If the Republicans are insisting on linking Tony Rezko to Barack Obama despite the fact that nothing in Rezko's trial had anything to do with Obama, then it seems to me that Saint David Petraeus' association with his less-savory associates deserve some closer scrutiny as well -- particularly since John McCain plans to leave his Iraq policy in Petraeus' hands.

Blue Girl, Red State has the story. It's too much to excerpt, just go read it.

Labels: Bush Administration, corruption, General Petraeus, Iraq

Ted Westhusing, was a champion basketball player at Jenks High School in Tulsa Oklahoma. A driven kid with a strong work ethic, he would show up at the gym at 7AM to throw 100 practice shots before school. He was driven academically too, becoming a National Merritt Scholarship finalist. His career through West Point and straight into overseas service was sterling, and by 2000 he had enrolled in Emory University to earn his doctorate in Philosophy. His dissertation was on honor and the ethics of war, with the opening containing the following passage: "Born to be a warrior, I desire these answers not just for philosophical reasons, but for self-knowledge." Would that all military commanders took such an interest in the study of ethics and morality and what our conduct in times of war says about our development as human beings. Would that any educational system in this country taught ethics, decision making, or even political science that's not part of an advanced degree anymore.

Ted Westhusing, the soldier, philosopher and ethicist, was given a guaranteed lifetime teaching position and West Point by the time he had finished with his service and his education. he felt like he could do more for his country by trying to shape the minds coming out of the academy that were the ones that would be military commanders. He had settled into that life with his wife and kids, when in 2004 he volunteered for active duty in Iraq, feeling like the experience would help his teaching. He had missed combat in his active duty and it seemed like an important piece for someone who not only philosophized about war, but who was also preparing the military's future leaders.



But more than that, he was sure that the Iraq mission was a just one; he supported the cause and he bought the information that was put in front of him. Considering that vials of powder were being tossed around hearings by the highest level of military commanders how could he not? This was a man who was so steeped in the patriotism of idealistic military fervor that he barely could fit in regular society. His whole being was dedicated to this path, and he was proud to serve his country.

Once in Iraq, he found himself straddling the fence between a questioning philosopher and an unquestioning soldier. Westhusing had thought he was freeing a country in bondage, keeping America safe from a horrible threat, and spreading democracy to a grateful people. But the reality of what was happening in this out of control war was too much for him. His mission was to oversee one of the most important tasks left from the war; retraining the Iraqi military by overseeing the private contractors that had been put in charge of it.

As the assignment went on he found that everywhere he looked he was seeing corrupt contractors doing shoddy work, abusing people, and stealing from the government. These contractors were being paid to do many of the jobs that would normally be done by a regulated military, and they bore out the worst fears of those who don’t believe in outsourcing such vital work. He responded to the corruption that he saw by reporting the problems up the line, but the response from his commanding officers was disappointing. He had, for much of his career, idolized military commanders, and in that assignment he found himself with some of the military's most famous faces, doing the most important job, but he was terribly disappointed and alarmed to realize that they were greedy and corrupt themselves.

The wall of silence about this was impenetrable and the reality of the situation turned his entire belief system upside down, making him question everything that was going on, and his role in it. Having envisioned the top military commanders to be the most honorable that America has to offer, he was crushed to find out that ascending to power in this military could be more due to cronyism than expertise and that these men who he had aspired to be like were greedy and corrupt themselves. Upon reporting to his commanding officers, he realized that not only did the problems stretch to the level above him, but that they were systemic.
To these commanders the only real problem was the fact that they had a deeply honorable soldier in their command that was likely to rock the cash cow. Westhusing was so bereft at the realization of his part in this breakdown in the military's code of conduct, and the atrocities carried out in America's name, that he became despondent and finally in June, 2005, he shot himself. It was called a suicide, though there have been some questions raised about it.

