[poochee]

Originally Posted by katonca

katonca's seal of approval {{{}}}

Hi poochee

Hi Katonca!

[xico]

Published on Friday, October 27, 2006 by CommonDreams.org

How to Turn This Election Into a Progressive Mandate By Jeff Cohen

Many pundits are comparing the expected Democratic victory in the upcoming election to the Newt Gingrich-led Republican triumph of 1994, an election in which the GOP gained 52 House seats and ended 40 years of Democratic majority in that chamber.

Unfortunately, the comparison may be overstated. Even if Democrats take control of the House, this will hardly be a triumph like 1994. The Gingrich-led GOP ran on a coherent, detailed, principled – albeit wrong-headed – platform called the “Contract with America.” (One delightful promise: “cuts in social spending. . .to fund prison construction.”)

If Democrats win control of Congress in November, they can hardly claim a mandate for a coherent program. Because Democratic leaders have avoided a comprehensive program, while ducking big issues like Iraq.

So if Democrats win on Nov. 7, don’t think 1994. Think 1998. That was the stunning Congressional election in the sixth year of Bill Clinton, when he was about to be impeached – ridiculously – over deceptions about consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky. Voters went to the polls and shocked the Beltway (with pundits predicting GOP House gains of up to 15 or 20 seats) by giving Democrats a pickup of five seats.

1998 was nothing more – and nothing less – than a rejection of rightwing extremism run amuck. A rebuke to ideologues pursuing an agenda so zealously that they lost touch with public sentiment and with reality. It was also the beginning of a grassroots group called MoveOn.org – as in “simply censure Clinton and move on to more important issues.”

A Democratic win in 2006 would be similar to 1998: a rejection of rightwing extremism and hypocrisy – from the Iraq disaster to fiscal abandon to preachers of morality and war lining their own pockets.

So how do we make 2006 more than just a rejection of the other side? And with a wide-open presidential campaign approaching, how do we move a majority of the country to embrace a positive agenda for reform?

First, by recognizing that change comes from below. Today’s Democratic leadership doesn’t have a coherent progressive agenda – but neither did FDR when he won the presidency in 1932. Powerful grassroots organizations and unions propelled the New Deal agenda and pushed the Democrats to enact one popular program after another that made them the dominant party for many years.

Second, by fighting to change the Democratic leadership. This is especially crucial in advance of 2008. By and large, the current leadership has few principles, except taking power. . .and is generally inept at that. It’s timid, waffling, too close to corporate interests and too afraid of the American public, especially on issues where the public is more progressive than they are – from Iraq withdrawal to trade to universal healthcare. That’s why a progressive platform was avoided in 2006– and why Democrats could not win in 2000, 2002 and 2004 (or win by enough to avoid the election being pilfered).

2006 should have been about a positive agenda – a permanent one, not something that needs to be reinvented every election cycle. But a progressive platform is unthinkable with pro-war corporatists like Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel running the Democratic Senate and House campaigns, and often choosing the candidates (including a slew of hawkish pro-corporate types.)

Democrats need a progressive compact with America emphasizing national health insurance, just taxation, living wages, jobs-producing energy programs, trade policies that protect incomes and the environment. Polls show these are popular measures with the American public; they are not so popular with corporate lobbyists and consultants close to Schumer, Emanuel and the Clinton wing of the party.

Mass organizations like MoveOn have a duty not only to mobilize voters and dollars to defeat Republicans on Election Day, but to work after election day to transform the Democrats into a winning (and growing) party that progressives can be proud of. That’s the clear mission of a newer group, Progressive Democrats of America.

Of course the biggest issue facing our country now and in the foreseeable future is Iraq. Yet top Democrats keep thinking they can sidestep it (which contributed to defeat in ’04). Emanuel doesn’t even list Iraq as an issue on his website today. That’s not leadership.

