If Only They Had Been As Wary Before…

 … they proceeded to invade this country, before they destroyed this society, creating terror, refugees, and causing thousands of civilian deaths. Had they been so then, one might take them seriously now, one might believe them when they say they are concerned about the Iraqis and their welfare.

The Week in Iraq
‘Good now’
by Lily Hamourtziadou

17 Feb 2008

‘Results for 2007 prove that – Baghdad is good now,’ the Iraqi Defence Minister Abdel Qader Jassim Mohammed said last week, while attending a conference in Dubai. Is that right? Is Baghdad good now? Let’s look at what the figures show:

In 2007, 10,700 civilians were killed in Baghdad, about half of those killed overall in Iraq. More recently, 233 civilians were killed 1-18 February 2008. How good is that? And by what standards? The only good thing about all this is that it is happening somewhere else, to some other unfortunate people, to someone else’s country, someone else’s life. As long as this nightmare is someone else’s reality, we can speak of ‘good’ things, of ‘good’ developments, of ‘improved’ security, of some sort of ‘normality’ returning.

All due to the famous ‘surge’ no doubt, as many have suggested. Here is an excerpt from Al-Sabah, concerning Prime Minister Al-Maliki’s visit to Baghdad’s Mansour district:

“life has got back to normal pace in the previously volatile neighbourhoods of Baghdad, due to the security achievements in combating terror by the Iraqi security forces and with the cooperation of the local inhabitants.”

That is what the Iraqi PM stated. So the security plan ‘Enforcing the Law’ was a success. As much as it could be, when as many as 22,000 civilians died during the year of its implementation. Around 1,300 of his civilian population, people to whom PM al-Maliki is accountable, were killed by his ‘allies,’ his country’s occupiers, its supposed protectors.

As for the past week, over 180 civilians lost their lives in violence, 28 by US fire. Of the 180, 20 were children. In Mosul, locals are bracing themselves for the US/Iraqi offensive to ‘flush out insurgents.’ According to Azzaman newspaper, tens of thousands of residents are fleeing to safer areas, as US and Iraqi troops are putting up security barriers and walls in the city.

In the US, as much as in Iraq, the debate over troop withdrawals is raging. Top US diplomat in Iraq Ryan Crocker warned against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, as that could place the security of Iraqis in jeopardy. ‘Anyone contemplating that course of action should contemplate very seriously what the consequences would be,’ he told the Guardian.

The Iraqi Defence Minister agrees. His country needs the US army to ‘protect its borders’ and for ‘strategic deterrence.’ As for John McCain, frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, US withdrawal from Iraq in the near future would mean ‘chaos’ and possibly ‘genocide.’

How worried they all are about the consequences of such an action. How wary they are of an ensuing genocide, of chaos, of the collapse of the state, the society, the rule of law. If only they had been as wary before they proceeded to invade this country, before they destroyed this society, creating terror, refugees, and causing thousands of civilian deaths. Had they been so then, one might take them seriously now, one might believe them when they say they are concerned about the Iraqis and their welfare.

But those responsible for such devastation have lost their credibility. They lost it long ago, when they defied all the rules, when they went against all that is humane. When they lied to us all.

‘US Struggles to Tutor Iraqis in Rule of Law’ read the headline (New York Times, 16 Feb. 2008). I nearly laughed.

Armageddon Flowchart

Armageddon Flowchart

America At Risk? Why Does the GOP Hate America?

View Glenn’s article here(this my favorite Constitutional Law blog). He has all the videos up and several that point out that it almost appears that they are staging everything. Well, duh…

GOP Politics in a nutshell
by Glenn Greenwald

The House Republicans have produced a new dramatic ad (below) complaining about expiration of The Protect America Act and demanding immediate passage of the Cheney/Rockefeller Senate bill — thus vesting in the government the power to spy on us with no warrants and vesting in the telecom industry license to break the law with no consequences — as the only way for us to avoid imminent, violent death (h/t Kathryn Jean Lopez). The ad — entitled “America at Risk” — should immediately be mounted on a museum wall under a plaque that reads: “The Republican Party in U.S., 2001-2008 (and counting).”

