Who is The Talking Dog?

the talking dog

"Sure, the dog can talk…but does it say anything interesting?"

Without doubt the most important fount of wisdom currently available on the planet

December 12, 2005, What a waste

In a few hours from now (about 11 30 pm in New York), Stanley "Tookie" Williams will be put to death by lethal injection at San Quentin prison, his last-ditch efforts at a stay of execution from the courts or from California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger failing.

Williams is alleged to have murdered four people in the Los Angeles area over 20 years ago; he was also alleged to be a founding member of the notorious Crips gang. In prison, he has been a model citizen, among other things, writing children's books aimed at dissuading youths from gang violence.

We loves our death penalty here in America; we recently executed our one thousandth prisoner since 1976; only China, Iran and Indonesia have executed more prisoners. I'm sure most Americans are just delighted to be in the company of those three great nations-- the pinnacles of the kinds of values we hold dear. Of course, since 1976, we have also had over 600,000 homicides, proving the futility of a death penalty that doesn't particularly deter crime in any way, though it is widely believed to be administered unfairly (largely because it is administered unfairly). The one good thing you could say about the death penalty (aside from its popularity, and that does count for something in a democracy... though universal health care and a decent minimum wage are damned popular, and you won't see those anytime soon) is that it presumably saves states money, by ending a prisoner's life before spending the cost of warehousing them for decades. But... counting the cost of the endless appeals, the reality is, the death penalty ends up costing more in many cases than warehousing the prisoner for life. Without, of course, the possible discovery of later innocence.

Schwarzenegger's denial of clemency should have been expected; it reflects the same political cowardice that he showed in vetoing the gay marriage bill. Arnold needs some political support somewhere, so if acting like a hard-ass (and against the principles he intimated he stood for during his campaign) surprises some people, maybe it shouldn't... after all, there's an election next year, isn't there?

Williams' case presents a number of difficulties. Williams always maintained his own innocence; nothing surprising there. Because that will make it too easy, we'll just have to play this out. In my view, a lifetime of incarceration in (an overcrowded) California prison is probably a nastier punishment than execution. But as a penological matter, it sends a message that there may not be much point in behaving well in prison: it won't get you jack (to be fair, Williams' situation is by no means run of the mill.) But... it sends a message.

it won't bring Williams' victims' back, certainly. Perhaps it will make the victims' families feel better, for a time. Or not. Only they can know for sure. But once again, when, in our name, the state engages in barbarity in the interest of either punishing or deterring barbarity, and does so in a way that is by all accounts, grossly unfair (and let's just stick to Black men in Los Angeles; recall a fellow who brutally murdered two people around 11 years ago, but, unlike Williams, was in a position to hire a top-notch legal team and hence buy himself reasonable doubt, and is out playing golf somewhere, while Williams awaits death by lethal injection)... is that really what we want?

Trick question. I realize that this is the system that Americans do want. It just happens to have an... unattractive side from time to time.

Comments (6) | TrackBack (1)


December 11, 2005, Now it finally all makes sense

From Bruce the Veep (who attributes his source as Andrew Sullivan), we give you this cogent explanation for virtually everything that has come out of the White House for the last several years.

We knew it had to be something like this.

Now, we finally have proof.

Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)


December 10, 2005, They lived it like they meant it...

An interesting confluence of events, the near simultaneous deaths of the premier comedian of the 1970's, Richard Pryor, at 65, of an apparent heart attack, and former Minnesota Senator and Presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, who died at 89.

Pryor was in famously bad health, suffering from multiple sclerosis; at one point, he suffered from burns over 50% of his body in an accident. McCarthy... was 89, and was living in an assisted living situation.

Both represented the promise and the energy released by the 1960's, particularly, the late 1960's. McCarthy was a darling of many a well-meaning student, and his decision to run against sitting President Lyndon Johnson on the issue of the war was part of the matrix of decisionmaking that led LBJ not to run (and hence, led Nixon to win, which has ushered in so much of our recent history... )

And Richard Pryor was just the definition of comedy: numerous Grammy winning albums, appeared in 40 movies, everywhere, and he was out there, willing to use any form of language... obscenity back when it was still shocking (not to mention back when it was funny.) Nothing I can say about him will do him justice, so I won't say anything.

So... at a time when the energy and the promise of the 1960's and even the 1970's seems to be fading... two icons of that era... pass on the same day.
Fascinating.

Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)


December 10, 2005, More Geopolitics for Dummies

Another visit to Pravda, another opportunity to ask an obvious question, this time against the backdrop of this report on rapidly improving relations between India and Russia: since defense trading is so damned critical to countries like Russia, and its desire to make money is what is driving it to sell weaponry to problem-children nations like Iran... and we spend so damned much on our own defense... why don't we simply buy enough of our defense needs from Russia (or others who might sell to Iran), taking away their incentive to do so...?

We know the answers: (1) the people who run our government are stupid and greedy, and (2) Russian arms makers haven't set up a sweetheart network of revolving door jobs available to ex-Pentagon officials and K-Street lobbyists to make sure they get "their fair share" of business (and that the relevant people get "their fair share" of kickbacks and bribes.)

The results, of course, are that we will have a harder and harder time keeping Iran from ultimately acquiring nuclear weapons, weapons that its current psychopathic Neanderthal elected President intimates that it intends to use on you know know (who, of course, will retaliate in kind.) Oh... also weapons it might funnel to its terrorist friends like A.Q.... who would then use them, possibly, on you know who... only there wouldn't necessarily be a return address...

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


December 9, 2005, Let's not argue and bicker about who killed who...

It seems that as early as 1998, American officials in our embassy in Riyadh were warning Saudi officials about the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda against civil and military aviation.

It seems the Saudis may have stepped up their airport security at the time and, ironically, the United States... did not... As everyone who reads this knows, 15 of the 19 9-11 highjackers were Saudi nationals... We won't talk about warnings the American government might have had...

Leads to too many questions.

Oy.

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


December 7, 2005, The world's shortest...

How about "shortest ethics course", when it is suggested by the current Republican speaker of the House. No doubt we can get ex-Majority leader Tom DeLay and ex-Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham to serve as guest lecturers.

How about... shortest t.v. mini-series about the Holocaust..., in this case, a mini-series proposed by Mel Gibson set agaisnt the backdrop of the Holocaust. Mel Gibson's father is already on record as a Holocaust denier (that will shorten the mini-series right there), and Mel's Passion of Christ is regarded by many as anti-semitic... But hey... with rumors swirling that Mel may be the California GOP's backup should Arnold's services be terminated...

Or... shortest connecting flight...... as an apparently mentally ill passenger boarding his connecting flight from Miami to Orlando ran up and down the airplane aisles claiming he had a bomb in his bag (even as his wife ran behind him screaming that he was mentally ill and handn't taken his medication), and, when exiting the aircraft, failed to stow his arms and legs on the ground as directed by air marshals, who shot him, dead. Say this for post-9-11 airport security: it's no longer a joke, not even a little.

Shortest stay in the dock... former Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Hamza Al-Zubaidi died in U.S. custody before participating in the war crimes tribunals that are currently involving Saddam Hussein and seven others... reportedly of heart problems...

And shortest... welcome?... to SecState Incompetetentalleezza Rice, for suggesting that the U.S. does not tolerate torture by its personnel (apparently, like corruption in New Orleans or in my home County of Kings, where we do not tolerate corruption)... we demand it.

Well, that's all my attention span will take on this... yet another day that will live in infamy, on the 64th anniversary of some event that wasn't nearly as important as 9-11 (or that Super Bowl where Janet Jackson's booby showed...)

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


December 6, 2005, Rice Off-putting

The American Secretary of State Incompetetentalleezza Rice visited new German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and was promptly pelted with questions about American unlawful "extraordinary rendition" (no denying that, please) kidnapping and rendition of prisoners believed to be terror suspects to friendly third countries where they could be tortured and abused, and most importantly, be tortured and abused beyond the reach and oversight of American law.

One such renditionee is a German national kidnapped to Afghanistan and unlawfully (he alleges) abused and tortured there... before eventually released after five months or so.

Some of the cooperating third countries are our "New Europe" allies in Eastern Europe, and some are in the Middle East, and some are, let's face it, God knows where.

Rice's response, of course, was to try to duck the questions (about ghost prisons and renditions and torture and s***) entirely; certainly, no satisfying answers were reached on the subject, and in the case of the German national (a Mr. al-Masri), Rice contradicted the German Chancellor's exclamation that the United States admitted it erred in his case, while the SecState's response was "if mistakes were made-- which they most assuredly were not-- we will take corrective measures-- if we feel like it-- which we most assuredly do not." With respect (I love that expression), the SecState doesn't necessarily want to compromise the legal position of the United States in a case just filed against it.