The Iraq invasion – supported by many top Democrats – was a destabilizing adventure that defied the U.N. and international law. Now that it’s a bloody occupation, Democratic leaders like to criticize Bush (or Rumsfeld) not for going to war illegally, but for not managing the war well. As if it were possible to well-mange an occupation of a divided foreign country, while not understanding its religion or cultures, after having invaded it based on false pretense.

These Democrats want to prolong an unsalvageable occupation despite polls showing that two-thirds of Iraqis believe US troops make the situation worse and that large majorities (including most of Iraq’s parliament) want a prompt timeline for troop withdrawal. 37% of Iraqis want all troops out immediately; another 34% want them out within a year.

A University of Maryland poll recently indicated that 61% of Iraqis actually support attacks on US troops. Not surprisingly, given the false justifications for the invasion, many Iraqis harbor suspicions about our government’s designs on Iraq and its oil. With more US troops deployed to Baghdad in recent months, violence only worsened.

As Iraq expert Phyllis Bennis points out, the presence of US troops is a cause of the violence, and foreign terrorists operate now within an umbrella of popular resistance to occupation that would afford them less protection if US troops departed.

There are basically two options. 1) We can withdraw our troops in a prompt and orderly fashion, as we negotiate with Iraqi factions (including insurgents) and hand over diplomacy and peace-keeping to regional organizations and allies – while providing massive humanitarian/reconstruction aid to Iraq’s people. Or 2) as in Vietnam, we can wait years to withdraw our troops, probably in a less orderly fashion, after more chaos and bloodshed.

Yes, Democrats need to be strong on foreign policy – and even more important, smart. Prolonging the occupation of Iraq squanders lives, depletes our resources, and undermines our reputation and national security. Dodging such a huge issue does not project strength. It projects weakness and deceptiveness.

With Republicans in meltdown mode, Democratic evasions may work in this election. The numbers may even suggest a landslide. But only activism aimed at winning a majority of Americans to a positive agenda for change will produce the political landslide our country needs. Let that campaign begin on November 8.

Jeff Cohen is the author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media. He is on the advisory board of Progressive Democrats of America.

###

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community.
Home | Newswire | Contacting Us | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives
© Copyrighted 1997-2006
www.commondreams.org


I think Jeff has got it right.

[plschwartz]

Transgender MP in toilet fracas
Vladimir Luxuria
Ms Luxuria is Italy's first transgender MP
An Italian opposition MP and former showgirl has expressed outrage after meeting a transgender colleague in the parliament's ladies' toilets.

Elisabetta Gardini, spokeswoman for former PM Silvio Berlusconi's party, said she felt ill after the encounter during a break in Friday's session.

The incident led to heated debate about which toilet the transgender MP, known as Vladimir Luxuria, could use.

Ms Luxuria says she has been using ladies' toilets for years.

Using the men's would have created even bigger problems, she said.

The matter has now been passed to parliamentary procedural officials to resolve.

'Sexual violence'

Ms Gardini said she had been horrified to find Ms Luxuria in the toilets.

Elisabetta Gardini
Ms Gardini is an ally of Silvio Berlusconi

"It never entered my mind that I'd find him in there", she said. "It felt like sexual violence - I really felt ill."

Centre-right MPs backed her call for the creation of a third "transgender" toilet, Reuters news agency said.

But ruling coalition deputies accused Ms Gardini of discrimination tantamount to racism.

Ms Luxuria said she had not expected such aggression in the parliament.

Born Wladimiro Guadagno, Ms Luxuria wears women's clothes but has not had sex-change surgery.

A 40-year-old former drag queen and prominent gay rights activist, she was elected MP for the Communist Refoundation, a member of Prime Minister Romano Prodi's centre-left coalition, in April.

[canndy]

Dear Suleman 'Ali:

Thank you for your fax of 27 June 1995 which said, in part:

"Recently a pamphlet has been circulated around Oxford saying that evolution is synonymous with kufr and shirk. I myself am a biologist and am convinced by the evidence which supports the theory of evolution. I am writing to ask whether the Quranic account of Creation is incompatible with man having evolved. Are there any books which you would recommend on the subject?"

