Legal Memo-Random

I am dumber for having listened to it

There's a line in Adam Sandler's "Billy Madison" from the principal (via the Internet Movie Database):

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

That is how I feel after watching the last 60 minutes of idiocy. And I am not talking about the mere gaffes, where he referred to (if I am not mistaken) Donald Rumsfeld as "Secretary of State" - live events are tough, and I've made my own share of errors arguing in court.

First, his 17 minute speech was incredibly dull. Perhaps it was an attempt to lull intelligent people to sleep. I know it worked on me, as I actually missed the last 5 minutes or so of it. Thank goodness for Tivo.

I can't say for sure that George W. Bush addressed more than 1 or 2 questions head on - for example, he was asked 'If you lose the election, was Iraq worth it?' And he responds with 'I'm not going to lose...Saddam bad...' When asked about whether criticism regarding his inability to admit to a mistake, he deflected. When asked about his biggest mistake since 9/11, after fumbling for what seemed like an eternity, he admitted he couldn't come up with one, but suspects he does make them. What the?

Basically, with him being focussed like a laserbeam, what we got in this press conference was two speeches. His first speech was 17 minutes. His second speech was basically his forcing each question into a seque about how Saddam Hussein was bad, and those weapons must be there somewhere, etc., etc.

Kevin Drum blogged the Preznit as it happened.

While I am no fan of Bush, I can admit that he has had shining momemts in his presidency - particularly around 9/11. His speech he gave at the World Trade Center disaster site, where he stood with a fireman, and gave his 'and soon, the people who did this are going to hear from all of us' was not only brilliant, but it was perfect. Tonight, however, was not his finest moment. Too hesitating, too indirect with his answers (well, too focussed on his Iraq talking points, and not the actual substance of the question being asked), and in general, not very poised and confident - which is odd, because the president should really call the shots at one of these things.

Oh, THAT Daily briefing...

whitehouse.org has its take on the PDB at the center of everything uhhh, everywhere. Via Kos.

Coors, twins and Colorado

So Pete Coors (yes, that Coors) makes it official and jumps into the Colorado Senate race, looking to help Republicans keep the seat vacated by Ben Nighthorse Campbell's retirement. See Denver Post story for more.

Here is the problem...and what makes me laugh...There was already a Republican in the race with a little experience in these sorts of things: Bob Schaffer. When he jumped in, the Republicans lined up primarily behind him, including our governor, Bob Owens.

Coors is expected to face former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer in a Republican primary. Owens, who originally endorsed Schaffer when it appeared he would be the GOP's best hope to keep Campbell's seat in the party, has switched his endorsement to Coors.

Don't you love it?

Apparently an endorsement from Bob Owens is worth a warm bucket of spit, because if he likes another horse better, then he apparently has no problem with ditching you for greener pastures - and in a public way.

I personally think that while this makes the race more interesting and tighter, the result will be the same and this WILL be a Democratic pick up by Ken Salazar.

The best thing for Colorado may be a reduction of Coors commercials, which could count as campaign ads - especially if they feature Coors. But I am not sure what he brings to the table otherwise except for portraying women as being around to have sex with tough grrrrr I play football men who, of course, drink Coors. Salazar, on the other hand, is pretty well regarded in the state, except of course by REpublicans who were foiled by his tactics in their redistricting attempt.

More on this at a later time.

Kidnappings and missing people

TV news mentioned today (CNN) that 7 Kellog, Brown & Root employees are "unaccounted for"...

FoxNews, covering Al-Jazeera, says that 11 Russians are kidnapped.

2 US soldiers still remain unaccounted for.

The fate of 1 US worker and 3 Japanese workers remain up in the air.

Other hostages have been released, including the group of Chinese that were seized.

Welcome to Lebanon, V. 2004. What would you like to go wrong today?

Map of latest conflict

Debka provides this fascinating map that does a good job of laying out where the latest battles and hostage taking events have taken place over the last few days in Iraq, including information as to who is fighting who in each situation (I learned of the site initially via Billmon). There is a symbol that will pop up in the right hand corner (lower) that will allow you to enlarge the map to a legible size.

Just remember - we are winning the war.

Kucinich at Vox

So last night I went to a show put on by the local performance group, Vox Feminista (they put on shows two times during the year - if you are ever in the Boulder or Denver Colorado area, they are quite enjoyable if you are from a very left of center perspective - I don't agree with absolutely everything they say, but they are good, and they can be quite funny and quite introspective).

Anyway, as a special "treat" last night, before the show started, the audience was joined by none other than Dennis Kucinich as a special guest on stage for about 25 minutes. He took a few questions from one of the performers (I am bad with their names, even though I've been going to shows since 1999), and gave a little pep talk.

