my opinion).

Both Dean and Feingold, I believe, are still telling us (as they have been for some time) that Iran ‘is the real problem, and has been all along’ - partly as a way to criticize Bush’s adventures in Iraq. They need to start thinking about what they are saying, and get it right on Iran. Harry Reid put his finger on it Tuesday in Nevada: we do not have the RESOURCES for a military intervention in Iran, even supposing Iran was a lot closer to making and using a nuclear weapon than they are.

Dean and Feingold — please listen and talk to Scott Ritter. Your current advisors are obviously not up to the complexities of the task at hand, where Iran is concerned.

You know, I think Scott Ritter is right on, but he suffers from either being or being perceived as a sort of “contrarian!”You know, everytime you see an article about what he says it is preceeded by the “Iraq war critic” Scott Ritter label. In this way Bushco has succeeded in demonizing him undoubtedly, but when I see him on TV and such I still get the impression that he sort of likes the role.

al-Scooter #30 — well, put re: the goal needing to be bigger than the personalities. And I don’t think the “Get Out of Iraq Now” goal is viable because it would be in the context of loss of strategic oil control.

So, right, the military goal wasn’t about cheap oil, rather about denying it to a rising power. What I meant that was for our parts as anti-war people, we are a house divided because our post-war infrastructure, particularly ex-urban and suburban infrastructure as well as agri-business, very much IS about cheap oil. Before oil costs twice as much, that infrastructure will have broken and embedded in its collapse are the true unifying anti-war, anti-BushCo motivations for scores of millions of people. Because they’ll be hurting.

Right on Ritter. We need more voices like yours in these very depressing times. Our congress and MSM have failed us miserably.What a disastrous combination.

I cannot even find the words, BobbyG. She was so beautiful and so are you as a father. How very, very sad. Your journal of your journey together is sincerely phenomenal. Thanks for sharing…the best of everything to you and your family.

Loved this headline from buzzflash:

“It is getting bad for “The Great Decider” when FOX News runs a story this week,, clearly on polling and reports that Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33% this week . . .”

http://www.buzzflash.com/

From Harpers

CIA spooks on the same page as the Generals

An ex-senior agancy officer who keeps in contact with his former peers told me that there is “a big swing” in anti-Bush sentiment at Langley. “I’ve been stunned by what I’m hearing,” he said. “There are people who fear indictments and subpoenas could be coming down, and they don’t want to get caught up in it. …”

My own headline but you get the point

Ritter was just one voice of many that was ridiculed, belittled and marginalized in the run up to the war and in the aftermath.

Let’s not forget:

*Mohammed el Baradei

*Hans Blix

*Joe Wilson

*Phil Donhaue

*Bill Maher

To name a few.

Which Scott Ritter are we talking about? This one?

When he concluded in 1998 that neither the United States nor the United Nations had the stomach for disarming Iraq and resigned in disgust, he was a regular on television and at Capitol Hill hearings, urgently warning of the horrors that would reward the world’s wimpiness. Iraq is “not nearly disarmed,” he wrote in a 1998 New Republic article, asserting that Saddam likely retained everything from nerve gas to anthrax, as well as his “entire nuclear weapons infrastructure.” Iraq could completely resurrect its weapons of mass destruction programs “within a period of six months,” he told a Senate committee that year. As for Saddam, Ritter said he “remains an ugly threat to his neighbors and to world peace.”
http://www.slate.com/?id=2071502

Any chance that $400,000 from Iraq changed his attitude?

BobbyG. Thank you for sharing your loss here. The thunder of war too often overshadows the private kind of loss that Cindy faces. I had a similar experience as yours and I remember at the end being amazed that indeed the world was still turning on its axis. The loss may be felt by only a few but it should be heard by many.

“Rumsfeld Links Generals’ Flak to Resentment Over Shake-Ups”
“Refusing to deal directly with criticism of his handling of the Iraq war, he cites long-standing conflicts over efforts to modernize the military.
By Peter Spiegel, Times Staff Writer
April 19, 2006″
http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....nes-nation
From Mary above: “The US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups do not have any known defense against the new supersonic missiles of their adversaries. The Phalanx and Aegis ship defense systems may be effective against subsonic cruise missiles like the Exocets or Tomahawks, or exo-atmospheric ballistic missiles, but they are inadequate against the sea-skimming and supersonic Granits, Moskits and Yakhonts or similar types (Shipwreck, Sunburn and Onyx - North Atlantic Treaty Organization codenames) of modern anti-ship missiles in China’s inventory.
Not only China and Russia have these modern cruise missiles, so do[es] Iran. . .”
I guess Rummy forgot to “modernize” protection for the carriers. LOL. Oooops.

Mary #53

I’m still stuck on the hand thing, too! Does he have anyone else’s hands, or is it a Bush thing. I remember their being some press in England about Tony Blair’s hands–he has an unusual line pattern on his palms, where the head and heart line are joined in a single crease across the palm–called a Simian line.