He’s not the first Iraq suicide, though he was, at the time of his death, the highest ranking one. He was an oddity; a thinking soldier in a war that requires blind obedience, and unwavering dedication. The black and white world of Bush's military doesn't allow much for the grays that come into the picture when one is, at heart, a philosopher...and even in the face of seeing the reality of war, how can anyone come to terms with the revelation of corruption on this scale? More crushing was the realization that the leaders that he idolized, and the honor that he held as being the very foundation of his entire world as a military officer, were all a lie, and stories told to cadets at West Point that didn’t bear out in reality. The leaders in this war didn't care, and many were, as he outlined in his 4 page suicide letter, that was addressed to General's Fil and Petraeus, his direct commanders, only out for their own selfish enrichment.

Thanks for telling me it was a good day until I briefed you. [Redacted name]—You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff—no msn [mission] support and you don’t care. I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human right abuses and liars. I am sullied—no more. I didn’t volunteer to support corrupt, money grubbing contractors, nor work for commanders only interested in themselves. I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored. I trust no Iraqi. I cannot live this way. All my love to my family, my wife and my precious children. I love you and trust you only. Death before being dishonored any more. Trust is essential—I don’t know who trust anymore. [sic] Why serve when you cannot accomplish the mission, when you no longer believe in the cause, when your every effort and breath to succeed meets with lies, lack of support, and selfishness? No more. Reevaluate yourselves, cdrs [commanders]. You are not what you think you are and I know it.

COL Ted Westhusing

Life needs trust. Trust is no more for me here in Iraq.

What troubled Westhusing was not just the death and destruction all around him, the obvious looting of the country, and the human rights abuses, but the seeming lack of attention to the problem by his two of commanding officers, General Joseph Fil, and General David Petraeus. Yes, that David Petraeus. So focused was he on the destructive role of these two, that his suicide note was written to them. Westhusing's widow said that her husband's death should serve to bring out the truth of the corruption that her husband saw. Author and journalist, Robert Bryce was recently able to get documentation of interviews with Westhusing's wife and many other bits of correspondence and Investigation documents through the freedom of information act. They leave more questions open than they answer, especially in light of the media's blackout on information about Petraeus' part in this...even during a week that he is center stage at hearings being conducted on the war.

The book Blood Money, by T. Christian Miller, relates in depth, the deep convictions of Westhusing, and his drive towards a sort of noble honor and how that ended with his death. His favorite saying was by Socrates from Plato's Phaedo: "Those philosophizing rightly are practicing to die." It’s more than a little disconcerting to find that he had acted detached and despondent for days or weeks before he committed suicide, often standing around looking at his gun closely and lost in thought, not paying attention to what was happening. In a war where there are a record number of cases of suicide and PTSD, is there no awareness training of the trouble signs going on? He exhibited all of the signs of depression and despondency, and it’s a mystery why no one stepped up and tried to help him. But this is the culture of the military, and this is probably what worked out better for his commanding officers, who were no doubt looking at a loose canon who was raining on their good deal out there in the desert. Was there more to Westhusing's death? There is quite a lot of speculation out there that something was amiss at the death scene, and about who found him, (a contractor who reportedly tampered with the scene,) and that things don’t add up exactly.

General Petraeus is appearing before congress this week to try to defend his "surge" and to stop any further troop withdrawals. He is also making the case for an additional 100 billion dollars.
The surge is not working, no matter how it’s spun. If we keep combat troops in Iraq there could arguably be a reduction of violence, depending on many factors, but if its actually "working," as in helping Iraq to be more self sufficient and to end our participation in the problems there?...well, that depends on your definition of "working."

The fact that Petraeus has a long history of being wrong in his assessments of Iraq, and the fact that when directly questioned about current violence, he tends to defer blame to Iran, aside, at some point you have to question how much Petraeus' risen star and earning potential is tied to this war and its continuation. To say that this administration is in any way even a little translucent is laughable. Never has there been such an almost psychotic grab for all encompassing power with no body overseeing the actions of a few in power. Never has there been an attitude that the executive is above the law and the need to somehow document that for some sort of long range plan.

At some point the level of spending and loss of funds is so incredible that we must be compelled look at management, even if it’s unseemly in a time of war. At some point the American people have to demand an accounting. You would think that America had never run a war before. Surely it must be embarrassing when the top military officer has to get up in front of congress and try to explain some very small incremental improvement at such a huge cost. These improvements can also be easily explained away by so many factors, such as payments to a certain faction to stand down, ethnic cleansing having actually worked, and just the fact that more troops might put off the inevitable civil war that will happen now or in 20 years once the US security forces are pulled out. None of that speaks to a lasting improvement or even a partial repair of what we’ve done there.