One has to come away with two things from Kucinich.

(1) Even if you don't agree with everything he says, or if you don't think his ideas are practical, I would guess that deep down in side, an awful lot of people would have to think, at least to themselves, that old Communism idea: Its a fantastic idea, IF it could work.

(2) Dennis Kucinich is about 100 to 150 years ahead of his time. Dennis Kucinich has a utopian feel about what he says - one that (if you are a fan) reminds you of earth society in the TV show Star Trek, the Next Generation.

If you are receptive to what he says, but not naive enough to think that someone like him could win in this country any time soon, then you have to feel a little sad when you hear him speak. Its like admitting that his ideas are good and such a society would be good, and then the realization hits you that its not going to happen, because as human beings, we appear to be too stupid to accept that kind of good life where everyone has all they (realistically) want and need, and the rat race is over with everyone as the winner.

I am not going to get into what he said - his website has all the info you could want on it. Although I have to admit, I learned that his Department of the Peace is not as naive an idea as one would guess from the title of the bill. I assumed that it would do the same thing as the State Department. Rather, it seems that it has a multi-faceted angle to it, both domestic (dealing with violence in America - domestic violence, crime, inner-city strife, etc.), and international (aid to foreign countries, etc.) - some things that we seem to do in a scatter shot manner already, and others that we should be doing.

PS - as for the show, I saw a great sign in one of the videos that said "Yee Haw is not a foreign policy"

Part of Baghdad no longer under US control

According to Bloomberg News, US forces have retreated from Sadr City in Baghdad. Tip from Atrios.

This is disturbing, although to be fair, I think some bloggers are overstating the story (Sadr City is just a part of Baghdad - Like as if Brighton Beach and Coney Island had been taken over, and then claiming that we lost control of New York City).

Still, one would think that holding on to the entire capital would be a priority here.

Prediction: More and more, each day, I come to the conclusion that our resolution to the Iraq crisis will be to fracture the country along ethnic lines, or allow the installation of a leader in the mold of Josip Broz Tito (which, while wrong, COULD at least allow for some stability...of course, the death of Tito eventually allowed the unraveling of Yugoslavia).

Is Iraq becoming Lebanon, circa 1980s?

Western hostages. Non-Governmental Militias fighting a western force and fighting each other. Strange-bedfellow alliances. Foreign freelance fighters. Neighborhoods destroyed. Western alliances with no easy solution to the problem.

As we watch the news over the past week, and the alarming downward spiral that has taken place in Iraq, one has to ponder one thing: Is Iraq becoming another Lebanon?

In the late 1970's and 1980's, Lebanon became a poster child for everything that could go wrong with a country, and opened a pandora's box that we still deal with today in the form of ongoing Middle Eastern terrorism (yes, I know Middle Eastern terrorism predates Lebanon's problems).

But to call Lebanon's woes a civil war does not do justice to just what happened to that country. Lebanon went from a (relatively) progressive oasis in the desert to a chaotic neighborhood-versus-neighborhood war zone in a relatively short time. Beirut, once a world class city, was destroyed. Israel's many attempts to intervene in the conflict (sometimes to help their proxy army, sometimes to deal with Palestinian insurgents within Lebanon's borders, etc.) have not had the effect they wanted - Even though some of their operations have been very successful in some regards, they've never been able to have a secure border. Palestinian and freelance fighters have used Lebanon as a staging point. Hezbollah and others use Lebanon to fire small rockets and mortars at Israel regularly. Syria's involvement in Lebanon has been a little better, and has quieted things down at times, but Lebanon is only just starting to pick up the pieces from their devestating conflict.

From LonelyPlanet:

During WWII Lebanon became fully independent and developed into a major trade centre. Lebanon's fatal flaw was that power rested with the right-wing Christian population while the Muslims (almost half the population) felt they were excluded from real government. Add large numbers of displaced Palestinians and there were all the ingredients for conflict. Civil war broke out in 1975 between a predominantly Muslim leftist coalition and Christian right-wing militias. Over the next 20 years, insanely complicated civil and international wars, and high profile hostage-taking, were pretty much standard fare.

An eye-glazing summary follows: the Syrians intervened at the request of the Lebanese president to force an uneasy peace between Muslims and Christians, the Israelis marched in and set up a surrogate militia to protect northern Israel from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the UN sent in peacekeepers to quell internal Christian-Muslim fighting. Israel laid siege to Beirut in 1982, with the stated aim of eradicating the PLO. Israel also supported Christian militias who massacred Palestinian civilians. The PLO was partially evacuated by the US, and a Multinational Force (MNF) of US and Western European troops was deployed to protect Palestinian and Muslim civilians. When the Israelis withdrew, fighting broke out between Druze Muslim militias and Christian forces, and between Lebanese army units and Muslim militiamen. The MNF suffered heavy casualties and withdrew in early 1984.

