The Virginia Tech Massacre, The 2nd Amendment and the Coming Debate

As of my writing, there are 32 confirmed dead at Virginia Tech in what is the worst act of school violence in American History.

First, let me express my sympathy for all those involved. My thoughts go out to the students at Virginia Tech, both directly involved and those trapped in fear in their dorms - still not knowing if friends are among the dead. I cannot even begin to comprehend the anguish that parents and loved ones of those students at Virginia Tech stuck waiting to hear that their son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, is not among the dead or the wounded.

Second, let me apologize both for myself and on behalf of all of those that will in the coming days and weeks use this bloody backdrop to debate the state of gun laws in our country.

My impetuous for this diary is this statement from the White House:

A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia.

"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

I was amazed that even in the wake of this terrible tragedy, the politics of 'stoking the base' trumped humancompassion. Just hours after the shooting stopped, the White House felt compelled to remind 'the base' that the Republican Party supports everything that
the NRA tells them. Could this bit of political posturing not have waited until tomorrow? Could it not wait until parents had been notified?

I guess not. As per Redstate, it seems that Gun Control politics is the main story line of this tragedy.

From Redstate Poster CuttingCougar:

Obviously,
most of the facts are not yet known. Thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.

But get ready for the nanny-staters and the next round of hand wringing over the second amendment. And get ready for willful ignoring of the fact that these are the same methods theIslamofascists use, and yet the far left wants us to sit out that fight.

Whatever happens, I'm sure it's Bush's fault.

That's right. Thoughts and prayers and all that, but the story her is thatthis'll lead to another effort to take our guns!

Another Redstate poster, David Kirby, had this to say:

Undoubtedly, the left will use this as ammunition for gun control. But I think it's the exact opposite. Put yourself in the situation of the victim in the residence hall. You're sitting in your room, probably just waking up. Someone walks in with a gun. Because of the law banning gun possession on campus, you only have one option: get shot.

Even if the victim had a gun, it's impossible for us to say that he could have reached it on time. But at least he'd have an option.

I don't know about the rest of those on the progressive side of theblogosphere, but my first thoughts (and only thoughts until I read Dana Perino's statement) were for the victims, their families and the students at Virginia Tech.

It seems that the other side of the blogosphere had a slightly different reaction.

I would imagine that this is because they know that every time a tragedy like this happens, it illustrates the complete failure of their position on gun control - yet rather than change their position they reduce human tragedy political problem. Their first reaction isn't sorrow or sadness or outrage or sympathy - it's to man thebarricades to defend their failed policy position.

I'll end with this:

For all those on the right wailing about how the left is subverting the 2nd Amendment, I will immediately drop any attempt to advocate for some sort of sanity in American gun laws - out of respect for the 2nd Amendment - if you immediately drop any attempt to co mingle religion and government, advocate for illegal wire tapping, allow for the unregulated use of 'Letters of National Security', deprive prisoners of the right to counsel or the ability to know the crime for which they are being imprisoned, the right to a jury trial, or the right to a detainment free of torture.

Virginia Tech School Shooting Second Amendment Gun Control

The Widening Divide

The Pentagon is planning for the failure of 'The Surge.'.

"None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed."

Generals are telling Congress that questioning the President doesn't undermine the troops.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace: As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported.

Now we learn that the Pentagon has even released a report criticizing its own civilian leadership for misuse of intelligence in the months before the Invasion of Iraq.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 — A Pentagon investigation into the handling of prewar intelligence has criticized civilian Pentagon officials for conducting their own intelligence analysis to find links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but said the officials did not violate any laws or mislead Congress, according to Congressional officials who have read the report.

The long-awaited report by the Pentagon's acting inspector general, Thomas F. Gimble, was sent to Congress on Thursday. It is the first major review to rebuke senior officials working for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the way intelligence was used before the invasion of Iraq early in 2003.

Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group "developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers," the report concluded.

Inspector General Gimble's assertion that no laws were violated was challenged by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV). Rockefeller will hold investigations into whether or not the Pentagon's failure to disclose what Gimble called "intelligence activities" violated the National Security Act of 1947.

Pointing out that the White House and it's appointed civilian leadership at the Pentagon 'cherry-picked' intelligence linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Al-Queda is unexceptionally. The fact is nearly universally accepted. The 9/11 Commission found "no evidence" of a link between the two. But when condemnations of pre-war intelligence comes from the Pentagon itself, something new is afoot.

When the White House's war effort has lost the Pentagon, change is sure to come soon.

Pentagon Donald Rumsfeld Douglas Feith Thomas Gimble Pre-war Intelligence War in Iraq

Undermining the President, not the Troops

If you listen to the members of the minority party in Congress, you'd think that holding a debate - any debate - on the 'Surge' in Iraq would lead to unmitigated strategic disaster. The terrible consequences of debate would be to 'undermine the troops' or to send them 'mixed messages' resulting in very bad but unspecified things. How and why this catastrophic failure would happen (or how it would be any different from the current situation in Iraq) remains unexplained by Republicans or their media enablers.

