Who really supports the troops?

Now we’ve had two Express-News columnists take shots at a Washington Post blogger William Arkin for his post last week in which he referred to U.S. troops in Iraq as “mercenaries” in the midst of berating some of them for expressing their dismay that so many Americans disapprove of their mission.

First, Jonathan Gurwitz calls Arkin an “ungrateful jerk” for writing such “garbage.”
Then the next day, Ken Allard chimes in saying that his former NBC colleague had “slipped the surly bonds of sensibility.”

Both comments were fair, in my opinion. Arkin was flooded with more than 900 e-mails in response to the blog post to which he responds here.
But what upsets me is that neither Gurwitz nor Allard stopped with just bashing Mr. Arkin. They carried it over to bash everyone who is critical of the war in Iraq.

Gurwitz was the most blunt, stating outright that — “There is inherent tension in the concept of opposing the war in Iraq but supporting the troops.”
This is wrong on so many levels I’m not sure where to begin, but let me start with my initial gut-level response. I think it is people who are the most die-hard supporters of this war who have the most explaining to do about how they are supposedly “supporting the troops.”
People such as myself who criticized the war from Day 1 and who argued that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat necessitating a pre-emptive attack, invasion and occupation of the country, have been proven absolutely right. Our military is supposed to protect our national interests, not used as a pawn to advance the current administration’s political goals.
This administration sent our troops into Iraq based on outlandishly unrealistic expectations that it would all be over in a matter of months, if not weeks. They ignored the advice of military leaders who said we needed more troops. They did not provide the troops with adequate body armor and protective gear. And yet, four years later those of us who want to bring the troops home ASAP are accused of not supporting the troops. While those who insist that we leave our troops in the midst of a chaotic Civil War indefinitely are supposed to have our troops’ best interests at heart.

Global Warming: Believe It!

How’s that for a great slogan? The latest mega-scientific report confirms what we already know: That global warming is real, it’s not going away anytime soon, and it is definitely man-made.

A panel of international scientists predicted Friday that global warming will continue for centuries no matter how much people control pollution, in a bleak report that blamed humans for killer heat waves, devastating droughts and stronger storms.
The report said people were "very likely" the cause of global warming - the strongest conclusion to date - and placed the burden on governments to take action.

So Al Gore was right all along. But then we already knew that anyway.

Quagmire confirmed

The latest National Intelligence Estimate paints a most dismal picture of the situation in Iraq. It’s no wonder the Bush administration has kept the report underwraps until after the mid-term elections - not that it helped them any.

Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence has become the primary source of conflict in the war-ravaged nation and Iraqi leaders will be "hard-pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation" in the next 18 months, according to a summary of the National Intelligence Estimate released Friday.

The only reason they are not calling it a Civil War is because that term is apparently too simplistic to describe the free-for-all shoot-em-up that we are caught in the middle of.

The summary said that "civil war" is too simple a moniker to describe the situation because the violence includes "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al Qaeda [in Iraq] and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces and widespread criminally motivated violence."

The report then goes on to say that we can’t leave:

Taking U.S. forces out of Iraq is not an option, the report said, noting that "rapid withdrawal" of troops "would lead to further deterioration."
The summary said that such a withdrawal would cripple the Iraqi army, intensify Sunni resistance, perpetuate the creation of an al Qaeda state in Anbar province, west of Baghdad, and stoke overall violence.

That’s the definition of a quagmire, isn’t it? We are stuck in a rotten situation and can’t get out?
The whole reason we went over there was to stabilize a major oil producing region. (WMDs and 9/11 was just the cover story - total B.S.) And now that effort has collapsed and now we have a situation that would be 10 times worse than if we had just left Saddam in charge of everything.

Personally, I think we have no choice but to pull out anyway. I don’t believe things are going to get better the longer we stay. The only question is will they get worse slowly over time, or get worse very rapidly when we pull out. Either way I think the country is going to have to hit bottom before it can start to bounce back.

Shrill but true

My sister-in-law sent me this link to a post at Daily Kos that gives a good summary of how we were duped into launching the Iraq debacle.
I don’t usually link to articles that come across this shrill, but in this case I have to make an exception. As shrill as it may sound, it is the truth. The way the Bush administration connived to steer us into this war is nothing short of criminal and the article linked above gives a good explanation of how it was done.