Impressively, the ad dramatically packs every component of GOP politics into one minute: There are dark, primitively omnipotent Arab Terrorists lurking darkly and menacingly, planning to slaughter you and your whole entire family right now. You have only a few seconds to live, literally or metaphorically. The clock on your life is counting down right now. You are in severe danger.

We want more unchecked government power. You better give it to us, or else the Terrorists will kill you all. Give up more power to us, do what we say, and you can lay your head down on your pillow at night without a care in the world, knowing that we love you and are keeping you Safe and Protected — Keeping America Protected — like a baby snugly embraced in the fetus. You want that, don’t you? We want to give it to you. The House Democrats want you dead.

The ad uses the typing-in-progress computer font and a Heritage-like stopwatch counting the seconds before we’re all dead, as popularized by 24 and scary Terrorist movies. It stars Admiral Mike McConnell, the telecom industry’s personal cabinet member and a completely apolitical, trustworthy government official, even though he was appointed by and reports to George W. Bush and has been caught lying in the past about our intelligence programs and hysterically hyping Terrorist threats for base political gain. But when he speaks, on Fox, that is Objective Authority warning us that we will all be dead — and soon — unless we give in to every one of the Leader’s demands.

The ad also features a convincing cameo by Democrat Jay Rockefeller, in the role normally played by Dick Cheney, warning in stern, Serious, forehead-scrunched, paternal tones that we’re all going to die soon without his bill. The whole thing is set to blood-pumping, They’re-coming!! music. It’s very uplifting, very exciting, and not at all manipulative or exploitive. We just need to be safe. That’s all that matters. Please, anything for that. Spy on us with no warrants. Give everything to the telecom industry that they demand. Just please protect us in your strong and loving arms.

Just by the way, the whole premise of the ad is that we’re all about to be slaughtered because the Protect America Act expired. It expired because George Bush threatened to veto any extensions and House Republicans unanimously voted against any extension. Our blood, to be gushing shortly like a volcanic eruption, will be on their loving, protective hands.

Bush: The Most Successful President Ever

You should read this excellent article at Black Agenda Report where Margaret Kimberly corrects my assertion that Bush is a failure: 

Among people who call themselves “progressives,” it is common to hear George W. Bush derided as an idiot, a fool, an incompetent. In reality, “Bush is clearly the most successful president in modern history,” having stolen two elections, wrecked the Constitution and pursued wars with no end in sight - all with absolute impunity. The Democrats’ pitiful weaknesses are Bush’s strengths, the reason he prevails. Unless he is impeached, Bush’s legacy will last long beyond his term in office, since “a Democratic president will not undo what Bush has wrought” - not Obama, not Clinton. “The lack of movement politics and dependence on the hapless Democratic party have made the Bush winning streak possible and guarantee that it will continue after he leaves office.” Bush is triumphant. The “opposition” has failed.

 I must admit that in that light, he is truly more successful than any other. IF, what has occurred is actually planned and not foolish incompetence, much like that of Inspector Jacque Cluseau (except in this case many thousands die instead of laughing).

But of course it is planned.

Think about this… how many Texas rednecks talk like that at Princeton, Yale and Harvard? Really? They would be laughed out of the school if they were actually as stupid as he performs. For it is to the point that so much unadulterated evil cannot be simple stupidity, but much more sinister. Calculated.

George W. Bush is an intellectual mediocrity who was never legitimately elected president in the first place. He now faces Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and has an abysmal approval rating. It never seems to matter. Bush is clearly the most successful president in modern history.

Where has he failed? He wanted to win by hook or crook, and he stole an election. He then perfected the art of electoral theft to insure more Republican victories. He wanted to loot the treasury for the benefit of corporations and wealthy individuals and he has. He wanted to invade Iraq, steal its resources and make it a cash cow for corporations and he did just that. He wanted to expand his power to conduct surveillance on anyone and he did. He declares that the president is above the law and can do anything he wants, including hold citizens indefinitely without trial. He has done that as well.

I believe that Chomsky agrees with me that this is a staged persona… one intent on baiting Democrats to attack Bush so that he can call them “Elitists” and “Upper Crust”, etc, while he is truly the “Good Ole Boy”.

Maybe. But if so, it is extremely difficult to believe that he has PLANNED each and every foible and idiocy that he has done.

 What do you think? Is Bush Brilliant or a Moron?