During my "logic of scientific explanation" period at the University of Chicago, I used to think that scientific theories had to have coherence, logicality, applicability, and adequacy, and I was accustomed to examine theory statements by looking at these things in turn. Perhaps they furnish a reasonable point of departure to give your question an answer which, if cursory and somewhat personal, may yet shed some light on the issues you are asking about.

Read the whole article here

[xico]

Why are Republican conservatives calling for an end to One Party GOP Rule?:

William Frey, a founder of "Republicans for Humility," explains why he and other conservative Republicans are upset with the direction of the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/102606a.html

===

[iltos]

Originally Posted by xico

Why are Republican conservatives calling for an end to One Party GOP Rule?:

William Frey, a founder of "Republicans for Humility," explains why he and other conservative Republicans are upset with the direction of the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/102606a.html

===

fascinating article (almost make me want to join the GOP )....strikes me as the serious side to the linskyjack thread (untouched by any response) of the mahler spot on america not being #1 anymore.

where you been xico...health and stuff ok? missed your voice round here

[xico]

Originally Posted by iltos

fascinating article (almost make me want to join the GOP )....strikes me as the serious side to the linskyjack thread (untouched by any response) of the mahler spot on america not being #1 anymore.

where you been xico...health and stuff ok? missed your voice round here

Hi Iltos!
Thanks!
Health is good, but I've been working on the 911 crime. LJ asked if I had read the 911 Commission Report, and I hadn't, so I started reading it . . . and that lead to other sources, more books, ad infinitum. Fascinating reading on every level. Where there is a concentration of power, there is corruption. Rome had nothing on us! What an absolutely fascinating can of worms!

But I still have to check out my emails, and so I ran across this little article. You might like it.

Air America on Ad Blacklist?
From Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, October 31, 2006


An internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates.

The October 25 memo was provided to FAIR by the Peter B. Collins Show, a syndicated radio show originating on the West Coast.

Headlined “Air America Blackout” and addressed “Dear Traffic Director”—referring to the radio station staffer who coordinates programming and advertising—the memo gives the following order to affiliates:

Please be advised that Hewlett Packard has purchased schedules with ABC Radio Networks between October 30th and December 24th, 2006. Please make sure you blackout this advertiser on your station, as they do not wish it to air on any Air America affiliate.

The directive then advises ABC Radio Network affiliates to take note of a list of other sponsors who do not want their programming to run during Air America programming.

Please see below for a complete list of all advertisers requesting that NONE of their commercials air within Air America programming.

The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald’s, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don’t want their commercials to air on Air America.

The ABC memo is evidence of the potentially censorious effect that advertisers’ political preferences can have on the range of views presented in the media. When Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network, a Fox News executive told Advertising Age (10/13/03): “The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn’t be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in…. If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat.” (See Extra!, 11-12/03.)

FAIR’s call to the ABC contact person listed on the memo, to ask if similar “blackout” lists exist for other shows, including conservative-leaning programs, has not been returned.

This article is from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. If you found it informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit their website and register an account to view all their articles on the web. Support quality journalism.

http://www.freepress.net/news/18807

So, now we now why there is no liberal press, and that the media is a white wing (pun intended) charade, with actors posing as left wingers. LOL

It's kind of funny, I had just read an article by Luciana Bohne on Columbus as a rep of the beginning of colonialism, and the eventual massacre of the native peoples in the Western Hemisphere ( actually everywhere outside of Europe) that is still going on today. What's funny is my realization while I was watching an old timey cowboy movie with the boarder patrol catching outlaws who were trying to bring machineguns into Texas. Good guys and bad guys. Just had to sympathize with the boarder patrol . . .
but I felt kind of weird. It was really a quarrel between colonialist, colonials, after they wiped out the Native Americans, about who was going to rule. Fascism vs Democracy! Historically the noble savage degenerated into the heathen worth killing when we found out he had all this land, and that some of the land had gold on it . . . and other precious metals. Democracy for us!

