Withdrawing from Reality

From the New York Times today:

WASHINGTON, May 25 — The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

The Washington insiders talk, the press dutifully "reports." If this seems familiar, it's because it is.

The idea that there is any really serious consideration of a troop decrease or anything resembling a withdrawal is clearly piffle:

So far, the concepts are entirely a creation of Washington and have been developed without the involvement of the top commanders in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, both of whom have been enthusiastic supporters of the troop increase.

Those generals and other commanders have made it clear that they are operating on a significantly slower clock than officials in Washington, who are eager for significant withdrawals before the president leaves office in January 2009.

In an interview in Baghdad on Thursday, General Odierno, the senior United States ground commander, said any withdrawal of American troops was not advisable until December, “at a minimum.”

There is no "debate" about troop sizes or withdrawals. They will remain as they are, or get higher, just as they have each time before when the administration "debated" the future of the war. Bush and gang have repeatedly claimed that withdrawal is a sign of weakness that would be disastrous for Americans, leading to an Army of Janissaries at the gates of Washington, or Hustisford, or wherever. Their opposition to all things Democrat is predicated on the idea that they are surrender monkeys that cannot be trusted. Each and every one of the Republican Presidential candidates (save one) are falling all over themselves to prove that THEY will be roughinest, toughinest, torturingest, biggest-cock-wieldingest Real-'Merican on the block. They have already committed themselves to more troops under the requests of more time. In essence, they have dug themselves in, on purpose, and there is simply no way they can reverse this position in any real sense, no matter what posturing might filter through the media.

This is part of a game. The Democrats caved on the funding battle. This will allow two things: The Republicans can pretend to talk about troop withdrawals now, in order to take at least partial credit for the inevitable troop cuts in the future; and it also buys them time, time they need to keep it going until they can wheeze to the finish line, where they will be able to blame the Democrats for losing after they are gone. And, just like the post-Vietnam era, they will play this up for all it's worth.

Especially with returning veterans. Spencer Ackerman's article, here, details a problem facing Democrats in the future: Veterans feelings about "losing" the war. As someone who feels the war was unnecessary and futile from the start, I see the policy makers, not the soldiers, marines, etc. as being at fault. But veterans will not see it this way. Being pulled (as they will see it) prematurely will most likely leave many of them feeling bitter. And the lowest and most manipulative of Republicans will be there to welcome them with open arms.

Friday Cat Blogging

Jackson Dewayne. All 22 lbs. of him. He has cut off his ear to give to a prostitute out of love.



Diego Manuel.

Republicans start a new meme

It seem like such a small thing now, but I'm sure nonesense like this:

There not only is no evidence of wrongdoing, but there is no allegation of any wrongdoing on your part."--Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), to former Justice staffer Monica Goodling at yesterday's hearing

...will only become more common, like the constant Republican refrain that Scooter Libby broke no laws.

Unfortunately, there is this.

This is, in fact, an admission of wrongdoing.

Republicans primary defense against politicizing various organs of the government is to claim this is overblown, no real crimes were committed, this is how it is usually done, nothing to see here, move along...though I don't think it will have much of an impact in the short term, it lays the foundation for claims in later years that this misuse of the DOJ was in fact nothing particularly egregious. Look for this to be amplified over and over again by right wing noisemakers. It would be sad if 2-3 years from now the Republicans were able to re-write history to downplay the importance of this mess.

Matrimonial Bliss

I just couldn't pass this up.

Being so new, I don't do much for amplification, but any opportunity to expose right-wing "Christian" family values as hypocritical piffle I will gladly take, ineffectual or no.

Just to make this clear, I could really care less about the marriage and divorce habits of political figures. I don't consider it my business. If Rudy, Newt, Tommy and Johnny want to plaster their clammy, doughy, pallid bodies onto consenting, nubile Young Republican starlets, or fill their empty husks with new, improved trophy wives, well, that's their own affair. They're hardly alone in that.

But, no one should ever forget the unbelievable waste of time, money and energy that was the Clinton impeachment and the Republicans' relentless pursuit of the wayward penis. It would be nice if the "liberal" media would hold Republican leaders' feet to the fire over the way they so easily cast off inconvenient spouses with the same kind of zeal they covered the Clenis. In fact, you would think that might have come up more, considering how generally well known this information is. But, not really.

I, for one, am more interested in seeing how Christian conservatives vote in these elections, considering there is no one even remotely on the same page with their worldview religiously. Will they stay home? Or will they exercise their famous proclivity for compartmentalized thinking and vote for someone in large numbers? Given the way they equate conflict in the Middle East with the End Times, chest-beating big-dickery and clash-of-cultures puffery may trump all.

Blogging is new to me

I have just made this blog public. I'm not exactly expecting waves of readers looking for my brilliant political commentary, for I am neither learned nor particularly brilliant. In fact, I have no qualifications for this at all, aside from the rudimentary computer skills necessary to log in to blogger. And, of course, I can type. If you do come across my blog, well, welcome. I can hardly imagine what brought you here, but if I can come up with blog posts of a higher quality than, say, Ace of Spades, well, then it won't be a total loss.

Christianist Love

I thought this was an interesting story:

Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's Funeral

Even in death, the Rev. Jerry Falwell rouses the most volatile of emotions.

A small group of protesters gathered near the funeral services to criticize the man who mobilized Christian evangelicals and made them a major force in American politics -- often by playing on social prejudice

A group of students from Falwell's Liberty University staged a counterprotest.

And Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News' Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and would not have been very destructive.

This harkens back to my post of last week about Christian-based terror. And a fine demonstration of Christian hypocrisy it is.

To listen to Christian fundamentalists, Muslims as a group are predisposed to violence due to their religion's belief system, specifically regarding jihad. Christianity, of course, never specifically preaches any kind of violence. Jesus, when it is convenient, was a man of peace, which makes the Christian fundamentalist a man of peace as well, at least in their heads. A poll of Fundamentalist leaders taken in 2002 by Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron found that 70% believed that Islam is a "religion of violence." There is nothing particularly surprising in findings like this; fundamentalists always think their religion is the one true religion and thus right, and others are of course inherently wrong.

However, it is impossible to miss the cognitive dissonance. Christians are, in fact, attempting and sometimes succeeding in terrorist acts. Their leaders are calling for the assasinations of leaders they don't care for, publicly, like any Mullah might. Their belief in the End Times is behind political support of Israel in the hopes of the Second Coming/Rapture mythology, support that is helping to kill thousands of people a year. Whether or not the Bible actually says to kill in so many words, it is the primary inspiration for these beliefs, a fact you'll never hear them deny.

Religion and spirituality may inspire, but people act. People's actions are a reflection of who they are, not what their religion is. The way they interpret how their religion is supposed to interact with the material world is entirely on their shoulders, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, etc. To decry a religion as inherently violent while supporting and even encouraging acts of violence in the name of your own is little more than an argument of convenience.