A lot of this is common sense, and the fact that all Americans want so badly to feel like we've won, or that this was a just cause and not just some construct of Imperialism and the oil wars...much less, plans that happened in some conference rooms above the rule of law and our governmental checks and balances...well, we may be just caught in a nightmare here and waking up is not an option for those in power. We must realize that at some point we're doing more harm than good, and that may involve admitting that we are not necessarily on the side of right. But that's the rub here, and that's where we get back to Westhusing; any action in life comes with the possibility of a later realization that what you were positive about at one point could have been wrong.

Real strength of character involves being able to admit to wrong, even if that realization is terrible. In some societies the idea of having made mistakes brings dishonor on entire families. In our society the military culture is such that honor is everything; or it was. This administration has pulled the heart and guts out of any such code of honor in favor of allegiance to their plan for domination and their version of "right." But that too depends on your definition of "right."

The fact that much of what they espouse has to do with their Christian religion, and that a new culture of religious intolerance and pressure has grown up in the military academies of America, is no secret. When the love of country and honor...ideas, decision making, and weighing things... is replaced with allegiance to an ideology represented by a very powerful minority, ruling with fear rather than strengthening our collective will by reminding us what our American values are, we are no longer the America of the founders. Westhusing subscribed wholeheartedly to the credo of Honor or Death. He embraced the ideals of this country to the point that they were woven into his being. The realization that so many representatives of our country, of us, were not only corrupt, but committing atrocities, and the realization that the commanders had no intention of doing the honorable thing and stopping these abuses, was too much for him.

Was Westhusing murdered? Well, conspiracy theorists out there have some information and I suppose that one could make a case for further investigation. But one thing is for sure; He was a man of honor, he was despondent over corruption involving his direct commanders and said as much in a suicide letter addressed to them, and regardless of who pulled the trigger, he got the information out. I will leave the energy for trying to convict a lesser employee of a subcontractor to others who like to dig these things out. No direct connection will ever be found to Petraeus. It just doesn't work that way.



The implication is there, but the bigger implication is about the man whose finger will never be physically placed on the trigger; David Petraeus. This is the man who would immediately stop the very slow withdrawals that Bush began last year. This is the man who would continue to pour good money after bad into a situation that cannot even be basically stabilized after so many years. Today, All Spin Zone covers the hearings and asks that if Petraeus were a CEO or any top management in any business, wouldn't he be fired for this poor performance? What does someone have to do to get fired in this administration? At some point, aren't we going to question the implications and accusations floating around this man? At some point doesn't he lose all credibility as someone implicated in so many failed plans? Where is the honor in this leadership and where is the honor in this war?

RIP Ted Westhusing, and everyone else who has given their lives in this farce...RIP.

c/p RIP Coco

Labels: corruption, General Petraeus, Iran, Iraq War, mental illness, PTSD

Heh. Ann Coulter says we think they're all rapists? I'd like to hear what she has to say about the Florida Deputy U.S. Attorney who flew to Detroit to rape a five-year-old.

Anyway, those brave new folks at Brave New Films deconstruct the Fox Noise coverage of the Petraeus hearings. It's only about a minute and a half, and it's in a good cause. I know even that much Faux Noise is a lot to handle, but we're with you in solidarity.

Labels: Fox News, General Petraeus, hack journalism

Always have your eye on the next step on the ladder, and the hell with what your responsibilities are now. Patrick Cocburn's puff piece on Gen. David Petraeus in the U.K. Independent spins Petraeus' pathetic appearance before Congress this week, in which he stated he "didn't know" if the effort in Iraq was making us safer, also reveals the prize on which Petraeus has his eye:

The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq's Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.

"I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, 'No, that would be too soon'," Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.

General Petraeus has a reputation in the US Army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America's apparent failure in Iraq, he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012.

