Your Weekly Rush

Well Rush predicts that our actual entrance into Baghdad will go very easily. "Based entirely on what I perceive the Iraqi strategery to be, I think that when the battle of Baghdad starts, it is going to be quick and clean.

"How can you say that with the Republican Guard dug in?" Folks, they won't be there by the time we fight for Baghdad. I came to this conclusion late Thursday night. Earlier this week, I said that it would be nice if the Republican Guard - who are currently hiding behind women and children in Baghdad - would come out to face us so we could crush them. Now they're doing it! Saddam is breaking up the Republican Guard; he's sending them out to try to inflict as many casualties on us as he can.

They're not trying to defeat us because they know they can't. They're trying to inflict as many casualties on us as they can and to be as barbaric as they can because they think we'll cut and run à la Mogadishu. So I think by the time we make our move into Baghdad, the Republican Guard is going to have been pummeled."

So there you have it, nothing to worry about.

The truth is, it is a potential future. I don't think it's the most likely future, but it is definately possible. On the other hand, as Salon has documented, administration forces have been spinning such happy-go-lucy scenarios for a number of months, although of course they now want to pretend that they never did.

The Trouble with Norman Solomon

Something happened to remind me of this this morning, so I thought I would comment on it. Norman Solomon is a media critic, who has the occasional good comment about how the media distorts news. I first encountered him in a little book called, "The Trouble With Dilbert: How Corporate Culture Gets the Last Laugh."



Norman Solomon's thesis seems to be this; because Dilbert doesn't encourage the overthrow of the capitalist system, it is actually hurting those that read it.

Take your average Joe cubicle. He opens the comics page and reads about the antics of Dilbert and Wally and so on, and laughs. It brings a little levity to his day, making him feel a bit better about his life. And that's the danger. You see a happy worker is less likely to rise up and smash the system and install the socialist paradise.

His other complaint is about how Dilbert enjoys being an engineer. Dilbert, presumably, went to school and studied and became an engineer, and got a job working as an engineer. He likes being an engineer, and invents stuff in his own time. But the problems in his work are caused by things that stop him from doing what he likes, which is engineering. At his corporation he has all sorts of distractions that keep him from working, like co-workers, idiot bosses, and unnecessary meetings. You see the problem, don't you?

An efficient engineer is exactly what those jerks in the upper management of our large corporations would want. Dilbert is playing right into their hands.

This is the moral bankruptness of some on the left - they want Capitalism to fail, and they want workers to be miserable. It's the only way they can build up the energy needed to remake society in their image. While I do favor leftist policies on many issues, more than that I want capitalism to be successful for all Americans. Capitalism is, by far, the best system we have. Wishing for it's failure, and wishing for the suffering of your fellow Americans, well its just beyond the pale.

Check back later as I might post some pictures relating to this issue.

Congress Lends a Hand

This will be a long post, with lots of long quotes, but it's important, so pay attention. As you may or may not know Congress is debating a new procedure that would give the Department of Defense much greater flexibility in moving money around between various appropriations without consulting Congress. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate to testify in behalf of this new procedure. A short overview of the testimony has been provided by the helpful folks at MSNBC. For those who prefer to read the entire transcript, the New York Times has you covered. And if you have three hours to kill, you can watch the entire session, thanks to America's Sweetheart C-Span.

Among the many subjects discussed was the rebuilding of Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld stated, "The -- I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction in a sense. What we have is a responsibility to get that country on a path that it has a representative government that is -- fulfills the standards that General Myers outlined. We want to participate in reconstruction. Other countries will want to participate in reconstruction."

Sec. Rumsfeld also stated, "When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government itself and the international community."

However, when pressed by Senator Patty Murry (D-WA), he clarified his position.

"SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): Doesn't the president's larger objective for the Middle East and for our relations with the Muslim world and for the war on terrorism require us to have a long- term commitment to reconstruction in Iraq?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Sure. I hope I didn't say anything that left the contrary impression. There's no question but that I was referring to the military side.

We feel we need to stay there as long as is necessary but not any longer. Conversely, if you talk about the United States and the international community, we have to have an interest and we have to see that that country gets put on a path toward some sort of representative government that is not going to threaten its neighbors. There's no question but that if that is successful, as I believe it will be, that the economic circumstance in the region will be vastly better for Turkey, for Jordan and for the other countries in the region.

SEN. MURRAY: Your term of putting it on a path concerned me. It sounded like we're going to put it on a path and walk away.

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, no, I don't mean to suggest that at all."

So apparently what Sec. Rumsfeld meant was that the Military forces had little role to play in reconstruction, other than presumably keeping the peace. And in that he's undoubtedly correct, although I would think pictures of soldiers working to rebuild Iraq would help us immensely. I hope his comments are not indicative of an administration willing to say anything to get us into war, but unwilling to live up to its promises.

