Month: July 2007

The public relations campaign to prove that the surge is succeeding is already in high gear, as a recent report by long time Iraq war supporters Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon demonstrates. And apparently it has scared more than a few Democrats into adopting a wait and see attitude regarding whatever General Petraeus will say to Congress in September. But amid all the happy talk about less sectarian killing, Al Qaeda on the run, reporters walking down streets without body armor, yadda-yadda, I keep reminding myself to ask one simple question, one that has yet to be truly answered by the Bush administration or the war supporters of whatever stripe: What is winning?

Is this what winning in Iraq looks like to you?

Poverty, hunger and public health continue to worsen in Iraq, according to a report released today from Oxfam International, which demands more humanitarian aid from abroad and calls on the Iraqi government to immediately decentralize the distribution of food and medical supplies. […]

The report states that as many as four million Iraqis are in dire need of help getting food, many of them children; 70 percent of the country now lacks access to adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003, and 90 percent of the country’s hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies.

One survey cited in the report, completed in May by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning, found that 43 percent of Iraqis live in “absolute poverty,” on less than $1 a day.

Unemployment and hunger are particularly acute among the estimated two million people displaced from their homes by violence — those who “have no incomes and are running out of coping mechanisms,” the report says.

What about this?

(cont.)

Supplies and medicine in strife-torn Baghdad’s overcrowded hospitals have been siphoned off and sold elsewhere for profit because of “untouchable” corruption in the Iraqi Ministry of Health, according to a draft U.S. government report obtained by NBC News.

The report, written by U.S. advisers to Iraq’s anti-corruption agency, analyzes corruption in 12 ministries and finds devastating and grim problems. “Corruption protected by senior members of the Iraqi government remains untouchable,” the report sad.

An entire battalion of Iraqi police “was found to be nonexistent” and corruption in the army is “widespread,” with ghost employees and a shortage of supplies, according to the report. […]

The top Iraqi anti-corruption investigator, Judge Rahdi al Rahdi, told NBC that “in many important cases, ministers did not give us the permission to take their employees to court, the prime minister’s office did not give us permission to take ministers to court.”

Rahdi said the total amount of missing money involved in his investigations into government misconduct is $11 billion.

Corruption is so serious that it is difficult for the government to function, according to Ali Allawi, a former Iraqi government minister.

And is this evidence of winning?

The US government continues to share the blame and must better scrutinize the billions of dollars it is spending to erect power stations, build water-treatment plants, and other facilities, according to a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) released Monday. […]

“The failure of the asset-transfer program raises concerns about the continuing operation and maintenance of US-constructed projects,” the report said. “In some cases, the United States has continued to pay for maintaining completed projects that have not been accepted by the [government of Iraq].”

The Iraqi government took control of more than 400 facilities completed by the US between April and June of 2006, but it has not taken over any facilities since then. As of May 2007, there have been 2,362 US-built projects completed, valued at about $5.3 billion that are awaiting transfer to the Iraqi government, the report said. This is a problem for the US because the Iraqi government cannot leverage those facilities to borrow money it needs to maintain other facilities for which it is already responsible, the report added.

Nearly $100 billion is being spent on Iraq reconstruction, and the Inspector General has completed more than a dozen quarterly reports analyzing reconstruction efforts that began in Iraq in the summer of 2003. […]

The Inspector General’s report also included the first of a new series of investigations on major US defense contractors working in Iraq, including Bechtel National. The report concluded that oversight of the contract between Bechtel and the US Agency for International Development was insufficient. In one case, only two people were in charge of accounting for more than $1 billion worth of contracts with Bechtel. According to a provision within the contract, that small staff had only 10 days to pay all bills presented by Bechtel.

“This decision was troubling because only two officials were assigned to review these invoices, raising concerns from an oversight perspective about the reliability of the receipt review process,” the report said.

Of 24 job orders completed under the phase two contract with Bechtel, 10 did not achieve their original objectives, according to the original scope of work for each job. Investigators for the SIGIR were unable to assess three other jobs, the report said, because the objectives of the contract or the work completed was unclear. Eleven other jobs were completed satisfactorily, the report said.