Who knows what secrets Bush’s hands hold (not well, obviously).

Green Lantern and others upthread -

Allow me to clarify something - I am among those here who have expressed great trepidation over Iran and nukes- my fears have nothing to do with falling for any of BUSHCO lies about Iran. We understand Iran is no where near an immediate threat to the US. Further, we are lucky enough to belong to a community where we can learn from the likes of Professor Foland and others as to the merits of plutionium vs. uranium enrichment (golly I love this place). Some of us know US Failure to diplomatically deal with Iran has brought about the rise of the current Iranian president. We also understand enough cbout the current situation (what hath Cheney wrought) enough to know there will be a stable government in Iraq, when Tehran wants a stable government in Iraq

I guess with nukes mentioned in the discussions, I can see how some might’ve thought we had WMD-itis all over again, but it’s just not the case -

We are deeply concerned about the loss of life these monsters could bring about - in Iran, Iraq, and unfortunately this time, here at home.

Any kind of military incident in Iran could easily bring a swarm of 300K to 500K Shia down on American forces in Iraq which will in turn, give Satan’s Beard (Cheney) all the license he needs to ratchet it up to Armaget-it-on which will in it’s turn, bring terrorism to this country on an on-going basis for generations, we’re also anxious about the instability it will bring the region and the resulting geopolitical fall out, and I forgot to mention Pakistan and the 500 pound Gorilla: China

The very root of my fears is that absolutely none of the above matters to any of these monsters in charge. none of whom give one whit for any human llife outside their immediate spheres and I can’t even vouch for that. The trepidation is magnified by our anger at the sheer arrogance of these beasts thinking they can do this again in our name - AAAAHHHH!!!

(third try here) pt bridgeport had a nice nugget on the inr report that got epu’d in the Pat Roberts post at 91. To quote the guts of pt’s comment,

Where the memo had “to sort out the Niger/Iraq uranium sale question,†the committee report misquotes “to sort out the Niger/Iraq uranium issue.â€

The point was to obscure the fact that Wilson was investigating whether (as per the forgery) a sale was made. The committee wanted to misrepresent his mission as investigating whether an attempt was made to buy.

Pretty neat, no?

The sound of chickens, off in the distance, I’m getting used to it now.

Home to roost, oil/gas shortages strike east-coast.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/8847571/detail.html

-GSD

I don’t read the Cindy Sheehan part as anything other than an outright dissing. Not only specious, but gratuitous as well. I don’t care if he is a “macho” marine, bullshit is bullshit. If he only wanted to make a point re the disorganization of the peace movement, he should have just done so.

And dissing Sheehan as really saying that he and other veterans of Iraq: First Blood? That is reaching…

shooter242, your New Republic article is eight years old. As we all know now, Saddam was anxious to propogate that he had WMD, so his neighbors in the Middle East wouldn’t know how weak he was. It sounds as though Saddam’s propoganda was all the information Ritter or anyone else had back then. Yes, Saddam was a threat to the Middle East, a counter to Iran which we destroyed, thus making Iran a much greater threat to regional stability.
Here in 2006, is it your position that we should continue our occupation of Iraq?

And dissing Sheehan as really saying that he and other veterans of Iraq: First Blood should have been listended to? That is reaching…

Now at least it can try to make sense.

MarcLord #56

Thanks, now I getcha. And I agree. The onset of peak oil does seem to be driving an epochal change. I’d hoped that we humans could’ve managed it better than we’re doing, with more intelligence less disruption - especially as it relates to casualties. Last time we were here it took a couple of world wars sandwiched around a major depression to get to something like equilibrium.

This is one of those times when the words of a mentor come back to me: “The script’s already written. Now we’re just arguing over the score and the choreography.”

I’m home alone tonight, so maybe opening a bottle of something will ease the pain from repeatedly banging my head on my desk.

EPU – I think I crossed wires with you on talking about Black, bc it made it sound like I was saying other investigations might be getting “shut down†as well. That isn’t what I meant. I pretty much meant the opposite, i.e., that you had listed several good examples of political cases that held their own and that Abramoff was another.

Then I jumped around (which I do too much – ADD-ish) to the part of the Abramoff case that, IMO, if it pans out, WILL hit home to almost everyone in a simple, uncomplicated way. Abramoff being investigated – Abramoff makes calls – investigator demoted and muzzled. I think most people wouldn’t need a money laundering road map or a Plame cast of characters to follow that and there is almost no way to “spin†it favorably. No esoteric arguments about the President’s “executive power†are going to play in that setting. IMO. FWiw.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

John - Thank You! That article has new stuff for me (I didn’t know about the calls for an independent investigation). Last article I read was a tiny blurb a few months ago, and before that several months back a Globe piece that had a lot of meat. I especially liked this part:

“If the inspector general determines that there is evidence of a criminal violation, he will bring that information to the appropriate prosecuting office within the Department of Justice for review,” wrote Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, with Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs.