It seems to me the Middle East is just another chapter in the same movie. All those injuns and all that black gold!

Have a good one!

[xico]

The theft of American elections is a media issue: .

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox and the AP own the exit polls and have defied John Conyers' request for the raw data, keeping that data secreted from even qualified independent researchers.
http://freepress.org/departments/display/16/2006/2205


And here's a nice quote:

"But I know now that there is not a chance in hell of America becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts us absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many lifeless bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.": Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Author

[xico]

Every single commercial fishery in the world will be wiped before 2050 and the oceans may never recover if over-fishing continues at its current rate, a four-year scientific investigation has found.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35349

===
No more fish to eat in 40 years:

Fish stocks are declining so rapidly that scientists have predicted that they will disappear by the middle of the century unless radical measures are taken to protect them
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...435290,00.html

===

[poochee]

Fed Warns Of Illicit Bond Activity
Traders May Have Manipulated Supply

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 7, 2006; Page D01

The Federal Reserve put traders on notice yesterday that it is scrutinizing activity in the bond market, highlighting recent concerns that some traders may have made illicit profits by manipulating securities prices.

Dino Kos, executive vice president of the markets group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, led an hour-long discussion of such concerns yesterday with representatives of the bank's 22 primary dealers -- the banks and securities firms that trade Treasury securities with the central bank.


The Fed meets with its dealers periodically to discuss market issues, but this was the first session devoted to suspicions at the Treasury Department about possible manipulation of the market for government bills, notes and bonds, and for futures contracts and other financial contracts linked to the securities.

The government's concerns were detailed in a Sept. 27 speech by James Clouse, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for federal finance. He described ways in which traders could control the supply of highly sought Treasury securities, driving up their prices. Such practices enable traders to borrow money at low interest rates and then invest it at higher rates to earn a profit.

The U.S. Treasury market plays a critical role in the global financial system, allowing the federal government to borrow and pay for its activities, providing benchmarks to lenders setting interest rates, and serving as a tool for the Fed to adjust interest rates in its efforts to control inflation and encourage economic growth. "Ensuring the integrity of the Treasury market is essential," Clouse said in his speech.

Over the past two years, government agencies that monitor financial markets have "observed instances in which firms appeared to gain a significant degree of control over highly sought-after Treasury issues and seemed to use that market power to their advantage," Clouse said. "In the process, prices in the . . . markets appear to have been distorted to varying degrees."

Clouse noted that some of the trading patterns may have innocent explanations. But he warned that others might violate securities laws that prohibit market manipulation. Neither Clouse nor the Fed would identify which firms have engaged in questionable trading. The Fed regulates major banks but does not investigate suspected trading violations.

Rest at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...referrer=email

[xico]

Murtha Can Lead an Iraq Withdrawal

By Arianna Huffington, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted November 10, 2006.

Jack Murtha's leadership on Iraq sparked the first Democratic majority in 12 years. As House Majority Leader, he just might get us out of the Iraq disaster.

Everywhere you look, "experts" are sifting through the rubble of last night and offering standard-issue, conventional wisdom-approved explanations for the GOP's defeat. For a perfect example, check out Ron Brownstein's reading of things in the LA Times, where he divines that the "GOP ceded the center and paid the price." Or DLC founder Al From, who -- surprise, surprise -- claimed Tuesday as "a victory for the vital center of American politics over the extremes."



Nonsense. The GOP lost for three reasons: Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq. Period. End of discussion.


Election Day 2006 was an unambiguous repudiation of the Bush administration's failed and tragic policy in Iraq. In race after race after race, Democrats who were unequivocal on Iraq prevailed. Democrats who ran campaigns by the book, listened to their consultants, and veered to Al From's "vital center", lost.