Let’s be honest with ourselves, for once. No matter how many generals we send, no matter how many new counter-insurgency strategies our soldiers implement, no matter how many “Al Qaeda fighters” are reported to be killed by the Pentagon, the simple truth is that we cannot win if, at the end of the day, we have not made the lives of the Iraqi people safer, their economic situation more stable, and their mere day to day existence less hopeless than they are today. Using those “metrics” we are failing miserably.

Two million estimated Iraqi refugees now live in the countries that border Iraq. Two million more are internally displaced, and are living hand to mouth. Millions of children suffer from malnutrition and disease. Turkey is massing troops at its border with Kurdish Iraq because we have no control over the PKK terrorist/militant organization which is using Iraq as a base for cross-border attacks on Turkish soldiers and civilians. The diminished British troop contingent is getting ready to leave as soon as Prime Minister Gordon Brown gives the word, having already effectively abandoned any attempt to control Basra and the largely Shi’ite southern regions of Iraq. The Maliki government cannot control its own ministers. The Iraqi Parliament is effectively deadlocked. And the Iraqi people collectively are suffering to a degree not seen since World War II.

Yet these are mere numbers and figures. The scope of the problem is so large that it is difficult to get a feel for what exactly the Iraqi people are enduring while we are allegedly “winning” the war. So let me leave you with something more than mere statistics and official reports, even though the statistics and reports roughly sketch out a broad picture that is horrible beyond our experience. Sometimes we can only make sense of a catastrophe when we view it on a more human scale. Therefore, please read this story of one family’s tragic struggle to survive, and then ask yourself if whatever we are doing in Iraq should be considered “winning” in any real sense of the word.

BAGHDAD, Housekeeper and mother of three Anisah Kaseb, 58, says the relentless violence in Iraq has damaged her family psychologically: Her younger son committed suicide and her daughter now requires psychological help. […]

“My son Muhammad, who was only 28 years old, was desperate: He had no job for the past two years and couldn’t marry because we didn’t have enough money. He was out on the streets one day looking for a job when a car bomb exploded near him. The incident affected him badly and he committed suicide, leaving us a letter saying that he couldn’t bear life in Iraq any more and felt useless because he could not help his family economically.

“It was the most terrible day in my life. He killed himself on the day of his sister’s birthday on 14 May and since than my daughter Alia’a, 32, has tried to commit suicide twice, firstly by cutting her wrists and then by jumping in front of a car – which left her with a broken leg that required hours of surgery. […]

“I thought many times of taking poison after my son died, and I prayed to God for hours to dispel these thoughts.

“My sister-in-law got desperate after my brother was killed in an explosion: She poisoned her two children and then herself, leaving a letter saying she wasn’t able to support them and that she would rather they all died together than see them killed like her husband.

If this is winning …

Patent Office smacks Monsanto down:

The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue – and in some cases literally bankrupt – American farmers. In its Office Actions rejecting each of the patents, the USPTO held that evidence submitted by PUBPAT, in addition to other prior art located by the Patent Office’s Examiners, showed that Monsanto was not entitled to any of the patents.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year’s crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time. …

So say we all.

I’ll preface by reiterating what I have said for many months now – that I wish nothing more for our troops to be safe while in Iraq and return home quickly and safely. They are in an impossible situation – put there by the stubbornness and wishful thinking by so-called “experts” and “leaders” who couldn’t lead a fake army in a game of RISK™. I will also say that any sort of military victory that our troops would have or could have achieved in Iraq occurred a few months after the initial invasion.

This can’t be denied. We went in and took out Saddam’s regime (right or wrong or for whatever reason – good, bad or worse) rather quickly. It was a swift military victory for our troops. As much as we make fun of the “Mission Accomplished” moment, had there been any semblance of a post-invasion plan, things would be very different now. Not necessarily better, but certainly very different. Tens of thousands of Iraqis may not be dead. Hundreds of thousands may not have fled the country. And our military could have done what they should have been doing all along – finding those who actually attacked us on 9/11.

However, we are long past the point where any military “success” could be construed as anything that would go towards “winning” anything. At this point, any military success is just putting a band aid on a shotgun blast. Sure, the “surge” may quell violence in some areas for some time, but the reality of it is that these are battles that are being “won”, not the war. Besides, you can’t win an “occupation”, which this clearly has become long ago.