Molly Ivins 1944-2007

This is how I will always remember Molly Ivins. It’s the picture they used for her Fort Worth Star Telegram columns when I was in college. I thought she was pretty cute.
It seems like she went pretty fast, but she had been battling breast cancer since 1999 and put up a heck of a good fight. I can’t believe we’ve lost Ann Richards and Molly so close together. There is a huge void on the Texas Left today that I hope will be quickly filled.
The Texas Observer has a nice tribute to Molly, as you would expect. The obit in the Washington Post was written by former San Antonio Express-Newsman Joe Holley. And here is the version from the A.P.
In her final column she threw down the guantlet on getting our troops out of harm’s way in Iraq.

Update

Paul Krugman had an excellent tribute to Molly Ivins in the NYTimes today.
I’ve pasted excerpts below:

"...obituaries that mostly stressed her satirical gifts missed the main point. Yes, she liked to poke fun at the powerful, and was very good at it. But her satire was only the means to an end: holding the powerful accountable.

She explained her philosophy in a stinging 1995 article in Mother Jones magazine about Rush Limbaugh. “Satire ... has historically been the weapon of powerless people aimed at the powerful,” she wrote. “When you use satire against powerless people ... it is like kicking a cripple.”

Molly never lost sight of two eternal truths: rulers lie, and the times when people are most afraid to challenge authority are also the times when it’s most important to do just that. And the fact that she remembered these truths explains something I haven’t seen pointed out in any of the tributes: her extraordinary prescience on the central political issue of our time.

I’ve been going through Molly’s columns from 2002 and 2003, the period when most of the wise men of the press cheered as Our Leader took us to war on false pretenses, then dismissed as “Bush haters” anyone who complained about the absence of W.M.D. or warned that the victory celebrations were premature. Here are a few selections:

Nov. 19, 2002: “The greatest risk for us in invading Iraq is probably not war itself, so much as: What happens after we win? ... There is a batty degree of triumphalism loose in this country right now.”

Jan. 16, 2003: “I assume we can defeat Hussein without great cost to our side (God forgive me if that is hubris). The problem is what happens after we win. The country is 20 percent Kurd, 20 percent Sunni and 60 percent Shiite. Can you say, ‘Horrible three-way civil war?’ ”

July 14, 2003: “I opposed the war in Iraq because I thought it would lead to the peace from hell, but I’d rather not see my prediction come true and I don’t think we have much time left to avert it. That the occupation is not going well is apparent to everyone but Donald Rumsfeld. ... We don’t need people with credentials as right-wing ideologues and corporate privatizers — we need people who know how to fix water and power plants.”

Oct. 7, 2003: “Good thing we won the war, because the peace sure looks like a quagmire. ...

“I’ve got an even-money bet out that says more Americans will be killed in the peace than in the war, and more Iraqis will be killed by Americans in the peace than in the war. Not the first time I’ve had a bet out that I hoped I’d lose.”

So Molly Ivins — who didn’t mingle with the great and famous, didn’t have sources high in the administration, and never claimed special expertise on national security or the Middle East — got almost everything right. Meanwhile, how did those who did have all those credentials do?

With very few exceptions, they got everything wrong. They bought the obviously cooked case for war — or found their own reasons to endorse the invasion. They didn’t see the folly of the venture, which was almost as obvious in prospect as it is with the benefit of hindsight. And they took years to realize that everything we were being told about progress in Iraq was a lie.

Was Molly smarter than all the experts? No, she was just braver. The administration’s exploitation of 9/11 created an environment in which it took a lot of courage to see and say the obvious.

Molly had that courage; not enough others can say the same.

And it’s not over. Many of those who failed the big test in 2002 and 2003 are now making excuses for the “surge.” Meanwhile, the same techniques of allegation and innuendo that were used to promote war with Iraq are being used to ratchet up tensions with Iran.

Now, more than ever, we need people who will stand up against the follies and lies of the powerful. And Molly Ivins, who devoted her life to questioning authority, will be sorely missed."

Molly Ivins' battle

I am distraught today after reading that Molly Ivins is battling breast cancer. Her prognosis does not appear to be good.