A perfect example of this can be found in Pennsylvania, where Joe Sestak and Patrick Murphy both made strong anti-Iraq positions a key part of their congressional campaigns. Sestak, a retired three-star admiral, called the war a "tragic misadventure" and advocated withdrawing U.S. troops by June 2007. Murphy, an Iraq war vet, praised the leadership of Jack Murtha, and said, "We need to start bringing our men and women home now." Both men won.



Conversely, Lois Murphy, who many pegged as a sure-fire Democratic pick-up, avoided putting Iraq front and center -- and lost. She didn't even mention Iraq in the "On the Issues" or "Making Us Safer" pages of her campaign website.



Then there is Ned Lamont, who paid the price for trying to play it both ways on Iraq. He initially, and courageously, ran on the need to leave Iraq -- and came from nowhere to win the Democratic primary. He then put the war on the back burner for months -- giving Lieberman time to not just get off the mat but to learn his lesson on Iraq and begin muddying the waters by also using anti-war rhetoric. By the time Lamont went back to pounding Lieberman on Iraq, it was too late.



The Iraq dynamic played itself out across the country. In New Hampshire's 1st District, social worker Carol Shea-Porter, who unequivocally said "We have to leave Iraq," defeated incumbent Jeb Bradley, despite no financial support from Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC. In Kentucky, anti-Iraq progressive John Yarmuth, who said that Americans are no longer fighting terrorists in Iraq, "we're fighting Iraqis," unseated five-term incumbent Ann Northrup.

And here are some other Senatorial and Congressional winners on Iraq:



Sherrod Brown, Senator-elect from Ohio, who defeated two-term incumbent Mike DeWine: "From the beginning, I have been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war."



Jay McNerney of California, who defeated seven-term incumbent Richard Pombo: "I'm 100 percent in favor of Congressman Murtha's plan."



Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who beat 12-term incumbent Nancy Johnson: "We must leave Iraq as soon as possible..."



Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who defeated ardent anti-immigration candidate Randy Graf: "My priority is to bring our troops home safe and soon."



Baron Hill of Indiana, who defeated incumbent Mike Sodrel: "We stand for getting our boys and girls out of Iraq sooner rather than later."



Dave Loebsack of Iowa, who defeated 15-term incumbent Jim Leach: "Complete disengagement from Iraq in the next year will serve to enhance America's security."



Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator-elect from Rhode Island, who was even more strongly anti-war than anti-war incumbent Lincoln Chafee: "I support a rapid and responsible withdrawal of our troops from Iraq."



Don't let the DLC and DCCC spin-meisters fool you. This election was not a mandate for the Democratic Party to run to the middle. It was a mandate for the Democratic Party to do everything in its power to get us out of Iraq -- rapidly and responsibly.



And that's why the next thing Democrats need to do is make sure that Jack Murtha becomes the new Majority Leader of the House. He led the charge to make Iraq the central issue of this campaign, and led the charge to keep pressing the issue when other Democratic leaders wanted to tone down the rhetoric or move economic issues to the forefront.



Jack Murtha's leadership sparked last night's victory and has given Democrats control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years. Now they have to complete the end-the-Iraq-debacle mission the voters have given them. And Murtha's the leader who can take them the rest of the way.




Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

http://www.alternet.org/stories/44123/

War is good business for the Death Merchants and the weapons industries.

[eggplant43]

I've always enjoyed Gary Kamiyas's writing about politics. I think he "gets it", and has a very precise, clear way of illustrating his points. This is his take about the failed Neo-con strategy towards the Middle East:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/.../index_np.html

To read it, unless you are a Salon member, you must click on the ad, but I believe you'll find it worth your time.

[eggplant43]

It's a hornet's nest. But I'm game. So why not jump in.