Still, these are rather troubling allegations. The premise of our "War on Terror TM" is that because there are "rogue states" (Afghanistan and Iraq) who do not obey international norms and harbor terrorists and cost Poppy Bush (which, btw, I'm
convinced is a reference to the flower rather than some friendly fatherly type thing) the 1992 election... they have to be stopped, even by preemptive force if necessary. So... we go on to behave as if we are a rogue state, acting ourselves as if we were international terrorists, willfully kidnapping people and moving them about the world beyond oversight for abuse and torture. (Yes, yes, I am aware that these are "mere allegations" at the moment; we'll see to what extent they are proven, though we know for sure of the "Black Ops" and ghost prisons and extraordinary renditions; we just don't know their full extent, and likely never will.)

Just all part of the pastiche of American moral authority.

Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)


December 5, 2005, Nuremberg on the Tigris?

And thus the trial of Saddam Hussein and seven other high ranking officials of the Baathist regime proceeded, with testimony being taken. The graphic testimony included description of tortures and killing, evidently in revenge upon a Shiite village some of whose residents were involved in a plot to assassinate Saddam; details included a description of a meat grinder used for human flesh. Saddam Hussein himself stood up and made several outbursts, including at one point that he was not afraid of execution (healthy attitude, given his current position...)

What's fascinating, of course, is that Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, doubtless responsible for the horrible deaths of thousands (and his sons I'm sure currently reside in an even lower circle of hell than is reserved for Tikriti Pere).

And perhaps the circus can go on without too many more members of the defense team being assassinated... particularly as those elections come up in a couple of weeks... maybe some Sunni politicians can get through it without themselves getting assassinated... Former U.S. Attorney General and world-renowned gadfly Ramsey Clark has arrived, to act as a "legal advisor" to the Saddam Hussein defense team... just part of the circus...

Oh well. The "trial" is not exactly an open process. Since there is nothing resembling "security" or "normalcy" in Iraq (and you have to hand it to Saddam... when he was in charge, there were both... nasty and tyrannical to be sure, but one could probably drive from the airport to downtown without being ambushed... unlike now...), can there be anything resembling "a fair trial"? Of course there can. The trial will, in the end, result in an awful lot of evidence, some of it even true, and the defendants will be found guilty and sentenced to death. There will be a huge outcry about it from the EU and the UN, but the democratically elected Iranian influenced government that will have to deal with the death sentence handed down by a court selected by Ahmad Chalabi's nephew... will have no problem carrying out the sentences.

Certainly, Saddam himself would have done nothing less, were he in a position to dispense or withhold mercy.

But there you go. Our President, who was the governor of a state that carried out more executions during his term than any other governor in American history (or so I'm told) isn't the least bit squeamish about our protectorate (and it is without doubt our protectorate) executing his family's bugaboo (i.e. the guy who cost Poppy the '92 election... which is all this was about anyway...)

Saddam is a bastard, to be sure. But karma is a most peculiar thing. Perhaps some big picture thinking should go into things.

Of course, while my fellow travelers on the left must realize that Bush isn't Hitler, our Loyalist readers must realize that Saddam isn't either. Our most inexact "Victor's Justice" may have boomerang consequences later. Nuremberg was kind of a one-off: WWII really was a special case... as was Cambodia's and Rwanda's killing fields, which ultimately involved some sort of international tribunals (tribunals which did not impose the death penalty on the guilty) and Mao's Cultural Revolution (which did not involve international tribunals). Saddam is, frankly, just another dictator, and if Mr. Allawi (the interim PM we installed) is to be believed, didn't do things all that differently from what the current proto-regime/Shiite militias are doing... but in any event, I daresay, a huge portion of the world's population lives under conditions that would not be unfamiliar to the people of Saddam's Iraq...

Will I shed a tear when Saddam is hanged (I suspect it will be hanging; it might be shooting, of course... Saddam himself often ordered that)... ? Certainly not for him. There will doubtless be stepped up violence by the Sunni/Baathist deadenders at all stages of the Saddam trial... others will die for this buullshit photo op, including lots of Americans. That's the way it is. Will it be worth it? Dick Cheney once asked the rhetorical question of how many American lives Saddam was worth, and he answered "not too damned many." Of course, that was before... now the only principle is that the ends justify the means...

Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)


December 4, 2005, The truth is out there... but our story pays better

This week's visit to our comrades at People's Daily gives us this discussion of the American military's admission of its use of a paid contractor ("the Lincoln Group"... funny, that... ) to dispense propaganda representing the American view of events in Iraq.
This is the kind of story that epitomizes why I try to bring you stories from former Cold War propaganda outlets Pravda and PD... because in today's bizarre world... those sources are more trustworthy than, oh, The New York Times. (Don't believe me?)

Of course, it's not just the Iraqis who our government seeks to influence through the occasional dip into propaganda every now and again... sometimes, we sell ourselves a bill of goods... consider this lengthy expose in Rolling Stone by James Banford on "the Rendon Group" (the Carlyle Group, the McLaughlin Group... never mind...)

The basic premise (surprise, surprise) is that the Bush government (Poppy's this time) hired John Rendon to "make a case" to the Panamian people on why an American war of aggression to remove a foreign leader (then Manuel Noriega) was a good thing. Rendon was later hired by the Kuwaitis to spread lies such as the Iraqi troops killed babies on incubators in order to stir up world (and American) fury to start Gulf War I. In the process, Rendon created the Iraqi National Congress (a true astro-turf as opposed to grass roots movement) in the early 90's, which he organized, served as paymaster of, etc. Fast forward ten years or so and Rendon's creation was the principal source of our "intelligence" as to Saddam's WMD threat...

The CIA evidently ran a lie detector test, and concluded that the "defector"
Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri... was full of s***, his tales of helping Saddam's men bury thousands of tons of the most dangerous weapons in the world... just thousands of tons of crap. But alas... we weren't done. The CIA was also running another operation (or DOD was... you're never sure with these things) to gin up support for a war with Saddam, and the truth well... wasnt that important in that operation.

So.. despite our government's knowing that this tale of Saddam's WMD was a (complete, total, undeniable) lie, this story of Saddam's massive caches of WMDs was nonetheless schlepped to the media... in particular, to war criminals Judith Miller and (the late?) Paul Moran, the latter of Australian television and long on the INC payroll himself. And Judy... more interested in getting on the front page and maintaining her cushy access... didn't bother doing, any... what's that word... verification? Just took things at face value... and yes, her overseers at the Times are every bit as guilty as she is (and no, it will not be preposterous if she, they and some others find themselves having to answer charges about their actions one of these days before, say, a war crimes tribunal...)

But... many fools accepted the credibility of the Times as proof enough that Saddam was dangeorus enough to warrant the ultimate act of going to war (fools not including yours truly, who knew from the Times' bogus and deliberate undercounting of protestors in February of 2003 of a massive anti-war protest in New York that I was at that the Times had, for wahtever reason, decided to throw its weight and prestige behind having the damned war... maybe... so its war correspondents could win Pulitzers? so its reporters would continue to be welcome at the tough guys' table? Who knows why... but not for anything resembling... journalism... or dare I say it... the truth...)

So here we are. We have a government willing to pay private contractor propagandists with taxpayer money to mislead voters into policies that, magically, require expenditures of yet more taxpayer money... lather... rinse... repeat... All I can say is that as long as we can still access Pravda and the People's Daily... and we still have media sources like Rolling Stone and New Yorker (and of course, m'self...) at least some of us can figure out what's going on out there.

Until then... trust no one... especially those trying to buy your attention.

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


December 3, 2005, Nothing personal... just business

Our visit to Pravda gives us this article discussing the latest Russian arms deal, to wit, the sale of 29 defensive "Tor" missiles to Iran, for the unequivocal purpose of deterring a possible Israeli (or... American) air strike at Iran's nuclear research facility at Bushehr... lest Israel repeat its 1981 assault (then, the exact same strike that Iran itself tried, and failed, to do) of Iraq's nuclear research facility at Osirak.

The current deal is at a pathetic $700,000,000... for such a ridiculously small sum, we risk hopelessly complicating a very dangerous situation... honestly... if our Department of Defense doesn't spend more than that every 24 hours... I'd be shocked... could help Iran defend its ability to develop those nuclear weapons against Israel... or more importantly... us.

You see, amidst all the horseshit about Saddam Hussein being aligned with terrorists and potentially giving terrorists the really nasty weapons he was developing (for our Loyalist readers who insist that the President never said these things... the source I link to is a White House press release), the reality is, Iran is already well known as an ally of terrorists (including our pals at Al Qaeda), and as we know, wants to develop a nuclear program and be able to defend it against Israeli or American air power... It would seem, then, that it was Iran that presented the compelling threat, as opposed to sanctions-contained Iraq. It's certainly possible to see why the President may have made this mistake... Iran and Iraq are spelled very similarly, are both loaded with Shiites, both have oil, and they are, of course, next to each other...