Trent Lott: Mississippi’s Pride and Joy

I hope you rednecks are proud of your criminal ex-Senator:

U.S. Investigates Whether Lott Had Role in Mississippi Judge Case
Federal Inquiry Examines
Former Senator’s Links
To a Scruggs Suit Ruling

By PAULO PRADA and ASHBY JONES

Federal agents are investigating whether former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott knowingly played a role in an alleged conspiracy in 2006 to influence a Mississippi judge presiding over a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against famed plaintiff attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, according to people familiar with the situation.

Mr. Scruggs and several associates are scheduled to stand trial March 31 on charges that they offered $40,000 in bribes to State Court Judge Henry L. Lackey in return for a favorable ruling in a lawsuit against Mr. Scruggs over $26.5 million in legal fees.

Mr. Lott, who is a brother-in-law to Mr. Scruggs, unexpectedly announced his resignation from the Senate two days before Mr. Scruggs was indicted last November. Since then, Mr. Lott has been interviewed by federal agents at least once, according to a person familiar with the case.

The U.S. attorney’s office in Oxford, Miss., which is leading the investigation, is also examining whether several associates of Mr. Scruggs induced a different Mississippi jurist, Hinds County Judge Robert Delaughter, to rule in favor of Mr. Scruggs in a separate lawsuit by promising that Mr. Lott would recommend Judge Delaughter for a seat on the federal bench.

The two lawsuits were about whether Mr. Scruggs owed former legal associates tens of millions of dollars in disputes over legal fees.

In return for the ruling Mr. Scruggs was seeking, Judge Delaughter was told in early 2006 that Mr. Scruggs could arrange for him to be considered for an appointment as a federal district-court judge, according to a transcript of a plea hearing on Jan. 7 at which an associate of Mr. Scruggs pleaded guilty.

Aides to Mr. Lott said in November that the Republican senator’s resignation had nothing to do with the Scruggs indictment. Mr. Lott, who now works in Washington at a lobbying firm he recently founded with former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux, has declined to comment since then on the judicial investigation. Mr. Scruggs and Judge Delaughter also have declined to comment.

Deborah Madden, a spokeswoman for the Jackson, Miss., office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, declined to comment on the specifics of the probe or confirm the identity of any people it may investigate.

Several people familiar with the situation say that associates of Mr. Scruggs told investigators that Mr. Scruggs relayed Judge Delaughter’s interest in the federal judgeship to then-Sen. Lott. In early 2006, Mr. Lott called the judge and discussed his interest in the federal bench, those people say. Seven months later, in August 2006, Judge Delaughter delivered a ruling widely considered favorable to Mr. Scruggs.

A month after that, President Bush nominated a Gulfport, Miss., lawyer named Halil “Sul” Ozerden to the vacant seat on the federal bench Mr. Delaughter had allegedly been interested in. People familiar with the process said Mr. Lott and Mississippi’s other U.S. senator, Thad Cochran, approved of the appointment. The full Senate confirmed Mr. Ozerden in April 2007.

A person familiar with Mr. Lott’s activities at the time confirmed he called Judge Delaughter, but said the call wasn’t made specifically at the behest of Mr. Scruggs. Mr. Lott routinely called “dozens of people” across Mississippi as a matter of Senate business, the person said.

The Mississippi judicial bribery investigation began last year when Judge Lackey told federal investigators that he had been offered a bribe by an attorney speaking on behalf of Mr. Scruggs. The FBI equipped the judge’s chamber with surveillance equipment, and over several months recorded Timothy Balducci, the attorney who offered the bribe, paying it to the judge in cash installments.

Federal agents confronted Mr. Balducci with the evidence last November and he began secretly cooperating with investigators to collect evidence against Mr. Scruggs. Mr. Balducci and Steven A. Patterson, a partner in Mr. Balducci’s firm, later pleaded guilty in connection with the Lackey case.

Admissions by those two men, according to people familiar with the investigation, led to a guilty plea by Joseph C. Langston, another associate of Mr. Scruggs’, on charges that he took part in the alleged attempt to influence Judge Delaughter.

Mr. Langston admitted at the January plea hearing that he and Mr. Patterson paid $50,000 in cash in December 2005 to Ed Peters, a lawyer and close friend of Mr. Delaughter’s. In return, Mr. Peters was to act as a conduit for out-of-court communications between the Scruggs legal team and Judge Delaughter, according to testimony by Thomas Dawson, a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Oxford.