"Bush administration officials" are telling CNN that Saddam Hussein will be hanged this weekend. Convention dictates that we precede any discussion of this execution with the obligatory nod to Saddam's treachery, bloodthirsty rule and tyranny. But enough of the cowardly chatter. This thing is a sham, of a piece with the whole corrupt, disastrous sham that the war and occupation have been. Bush administration officials are the ones who leak the news about the time of the execution. One key reason we know Saddam's about to be executed is that he's about to be transferred from US to Iraqi custody, which tells you a lot. And, of course, the verdict in his trial gets timed to coincide with the US elections.

This whole endeavor, from the very start, has been about taking tawdry, cheap acts and dressing them up in a papier-mache grandeur -- phony victory celebrations, ersatz democratization, reconstruction headed up by toadies, con artists and grifters. And this is no different. Hanging Saddam is easy. It's a job, for once, that these folks can actually see through to completion. So this execution, ironically and pathetically, becomes a stand-in for the failures, incompetence and general betrayal of country on every other front that President Bush has brought us.

Try to dress this up as an Iraqi trial and it doesn't come close to cutting it -- the Iraqis only take possession of him for the final act, sort of like the Church always left execution itself to the 'secular arm'. Try pretending it's a war crimes trial but it's just more of the pretend mumbojumbo that makes this out to be World War IX or whatever number it is they're up to now.

The Iraq War has been many things, but for its prime promoters and cheerleaders and now-dwindling body of defenders, the war and all its ideological and literary trappings have always been an exercise in moral-historical dress-up for a crew of folks whose times aren't grand enough to live up to their own self-regard and whose imaginations are great enough to make up the difference. This is just more play-acting.

These jokers are being dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that the whole thing's a mess and that they're going to be remembered for it -- defined by it -- for decades and centuries. But before we go, we can hang Saddam. Quite a bit of this was about the president's issues with his dad and the hang-ups he had about finishing Saddam off -- so before we go, we can hang the guy as some big cosmic 'So There!'

Marx might say that this was not tragedy but farce. But I think we need to get way beyond options one and two even to get close to this one -- claptrap justice meted out to the former dictator in some puffed-up act of self-justification as the country itself collapses in the hands of the occupying army.

Marty Peretz, with some sort of projection, calls any attempt to rain on this parade "prissy and finicky." Myself, I just find it embarrassing. This is what we're reduced to, what the president has reduced us to. This is the best we can do. Hang Saddam Hussein because there's nothing else this president can get right.

What do you figure this farce will look like 10, 30 or 50 years down the road? A signal of American power or weakness?
Josh Marshall

[poochee]

Originally Posted by eggplant43

It's a hornet's nest. But I'm game. So why not jump in.

"Bush administration officials" are telling CNN that Saddam Hussein will be hanged this weekend. Convention dictates that we precede any discussion of this execution with the obligatory nod to Saddam's treachery, bloodthirsty rule and tyranny. But enough of the cowardly chatter. This thing is a sham, of a piece with the whole corrupt, disastrous sham that the war and occupation have been. Bush administration officials are the ones who leak the news about the time of the execution. One key reason we know Saddam's about to be executed is that he's about to be transferred from US to Iraqi custody, which tells you a lot. And, of course, the verdict in his trial gets timed to coincide with the US elections.

This whole endeavor, from the very start, has been about taking tawdry, cheap acts and dressing them up in a papier-mache grandeur -- phony victory celebrations, ersatz democratization, reconstruction headed up by toadies, con artists and grifters. And this is no different. Hanging Saddam is easy. It's a job, for once, that these folks can actually see through to completion. So this execution, ironically and pathetically, becomes a stand-in for the failures, incompetence and general betrayal of country on every other front that President Bush has brought us.

Try to dress this up as an Iraqi trial and it doesn't come close to cutting it -- the Iraqis only take possession of him for the final act, sort of like the Church always left execution itself to the 'secular arm'. Try pretending it's a war crimes trial but it's just more of the pretend mumbojumbo that makes this out to be World War IX or whatever number it is they're up to now.