On January 25, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a non-binding resolution stating, "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq." Asked what would happen if the Senate passed a similar resolution, Dick Cheney is on record saying "it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops."

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has said, "I do not think you can send a message that is going to raise the morale of the troops while at the same time sending a message that we don’t support the mission."

It's a simple and pervasive talking point, but is it true?

As the Senate debated the non-binding resolution that Dick Cheney so feared, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace had this to say:

"As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialog will be the dialog, and the troops will feel supported."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congress that the troops understand that debate is an effort to find the best way to execute the war, not an effort to undermine them:

"I think they [the troops] are sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debate's really about."

So why all the effort to force this false meme upon the public? Why has the White House expended so much energy ensuring that a non-binding resolution supported by the majority of Senators never sees the light of day?

Because questioning the President's plan doesn't undermine the troops. It undermines the President.

The President and his party don't want to have any debate about Iraq just as the 2008 Elections appear on the horizon.

The President isn’t concerned about the psyches of our troops in Iraq. If he were, he wouldn't continue to order more extensions of duty, repeat tours in Iraq, and 'stop loss' measures. The President and his party are only worried about their own political skins.

War in Iraq Surge Senate Debate Undermine the Troops

I'm Still Alive!

The last three weeks or so have been very busy at work, preventing me from being able to post as much as I would like. Hopefully things will slow down a bit in the near future. Also, getting the internet at home (Gasp! I'm living in the 20th century!) will mean that even if work is busy, I will be able to pound out a few sentences now and again.

I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge that fatigue has a little bit to do with it. It amazes me that top-tier bloggers can put up quality posts day after day for years. Maybe it's because they get paid to do it...

Anyway, 300 Dollar Wonder should emerge from dormancy and be back up and running again soon. I'm also planning a few changes, so stay tuned.

Thoughts on and an Explanation of "Best Entertained, Least Informed..."

300 Dollar Wonder's subtitle "Commentary for the best entertained, least informed nation on earth" is essentially a reworking of the Neil Postman quote "We are the best entertained least informed society in the world." As such, I do not take credit for the phrase or the concept.

Neil Postman (1931 — 2003) was a critic and an educator. He was a long time professor at NYU where he published many books and magazine articles examining the way that media and society interact.

His most well known work, Amusing Ourselves to Death, exemplifies the themes he pursued.

From the author of Teaching as a Subversive Activity comes a sustained, withering and thought-provoking attack on television and what it is doing to us. Postman's theme is the decline of the printed word and the ascendancy of the "tube" with its tendency to present everything - murder, mayhem, politics, weather - as entertainment. The ultimate effect, as Postman sees it, is the shrivelling of public discourse as TV degrades our conception of what constitutes news, political debate, art, even religious thought. Early chapters trace America's one-time love affair with the printed word, from colonial pamphlets to the publication of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. There's a biting analysis of TV commercials as a form of "instant therapy" based on the assumption that human problems are easily solvable. Postman goes further than other critics in demonstrating that television represents a hostile attack on literate culture.

Postman didn't just attack TV for dumbing down everything which it came into contact with, he examines how the inherent limitations of TV affect a society in which TV is the primary medium for all public discourses.

Every communication medium has an 'upper limit' to the level of discourse that it can sustain. Postman gives the example of trying to hold a discussion on philosophy using smoke signals to illustrate that the medium itself limits the depth of ideas communicated.

Postman shows that TV's 'upper limit' is far below that of print media. Then, using Aldus Huxley's Brave New World as a jumping-off point, Postman claims that TV acts as a "Soma," a drug that deadens society intellectually while leaving them happy.

* * * * *
I think that Postman's critique of TV media is especially applicable to politics. Trillion dollar budgets, intricate tax laws, far ranging foreign policy, intricate science funding and domestic policy are all forced, at best, to fit within a few minutes coverage. At the worst, debates on war and peace are reduced to 10 second sound bites.

TV's inability to investigate the intricacies and implications of various political initiatives is only compounded by treating news as entertainment. FoxNews' penchant for using TV news to reinforce its audience's pre-existing conclusions destroys what little ability was left.

Neil Postman passed away in 2003. It would have been fascinating to hear his thoughts and opinions on the emergence of the blogosphere, both as a phenomenon, as a means of communication, and as a political power.

I think he would approve.

Annotated State of the Union

I'm hoping to get back to regular posting soon. Even if I don't have time for a full analysis, I just couldn't let the SOTU go past without at least a 'documentation' type post...

From ThinkProgress and Click.TV:


Altogether, a rather flat speech, though Bush kinda pulled it together at the end. Of course he had to resort to pointing to a guy that demonstrated courage and concern for his fellow citizen - something completely alien to Bush. I'm not really seeing Bush get much more than a point or two out of this speech. First, with his numbers in the tank, I imagine most people avoided watching it. People who did already had firm opinions on Iraq and the Bush Administration. The speech was unlikely to do anything but reaffirm them.

Anybody who did tune in for the SOTU and didn't stick around for the Democratic response missed what was undoubtedly the better speech of the night. even though it was delivered by a newly elected Senator, my guess is that it will be Jim Webb's (D-VA) speech that will be better remembered 10 years down the road.

