Dueling quotes

"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. It is just as arrogant, just as despotic, in London, or in Washington, as in Berlin. The American Jingo is twin to the German Junker…. If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another."
--Robert M. La Follette

John McCain quotes:

September 2002: "Success in Iraq will be fairly easy."

March 20, 2003: “But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.”

April 9, 2003: “It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.”

April 23, 2003: “There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.”

December 12, 2003: “This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.”

March 7, 2004: “I’m confident we’re on the right course.”

October 31, 2004: "I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.”

December 8, 2005: “I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.”

January 4, 2007: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that he knew the Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough,” and that he was “sorry” for those who voted for the war believing it would be “some kind of an easy task.”

August 18, 2007: It’s entertaining, in that I was the greatest critic of the initial four years, three and a half years. I came back from my first trip to Iraq and said, This is going to fail. We’ve got to change the strategy to the one we’re using now. But life isn’t fair.

January 4, 2008: We'll stay 100 years.

January 4, 2008 (later): Make it a thousand, no... A MILLION!

May 15, 2008: Okay, okay, make me President and we'll be leaving by 2013, when have I ever been wrong before?

May 27, 2008: "I will never surrender in Iraq, my friends, I will never surrender in Iraq." (to protesters demanding "End this War!") So ending the war means "surrender"...at least until 2013.

Link

On the eve of another war

This is all about Politics. But it's important. And it's about Autumn, so I'm throwing in pictures of her.

For a number of reasons, I happen to think the US will engage in a conflict with Iran this year. And as 5 years of this war in iraq passes, with the 'troop and treasure' losses more staggering than is imaginable, we find ourselves in a most frustrating place.

Namely: The American people seem to overwhelmingly want the War in Iraq to end. Whereas, the Bush Administration seems bent on escalating the war to include Iran.


It's a baffling situation. But I guess this is the thing: if it's true Americans don't want war in Iraq (and some of them didn't want war in Afghanistan), then surely they mustn't want War in Iran.

But alas, the problem is, when the US went to war in Iraq, it appeared the majority of Americans wanted it. I remember sitting on a couch talking to someone I would call a pacifist poet, listening to her tell me what a monster Saddam Hussein was.

The thing is, he was a monster. And I was arguing to let him stay in power. So I found myself in the impossible position of explaining that even though he was a monster, it was not reason to justify war. It was a position that seemed perilously close to defending him.

It wasn't. It was a position that says there are monsters all over the world (including perhaps, in Iran). But the important question is this: is it America's responsibility to cleanse the world of monsters?


And another question emerged: was attention was being paid to this monster because of oil and anger? The administration cared about oil -- that isn't a conspiracy theory. When they invaded, they shored up the oil fields and left the Museums and Hospitals open and subject to looting.


The anger was from the American people. The events of 911 were still fresh in their minds. Thus, you get this, a well thought out response, five years after, to people who switched.

"People who supported the invasion of Iraq were fatuous, bloodthirsty, ahistorical, immoral, politically naive, callous, unthinking, reprehensible morons--to the man. The proper attitude is contrition, silence, and contemplation. Making a gaudy spectacle of having "supported" something so awful, even if only to show how smart you were to change your mind when you noticed things going south, is disgusting."

So here we are. Five years into a war we don't want. Six years into a war that we have forgotten. And possibly on the eve of another war.

And the question is, what to do? Will Autumn's life really be one lived in a perpetual war that she will spend her life paying for?

Uh oh

I haven't talked a lot about politics lately. Like the Main Stream Press, the war in Iraq has gone off the front pages. what has also gone off the front pages is the possible strike on Iran.

With nukes.

This month has been bad for those who hope beyond hope that President Bush will not invade, attack, or otherwise bomb Iran before he gets out of office.

First, the guy who was most against war with Iran 'retired'. Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, has decided to retire early. He had gone on the record as saying there would be no war with Iran on his watch. In his retirement announcement he said:

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the President's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region,"

Uh oh.

Next, a Saudi newspaper reports that Saudi Arabia is preparing for nuclear fall out. Saudi Arabia is very close to Iran in terms of geography. And since the papers are government controlled, this is most likely a tactic of some sort. It didn't get picked up by the mainstream press here. Oh, and the Saudi preparation came after the Vepp paid them a visit.

Double uh oh.

And finally this:

"Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets."

To recap: The guy in the army who said we wouldn't bomb Iran on his watch has left the building. Saudi Arabia is preparing for nuclear fall-out. The guy leading the troops in Iraq has just blamed Iran for an attack in Iraq.

That's the kind of stuff that gets one thinking the USA is about to nuke another country. Crikey, we're buggered.