His able defence of the "surge" in US troop numbers in Iraq as a success before Congress this week has made him the best-known soldier in America. An articulate, intelligent and energetic man, he has always shown skill in managing the media.

But General Petraeus's open interest in the presidency may lead critics to suggest that his own political ambitions have influenced him in putting an optimistic gloss on the US military position in Iraq .

Mr Khadim was a senior adviser in the Iraqi Interior Ministry in 2004-05 when Iyad Allawi was prime minister.

"My office was in the Adnan Palace in the Green Zone, which was close to General Petraeus's office," Mr Khadim recalls. He had meetings with the general because the Interior Ministry was involved in vetting the loyalty of Iraqis recruited as army officers. Mr Khadim was critical of the general's choice of Iraqis to work with him.

For a soldier whose military abilities and experience are so lauded by the White House, General Petraeus has had a surprisingly controversial career in Iraq. His critics hold him at least partly responsible for three debacles: the capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004; the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-05.

Putting aside Patrick Cockburn's view that Petraeus' defense of Administration policy in Iraq was "able" and the article's relatively pro-Petraeus slant (especially surprising since in 2005 he called the Iraq situation "unwinnable", this "stellar" record, which includes responsibility for not securing weapons in Iraq after the fall of Saddam, would make Petraeus the perfect Republican heir to the Heckuva Job Legacy of George W. Bush.

Labels: General Petraeus, Iraq

If it's not to "make us safer", then what the fuck are we doing there?

Does anybody know?



(h/t: Joe Sudbay)

If nothing else has given the Democrats the ammunition they need to pull the plug on this mess, this should. Petraeus hasn't got a clue what he's doing, because his commander doesn't have a clue what he's doing. The "mission" is to cover Bush's ass until he can leave office.

Do we really want another 500-1000 American kids to die to allow Bush to continue to live in his bubble?

Labels: General Petraeus, insanity, Iraq

...Cause everybody knows that an ant can't move a rubber tree plant....

Labels: General Petraeus, Iraq War

Just keep kicking the ball down the field another six yards -- I mean months:

The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.

General Petraeus, whose long-awaited testimony before Congress will begin Monday, has informed President Bush that troop cuts may begin in mid-December, with the withdrawal of one of the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, about 4,000 troops. By August, the American force in Iraq would be down to 15 combat brigades, the force level before Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan.

The precise timing of such reductions, which would leave about 130,000 troops in Iraq, could vary, depending on conditions in the country. But the general has also said that it is too soon to present recommendations on reducing American forces below that level because the situation in Iraq is in flux. He has suggested that he wait until March to outline proposals on that question.

Hmmmm....pull out 4000 troops just in time for Christmas so as to allow for a nice heartwarming news segment, dutifully covered by Katie Couric, of soldiers coming home for good at Christmastime, crow about how the Republicans are the party of quick withdrawal (but "responsibly"), then wait until the presidential candidates have been all but decided to even outline proposals on any significant reduction in U.S. forces.

Doesn't it give you confidence in "the generals on the ground" that they are so sensitive to the political needs of the president that they'll schedule how they conduct a war around what gives their Commander-in-Chief the most political bang for the buck at any given time?

And someone please tell me why Democrats in Washington still can't accept that "policy" is the LAST concern of Republicans. Hell, where this war is concerned, even Thomas Friedman isn't asking for another Friedman Unit anymore. Yesterday he wrote:

Three lessons: 1) Until the power struggle between Sunnis and Shiites is resolved, you can’t establish any stable politics in southern Iraq. 2) When people want to move down a progressive path, there is no stopping them. When they don’t, there is no helping them. 3) Culture matters. The Kurdish Islam is a moderate, tolerant strain, explained Salam Bawari, head of Kurdistan’s Democracy and Human Rights Research Center. “We have a culture of pluralism,” he said. “We have 2,000 years of living together with people living around us.” Actually, there are still plenty of Arab-Kurdish disputes, but there is an ethos of tolerance here you don’t find elsewhere in Iraq.

Too bad over 3700 American kids had to die for Thomas Friedman to recognize what many of us knew before the war, despite the lessons of the confict in the former Yugoslavia.