Jokes aside, as the Pravda piece makes clear, this is simply about making a ruble or two... Russia views this not as some sort of ideological advancement of the Iranian regime, but as a commercial adventure. It strikes me, then, that the complications this presents to us (assuming, as I do not, that the Bush Administration has any sense whatsoever of what presents actual strategic threats to this country)... why not simply out-bid Iran? Just tell Russia that we'll buy their missiles, as part of, I don't know, a demonstration research project or something... or better yet, we'll buy their whole operation and divert it from weapons into hybrid vehicles or toaster-ovens... as well as making good on some of our other promises to Russia, such as helping it dismantle its dangerous Soviet era nuclear weapons and ensuring their safe-keeping away from... terrorists... and places like Iran...

Just another example of our having hopelessly lost focus thanks to the Iraq adventure. We should pull our troops out as fast as humanly possible, starting yesterday, precisely so we can better assess, and ultimately deal with, threats like Iran's possible development or acquisition of nuclear weapons (and its complication of any possible response to such an event), not to mention, have enough money on hand to deal with things that way, if required.

The alternative is just madness. But that's where we're going.

Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)


December 1, 2005, The Coalition of the Wilting

Ukraine and Bulgaria, two members of our multi-national force in Iraq (it is, at least, that) have announced their intentions to withdraw their forces, a combined total of 1,250 troops, from Iraq in the next few months. This comes amidst a number of other countries (Italy, South Korea, Poland and others) already discussing or outright planning on partial or total withdrawals of their own, all while the 800 pound super-power gorilla debates whether the 98-pound weakling local Iraqi guerrillas have inflicted enough military and political damage to increase the Americanwithdrawal plans (around 1/3 of current forces, or a remaining force of 99,000 or less by next October 1, damn the torpedoes, car bombs and geo-political implications... midterms, you know.)

Of course, Bruce the Veep sends us this Spencer Ackerman snippet from "even the liberal New Republic which tells us, ostensibly, what we have known for a while: the Sunni-Shiite civil war is on. It's already started, and we pretty much can't stop it now, no matter what our strategy is, and that's that. I tend not to be that pessimistic; I don't think the civil war will be fully on until we're pretty much out of there. The problem is, the status quo is not sustainable for the United States either politically or militarily for, frankly, more than another few months, if not weeks. So, whether its on now, or conditional on our being largely (if not entirely) gone... I do agree that it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. The simple facts on the ground-- Shia death squads, Baathist dead-enders blowing up American convoys and Shia mosques-- demonstrate this. One side is itching for pay-back, and the other side knows it, and is trying for preemptive horror. With Americans getting killed or maimed every day, standing in between (and the Kurds haven't even been-- at least by and large-- dragged into this... yet...)

That said... there is nothing wrong with using the December 15th elections to say "our work here is done" (translation: "you're on your own"), and moving our military personnel out of Iraq, and into other venues where, at least, they might make a difference, and, perhaps, actually advance American strategic interests, instead of being walking targets in someone else's civil war.
Indeed, something tells me the Secretary of Defense agrees with me, which is why we will, by and large, be withdrawing our troops possibly faster than the mandatory "under 99,000 by mid-terms" we are already committed to do.

Once again, if you take the President at his word, our pre-war goals of disarming Saddam's Iraq, regime change and establishing democracy in Iraq have all been achieved. So... by what the President suggested we could achieve by launching an aggressive war... has already been achieved...

That said... this would be an excellent time to cut and walk, declare victory, and plan our next, more palatable aggressive action... somewhere else. We can devote our military resources to other things. And there was that tall bearded guy... O-something or other... whoever he is... maybe we can start thinking about him...

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


November 30, 2005, Prez: Let Operation Cut and Walk Commence

In a scripted speech given at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, on the subject of Iraq, the President confirmed that the United States will be withdrawing troops from Iraq to bring the number to 99,000 or less (100,000 being the magic "too many") not less than 30 days before next November's all-important Congressional mid-term elections. Of course the President promised there would be no artificial timetables for withdrawal; that's why the timetable he laid out will be organic: naturally tied to the American political election cycle.