Etc., Etc.

So now we turn to Iraq. 3 Japanese citizens kidnapped yesterday, along with a couple if Israeli Arabs (including one with an American drivers license). 7 other hostages were released. Today brings word of potentially 2 Italians and 4 Americans kidnapped (via FoxNews). Another story says that Americans are missing (Via CNN):

Two U.S. soldiers and several civilian contractors are missing after their fuel convoy came under attack by rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire, a senior Pentagon official said.

The two most interesting stories (to me) are as follows, both reported on CNN and other TV news:

(A) Sunnis and Shiites prayed together in Baghdad today. On the heals of speculation that some Shiites and Sunnis have banded together in the past week, this could mark a turning point in the war, if the insurgency spread to a much wider portion of the Shiia population. These are the strange bedfellows I alluded to earlier.

(B) Members of Sadr's Mahdi Army have been engaging another Shiite militia, the Badr Brigade. This is not confirmed, but more what we think is going on.

So far it seems like, after a dull roar in Iraq the past year or so, we are getting some of the worst possible scenarios in Iraq. We are once again fighting to retake cities we captured long ago. If we push in to Najef too agressively, we risk putting the entire Shiite population against us (that is, stop firing missiles at Mosques!)

May 1 is coming around soon. If the goal was a stable and peaceful Iraq, we may want to wait a little while longer for that. If the goal was a chaotic hellhole, well, any worse, and we'll be able to say "Mission Accomplished"...

Its hard work being a president

Via Josh Marshall (quoting the Wash Post):

This is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency.

So, while jobs continue to (for the most part - we'll see if last month was the start of a trend or a fluke) be difficult to track down in this country, and while tens of thousands of American soldiers are involved in active combat in Iraq, and thousands of families grieve at the death of soldiers or victims of terrorism that has ocurred under his watch...

Bush has spent about 500 days on some form of vacation or R&R;? What, does he think that this is like his stint in the Texas Air National Guard?

GET TO WORK!

(and yes, before I get some InstaPudding in response, I do realize that his job travels with him - however, it cannot be denied that a pretty piss-poor message is sent to those suffering in America or around the world under his watch, when he can't be bothered to show up to the office or appear in official capacity a little more than 1/2 the time).

No free press when it comes to the Supreme Court

Via Talk Left, we get this story about how Marshals guarding Justice Scalia demanded and forced those video-taping speeches given by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Journalists report that, at a speech Justice Scalia gave to high school students in Hattiesburg, Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube demanded that they erase their recordings.

If this was something the Marshals came up with on their own, then they should be reprimanded and given a lesson in the First Amendment. If this was at the direction of Scalia, then one has to wonder whether its time for him to step down from the Court.

But did Rube [the agent who acted] act on her own, or at the direction of Justice Scalia? According to Flowers [another Marshal], Rube was "following the court's orders." But David Turner, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, said "Justice Scalia did not instruct the deputy to take that action." Seems the Marshals are having a problem getting on the same page.

Very disturbing. So goes free speech on the Right.

All eyes on Condi

Watched part of the Condoleeza Rice testimony - nothing exciting, nothing dramatic. Most importantly, at least what I've caught, nothing unexpected, from either the questioners or Rice herself.

Neal Pollack blogged the hearings here, via Talk Left.

Here is Kevin Drum's assessment from his short viewing:

She also strikes me as nervous and hesitant, which is a little surprising this far into the session. But that's just a quickie response after a few minutes of watching. Like everyone, I'll be curious to see what the general verdict on her performance is.

Wal-Mart gets the smackdown - ballot style

The world's biggest retailer's effort to build a supercenter in Inglewood, Calif., suffered a blow Tuesday as voters overwhelmingly rejected a Wal-Mart Stores Inc.-sponsored initiative that would have exempted the company from zoning and environmental restrictions in the L.A. suburb.

When the Inglewood City Council rejected Wal-Mart's proposal last year to build a store the size of 17 football fields, the company gathered 6,500 signatures calling for a ballot initiative that would have bypassed the government and allowed the construction without the traffic reviews, environmental studies or public hearings required of other developments.

Via CNN.

Good for Inglewood and its voters for voting this piece of crap down.