As for Petraeus, the anticipation of whose non-report report has had pundits and politicians alike looking and sounding like so many Vladimir and Estragon clones, did anyone think that someone trusted so much by George Bush was going to be anything a political hack?

Labels: General Petraeus, Iraq

Americans have grown so frighteningly apathetic that as Petraeus gives his report on the Iraq Surge, there will be a mechanical background hum of daily life as gears grind and stock tickers tick in the gray world...and in some sort of 1984 Macintosh commercial, the big screen in Times Square will show a picture of the uniform with the mouth moving, as if in an Olbermann/Letterman/O'Brien/Snuffleupagus weekly funny. Why do I feel so numb about this report?...even though I've waited for it, painfully aware of every death reported since we were put off through the summer...

According to...well, just about every major news outlet, pollster, and blog out there, the majority of the American people feel that this report is full of shit and that Petraeus is less than trustworthy when it comes to his view of the success of the surge in Iraq. Though it does appear that everyone is going off the same wire report for the percent of Americans who are disgruntled, I still believe it holds true across the board.

Even Petraeus himself seems to be trying to get a coded message out by frantically blinking his eyes in Morse:

In a letter to US troops ahead of his testimony, Gen Petraeus conceded that the ”tangible political progress” expected from that the surge was supposed to spur had ”not worked out as we had hoped”.

The tragedy is that once you've sold your soul, that's it. Its not like Petraeus and his ilk cant go on to write their books and make their speeches.... but forget the legacy and respect that might be due a guy like this. I just don't believe that a career officer can deliver these dummied up talking points, while clearly trying to backpedal here and there, and not be somehow haunted by it forever.


I dont even have hope that the senate will surprise us with a major smack down, and yet we know that what he is going to say is likely to put a positive spin on a grim situation. This is the kind of thing that would have made me salivate back in the days of hope, but the realities of such a close majority in the Senate, and the tendency of people in office to have a troubling amount of respect for the uniform, (which I understand, but which also must be questioned in a situation like this,) makes it almost certain that this may be a flat reading of a White House script, written weeks and months ago by the Rovian spinners who are no doubt still in the office finishing up the architecture job for the boss.

Ill be watching most of it with interest, if for nothing else, for the psychological implications of this time in history, and the arrested development of our country.

Bill Maher had a fantastic show last night, and all I can say is that if you've got HBO on demand, have a look at it. If not, check out the HBO page and look at the videos there, as well as YouTube. I also watch AfterHours online, streaming from the HBO page. That also turns up on YouTube. But in the meantime here are this week's New Rules, just for a little of the funny before a hard week to come:



Oprah Winfrey....hmmmm...
I don't much go for the overly black girlfriend thing that she does sometimes, and even though I respect her and what she has done, I get a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see her corralling Hollywood and throwing down for a guy who is inspiring but ultimately not experienced enough to WIN. I'm not saying that I wont vote for him if he is the nominee, but I doubt very much that he will be the nominee. I also feel like he puts on certain airs, and I'm not 100% sure what it is that he stands for exactly. I say this from a place of having seen him debate live and watched him on TV alot...and Ive also read most of his site from the beginning because I find him somewhat compelling in a futuristic sort of way.












In any case, I appreciate that Oprah wants a black guy as president, and that women want a woman...I don't take it very seriously right now, because I am so pleased with our field...but I do wish that she had thrown her formidable power behind the democratic nominees in 2000, and in 2004. In the world of life and death that the Bush administration has created for us, it seems to me that in the past she donated money but remained largely above the fray, because she was trying to be a news person. I'm glad to have her voice out there...but wary at the same time. Oprah Winfrey is a cultural phenomenon, who has certainly tried , against all odds, to raise the level of the culture. But we don't really know what she stands for, and she wields quite a bit of power.