The Iraq War has been many things, but for its prime promoters and cheerleaders and now-dwindling body of defenders, the war and all its ideological and literary trappings have always been an exercise in moral-historical dress-up for a crew of folks whose times aren't grand enough to live up to their own self-regard and whose imaginations are great enough to make up the difference. This is just more play-acting.

These jokers are being dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that the whole thing's a mess and that they're going to be remembered for it -- defined by it -- for decades and centuries. But before we go, we can hang Saddam. Quite a bit of this was about the president's issues with his dad and the hang-ups he had about finishing Saddam off -- so before we go, we can hang the guy as some big cosmic 'So There!'

Marx might say that this was not tragedy but farce. But I think we need to get way beyond options one and two even to get close to this one -- claptrap justice meted out to the former dictator in some puffed-up act of self-justification as the country itself collapses in the hands of the occupying army.

Marty Peretz, with some sort of projection, calls any attempt to rain on this parade "prissy and finicky." Myself, I just find it embarrassing. This is what we're reduced to, what the president has reduced us to. This is the best we can do. Hang Saddam Hussein because there's nothing else this president can get right.

What do you figure this farce will look like 10, 30 or 50 years down the road? A signal of American power or weakness?
Josh Marshall

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by eggplant43

It's a hornet's nest. But I'm game. So why not jump in.

"Bush administration officials" are telling CNN that Saddam Hussein will be hanged this weekend. Convention dictates that we precede any discussion of this execution with the obligatory nod to Saddam's treachery, bloodthirsty rule and tyranny. But enough of the cowardly chatter. This thing is a sham, of a piece with the whole corrupt, disastrous sham that the war and occupation have been. Bush administration officials are the ones who leak the news about the time of the execution. One key reason we know Saddam's about to be executed is that he's about to be transferred from US to Iraqi custody, which tells you a lot. And, of course, the verdict in his trial gets timed to coincide with the US elections.

This whole endeavor, from the very start, has been about taking tawdry, cheap acts and dressing them up in a papier-mache grandeur -- phony victory celebrations, ersatz democratization, reconstruction headed up by toadies, con artists and grifters. And this is no different. Hanging Saddam is easy. It's a job, for once, that these folks can actually see through to completion. So this execution, ironically and pathetically, becomes a stand-in for the failures, incompetence and general betrayal of country on every other front that President Bush has brought us.

Try to dress this up as an Iraqi trial and it doesn't come close to cutting it -- the Iraqis only take possession of him for the final act, sort of like the Church always left execution itself to the 'secular arm'. Try pretending it's a war crimes trial but it's just more of the pretend mumbojumbo that makes this out to be World War IX or whatever number it is they're up to now.

The Iraq War has been many things, but for its prime promoters and cheerleaders and now-dwindling body of defenders, the war and all its ideological and literary trappings have always been an exercise in moral-historical dress-up for a crew of folks whose times aren't grand enough to live up to their own self-regard and whose imaginations are great enough to make up the difference. This is just more play-acting.

These jokers are being dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that the whole thing's a mess and that they're going to be remembered for it -- defined by it -- for decades and centuries. But before we go, we can hang Saddam. Quite a bit of this was about the president's issues with his dad and the hang-ups he had about finishing Saddam off -- so before we go, we can hang the guy as some big cosmic 'So There!'

Marx might say that this was not tragedy but farce. But I think we need to get way beyond options one and two even to get close to this one -- claptrap justice meted out to the former dictator in some puffed-up act of self-justification as the country itself collapses in the hands of the occupying army.

Marty Peretz, with some sort of projection, calls any attempt to rain on this parade "prissy and finicky." Myself, I just find it embarrassing. This is what we're reduced to, what the president has reduced us to. This is the best we can do. Hang Saddam Hussein because there's nothing else this president can get right.

What do you figure this farce will look like 10, 30 or 50 years down the road? A signal of American power or weakness?
Josh Marshall

Thats very well put by J. Marshall. Its not something I want to be associated with, but I am U.S. citizen --so its my shame. >f