As for the added flexibility, Senators Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-SC), and Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) had some strong comments on that issue.

But most particularly, Mr. Secretary, get this administration to ask not just for the money, but how to pay for it. The people of America are ready to sacrifice, they're ready to pay for this. I know Karl Rove thinks you need a tax cut in order to get reelected. But this is an embarrassment to this senator. I've been in government for 50 years, and what you've got me doing is telling that grunt, "We want you to go into battle, and we hope you don't get killed, and the reason we hope you don't get killed is we want you to hurry back so I can give you the bill. This generation, this Congress, this administration ain't going to pay for it. We need a tax cut so I can go to Disney World." Now, this is outrageous nonsense.
SEN. ERNEST "FRITZ" HOLLINGS (D-SC):

Mr. Secretary, I'm against giving additional flexibility. I will give every dollar — I'll support every dollar I can to help the troops and provide for their safety and to help win the war. But to have us extend these limitations to the extent that is being asked here, I just don't — I think it's too much. The reason we have separation of powers is to protect the liberties of the people, and checks and balances and the separation of powers have served the people well now for 215 years. And so count me out when you ask for these additional flexibilities.
SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD (D-WV)

I agree with the Senators from West Virginia and South Carolina. President Bush and his Department of Defense should, in this one instance, have to play by the same rules that everybody else has had to play by.

Keeping Score

Came across a really solid article yesterday by Thomas L. Friedman. Reminded me of the bit in Bush At War where Bush asks the CIA to make him up a score card containing the names and pictures of all the top al-Queda leaders. Then he could cross them out as they were eliminated.

Well Mr. Friedman has provided us with a handy scorecard for the current war in Iraq. A list of six questions that will tell us if we are winning this war or not. Questions such as "Have we occupied Baghdad — without leveling the whole city?", "Have we killed, captured or expelled Saddam?", or "Has an authentic Iraqi liberal nationalist emerged from the U.S. occupation to lead the country?."

It was his last question that I found particularly significant and troublesome. "Is the Iraqi state that emerges from this war accepted as legitimate by Iraq's Arab and Muslim neighbors? That is very important, both for the viability of whatever Iraqi leadership follows Saddam, and for the liberalizing effect it may have on others in the neighborhood. In the absence of any U.N. endorsement for this war, the successor regime to Saddam will have to legitimize itself by becoming something that Arabs and Muslims will point to and say, "We don't like how this was done, but we have to admit America helped build something better in our neighborhood." This outcome is crucial."

I hope we are able to achieve this outcome.

Clarity

Some of us may feel some sympathy for the Iraqi people. Well, in a new article, Bill Murchinson explains the futility of that. You see the Iraqi's are Orcs, which you may remember appearing in the Lord of the Rings and the Two Towers. There are two sides in this war and against the Iraqi Orcs are pitted the Humans, Elves, and Dwarves. I would guess that the United States are the manly Humans, while the British get to be the fey Elves. Perhaps the Australians are the Dwarves.

As Orcs, there is little need to be concerned about their concerns or feelings or motivations for getting into this war. They are evil; case closed. The main weakness of the Humans and Hobbits is that we refused to see the Orcs for what they are, pure evil.

With a war as complicated as this, it's nice for Mr. Murchinson to simplify things so much.

In other news, Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator, has revealed that the French may be spying on the United States. "The other day, I received a letter from a U.S. Air Force officer stationed on a base in Saudi Arabia. He wrote that coalition commanders expelled French soldiers from his base late last week. The French had apparently been caught hacking into the U.S. secret computer system. Their rooms had been evacuated, and British and American troops were allowed to move their own belongings into the plush surroundings the French had previously enjoyed. The officer reported that the information was 60-70 percent reliable, as a couple of semi-reliable sources had corroborated the story.

This story has been kept under tight wrap by the governments involved -- perhaps because the information is false. But if the French troops were indeed removed from the base for spying on the U.S. military, relations between our countries will have reached a new low."

One of the nice things about being a commentator is that there's no standard of proof whatsoever. An undocumented unconfirmed source puts France in a bad light? Lets run with it. Shapiro, using his amazing powers of Precognition says that he thinks France will become an Islamic nation soon, and then an even bigger enemy of the US (and one that has the bomb). So something to keep you up at night. Unless young Ben is wrong, but what are the odds of that.