Ivins, 62, completed a round of radiation treatment in August, but the cancer "came back with a vengeance," and has spread through her body

This just isn't right. She's only 62 for crying out loud. She should at least live into her 80s like Art Buchwald did.
I've been a fan of Ivins since I was in college. I went to see her give a talk at the College Station Unitarian Church sometime around 1987-88. When her first book came out in 1991 (Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?) I ordered an autographed copy from an Austin bookstore. When her latest book came out in 2003 (Bushwhacked) I went to a book signing appearance she made here in San Antonio and stood in line for an hour to get it autographed as well.

I hope she pulls through this and continues to write her columns. It would be a shame is she has to check out while George Worst.President.Ever Bush is still in office or while his Iraq debacle continues to drag on. But at least she got to see the 2006 butt kicking he and the Republicans got and the promise of more to come in 2008. If there is one thing I learned from reading Molly Ivins, it was to never give up hope.

Another defector

Recently they lost Oliver North, and then it was Sen. John Warner. Now they’ve lost Toby Keith!
What are the war supporters going to do?!?

Liberal canon

Atrio has put together a list of books that he believes should make up the “canon” for today’s angry liberals who came of age during the Clinton years.

To his list I would add:
“Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World” by Jonathan Kwitny.

”Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.

“Rise of the Counter Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power” by Sidney Blumenthal.

And, of course, the classic:
“Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot: And Other Observations” by Al Franken.

Scooter the Scapegoat

The CIA leak trial looks like it could get pretty interesting.
The prosecution is pointing the finger at Vice President Dick Cheney, while the defense is claiming that Scooter Libby is being used as a scapegoat by the White House to protect Karl Rove.
I say nail them all!
There has even been speculation since the trial opened that Cheney might be forced to resign as a result of the allegations being leveled by the prosecution. Is that possible? Perhaps. Few people would have believed just two short years ago that Tom DeLay would be indicted and out on his rear today (with a Democrat taking over his House seat and Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair). So who knows? This trial couldn’t be happening at a worse time for the White House.

Me and Bush

Yes, that’s me interviewing then Gov. George W. Bush during one of his many trips to Lubbock. I was the City Hall/Politics reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal during that time 1995-2000 and got to interview Bush on multiple occasions. This picture was snapped by one of our staff photographers who gave me a copy afterwards.
I think this was about 1998-99, the time when I was asking the governor to react to that day’s news that his then-75-year-old father had just went skydiving. He had some clever response, but I don’t recall it offhand. If it looks like I’m not taking notes, that’s because I have my tape recorder going.
This would be a hard picture to get today, I imagine, unless you have about $10,000 to donate to the Republican National Committee.

Oscar nominations

Congratulations to local San Antonionian Jackie Earle Haley on getting an Oscar nomination for his performance in the film “Little Children.” Haley runs a production company here in the Alamo City.
This marks a major comeback for an actor who had essentially dropped out of the movie business in the early 1990s. Haley may not seem familiar today, but you probably know his best for his 1976 role as the motorcycle riding, badass-kid from the “Bad News Bears” films. Or perhaps you might remember him from the 1979 Oscar-winning film “Breaking Away” that also launched Houstonian Dennis Quaid’s acting career.
His story probably won’t get as much play as the other Comeback Kid - Peter O’Toole, who got a best actor nod after being off the Oscar radar screen for 24 years. But it’s a great story nevertheless.
There is not much else I can say about the Oscar nominations this year. I've seen just two of the nominated films so far: "Cars" - which is up for Best Animated film and Best Original Song; and "Pirates of the Caribbean 2" which got nominated for Best Art Direction, Best Sound, Best Sound Editing and Best Visual Effects.
I would note that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was nominated in the Best Documentary category and I hope to see that film soon.

Supreme confusion

Supreme Court watchers must be baffled by by this latest 6-3 decision. The ideological boundaries of the court are in complete disarray with this ruling that has liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginzburg authoring the majority opinion backed by fellow liberals John Paul Stevens and David Souter, but also backed by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and arch-conservative stalwarts Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Meanwhile, the three dissenters include liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, conservative Justice Samuel Alito and would-be swing-voter Anthony Kennedy.
I really don’t know what to make of it.

GOP's Black Hole

Yeah! What Evans and Novak said.

From the latest Evans-Novak Political Report: "President George W. Bush's attempt to revitalize his Iraq War policy has been a political failure. His 'surge' in troops won no converts, and all efforts now are based on attempting to prevent a negative resolution from being passed in the Senate."