As usual, the expected babble-crap that oozed from the President's lips ("We will stay the course!" "We will not cut and run!" "Dissent is treason!" "War is peace!" "Ignorance is strength!" "Freedom is slavery!") drew polite applause from the assembled captive midshipmen. (The underclassmen, at least, have some hope that the President will be out of office by the time they graduate; the upper classmen, of course, expect to have no such luck.)

The fact of the matter is we have long ago achieved the officially stated pre-war goals (disarm Saddam's Iraq, effect regime change, establish a democratic government, and maintain Saudi oil hegemony within OPEC by keeping Iraqi oil offline by completely undermining any sense of civil order within Iraq's borders and by opening its borders to terrorists). The fact is, then, that we really have achieved the purportedly limited goals we set out to. The problem, of course, is that the supergeniuses who assumed we would be welcomed with flowers failed to comprehend that what we were, in fact, doing was creating a likely power vacuum in a very nasty part of the world. Worse... we were creating hundreds of thousands of blood grudges in a revenge-based society... a society where everyone was armed before we started... where we brilliantly made one of our first acts to fire thousands of soldiers and Iraqi civil servants out of some misguided ideology (and desire to... get this... save money.) So... we have opened up a big can of whoopass...

"The enemy"... mostly almost entirely former Baathists... will happily wait us out... or more likely, try to extend the status quo ad infinitum if they can. They know bloody well that once American forces leave, they will have to take on (Iranian-backed) Shiites seeking payback (the Shia death squads have already started; former Ambassador Negroponte has got to be proud) in an all out civil war ... even at the risk of knowing that there will be a likely American response of carpet bombing urban areas, or shelling from offshore... with few if any soldiers and marines on the ground to act as targets anymore. So they have little to lose by keeping up their attacks... largely because it keeps us around... Most ironic and paradoxical: they know that continuing to attack American forces will likely lengthen our stay, as there remains (justifiable) fear of abandoning Iraq to the power vacuum (that we have created.) Let me repeat the irony here: by making life a living hell for American ground troops, and by forcing the right-wing to spout the "dissent is treason" line all over again ("we won't cut and run" and similar horse-s***), the Baathists know that they are extending our presence in Iraq (because it's simply not stable enough for us to leave.)

Is there a solution?

Of course there is! It's... an artificial timetable for withdrawal... nothing at all like the 30-35% troop reduction over the next ten months (that will actually happen) of course. Nothing like that at all. Because Amurrkins don't cut and run, no sirree.

NO. We'll be having some troop redeployments, of course. But only because now the Iraqi units are fully trained and are able to assume the duties of securing their country's future. Yes, that's the ticket.



Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


November 28, 2005, Payback's a bitch

So it would seem in Iraq, as evidence mounts that organized Iraqi military, mostly Shia units of the kind we are attaching the future of Iraqi security to, have been carrying out kidnappings and executions of Sunnis from Sunni neighborhoods.
This, of course, is the perceived pay-back for years of abuse of Shia at the hands of the Sunni dominated Baathist government (or perhaps, for other grudges of shorter or longer standing.)

These revelations emerge at the same time that the nascent Iraqi government attempts to try former Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein for various crimes against the Iraqi people. Indeed, the trial has been adjourned for a week so that the defense team of Saddam and other high Baathist government officials can replace defense counsel who were recently murdered.

Can Saddam Hussein (and his co-defendants) be afforded anything resembling a fair trial under these circumstances? Should Shia militiamen with a tendency to murder civilians be placed in charge of security in Iraq? These sorts of facts lead to questions that answer themselves in undesirable ways.

The resounding "NO" as the answer to both questions are for the same reason: Iraq is simply not ready for either event right now. Yes, of course it would be emotionally satisfying to give Saddam Hussein a kangaroo court, and then take him out and shoot him; he would afford any of us nothing better. Ah, but we're supposed to be better than he is. This is supposed to be the new Iraq. Which takes us to those military units that wantonly abuse Sunni civilians...

Right now, it just doesn't look like Iraq is ready for us to hand back full control to it. It's unfortunate that our military imperatives (we have stretched our manpower resources to an unsustainable level, and for that reason alone, must draw down to some degree) and, of course, our domestic political imperatives (36, 37% presidential approval polls less than a year before mid-term Congressional elections) mean... the Iraqis will soon get a lot more control over their own affairs...