Wal-Mart always wants special privileges in everything it does - here in Colorado, in a story I've written on before, Wal-Mart got the city of Arvada to condemn via eminent domain so that it could build a mega-store. Fortunately here, the Colorado Supreme Court shut down Wal-Mart's plans by saying the eminent domain action was not within the authority of Arvada.

And what does Wal-Mart offer in return? Low wage jobs? In the Inglewood, California vote, had voters actually approved this measure, ultimately Inglewood residents would have been on the hook to fix the traffic and environmental mess that Wal-Mart would have overlooked in their plans.

Had Wal-Mart won this election, there is no doubt that it would have become the model for the store chain getting what it wants - and it still may try this route again, any time they can't force local city counsels to give them their cake on a silver platter.

So I will count this one as a definite victory.

In case you were wondering

In the spirit of Mithras and because I am lazy and completely unoriginal...

If I were a South Park character...

Here, go make your own.

Uniter, Not a Diviter

Via Kos, we get this UPI story discussing one of the many ways that Bush has united people:

The American dream to bridge ancient Iraqi sectarian rivalries turned nightmarish Tuesday as Shiite and Sunni religious and tribal figures put aside their differences and publicly aligned against the occupation, vowing to rid Iraq of the American-led invaders.

In the past 72 hours over 18 U.S. soldiers and well over 100 Iraqis have died in vicious fighting across Iraq. U.S. aligned coalition forces also took significant casualties of an unconfirmed number in fighting in four southern cities.

Before last week the primary forces resisting the U.S. occupation were a combination of former Baath Party members and Sunni religious figures, but after fighting broke out between the coalition and a militia led by a young radical Shiite cleric, much of Iraq turned to complete chaos.

There are also indications that the two groups have come to an agreement to join with an al-Qaida affiliated terrorist group thought to have conducted widespread terrorist attacks against U.S. and Iraqi targets alike.

...

But Tuesday afternoon, one of the worst possible scenarios the CPA could imagine came true in a public way when the Sunni-led resistance forces publicly declared their support for Sadr.

This development would have been unthinkable a week ago as the previous resistance organizations have been led by religious Sunni -- who consider the Shiite heretics in Islam -- and former Baath members whose secular regime brutally oppressed the Shiites for decades.

Way to go, George! But wait, it gets better:

Sadr's statement then paid homage to his onetime rival, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has issued support for Sadr's resistance of the Americans, but has stopped short of calling for violence. Sistani -- who has tepidly supported the U.S. occupation or at least, refused to condemn it -- holds enormous sway over Iraq's Shiite population, who consider him their most influential religious leader.

"I'll free (the holy city of Najaf) and give it to Sisatni on a gold plate if he agrees to take it," Sadr's statement said, a comment that many Mehdi members said indicated an agreement that Sadr would not challenge Sistani's religious authority in exchange for Sistani not condemning the anti-coalition efforts of Sadr.

Sistani is the 800 pound guerilla in Iraq, because he commands the following of a significant amount of Iraq's Shiite population. So far, his forces have largely stayed on the sideline. Since the Shia make up about 60% of the Iraqi population (according to common estimates), his followers would probably make Iraq unwinnable for the US if they decided to become actively involved (which Sistani has not indicated yet - just speculating).

Here is a worst case scenario: Sistani issues a fatwa and gets his supporters in on the insurgency, requiring Shiites and Sunnis to work together. This, I believe, makes central and southern Baghdad ultimately unwinnable - ie, we can win virtually any military confrontation due to technology and skills, but overall, we'd be fighting potentially millions of Iraqis in a guerilla campaign. As a result, Iraq is fractured into at least two pieces, with the Kurds getting a state in the north. This pisses off Turkey, because they don't want the Kurds to get this sort of victory and control so close to them. This also pisses off the Sunni and Shiites, who want control of the northern oil fields to fund their state. And it gets worse and worse from there.

A successful chess player thinks beyond the next move - he or she is thinking several moves ahead. Do you ever get the impression that, blinded by our overwhelming military superiority, we are not thinking more than one move ahead (afterall, we insist that power will be handed over at the end of June - yet we have NO idea who its going to and what form of government it will be - my guess is Chalabi as head of the Governing Counsel, with near dictatorial control).

"Radical"

Serious question: Wolf Blitzer called Muqtada al-Sadr a "radical shiite cleric."

I admit, I don't know too much about Sadr's politics. The two terms I've heard used to describe him is that he's "fiery" and a "firebrand" - words that may describe the intensity of his rhetoric, but not necessarily radical.

The only other thing I know is that he opposes the US occupation and wants American and allied forces out. This alone doesn't seem enough to classify him as radical.

So then, what is it?

Again, serious question: Why is he a "radical shiite cleric"???