"The gloom pervading the Republican Party cannot be exaggerated. The long-range GOP outlook for 2008 is grim. The consensus is that U.S. troops must be off the ground of Iraq by next year to prevent an electoral catastrophe in the next election."

"Iraq, one of Bush's top political advisers now notes, is a black hole for the Republican Party. A nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the President's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006."

It is just like I've been saying.

2008 Presidential Race

The Wall Street Journal has a good rundown on the race for the White House in 2008.
I’ve summarized it somewhat below:

Democrats

Declared
Joe Biden
Christopher Dodd
John Edwards
Dennis Kucinich
Tom Vilsack

Exploring
Barack Obama

Undeclared
Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
John Kerry
Bill Richardson

Taking a Pass
Evan Bayh
Russ Feingold
Mark Warner


Republicans

Declared
Duncan Hunter

Exploring
Sam Brownback
Jim Gilmore
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson

Undeclared
Newt Gingrich
Mike Huckabee
George Pataki

Taking a Pass
George Allen
Bill Frist
Rick Santorum

I think it is interesting that so many more Democrats have been willing to declare their candidacies while most of the Republican crowd is hanging back and hiding behind their “exploratory committees.” I think they know this is the Democrats’ race to lose.
As to the undeclared candidates, I think Hillary is the only one from either side guaranteed to still get into the race at this point.
While it is still ridiculously early to being making predictions, I’m going to throw one out anyway. I think it will ultimately come down to Hillary Clinton vs. John McCain with Hillary coming out on top.
Republicans will pull out all the stops in their efforts to trash Hillary, but I think their past efforts have given her a limited immunity that will allow her to emerge from the onslaught mostly unscathed. I think the race will be nearly a repeat of the 1996 Clinton-Dole race with Hillary in the driver’s seat and McCain playing the role of the elder Republican statesman who is past his prime. McCain, they will say, missed his chance to be president when he lost the 2000 primary to Bush the Younger, just like Dole missed his chance when he lost the 1988 primary to Bush the Elder.

Library protests

While I can sympathize with the SMU faculty members who are protesting having George W. Bush’s library on their campus, I think they are being foolish. In the long-term it will be a net-plus for the school. Imagine all the future scholars who will flock to the library to study the Worst.President.Ever. They will no doubt be searching through the papers for clues as to what went wrong and, more importantly, how to keep this from ever happening again.
Of course, today it is still a headache for the Bush administration to have this kind of controversy raging behind the scenes as they are trying to salvage whatever may be left of his legacy. But they could have easily avoided all of this if they had done as I suggested and picked a West Texas school like Texas Tech University in Lubbock to play host to his library. I can pretty much guarantee there would have been hardly any protest at all if Bush had went that route. But I guess it is too much to expect this administration to make a right choice even in this situation.
Still, if the protests at SMU persist then Bush might want to consider giving Tech a second shot at his library.

Winter Wonderland

I’m disappointed that we didn’t get any snow, but the ice was still pretty.

The deficit-financed war

Contrary to popular opinion, President Bush is not committed to success in Iraq. He never has been.

This article from Bloomberg makes it quite clear. This is the first time in our nation’s history (with the exception of the 1846-48 Mexican-American War) in which American citizens have not been asked by their government to make a special financial sacrifice to support the war.
This is the nation’s first deficit-financed war. Before everything is said and done, the price tag for Bush’s war may well be in excess of $600 billion - or $2 trillion if you add the cost of caring for our disabled veterans and paying to replace all the worn out military equipment. And that’s assuming the war doesn’t drag on for another 5 to 10 years. If John McCain is elected president in 2008, it is easy to see this conflict dragging on for another six years at a minimum.
But so far we haven’t paid a penny for this war. Not one red cent! Taxes have not gone up. Domestic spending has not gone down. It is all being financed off-budget on borrowed money.

The war ``is being fought on our children's shoulders,'' said Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. ``You're probably talking about around $750 billion that is going to be spent on this war that will end up not being funded.''