15 billion a month

$15,000,000,000.00

Take a look at that number. That's how much a Senator thinks the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ('member that one?) is costing. The senator in this clip is a Republican from Alaska. When a Republican speaks like this, you know the excrement has hit the fan.



Remember those quant days when guys like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz said that Iraqi oil would all but pay for the war?

Cool

A long time ago, I had surgery. My roommate in the hospital was Mike Ford of the band Moxy Fruvous. You might have never heard of them. They sang some really fun songs along side some really powerful tunes.

This is a song they sang in 1992 about the first gulf war. It's updated for this one.



They also sang a hilarious song called Green Eggs and Ham. Autumn would love it. i would love to find it.

Torturous logic

Been away for a few days curling. Didn't even check e-mail. I just saw this from ALAN DERSHOWITZ, who writes in the Wall Street Journal an article called "Democrats and Waterboarding" with a subhead: The party will lose the presidential race if it defines itself as soft on terror.

Right off the bat, something interesting. Since we know that Democrats are the party on record against waterboarding, that means that being 'soft on terror' appears to mean not torturing.

Also, in Dershowitz's world, Republicans appear to be okay with torture, specifically waterboarding. Now, that might seem like a logical fallacy for me to make that leap. Just because he says that being against torture means being soft on terror, and we all know that Republicans aren't soft on terror, so they must be for torture.

But then, in the article, he makes two incredible statements:

Copied verbatim:

"Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture, I have no doubt that any president--indeed any leader of a democratic nation--would in fact authorize some forms of torture against a captured terrorist if he believed that this was the only way of securing information necessary to prevent an imminent mass casualty attack. The only dispute is whether he would do so openly with accountability or secretly with deniability. The former seems more consistent with democratic theory, the latter with typical political hypocrisy."

Emphasis mine. So, he's advocating that Democrats should be for something that he's personally against. Perhaps it's this bizarre position that gets him tied up in rhetorical knots because the very next paragraph in the piece goes like this:

"There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works--it only produces false information. This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives."

To recap his argument: I, Alan Dershowitz am advocating that Democrats follow the policy of the Nazi government which proved that torture (which I am against) works.

The shorter version: "Hey Democrats, why are you against something that was good enough for Hitler?"

Holy crap, that's gotta be the weirdest argument in the history of arguments.

Pot/Kettle black

Dana Perino is the White House Press Secretary. She speaks for the president:

Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.

Look: it's possible that the things the Bush Administration are doing to chip away at American's freedoms are in fact going to protect us. Perhaps the ability to listen to our calls, hold us indefinitely without charge, rifle through our e-mails will ensure the safety of all of us.

But to suggest so boldly that these things fit the Constitution? Either Ms. Perino hasn't been paying attention, or she really does think what her boss is doing is constitutional. Take a look:

First Amendment: In September, a federal judge ruled that the FBI’s use of secret “national security letters” to obtain citizens’ personal data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations “violate[d] the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers.”

First Amendment, Fourth Amendment: In Aug. 2006, a federal district court in Detroit ruled that the Bush administration's NSA warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, violating the “separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III.”

Article I: Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attempted to justify the administration’s detainee policy by claiming, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution reads: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”)

Article II: In June, House investigators revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney had exempted his office from an executive order order designed to safeguard classified national security information by claiming that he was not an “entity within the executive branch.”

You. Can't. Be. Serious.

Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran.

That's 52% of likely American voters favor starting another war against another country that didn't invade or attack the US. Holy smokes. Look around people, according to Zogby, more than one out of every two people you see wants to start another war.

Insanity

A President who didn't get elected the first time, who may not have actually won Ohio (and the Presidency) the second time, with a 25% approval rating, who has managed to do absolutely nothing of substance in 6 years, is about to start another war that just might make things in the Good old USof A a little less stable.

Here's the thing: the war in Iraq, the one that Paul Wolfowitz promised would pay for itself (he was wrong, and for being so wrong on the numbers, they put him in charge of the world bank), will most likely end up costing each of us (Autumn included) $8,000. that being said, outside of a little outrage, the war really doesn't impact us. We get up, go to work, come home, watch some tube, play with Autumn, and repeat. In Iraq, of course, there hasn't been normalcy for a long time, but that's a whole different point.

The point is, when war in Iran comes, and it will come in the next few months, that's when things change. Don't believe me? The Senate already almost unanimously voted to call Iran's Army a terrorist force. Even Chris Dodd, the guy I think has recently showed leadership, voted for it. And thus, one day soon, Iran's army will engage the American Army, either because the American Army enters Iran, or some other reason, and President Bush will come on tv and announce tactical bunker busting munitions (with nuclear material in them) and launch them on Iran. And then, all hell will break loose.