Isn’t Moshella the one who got to sign off on the prose version of : “we don’t need no stinking warrants†NSA wiretap theory? So when DOJ speaks through him, the version we hear is that “if the President authorized it, it’s not a crime.†OK - I don’t actually “like” that part. It’s part of what really really really don’t like. DOJ these days is like a big firm, working for an even bigger crime family – bifurcated duties.

Some of them get to swim in the chlorinated pool and do real law; some get to go brief torture and habeas suspensions and rendition and their ace in the hole is that, unlike the crim def lawyers for a crime family, they get to say: “it’s legal for us to kill an torture – really, it is, we promise.â€

It just doesn’t get much better than that.

Iran’s supersonic missiles? Moskit and/or Sunburn

Joe Vialls wrote about them a few years ago

You have to take what he says about “zionists” with a pinch of salt, but the info on the moskits is spot-on

shooter needs to go back to the basement and keep his shortwave company.

whoo wee GSD– ain’t nobody driving them honking SUV’s gonna be happy. I filled up yesterday at a local station and said to the young lad that oil had hit 70 dollars a barrel, he said oh man, now my dad won’t let me use the ski doo this summer. the owner came out and said, well, when we get our delivery today the price will go up 11 cents. sullen young man… nobody’s gonna be happy with bushco… weeeeeee!

John Casper #65

Yeah, it’s so funny I forgot to laugh.

Taylor,

re: the China link, there’s plenty more where that came from, and the indians (in the Drums Along the Mohawk sense) are right behind me.

Thanks for your post, by the way, and for all your other guest posts here.

I think part of what Ritter is saying about Sheehan is the flipside of what he is saying about gorifying the military. Military service does not confer uber-citizen status, and being the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq doesn’t necessarily give you a greater voice in calling our government on its illegal wars. Certainly, Sheehan’s story resonates because of her son’s death, but ultimately she is either right, or she isn’t, and her son has nothing to do with it. Many mothers of dead soldiers support the war 100%– are they right? How can you bitch about the war if they don’t? The answer is you can because you are a citizen of the United States, and have a right to call the government on its bullshit, regardless of your level of victimhood.

And his attack on the anti-war movement’s lack of focus is dead on. How many times have you seen photos or footage from protests where the anti-war message is mixed with a grab bag of lefty issues? And how often does the rightwing noise machine use that lack of focus to make the movement look ridiculous?

wrt previous post on sierra club & chaffee… carl pope now has an article up at huffingtonpost on this very subject - with, so far, only 4 comments. maybe this would be a good venue for a possibly illuminating (on both sides) discussion?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....19483.html

BobbyG and mainsailset,

my deepest sympathies to both of you . you have experienced every parent’s worst nightmare and I applaud your strength in sharing it here

angie, mainsailset -

Thanks for the kind words. Bless you.

My girls, 1974, ages 6 and 4, right after I got custody: http://www.bgladd.com/my_girls.jpg

We hear mostly about the smearing of Joe Wilson in the run-up to the Iraq war, but Scott Ritter was the object of equal or greater discrediting. Sadly, each day, it looks more and more like the few naysayers at the time may have been spot on.

In retrospect, what I think is most frustrating, given the amount of international capital the US had post 9/11, is how quickly we squandered that capital. I’m reminded of the old expression, “Ill gotten gains”. The degree to which we took advantage of the situation may, when history has been written, be seen as one of the most defining American miscalculations.

more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

cbl -
Thanks, really appreciate it.

new thread: “Xtian right”

al-Scooter,

The score is starting out dissonant, may it end in sweet harmony. The choreography is shaping up to be, umm, dynamite.

mainsailset– I am sorry for your loss ;(
I am always amazed that the world does not stop spinning on its axis in the face of such grief.

BobbyG– sweet, sweet little ones.

shooter #63:
I hope everyone reads the link in that comment, so they can judge for themselves whether this shooter is straight or crooked. Or a fool. I hope he is not banned, since the link is worth reading. If shooter brings valuable links like this to the blog, I don’t care if he acts trollish at all. He might want to reconsider comments that make him look silly.
I will say plainly that if this shooter commenter things that article says Ritter was bribed by Iran, then shooter is a fool. But, everyone read for themselves and see what they think.

Daniel DiRito says:
April 20th, 2006 at 3:49 pm

“…In retrospect, what I think is most frustrating, given the amount of international capital the US had post 9/11, is how quickly we squandered that capital.”

The ONE thing Bush excels at. Squandering others’ capital. Look at his entire life’s track record. Dude is a fucking “loser.”

Or maybe shooter is a she.

Ritter’s reference to factions within factions gets to something I’ve been wondering about: namely, how many sides are there in this civil war?

“…how many sides are there in this civil war?”

Uhhh.h..how many tribes are there in Iraq?

angie -

See my latest blog post for an update on my little little one (scroll down).

http://santafeandthefatcityhorns.blogspot.com/

:)

Proud papa. I adopted her when she was born.