That’s incredible! Bush has tried to fight this war on the cheap since the very beginning. They have not supplied the number of troops that military commanders initially said were needed (those commanders were subsequently forced into retirment and replaced with commanders who backed the administration’s position). They skimped on armor and protective gear for our troops. And they have dramatically underfunded the estimated reconstruction costs.
In 2003, the World Bank estimated it would take $60 billion to rebuild Iraq after our “shock and awe” campaign. So far we have parceled out less than $20 billion to that end and a large chunk of that money has turned up missing.
Last year, the Bush administration announced that it was not going to spend any more money on reconstruction in Iraq and I said at the time that it demonstrated Bush’s lack of resolve toward actually achieving the kind of outcome in Iraq that he talks about in his speeches.

The result of this war-on-the-cheap combined with the gross fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement has been a disaster of striking proportions. While we have been bogged down in Iraq, the real terrorists have been making unprecendented gains in other parts of the world.

Iraq is at a violent and "precarious juncture," while al-Qaeda is significantly expanding its global reach, effectively immune to the loss of leaders in battle, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte told Congress yesterday. He also warned that the Taliban is mounting a vigorous insurgency in Afghanistan, that Pakistan has become a safe haven for top terrorists and that Iran's growing regional power is threatening Middle East stability.
The Wall Street Journal recently had an article about the “Nightmare Scenario” that our allies in the Middle East now fear may result from Bush’s debacle in Iraq.

As President Bush prepares to unveil his latest Iraq strategy, Arab allies are worried about what might happen if the plan fails: that worsening strife could engulf the entire region, sparking a wider war in the middle of the world's largest oil patch.
The potential of a much larger regional conflict that pits Sunnis against Shiites is increasingly on the minds of both Arab leaders and U.S. military planners, according to regional diplomats and U.S. officials. Some are calling such a possible outcome the "nightmare scenario." A wider conflict appears more plausible now because, even as Iraq is separating along sectarian lines, regional dynamics are shoving neighboring nations into two rival camps.
On one side is a Shiite-led arc running from Iran into central Iraq, through Syria and into Lebanon. On the other side lie American allies Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, along with Persian Gulf states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. These Sunni regimes are horrified at the emerging, increasingly radicalized Shiite bloc, largely financed and inspired by Iran, Arab diplomats say.

Bush is clearly the worst president in the history of the United States. The only question now is how much worse things can get before he finally leaves office.

Lamar Smith a moderate?

Congrats to U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, the lone Republican member of the San Antonio congressional delegation, for surprising me and casting one of his first votes of the new year for a minimum wage increase.
The House bill passed 315 to 116 with Smith one of 82 Republicans to fall in line behind the popular legislation.
Smith also supported the bill implementing the 911 commission recommendations.
So is this a sign of things to come? In the recent past, Smith had been a reliable vote for the Tom DeLay wing of the GOP. Has he now suddenly decided to moderate his positions after facing a tough challenge from Democrat John Courage this past election and then watching his fellow Republican Henry Bonilla go down in flames?
Only time will tell.

Hall of Fame balloting

They will announce the 2007 Baseball Hall of Fame inductees later today. It looks like Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. are locks while the big controversy is how big a snubbing Mark McGwire will get for his alleged steroid abuse.
Here is how I would cast my ballot if I had one to cast:

Pete Rose
Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken Jr.
Bert Blyleven
Goose Gossage
Dave Concepcion
Andre Dawson
Jim Rice
Mark McGwire
Steve Garvey

First off, Pete Rose is by far the most deserving player of anyone not currently in the Hall of Fame. Even though he is not on the ballot, he would still get my first vote.
I would support McGwire despite the steroids controversy because a) it has never been shown that he broke any laws or rules - baseball did not get around to banning most steroids until after the McGwire controversy surfaced; b) even without steroids McGwire would have been a great ballplayer; c) I hate this game that they play where they bash a player because they haven’t confessed or sufficiently apologized for some offense.
Unless you are going to ban every player who may have ever taken a health supplement in the 1990s, which is unrealistic, then you have to acknowledge the great players of the that time. McGwire, Sosa and Bonds are all in that class and all are worthy of HoF induction despite the steroids controversy.

Bush undermines own stratergy

Just so you know, Bush was against the surge before he was for it.

This is Bush from June 28, 2005...

Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever...

Here is a rational, sane and intelligent take on what we should be “surging” in Iraq from a man who knows a lot more about military stratergy than George aWol Bush.