America the Whatever You Need it to be to Make your Point

Article today at Commondreams by James Carroll, entitled America the Destroyer. Catchy title. Anyway in he speculates on what a "shock and awe" campaign against the United States would look like. "If Washington were the target of a ''shock and awe'' campaign, the US Capitol would now be rubble, along with that entire parade of becolumned federal buildings astride seven blocks of Pennsylvania Avenue. The White House a smoldering ruin (like Camp David -- and the Bush ranch house in Crawford, Texas). The Pentagon a fetid sinkhole, in-rushing waters of the adjacent Potomac River having snuffed the burning abyss. The vice president's residence at the head of Embassy Row in ruins. Bolling Air Force Base and Andrews Air Force Base on the Maryland side of the Potomac aflame. Fort Myers and the Navy Annex on the ridge of Arlington, Fort McNair in Southwest Washington and the Marine Barracks in Southeast, the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, and Walter Reed Hospital in far Northwest -- all on fire. CIA headquarters in McLean, Va., a smoking scar on the landscape."

Occasional commentator Caleb also read this article and had this comment.

"I was reading James Carroll's comments today at Common Dreams titled 'America the Destroyer'. He paints a vivid picture of the destruction of our nation's Capital in a shock and awe campaign designed to decapitate America's infrastructure, and then He asks a question.

This question is a singularly foolish one.

It is intended to villainize us for doing the same to Iraq by comparing our perfectly justified actions, as demonstrated by the changed minds of our overly optimistic human shields, with the destruction of one of the most humanitarian minded, generous, and moral governments in the world. The model of representative government to the world is being compared to a cruel tyrant who who is grooming replacements far more dastardly than even he himself, and ensuring their succession by pruning his infrastructure of competent and/or sane leadership. Iraq's government has already been decapitated. We need simply remove the virulent branches, and graft fruitful boughs
onto the strong roots of the Middle East's most ancient and productive culture."

Caleb's point is well taken, although he perhaps oversells his point when he describes the United States as one of the most generous nations in the world. Certainly I hope that his optimism regarding the middle east will prove correct.

A Radical Proposition

Just read an article by Michael Kinsley at MSNBC.com. Kinsley traces the enormous power that George W. Bush has taken to the Presidency. In summing up he says, "Putting all this together, Bush is asserting the right of the United States to attack any country that may be a threat to it in five years. And the right of the United States to evaluate that risk and respond in its sole discretion. And the right of the president to make that decision on behalf of the United States in his sole discretion. In short, the president can start a war against anyone at any time, and no one has the right to stop him."

Is Kinsley correct? Could President Bush appear on TV tomorrow and said, "My fellow Americans, I believe that Syria (or Laos, or Cameroon, or France, or North Korea) could in the future pose a threat to the United States, so I have decided that we must invade the country?" Has the precedent been set?

Could we find ourself in a state of constant warfare, as President Bush hops from country to country seeking out evil doers?

Given the enormous powers President Bush has taken to himself, and the necessary focus required to fight the war on Terrorism, I propose that President Bush should step down at the end of his term. That will enable him to focus his attention on the war on terror and on Iraq, and will make it clear that he did not seek this power for himself, but to protect the nation.

Is the Future going to be Rosy?

Maybe not, according to George Will. In an article today, he talks about how supporters of the current war against Iraq have downplayed the potential difficulties of this war with Iraq. "Now, when the country needs the chastening sobriety that should be conservatism's contribution to the national conversation, it has been getting a whiff of something oxymoronic--conservative triumphalism. There has been much breezy confidence that the war will be painless and the aftermath--replacing Iraq's regime--easy. This has made the public susceptible to mood swings.

Unrealism in the public--the military has shown none of it--about war is an understandable byproduct of the ease of the 100-hour ground war in Kuwait in 1991. And of the Kosovo campaign in which there were no NATO combat deaths. And of the applications of new technologies to the projection of American power. Furthermore, because this is a war of choice--a wise choice, but a choice--those who were eager for the choice to be made had an incentive to minimize expectations of inevitable unpleasantness."

Huh. So Rush Limbaugh saying over and over again that all military concerns were overrated might backfire? Conservatives sold America on a quick and cheap war, and now that it turns out to be expensive and lengthy it might not be as viable a product?. Well, I guess that's the way things go. But wait a second, could overselling of the war have negative consequences down the road?

"Sometimes American conservatism seems to suggest that freedom is defined merely by the absence of things--particularly, bad government measures. The radical inadequacy of that idea will be clear once Saddam Hussein's regime is destroyed. A free society is a complicated social artifact. It is in no small measure an artifact of government, which must create the laws and foster the mores that sustain markets, including a market for political power through a multiparty system.

The president has put the country on a necessary but problematic path favored by conservatives. Now conservatives should explain why conservatism, with its wariness about uncontrollable contingencies and unintended consequences, suggests that the coming triumphs will be more difficult and less complete than we wish."