That won’t, however, stop the likely cast of characters from crowing that there are many successes in Iraq as a result of the ill advised and ill planned escalation. I would expect this (and can easily dismiss these comments) when they come from the likes of Kristol, Kagan, Keane or any of the other likely cast of neoconservative liars whose only vested interest is saving their own “legacy” or covering their ass with these lies and verbal hallucinations.

But when the New York Times prints an article by two members of the Brookings Institution, and Majority Whip Clyborn warns of a split in House Democrats if there is a favorable report (like there is any chance the report wouldn’t be more favorable than it should be) by General Petraeus (note: there is a good discussion in a diary from last night by DualAg), you can just smell the capitulation and propaganda being ratcheted up to new heights. And yes, it is noted that Brookings hasn’t been the “left leaning” think tank that it is portrayed as.

Now, in terms of reality, violence and deaths have increased and continue to be on the rise. The Iraqi government is on vacation this month, so any short term military “progress” would be out of date by the end of August anyway. Congressional republicans have been talking about the magic date of September to do anything – and it is more obvious now than it was in the past that they will most likely point to a favorable report by Petraeus as a reason to “stay the course” or continue the escalation.

Some Democrats will get weak kneed as republicans will take to the airwaves and crow about how we are thisclose to victory and can’t bail out now. But there are a few things that are continuing regardless – (1) public sentiment is getting more and more against this continued occupation and (2) small “victories”, whether it be military or other will be trumpeted as proof that we need to continue.

Democrats must not fall for this, and we need to keep pressure up here. The fact remains that Petraeus himself said that there is no military solution in Iraq. The fact remains that more dead Iraqis are NOT a sign of success, besides, arming Sunni insurgents in Iraq and flooding the lawless tribal region in Pakistan is a good way to keep the body counts high. The fact remains that the Iraqi government wants us out. The Iraqi people want us out. There is sparse electricity, clean water or jobs. Controlling a small region of the country for a short period of time is not accomplishing anything meaningful.

Winning battles does not necessarily mean winning wars, or winning hearts and minds. And it doesn’t pass laws or make a government any closer to functioning.

In September, there will be a push for another Friedman Unit, if not more. Democrats will most likely be on the defensive again. They should not be. The “surge” is, quite frankly, bullshit and irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing on whether the Iraqi government will ever function, or whether the Iraqi people get jobs or water or come back to the country, or bring back the dead, or settle centuries-old grudges.

Even if it is “working”, it is NOT working. Winning battles (if we are even “winning” battles) will not resolve anything. Winning battles does not “win” an occupation. And no amount of clouding the truth or metrics can change that.

Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace activist group. published this article a few days ago, A Warning to Tony. Tony is Tony Blair, of course, the next Bushite puppy to enter the no-man’s land of Israeli-Palestinian peace (or non-peace) negotiations. For the right wing Israel government, of course, the sooner peace breaks out, the less of the West Bank it will retain and the risk that the Palestinians will actually achieve a sovereign state called Palestine. For the past two decades, every proposed government (and political party) solution was either no state or a Bantustan state, each of which had its sights on the Greater Israel dream. Today, it would be at most a Bantustan state and possibly a cheap source of Arab labor for Israel, lest Tony Blair is able to induce a magical cure for this dilemma.

Here is Uri Avnery’s take on Blair’s assignment as the new, and the next, failure at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Posted on July 28, 2007.

LAST WEEK, James Wolfensohn gave a long interview to Haaretz. He poured out his heart and summed up, with amazing openness, his months as special envoy of the US, Russia, the EU and the UN (the “Quartet”) in this country – the same job entrusted now to Tony Blair. The interview could have been entitled “A Warning to Tony”.

Among other revelations, he disclosed that he was practically fired by the clique of Neo-cons, whose ideological leader is Paul Wolfowitz.

What Wolfensohn and Wolfowitz have in common is that both are Jews and have the same name: Son of Wolf, one in the German version and the other in the Russian one. Also, both are past chiefs of the World Bank.

But that’s where the similarity ends. These two sons of the wolf are opposites in almost all respects. Wolfensohn is an attractive person, who radiates personal charm. Wolfowitz arouses almost automatic opposition. This was made clear when they served, successively, at the World Bank: Wolfensohn was very popular, Wolfowitz was hated. The term of the first was renewed, a rare accolade, the second was got rid of at the earliest opportunity, ostensibly because of a corruption affair: he had arranged an astronomical salary for his girl-friend.