Consider for a second. This whole war on terror came from 19 guys based in Afghanistan, most of them Saudi Arabian (none of them Iranian or Iraqi). The response has been to invade then leave Afghanistan. Invade and stay in Iraq. And now most-likely, invade Iran. All the while, the guy who claims responsibility for the whole thing is somewhere in the country you left, or in Pakistan. To think that people in Pakistan and India will sit back and continue to watch America run willy-nilly around western Asia is like thinking Iraq's oil will pay for this war.

I wonder when the day comes that Autumn's country won't be at war in her life. I'm afraid it won't be soon.

More on Amnesty

Or should that say moron amnesty? This is a simple chart from the guy I guess I support. And while it might seem like I'm a one-issue guy, I'm not really. This is called leadership. And when it comes to leadership, actions matter more than words. Even though Obama is now against Amnesty, and there's no doubt Hillary will eventually be against it, neither one showed leadership. In my humble little Canadian opinion, that's what's needed from our leaders. Some leadership. So, here's the thing. Click on it to find out what to do, if you want.

Strange stat

We all know the cost of the war in Iraq is high. Whether you're for it, or against it, the cost in "treasure and blood" has been a lot. I just heard this stat, and it made my jaw drop.

In one day, the US spends $720 million in Iraq. That's enough to give 420,000 kids free health care for that day.

There are some things wrong with this stat. Does it mean that all 420,000 would see a doctor that day? Does it assume some people won't get sick? It's a vague stat, just like the money spent in one day in Iraq is a vague number. Like for instance, $500,000 a minute. What does that even mean? A million in two minutes? The numbers are so staggeringly high, that they lack perspective.

Music

I'm not that big into music. Not like Rhona. Still, I like music. I like to listen to it, I like to watch it, and I like to sing. I sing badly, but that doesn't mean I don't do it. Anyway, the other day we were watching Shut up and Sing, the documentary on the Dixie Chicks. And their song, "Not ready to make nice" came on. And it gave me the chills.

Rhona had long talked about getting the chills from music, but it was a rarity for it to happen to me. But this song did. And it got me thinking. there's another song that I really like. It's a song by Green Day called "Holiday". Both have a killer lyric that says a lot about the times we currently live in.

In "Not Ready To Make Nice", the lyric is:

I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over

It's a powerful song, sang with real emotion. Here's the song:



In live versions of Holiday, Green Day introduce this song with the line, "This song is not anti-American, it's anti war". The lyric in this song comes near the end. The first time I heard it, I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Sieg Heil to the president Gasman
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel towers
Who criticize your government

I'll admit it. Both songs give me the chills. And while we're at it, here's another two that you might have never heard. The first is a true protest song. Absolute. The sad part is that this is from 2004.



And finally. This song isn't a protest song. But Midnight Oil is one of my favorite bands. And this is one of my favorite songs. I was going to link to information about the band, but then I began reading stuff on Peter Garrett, the bands lead singer. About how he now is a member of parliament in Australia and he supports the US-Australian alliance, whatever that means. Here's the song anyway.



There you go. Music that moves me. What moves you?

Just keeping you informed

President Bush is asking for another 50 billion for the war in Iraq. That means, this year, he will spend 200 billion on the war. For perspective, that's $670 in taxes, per person for the war. In her life so far, Autumn has contributed $1000 to this war.

Only, she still owes it. This isn't pro-or anti war. The fact that she has spent $1000 on the war doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the war.

Unity where there isn't any

The Iraqi soccer team is in the final of the Asian Cup. The European Cup is a hug deal, but just for the record, the Asian Cup is equally special -- if you happen to be Asian. There are world class teams in this event. So the Iraqi's understandably happy. But there's another angle, of course, to this story:

From here a quote:

Iraq's run in the Asian Cup has been a cause of rare joy in the Gulf nation, where people are saying the national team, with its mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, demonstrates that the warring ethnic and religious factions can unite despite years of sectarian violence.

Can a soccer game save a country? Many people smarter than me will debate that. And they'll point out that bombs killed people celebrating the win in Iraq earlier. But we'll see right?

More

Even Fox news?

According to a report on Friday from Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, a newly released U.S. Military Handbook Labels Media "A Threat" alongside hackers, Al Queda, and a host of other people.

Media. A threat. To the Army. In the US.

Take a deep breath and think about that. Does Bill O'Reilly from Fox News know he's the bad guy?

Update: this headline from Fox news maybe shed's some light on why the media might be the bad guy:

NRA Opposes Bill Banning Terror Watch List Suspects From Buying Guns.

Really. Wow. I'm speechless.