Jezebel has a lighter view of Oprah's huge splash into the pool of presidential campaigning:

The woman, the black, the black, the woman, the woman, the black... OMG IT'S LIKE A REALITY DATING SHOW. We like Hillary and all, except we kind of don't want to vote for her, and neither, it turns out finally, does Oprah Winfrey, who after extensive focus-grouping and analysis of the candidates' respective adherence to the Law of Attraction (i.e. coin-flipping) yesterday , finally decided to come out and endorse Barack Obama. (UPDATE: Okay, so she had endorsed him already, but then she decided to start raising serious bank for him yesterday, and that's the important part.)...and Barack is black, and Oprah's black, and Oprah's from Chicago, but so are Barack and Hillary, but Hillary left, so that must have been it, right? Because it's not like you'd vote for somebody based on a thorough evaluation of their policies, priorities, voting records and level of beholdenness to various entrenched interests? We don't know, because we lean towards Obama, but some of us are fairly Caucasian. So what did to black women have to say? We searched far and wide for two undecided black women voters who would speak their minds.

And upon asking around:

Which settles it. Identity politics are over. It's all about bone-dentity politics. Personally, we're leaning towards Obama, but only by the transitive property of being hot for Ludacris.

C/P from RIPCoco

Labels: Bill Maher, General Petraeus, Iraq War, Obama, Oprah Winfrey

Today Paul Krugman joined the well deserved pile-on urging Congressional Democrats to take a stand and act like they have some balls when General Petraeus testifies about the white house penned report on Iraq this week. It is unreal that we are at a point where we are looking at our representatives as cowards who are afraid, not as much of what we might think of them, but of the political bubble-world of Washington DC that seems to be so hermetically sealed that any statement of dissent is treated like a huge achievement. I think that these politicians might do themselves a service by taking a look around outside of the beltway, because Americans are disgruntled, to say the least. According to Krugman, we should plan on the report to be a bunch of bullshit, twisted facts, and numbers:

Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq — as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Here’s what I’m afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus’s uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won’t ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they’ll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops.

This report is just a piece of fluff which cherry picks information down to the smallest detail, but clearly overlooks the secondary (or, hell, primary at this point,) effect of this occupation on what is left of Iraqi society; in that we might perhaps expect an increase in crime, not just because there is an increase in crime but because we are there and have disrupted everything...of course we have to count those deaths!

Its clear at this point that Bush likes to have something going on that lets him feel like he is "kicking ass," but alot of us have known for a long time that he is a sociopath riding a hobby horse, and even the doubters are beginning to realize the truth, so why are these white house Rovian operatives allowed to shape the debate? How dare any of them call Democrats who question this clearly erroneous report unpatriotic? And where do our representatives get off backing down after promising to go and deliver a strong and brave message for us. The founders would spit on the way that their hopeful plans have been twisted by this crowd. What kind of cowards do we have running this country?I hope to hear something from someone, maybe even a question that makes sense, but I'm not hopeful.

Krugman notes that Petraeus "...has a history of making wildly overoptimistic assessments of progress in Iraq that happen to be convenient for his political masters." And if its true, as Krugman believes, that the democrats will be accused of being unpatriotic no matter what they say or what happens, then I would hope to hear some all out probing of this report and perhaps even some dissent and protest. One thing we can be sure of is that this report is not likely to hint at the very real need for, and the strong possibility of, a draft.

So why bother with this piece of theater? Because Americans like to see committees and circumstance, and guys in suits acting like they are actually solving problems. Americans also like symbols...like, um...Osama Bin Laden, as the universal bad guy killer. Its a shame that Fred Thompson chose now to belittle the importance of the Bin Laden symbolism to American culture, considering that the government already has the pre-release of Bin Laden's yearly 9-11 commemoration tape, and the outrage is already palpable, even all these years later.

Thompson would do well to pull himself up by his bootstraps, get out of his limo, and try to take the pulse of the American people a little more carefully. What the hell is this guy doing talking about where he thinks Bin Laden is? We haven't caught him because we are in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, and the last thing we need is the suggestion that we should invade another country for the hell of it, when its clear that the guy moves around pretty easily in the Middle East and its gonna take good intelligence work to find him.