Wolfensohn could be played by Peter Ustinov. He is a modern Renaissance man: successful businessman, generous philanthropist, former Olympic sportsman (fencing) and Air Force officer (Australia). In middle age he took up the cello (under the influence of Jacqueline du Pre). The role of Wolfowitz demands no more finesse than that of the average gunman in a western.

But beyond personal traits, there is a profound ideological chasm between them. To me, they personify the two opposite extremes of contemporary Jewish reality. Wolfensohn belongs to the humanist, universal, optimistic, world-embracing trend in Judaism, a man of peace and compromise, an heir to the wisdom of generations. Wolfowitz, at the other end, belongs to the fanatical Judaism that has grown up in the State of Israel and the communities connected with it, a man of overbearing arrogance, hatred and intoxication of power. He is a radical nationalist, even if it is not quite clear whether it is American or Israeli nationalism, or if he even distinguishes between the two.

Wolfowitz is a standard-bearer of the neo-cons, most of them Jews, who pushed the US into the Iraqi morass, promote wars all over the Middle East, advise the Israeli Prime Minister not to give up anything and are ready to fight to the last Israeli soldier.

To avoid misunderstanding: I don’t know either of the two personally. I have never seen Wolfowitz in person, and heard Wolfensohn only once, at a Jerusalem meeting of the Israeli Council for Foreign Relations. I admit that I liked him on sight.

WOLFENSOHN ARRIVED in this country some months before the “separation plan” of Ariel Sharon. He says now that the separation would have succeeded “if the withdrawal had been accompanied by the second part of the separation, which, according to my understanding, would have created an independent entity that would become a Palestinian state.” He believes (mistakenly, I think) that this was the intent of Sharon, whom, unlike his successor as Prime Minister, he respects.

Wolfensohn envisioned a blooming Gaza Strip, flourishing economically, open in all directions, a model to the West Bank and a basis for the new state. To this purpose he raised eight billion dollars. Unlike other idealists, he invested several millions of his own money in the greenhouses left behind by the settlers, hoping to turn them into the basis of the Palestinian economy.

He stood at Condoleezza Rice’s side during the signing ceremony for the document that was to prepare the way to a brilliant future: the agreement for the opening of the border crossings. The crossings between the Strip and Israel were to be again wide open, Israel undertook to fulfill at long last the obligation it took upon itself in the Oslo agreement (and has violated ever since): to open the vital passage between Gaza and the West Bank. On the border between the Strip and Egypt, a European unit was already taking control.

And then the whole edifice collapsed. The passage between the Strip and the West Bank remained hermetically sealed. The other border crossings were closed more and more frequently. The products of the greenhouses (together with Wolfensohn’s investment) went down the drain. The frail economy of the Strip disintegrated altogether, most of the 1.4 million inhabitants descended into misery, with 50% and more unemployment. The inevitable result was the ascent of Hamas.

Wolfensohn’s complaint stresses the immense importance of the border crossings. Their closure – ostensibly for security reasons – spelled death to the Gaza economy, and, by extension, to the hope for peaceful relations between Israel and the Palestinians. Before the Hamas victory, Wolfensohn saw with his own eyes the awful corruption that governed the crossings. Relations between Israelis and Palestinians there were openly based on bribery. The Palestinian products could not cross without payment being made to the people in control on both sides.

Wolfensohn lays at least some of the responsibility for the ascent of Hamas on the Palestinian Authority – meaning Fatah – who were infected by the cancer of corruption. The victory of Hamas in the democratic elections both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip did not surprise him at all.

WHAT CAUSED this idealistic person to resign?

He puts the main blame on one person, who belongs to the clique of Wolfowiz: Elliott Abrams. Like Wolfowitz, Abrams is a Jew, a neo-con, a radical Zionist beloved by the Israeli Right. He was appointed by President Bush as deputy advisor for national security, responsible for the Middle East. With this appointment, Wolfensohn says, “all the elements of the agreement achieved by Condoleezza Rice were destroyed”. The passages were closed, Hamas took over.