OTOH, of course, Iraq will have its parliamentary elections in just two weeks or so; perhaps some kind of a consensus toward a national future can be reached then. Perhaps the Iraqis will sort out their differences, and Shia and Sunni (and Kurd) will figure out how to get along in the joint project of re-forming their own nation, and order can be restored, and a peaceful, prosperous Iraq, grateful to us for its liberation, can go forward into the new Middle East as a bright beacon of freedom and democracy.

Maybe. Certainly, all that would be a good thing... no, it would be a great thing. That's just not how you bet.

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


November 27, 2005, Novak to testify before Plame grand jury

Bet you're thinking as I was that we were talking about Bob "Prince of Darkness and Karl Rove's best friend in the whole world who isn't named Bush" Novak. Ha! We're talking about Time's Viveca "No Relation" Novak.

It seems she was talking to Karl Rove's lawyer in the middle of 2004... Why? How the hell do I know? Presumably, that's one of the things that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will be asking.

We can't really tell where this investigation is heading, but for those of us still naiively clinging to notions of American justice, this at least means that Karl is sufficiently interesting to Fitz to keep asking questions about him. Or of course, he may intend to ask Ms. Novak something completely different, and of no relevance to Rove at all.

All we know for sure is that the Washington power establishment and press establishment are so hopelessly intertwined, and frequently in bed together (often literally), that the criminal justice system may prove to be the only avenue from which the people will learn the truth about the workings of their own government.

Well, at least we have blogs... otherwise, I suppose, people like me might actually chose to do something that might make a damned bit of difference in their ever-dwindling free time...

Hope springs eternal for a bloody red Fitzmas... but we probably no better. We know that Fitzmas will probably be as big a disappointment this time as all the other times... Looks like I picked a bad day to give up drinking...

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)


November 26, 2005, Harbin-ger of the future

This week's visit to Pravda gives us this account of a major toxic spill (estimated to be an astounding 100,000 tons) of RBS (really bad s***), including heavy concentrations of benzene, that has emptied into a river that forms the water supply for the large-ish Chinese city of Harbin (4-5 million, despite the Pravda account of 10 million)...

The spill is on its way to the Russian border, where it will, in turn, effect the water supplies in various Siberian locales, all complicated by the extreme cold freezing the river... the Russians may, it looks like, deal with this one better than the Chinese... for one thing, the Russians can blame the Chinese for causing this in the first place.

Once again, the Chinese government officials decided to do what they usually do when something bad happens: lie about it, and indeed, deny that there was anything wrong. It seems to have taken weeks before full details of the plant explosion hundreds of miles upstream of Harbin have come to light, and appropriate public notice gone out about avoiding the water. Obviously, local bureaucrats fear repercussions about having failed in the first place, so as usual, damage control efforts are hampered by... well, you know the rest.

Government officials reacting slowly and inappropriately, and then "spinning" if not outright lying about it, to the detriment of their constituents...

Glad that sort of thing only happens in China.

Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)


The Story of
the talking dog:

Two race horses have just been worked out on the practice track, and are being led back into the stable.

After the stable boy leads them into their stalls, the first race horse tells the second, "Hey, did you notice something odd about that guy?  I don't know, he just doesn't seem right to me".

The second race horse responds, "No, he's just like all the other stable boys, and the grooms, and the trainers, and the jockeys – just another short, smelly guy with a bad attitude, 'Push, push, push, run harder…We don't care if you break down, just move it, eat this crap, and get back to your stall".

The first race horse says, "Yeah, I know what you mean!  This game is just a big rat race, and I'm really tired of it."
A stable dog has been watching the two of them talk, and he can't contain himself.

"Fellas", he says.  "I don't believe this!  You guys are RACEHORSES.  I don't care what they say about lions, YOU GUYS are the kings of the animal world!  You get the best digs, you get the best food, you get the best health care, and when you run and win, you get roses and universal adulation.  Even when you lose, people still think you're great and give you sugar cubes.  And if you have a great career, you get put out to stud, and have an unimaginable blast better than anything Hugh Hefner ever imagined.  Even if you're not in demand as a stud, you still get put out to pasture, which is a mighty fine way to spend your life, if you ask me.  I mean, you guys just don't appreciate how good you have it!"

To which, the first race horse turns to the second race horse and says, "Would you look at this!   A talking dog!"

Your comments are welcome at:  thetalkingdog@thetalkingdog.com

« 5 ? weblogs # 5 »

 « LibertyLoggers »

 

"If you were born to hang, you'll never drown!"

Hit Counter