In other disgusting news, apparently Joementum Lieberman is co-chairing a meeting of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Monday. Again we are in a position where this pseudo liberal "I" who is supposedly caucusing with the Democrats, (but always threatening to flip to the other side,) is going to be the one representing the left side for balance...I have alot of trouble getting my mind around this! This guy gets to keep all of his committee posts and chair all sorts of meetings...representing US!...and who will ask the important questions about our security? No one...forget it.
Its gonna be a clown parade, with Skeletor Chertoff leading other top officials in making assessments about our security and how safe we are..,or not.... The clear fact that we are not safer now than we were before 9-11 points to more of the same; especially knowing how the reports are presented and how afraid our representatives seem to be to make waves.

Its been another day in the car listening to news, podcasts of Ring of Fire, and an old Majority Report rant by Janeane Garafolo about cognitive dissonance, (which has long been one of my favorite subjects.) She was talking about the woman who had the face transplant and the story of how she lost her face: passing out from drugs and alcohol and waking, but not realizing that the dog had removed her face for some reason...that is until trying to light a cigarette and, oops, what the fuck?? Janeane likened the strange shocky feeling of having just had your face eaten off by your dog to what has been going on in this country. Its strange how well some of those Air America shows from over a year ago still hold up...and sad that they still apply, even though the truth is out. Everyone knows that this is all wrong, but they just look uncomfortably at each other and hide their cowardice in some sort of idea of respect for the office and protocol. Fuck that! The feeling of embracing the lie because one can't come to terms with the fact that one was wrong in the first place, or over-identification with the lie, is the only way that some people can live with themselves. Its a form of mental illness that drives itself, in that the stress caused by conflicting belief and evidence needs to resolve so the truth is actively shifted in order to relieve the stress....and then there you are; your dog just took a bite out of your face...but it all makes sense because....because...because...it does!

Here I am in my house of cement pouring, alarm going off, firemen swarming, and contractors moving piles of my laundry round the basement, strangely quiet...for a minute...seeing what it might be like to feel like everything was OK out there...but then, on the news comes Rudy, Rudy, Rudy, who is, against all odds, holding his own in the weak Republican field...the debate, ugh...the news ugh....How did this happen? How did he manage to plow under his extreme weakness as a human being and a leader? His popularity is not dropping the way it should, which worries me, and makes me think that the American people are, as usual, not paying attention.

That Rudy has the nerve to say that he is not a perfect person but was a strong leader in NYC is just laughable. The idea that he could even fill the position of dogcatcher is incredible; but then...look what we have now!
The reign of Rudy in NYC was a strange time of knee jerk over-reaction to Dinkins and his PC liberalism. The swing was not so much to the right, because Rudy is pretty left on social issues, but more towards the Reich.

Among other insanity the homeless folks that were all over the place were hassled all the time and told to move on, with no place to go, and it was said that a large number of them had moved underground into old subway stations or were given one way tickets to places like Bridgeport, CT. I kept wondering where those people went...it was like they were just loaded on trucks one day and removed. The idea of just jostling sleeping people over and over is sort of inhumane, and the lack of real programs to help people made the whole exercise rather abusive.

Rudy set about defining the rules of what he felt was right, as if he was the arbiter of all things social, artistic and monetary. His people were less than sophisticated, and the whole thing echoed a strange mafia novella with goombas and good-fellas. Yeah, Rudy played tough, and he reversed some of Dinkin's soft policing measures, but his real focus was not on infrastructure and safety, but on surface and shine. This was not good management and it alienated many, many people...real New Yorkers for one, were disgusted, and many people who work to make the city work were disgruntled. He didn't solve problems so much as to sweep them away and make things look pretty. But, as we know about those shiny apple Republicans these days, the core is rotten, and sooner or later the worm is gonna crawl out. I'm just waiting for Rudy to blow. He not only lacks the personality for the office but he is rotten to the core.

Rudy left us in a very vulnerable position while he shined up his command center that was in the middle of his universe...with a big target on it. For anyone who doubts that Rudy absolutely sucked as a leader, and for anyone who thinks that it might make sense to have a strong guy like him at the helm, take a visit to The Real Rudy and lift the rock on old Rudy. I don't say this lightly: for anyone who might ever consider giving this guy a job with big responsibility, do some research. Your life may depend on it!


Cross Posted from RIPCoco

Labels: General Petraeus, Iraq War, Joe Lieberman, Paul Krugman, Rudy Giuliani