Wolfensohn accuses Abrams openly of undermining him, in order to get him out. True, the Quartet is not under the authority of Abrams, but a person in this position cannot function without solid American support. Abrams pushed him out in cooperation with Ehud Olmert and Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s confidant, whose plans were menaced by Wolfensohn’s activity. It was Weisglass, it will be remembered, who promised to “put the Palestinian issue in formaldehyde.”

In the eyes of Wolfensohn, both sides are to blame for the current situation, but he clearly blames Israel more, since it is the stronger and more active party. No doubt, Israel is very important for him. He had a lot of sympathy for it (In World War I, his father was a soldier in the Jewish battalions which were set up by the British army and sent to Palestine.) He gave the interview to the Israeli paper in order to voice a severe warning: time is not working for us. The demographic clock is ticking. Today, Israel is surrounded by some 350 million Arabs. In another 15 years, it will be surrounded by 700 million. “I don’t see any argument that supports the idea the Israel’s situation will get better.”

As an expert on the global economy, with a world-wide perspective, Wolfensohn could also point out that the importance of the US in the world economy is gradually declining, with new giants like China and India rising.

We, the Israelis, like to think that we are the center of the world. Wolfensohn, a person with a world-wide outreach, sticks a pin into this egocentric balloon. Already now, he says, only the West considers the Israeli-Palestinian issue so important. Most of the world is indifferent. “I have visited more than 140 countries: you are not such a big deal there.”

Even this limited interest will also evaporate. Wolfensohn rubs salt into the wound: “A moment will come when the Israelis and the Palestinians will be compelled to understand that they are a secondary performance … The Israelis and the Palestinians must get rid of the idea that they are a Broadway performance. They are only a play in the Village. Off-off-off-off-off Broadway.” Knowing that this is the worst one can tell an Israeli, he adds: “I hope that I am not getting into trouble by saying this, but, what the hell, that’s what I believe, and I am already 73 years old.”

I do believe him – and I, what the hell, am already 83.

THE METAPHOR from the world of theater looks to me even more apt that Wolfensohn himself imagines.

What is happening now to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mostly theater, and not the best in town.

The actors drink from empty glasses, recite texts that nobody believes, put on false smiles and embrace heartily while loathing each other.

The best scene so far was the Gaza “separation”. Contrary to Wolfensohn’s belief, it was merely a performance, melodrama at its best, directed by Sharon and the chiefs of the settlers, the army and the police. Many tears, many embraces, many sham battles. This week the performance was again in the media, with a huge propaganda machine trying to show how immense was the pain, how the poor evacuees have remained without villas, how many more billions will still be needed. The intended conclusion: it is impossible to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank.

The new actor on the stage, Tony Blair, is exuding charm and joviality, embracing and kissing. We, the audience, know that his lot will be exactly like that of his predecessor. Like him, he is the “special envoy of the Quartet”. His terms of reference are exactly the same as those of Wolfensohn before him: much of nothing. He is supposed to help the Palestinians to build “democratic institutions”, after the US and Israel have systematically destroyed the democratic institutions that were set up after the last Palestinian elections.

He has embraced Olmert, kissed Tzipi Livni, smiled at Ehud Barak, and we know that all three of them will do their utmost to disrupt his mission before he reaches a position that would enable him to realize his real dream: to conduct peace negotiations, as he successfully did in Northern Ireland.

All that is happening now is theater. Olmert pretends that he really wants to “save Abu Mazen”, while doing the opposite. At Bush’s request, he allowed the transfer of a thousand rifles, with a lot of fanfare, from Jordan to Abbas, so he can fight Hamas – understanding full well that to an ordinary Palestinian this will look like collaboration with the occupier against the resistance. He enlarges the settlements, keeps the “illegal outposts” and closes his eyes while the army is helping the settlers to put up more outposts. That is a foolproof recipe for a Hamas takeover in the West Bank, too.

Everybody knows that there is only one way to strengthen Abu Mazen: immediately to start rapid and practical negotiations for the establishment of the State of Palestine in all the occupied territories, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Not more discussions about abstract ideas, as proposed by Olmert, not another plan (No. 1001), not a “peace process” that will lead to “new political horizons”, and certainly not another hollow fantasy of that grand master of sanctimonious hypocrisy, President Shimon Peres.