This article would have been a nice moderating force a couple of weeks ago, but now it's just the beginning of the cop out. Its George Will saying that all that stuff about bringing liberty to the Iraqi people and helping them become a modern society - that's just too hard. So if we kill Saddam Hussein, we should count it a victory, and forget all about the Iraqis.

Your Weekly Rush

Forgot to do this over the weekend--anyway here you are.

A lot of people have been very concerned about Senator Tom Daschle's comments last week as the pressure to go to war was building. Well, leave it to Rush to put things in the proper perspective. "Who the hell gives a rat's rear end what Tom Daschle thinks about the way the war is going? He is the freaking Senate minority leader! He has absolutely no say nor role in these events!"

See how the calm peaceful tone of Rush always puts things in perspective?

A Second Front

For those of you interested in Communist History, the Second Front was a constant cry during the Second World War. The Communist Party U.S.A., which was essentially a tool of the Soviet Union's Foriegn Policy, called on the United States and its allies to invade Europe, opening a second front, and relieving the pressure on the Soviet Union and the Eastern Front. In September 24, 1942, Earl Browder, President of the Communist Party U.S.A. stated, "The war and the opening of the Second Front now is now partisan issue, and no group can make political capital out of it for themselves. It is an issue of life and death for the nation, and is being supported by a growing majority of the people of all parties."

Well, David Horowitz, no stranger to Communist Ideology, is now calling for a second front. His article at Townhall today is entitled "The Second Front." But instead of calling for a second front against a foreign enemy, Horowitz is calling for a second front against his own fellow citizens who happen to think differently than he does. He states, "It would be unwise not to take the threat posed by this organized attack on American policy and American security seriously. The misnamed “anti-war” movement is led and organized by leftist vanguards who proclaim their solidarity with terrorist states, including North Korea and Cuba, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East."

He follows the standard canard of the right currently. Step one, establish that some protestors are potential terrorists, distubers of the peace, or morons. He does this by pointing to a molotov cocktail confiscated in San Francisco, and a sign held at a rally saying "Support the Troops when they Shoot Their officers." And it's very difficult if not impossible to defend such actions. People who do such thing are plain out wrong.

But it is step two where Horowitz really asks us to make a jump. Step two, establish that because some protesters are suspect, all protesters are suspect. Thus, in order to protect us from the depredations of a few, he would end free speech for all. In order to protect America, he would abandon those things that make America a place worth living in.

Get in on the Ground Floor

For those interested in giving the Statue of Liberty back to France, you can own the domain name. Link via This Modern World.

The K Chronicles

The K Chronicles is a funny brilliant strip by a young black musician cartoonist named Keith Knight. His strip is not overly political, which is perhaps why it's missed some of the attention it's deserved. On the other hand, his strip does a lot to dispel black stereotypes in my mind.



So go out and by Keith Knight merchandise immediately--it's really cool.

On the Peace Protestors

This commentary by Tom Tomorrow on the war is dead on. He is reacting to a discussion from Meet the Press.

MR. RUSSERT: And when we see pictures tonight of American men being executed, Michael Elliot, it’s very difficult to have any tolerance for people who are saying, "Wait a minute," although that is what America is all about.

And why is that, exactly, Mr. Russert?

Why is it "very difficult to have any tolerance" for the people who never wanted to send American soldiers into this battle to begin with?

In the exceedingly unlikely event that the anti-war movement had won the day, those servicemen would still be alive this morning.

It all unfolds with ritualized familiarity. The people who clamor for war downplay or ignore the obvious consequence of war--that human beings on both sides are going to lose their lives. Until the dying starts, and then their anger is focused on those who opposed the war from the start.

Right.

How to Feel

We are at war, in case anybody out there didn't get the memo. Right now, on the other side of the world, United States Armed Forces and Iraqi National Guard forces are battling. And right now I'm at work, hardly paying attention. How does that work?

Ms. Kathleen Parker, commented on this phenomenon in her weekly column. She states "What was war like before real-time live feeds? How would George Patton have behaved with Wolf Blitzer holding a mike and 200 million Americans listening in? If there's no one there to film it, is there still a war? Without an interviewer, are there heroes?

We watch with a mixture of awe and angst, punching buttons on an electronic device that provides new angles and fresh commentary, all of which leaves me longing for a cleansing tub of soothing oils. The feeling isn't that I shouldn't be watching this, but that I shouldn't be doing this.

. . . The extraordinary so neatly juxtaposed against the ordinary robs the breath and weakens the knees. Horror transmutes to banality when perceived through the lens of artifice. How did we come to this, we should not stop asking."

It's a hard question. Are we doing our duty if we watch five-hours of news a day, following the war? How about if we just check on it every so often at MSNBC? Is that enough?

New Quote

New quote for today--hope you are having a great weekend.