Can't Have It Both Ways!

For more than three years now the USA has been going through the most harsh economic conditions in recent memory plagued by unemployment, home foreclosures, economic recession & resulting stagnation, and mounting national debt (among other things). The causes are complicated (beyond my comprehension), but several thing are clear: we probably dodged a big bullet due to some questionable remedial decisions, we don't know for sure when the seed to this problem was sowed, that it probably started in the 1990s (during the Clinton years), but that the GW Bush administration. The latter group broke all records for running the country off the cliff, including the unprecedented move of slashing taxes while starting 2 expensive wars.

When the revisionists were quick to blame President Obama for the current economic situation, they cited the fact that he's the President now, he should own it, it's time to stop blaming Bush. They conveniently ignored the fact that the economy and unemployment are a lagging indicator.

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt, like they were acting in good faith.

Enter the location and execution of Osama bin Laden.

Now the Bush apologists are tripping over themselves to trot before the cable "news" shows about how the W agenda is directly responsible for the OBL killing. No matter he gave up on OBL in 2005. Responsible for getting OBL, not responsible for the economy. Hmmmmm....

And, with regard with the popular discussion on the torture thing, consider the following story on WaPo. We miss the point. Whether it works is only one of the 3 questions. Does it work (answered above), is there a more effective method (not torture), and do we want this to be what defines us. Don't forgot we executed Germans and Japanese after WW II for it.

Dying Gasps

As the W Bush monarchy approaches it's end, it continues to practice the art of public relations sleight-of-hand. A remnant of Master Rove--who has moved on to his next target now that this one has been spent--as if on auto-pilot they continue to try and kick the can down the road to run out the clock, thus hoping history will share the blame of the Iraq invasion with another administration.

The latest production, a staged photo-op (and followup revue) to sell the sizzle of the successful "surge" (we LOVE simplistic B&W plots), will no doubt unravel 6 months from now when the institutional memory of the "surge" will give way to Britney or OJ's latest. This can has been kicked out 6 months (give or take) for the last 4+ years and we still don't get it. And it drastically differs from a recent GAO report which concludes quite the opposite.

A respected journalist (for the BBC, possibly the most respected investigative journalistic organization in the world), Greg Palast, has chronicled a raw, honest look at the latest in Iraq. He references another respected BBC employee, cameraman Rick Rowley, and a recent piece he shot in Anbar. He's there; Joe Sixpack (and John McCain) ain't.

The story is in blog form, meaning crude. But take a look at the detail behind the recent Petraeus show. Then look at Rowley's video (below, 2 parts). Lastly, tell me if you fully understand the intricacies of the Iraq puzzle and if you can describe the components of "winning".

Helter Skelter

They say that the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over and expecting different results. This definition fits to a T George Bush's "plan" (it's more of an adjustment than a plan) to escalate the occupation of Iraq.

This latest cynical attempt to run out the clock on his watch demonstrates his continuous and blatant total disregard for what is right for the U.S. and the American people. Increasing the troop level in Iraq by 15% is like offering a person suffering from hyperhydration a glass of water. Every credible authority on the situation on the ground in Iraq agrees that U.S. troop presence in the country is the main reason for the level of the violence. This is a problem in need of a political solution, not a military one. Our military forces are designed to fight wars, not police anarchic cities.

And of course we are hearing a new wave of old hyperbole and meaningless rhetoric from W and his rapidly dwindling pool of sycophants. "The Dems have no plan, we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, failure is not an option" and on and on. One change, W has recently broken new ground by talking to reporters other than FOX folks, such as his recent appearances on 60 Minutes and The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Unfortunately he's still sputtering the same tired material: simplistic generalizations, childish metaphors, and gross misinformation which show he either doesn't understand the complex issues or doesn't care. And he's still doing it in an arrogant, cynical, condescending manner. Like a sarcastic cheerleader. As conservative David Brooks put it, "he needs to talk to people as adults, not down to them as 5 year olds".

The problem is there is no good option anymore, it's going to be ugly any direction we go at this point. The best option would have been to not invade in the first place. The second best option would have been to go in with sufficient troop levels to initially maintain order. And the third best option would have been to preserve the civil and social infrastructure. But those doors have closed years ago. The absolute worst option is to stay the course, but add more fuel to the fire with additional troops.