THE NEXT scene of the play, for which all the actors are now learning their lines, is the “international meeting” this autumn, according to the screenplay by President Bush. Condoleezza will chair, and it is doubtful whether Tony, the new actor, will be allowed to take part. The playwrights are still deliberating.

If all the world is a stage, as Shakespeare wrote, and all the men and women merely players who have their exits and their entrances, that is true even more for Israel and Palestine. Sharon exited and Olmert entered, Wolfensohn exited and Blair entered, and everything is, as Sakespeare wrote in another play, “words, words, words.”

Wolfensohn can view the next parts of the play with philosophical detachment. We, who are involved, cannot afford that, because our comedy is really a tragedy.

Thanks Uri for these insights into two kinds of Israelophiles: the left kind and the right kind, who are seen in combat everyday on American blogs.

“It is impossible to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank,” says Avnery. What a conundrum. As if we didn’t know it. So the Israeli farce goes on.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1185656870/

Reproduced in full in accordance with Gush Shalom copyright policy.

Imagine being on the brink of adolescence in the year 2000, – only minimally aware of the world around you, and really not into the foibles of politics or politicians.  Life was what it was, and you took it pretty much for granted.  In fact, for you and other young teens in 2000; things seemed pretty good and getting better, because you were growing up in the richest and most powerful nation in the whole damn world.
It wasn’t a perfect place, for sure, but it had potential.  There were wrongs to be righted, but there was real hope that things would only get better as the years went on.  All in all, in the year 2000, being a kid in America was a good thing to be.

Now imagine that it is seven years later and you have just grown into adulthood, and you gradually realize that in a frighteningly short a time your entire world has become unraveled.  In just seven years, everything good that once was there is gone, and your country has come apart at the seams before your very eyes.

Really think about these last seven years and recoil at what it actually means to have come of age in Bush’s America,

To assist your reality check, here’s a short list the mind-boggling transformations that have become standard operating procedure in the good old USA…..

Continued in full article:
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=651

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing

click to enlarge
George Bush’s War God must have been watching over Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts yesterday when he had a seizure on a lakeside dock. With all that water surrounding Roberts, just imagine the heart-wrenching agony the nation would have went through if God had made Roberts spaz out in the direction of the water… just a few steps more and we would have had a full-fledged drowning. Just a few tiny steps… maybe three tops.

Thankfully that didn’t happen. Now he can still be tried for lying to Congress about his health.

That said, it lead me to wonder if there was a pattern to all of this – to the exposure of corruption within the GOP.

First you need to start with The Foaming Of The Mouth – total unhinged rants against liberals, homosexuality, Paganism at the same time  praising Bush like he was Allah, including facing Crawford and praying five times a day. We have seen this with most, if not all of the recent GOP scandals. Mark Foley was “a champion for children against online predators” only to be caught chasing down young boys on Instant Messenger. Ted Haggard was yelling and screaming about the evils of homosexuality while being freaked on meth and snogging male prostitutes.

The next stage is The Outing. Recently, Louisanna Senator Vitter was caught with a slew of hookers from DC to New Orleans and just last night Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (Mister Bridge to Nowhere) had his house ransacked by Federal Agents collecting evidence of tax evasion, bribery and corruption. Stevens was one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, defender of pork in Congressional funding bills and who would have guessed all of those construction projects would have garnered him some payola? And Vitter was one of those “liberals are destroying the family” guys while at the same time he was probably spending his nights in the French Quarter screaming “whose you fucking Daddy now” with a triple nipple butt-plug firmly implanted.

The last stage has to be The Resurrection. After the Republican in question leaves jail, divorce court or rehab, they go into a “time of solitude to contemplate their actions” (never to beg forgiveness) only to appear months later on the talk show circuit exclaiming their persecution was politically motivated, putting forth how no one else goes to jail over these issues or maybe how, technically, no law was broken. From that point, their career may drift toward a hefty book deal, radio show and if it was a particularly sordid scandal, they will end up with a news analyst deal for Fox News to comment on what happens when we catch US Representative Howard Coble, in the Well of the House, blowing a horse.

What’s going on out there?