Shortly thereafter, according to court testimony, Messrs. Scruggs and Langston learned that Mr. Delaughter was interested in becoming a federal judge. “Based on this knowledge,” the prosecutor said, “Scruggs told Langston to let the judge know that if he ruled in his favor he would pass his name along for consideration regarding the federal judgeship.” Mr. Peters didn’t return calls seeking comment.

At a hearing on motions related to Mr. Scruggs’s trial yesterday, Mr. Balducci testified that Mr. Scruggs tried to use Sen. Lott to influence Mr. Delaughter.

Mr. Scruggs rose to prominence in the 1990s after winning a $206 billion settlement from the tobacco industry on behalf of 46 states.

The case before Judge Delaughter was one of two longstanding lawsuits against Mr. Scruggs by former partners with whom he had pursued the asbestos industry on behalf of plaintiffs beginning in the mid-1980s. In the first case, Mr. Scruggs was ordered to pay a former law partner about $17 million in unpaid fees, interest, and damages. In the second, an outside expert approved by Mr. Delaughter had recommended the court rule that Mr. Scruggs owed a former legal associate $15 million.

In his August 2006 ruling, Mr. Delaughter said the partner was due only unpaid legal fees totaling $1.5 million, not the full $15 million.

1 in 5 STILL Love our Maniac in Chief

The American Research Group presented some poll results that show W to be the very worst president that this country has ever had. His popularity ratings are dismally low, but within those numbers I find some very odd statistics that prove to me that Party loyalty means more than truth, honor and integrity.

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush’s handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.

19% approve? If you want my honest opinion, that number is WAY TOO LARGE. After the idiocy that is “W” has caused so much pain and suffering in the world, has caused our economy to fall into oblivion, who lies with unadulterated abandon, and who appears to be one of the stupidest men who ever could have hijacked that position, I cannot (within myself) find a single thing that he can be praised for. I cannot think of a single issue in which I could say, “I am proud that George W Bush is my president”.

What has he done that is beneficial for this country? The War on Terra? That’s good? The tax cuts to the wealthiest, where my $600 tax cut is essentially worthless? WTF has he done for this country except take it to the brink of ruin?

Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 15% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 79% disapprove.

OK, at least the people who vote are just a bit better in their estimation, but not much, especially in the economic area.

Among Republicans (29% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 45% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 50% disapprove. Among Democrats (43% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 1% approve and 99% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 17% approve and 75% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

Well, THERE ya go. You want to know why this man with no integrity, honor, truth or decency still has such a “high” approval rating? Party Politics. Period. These are the same people who swear they are the party of decency, the party of God, etc. Yet, they endorse and support the most monstrous Imperialist that they could have ever endorsed. The Party of God backs this man (and will continue to until his successor is chosen) no matter what harm he has brought with the PNAC neocon ideology (which, in truth, has nothing whatsoever to do with what Republicans used to believe and support) to the rest of the world and us… America.

This party backs failures to its own demise and now is still lockstep with a controlling few that are so far away from their core “values”, but they apparently haven’t figured that out, or, as I suspect, they are complicit in the idiocy. The once respectable Republican Party is now the ReTHUGlican Party. Do I have to explain? And, no, I am not a Democrat, just to be clear.

Among Republicans, 41% approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 54% disapprove. Among Democrats, 93% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy and 1% approve. Among independents, 8% approve and 83% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy.

A total of 1% of Americans say that the national economy is getting better, 20% say it is staying the same, and 78% say the national economy is getting worse.

So, Party allegiance has nothing to do with it? Is that what I read in your mind?

Let me ask you, if 41% of the THUGS approve of the way “W” is handling the economy, but only 1% think the economy is improving, can anyone explain that discrepancy, except that this is simply Party Loyalty shining bright for all to see? 93% of Dems disapprove (but surely they are just party hacks, as well, right?) and 83% of Indys (that’s me) disapprove.

So, when I read these types of stats, it becomes apparent to me that for a full 41% of THUGS to approve, while a full 78% of all people claim that the economy is getting worse, the THUGS are really quite happy with the economy going to hell.

God Bless America and the Party!