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. – Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

Jim Clyburn is an 8-term Democrat from South Carolina’s 6th District, centered in Columbia. He’s also the Majority Whip, which was Tom DeLay’s old job before Gingrich got the boot. He’s a lot more low-key than The Hammer, so you might not be too familiar with him.

But Clyburn is familiar with the opinions of the Democratic Caucus and I don’t like what he’s saying.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said. “We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”

I never like to criticize a politician for being honest, but Clyburn needs to work on his framing. Telling people that a good progress report from Iraq will be ‘a real big problem for us’ is not the best way of making the point. The point is that a positive progress report will not change the underlying hopelessness of our mission in Iraq, but it may be enough to splinter the Democratic Caucus. And, if that happens, the Dems’ problem will be with their own base. Again, I’ve got no problem with honesty. Clyburn is probably right.

And it doesn’t help that the Brookings Institute is already carrying water for an overly optimistic September report.

This fight is far from over. And Clyburn needs to work on his messaging.

I cannot wait for Dick Cheney to leave office. I don’t care how it happens, or if we have to wait until January 20, 2009. The man just makes me insane. Consider this:

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he is a “big fan” of embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In a interview with CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, the vice president also said Gonzales has been truthful in his testimony before Congress.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, a Democrat, has said he doesn’t trust Gonzales, but Cheney said the attorney general has the support of the only man who really counts.

“I’ve had my differences with Pat Leahy,” Cheney said. “I think the key is whether or not he (Gonzales) has the confidence of the president — and he clearly does.”

Only Dick Cheney would remind everyone that he once told Sen. Leahy to ‘go fuck himself’ while telling everyone that he’s a big fan of a man that may soon be facing impeachment. But, then, Cheney has no respect for the rule of law, or for juries.

Cheney also discussed the case of his former top aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. President Bush commuted the 2½-year prison term Libby received following his conviction in the CIA leak case.

The vice president said he disagreed with the jury’s guilty verdict.

“You asked me if I disagreed with the verdict, and I did,” he said.

What was there to disagree with? Is it supposed to be legal to lie to the FBI and a grand jury?

How do we get rid of this guy?

The Texas GOP is just as crazy as we have always known they were.

linkFormer state Rep. Talmadge Heflin, a Houston Republican who served two decades before losing a re-election bid three years ago, was hired Monday as executive director of the Texas GOP.

“Talmadge Heflin has over 25 years of conservative leadership and experience as both a leader in the Texas Legislature and a businessman,” Republican Party Chairman Tina Benkiser said.

Heflin succeeds Jeff Fisher, a former Van Zandt County judge who will continue as an adviser to the party, Benkiser said.

Heflin was a state lawmaker from 1983 to 2004, including a stint as the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

In November 2004, he lost by 16 votes to political newcomer Hubert Vo, a Democrat who became the first Vietnamese to serve in the Texas House. An election recount showed Vo’s victory margin over Heflin was 33 votes and Heflin challenged the results before the House. While Heflin gained 17 votes in the investigation, he withdrew his challenge in February 2005 to avoid the possibility of a bitter partisan fight.

cross posted at Booman Tribune, refinish69,Daily Kos, Texas Kaos

He then lost once again to Rep. Vo in 2006 but not before applying for a job to head the Texas Lottery even though he had taken lots of money from gambling interest to help pay for his failed 2004 campaign.

linkThe possible future executive director of the scandal-plagued Texas Lottery Commission would come to the job with disturbing ties to the gambling industry. Lobbyist Ralph Reed targeted then-Rep. Talmadge Heflin in 2001, when Reed and now-indicted federal lobbyist Jack Abramoff were helping to orchestrate a crackdown on Texas Indian casinos on behalf of a competing tribe in Louisiana. Heflin also took $29,392 from donors with an interest in legalizing slot machines for his failed 2004 reelection campaign.

Correspondence recently released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reveals that Reed wrote Abramoff in April 2001 that he was targeting Heflin in their efforts to defeat legislation that sought to legalize legally questionable Indian casinos in Texas (HB 514). Reed’s email informs Abramoff that he is “Visiting with the staff of Rep. Talmadge Heflin to see where Rep. Heflin is on the HB 514.” Reed also writes that he would, “See who out of Reps. Talton, Corte Heflin and Wohlgemuth is close to Rep Walker to see if they are willing to call Rep. Walker to get the bill held up in Calendars Committee.” While the House passed HB 514, it died in the Senate Business and Commerce Committee.

And less anyone forget, Rep. Talmadge Heflin hired an illegal immigrant to work for him in near slave conditions and then tried to steal her child from her.

It should have been an immigrant’s dream.

Mariam Katamba, born in Uganda, found herself taken under the wing of one of the most powerful men in Texas. True, her accommodations in state Representative Talmadge Heflin’s storage room were not air-conditioned and were sometimes wet underfoot from a leaky roof. But her infant son lived like a little king: The Heflins eventually installed his crib in their bedroom, where they said he would be more comfortable.

Katamba, who lacks a green card, was allegedly hired as a live-in worker in the home of the veteran Republican legislator to take care of Gram, his mother-in-law. Beginning in July 2003, she says, she was paid $100 a week in cash for feeding and cleaning up after the house-bound octogenarian. The under-the-table salary gave the single mother a chance to care for her baby, Fidel Odimara Jr., while she worked.

But Katamba, who is in her forties, eventually realized she was less popular with the Heflins than her son was. Gram didn’t like her because she was black.

Katamba found another off-the-books job paying $250 for an 85-hour week caring for patients in a home for the mentally disabled. She saw her son Wednesday and Friday mornings, and also planned to see him on weekends.

After her first week, however, she returned to the house to find the Heflins had taken Fidel Jr. to Austin. They did the same the next week. She told them to drop her son off at her job before they left, or allow his father, Fidel Odimara, to pick him up. But every weekend, she came home and her son was gone. “They would always have an excuse for why they took him,” she says.

The Heflins quickly became possessive of Fidel Jr. In addition to keeping him in their bedroom, they offered to buy him milk, arguing that the milk Katamba received through WIC wasn’t good enough, she says. And Hall attended many of Fidel’s hospital visits, telling the doctor the boy’s name was Jude.

On a Wednesday in mid-July, Katamba asked the Heflins to bring her son to her workplace. She says they arrived without him, and instead dropped off two documents for her to sign. They told her the documents were “not legal” and would simply allow them to make medical decisions for her son in the event of an emergency, she says.

The papers looked far from informal, however. One waived Katamba’s right to testify before a child custody court; the other appointed the Heflins “co-sole managing conservators” of her child. Katamba later showed them to her boss. “He told me, ‘This paper means they are taking away your son from you.’ “

The next day, Katamba told the Heflins she would not sign the papers. She finished work on Friday, emerged from her room Saturday and asked for her son so she could take him to Chuck E. Cheese’s. The Heflins told her they would have to go with Fidel Jr. on all outings. Katamba said, “I don’t think you can tell me what to do with my son.”

A confrontation ensued. Heflin’s wife, Janice, now demanded that Katamba sign the papers. When she refused, she says Janice Heflin told her, “Okay, let’s meet in court with your green card.”

“I told her, ‘I don’t have a green card,’ ” Katamba says, ” ‘but I have rights to my son.’ “

Katamba left and stayed with a Ugandan friend, Grace, whose last name she withholds. “I couldn’t even talk,” she recalls. “I was just crying. I cried, like, 30 minutes, and then I tried to explain to her” what had happened.

Luckily, with a good lawyer and a judge who saw through the political shenanigans Heflin and his wife were pulling Katamba was reunited with her child. 

This is the type of man Perry and the rest of the Texas GOP thinks is a good leader for their party.  The man has ties to Abermoff, hires illegal immigrants and tries to steal their children, and obviously has no moral fiber at all.  I think the Texas GOP is running scared and this is our year to put them in their place.

We have a great candidate running for US Senator from Texas, Rick Noriega, who is honest and believes in making things better for all Americans.  Dan Grant running for US Congress in  TX-10, Brad Vincent running in TX-11, Michael Englehart for District Court 151 in Houston and many others running for State Rep and judicial seats.  2006 is our year to bring honesty and leadership back to Texas!!!!  Let the GOP keep honoring their criminals and we will honor and elect Leaders!!!

Natomi Austin, Deputy Finance Director of the Texas Democratic Party singing the National Anthem at the YDA convention in Dallas.