Speaking of which...



I'm sure Bush is glad he got to speak before Webb. Pitting a man who can barely form cohesive sentences against a well-regarded novelist is almost unfair...

George W. Bush State of the Union Jim Webb

FoxNews: "Obama = Terrorist"

You knew it was only a matter of time before Fox News did this, but when it happens, it's still makes your head hurt.

Fox News Barack Obama Madrasa Slander

Citation du Jour

"He has 24 months left in his presidency. I don't think I'm being mean-spirited by saying [that in] the first six years of his presidency, there's been nothing accomplished except the biggest foreign policy fiasco in the history of our country."

- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), in Time magazine.

And don't forget curtailing our freedoms, dragging America's reputation through the mud, engaging in torture in America's name, packing courts with right-wing judges, destroying any semblance of fiscal sanity, and forcing the American Public to listen to him say 'new-kyu-lar' over and over again...

America's Failure in Iraq

From Richard Cohen's Op-Ed in the Washington Post:

...I could not imagine being a suicide bomber or a member of a death squad -- or killing someone because he was a Shiite or a Sunni. As there was in Vietnam, there is a piece of Iraq -- its culture, it religions, its history -- that we do not understand. This war has lasted longer than we expected not just because we were inept or understaffed or fired the Baathists or discharged the army -- but because we don't understand the country. For instance, an Iraqi government that reacts lethargically to American proposals moved with surprising alacrity to hang Saddam Hussein. Even late in the game, we didn't see it coming.

[...]

I have some questions. When politicians and commentators detail all that the Bush administration did wrong, I wonder whether any of it really matters. Would things have turned out differently if we had done everything right? Was Iraq so "broken" we never could have fixed it? Was Hussein's despotism an avoidable tragedy, or was it, instead, a tragic necessity? I wonder about all these things. I tend to think now we never could have made it work.

Now, of course, everyone looks like an idiot. Bremer was an idiot and Garner was an idiot and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Cheney and all the generals, with the exception of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, who called for lots and lots of troops and was sidelined. But these men are not really idiots. They were merely wrong, sometimes on account of arrogance, but they were doing what they thought was the right thing. They simply didn't know what they didn't know. They didn't know a damned thing about Iraq.

"They didn't know a damned thing about Iraq." I would argue that, at least among the civilian leadership, the fault runs even deeper: They didn't care that they didn't know a damned thing about Iraq.

Cohen spends most of his op-ed comparing Iraq to Vietnam. I've learned that as somebody who was born over a decade after the helicopters left the roof-tops, I don't have the expertise to make such comparisons - so I'll only make an observation about Iraq. If you feel it applies to Vietnam as well, feel free to make the connection.

America failed in Iraq because her people and her leaders went into Iraq assuming that the people of Iraq wanted the same things, both personally and geo-politically, that Americans wanted.

This is a monument to ethnocentrism not just because it's true, but because it needed to be pointed out.

After Bush stopped pretending that invading Iraq was about disarming Saddam and/or preventing cooperation between Saddam (the Middle Easts most secular dictator) and terroristic religious extremists, his 'new' goal became turning Iraq into a secular, moderate, pro-western democracy in the middle of the Middle East. Oil conspiracies aside, the CEO president decided that he was going to set up his 'Shining City on the Hill^tm' brand in another location.

But this isn't just your run of the mill 'new location to better serve you!' This is the equivalent of CVS building a new store right across the street from a Rite-Aid. This is about putting your competition out of business.

It's a good strategy.

Or rather, it could have been a good strategy. The problem was that BushCo. thought that they knew what the local population wanted without doing any consumer research.

* * * * *
Getting out of a less and less useful metaphor, BushCo. told us (and themselves) that Iraqis wanted a peaceful, unified, inclusive, secular, pro-western democracy without actually finding out if that was true.

Iraqis do want a peaceful and perhaps a democratic Iraq. It turns out that the pro-western, secular, unified and inclusive parts of BushCo's vision might not be shared by a significant portion of the Iraqi population.

While the vast majority of Iraqis aren't blowing themselves up or engaging in Sunni vs. Shiite killings, enough of the population agrees with the ends (if not the means) to perpetuate the chaos.

America is failing in Iraq because the American vision for Iraq is not the same as the Iraqi vision for Iraq.

20,000 more troops won't change that. More money for reconstruction won't change that. Most importantly, training more Iraqi troops won't change that. It's very simple: Most Iraqi Sunnis want a Sunni dominated Iraq. Most Iraqi Shiites want a Shiite dominated Iraq. And Iraqi Kurds don't really want to be part of Iraq.

That should have been obvious before the invasion but the civilian planners of the war "didn't know a damned thing about Iraq." Perhaps the sectarian divides could have been overcome if it had been taken into account from the beginning. We'll never know. Debating that now is pointless. By proceeding with the invasion without addressing that gaping hole in their strategy, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and every other planner of the War in Iraq attempted to build a nation without a foundation - the endorsement of the governed.

After that colossal omission, even if no other mistake was made, the ability of the United States to create an Iraq that even remotely resembled the Iraq it envisioned is, at best, debatable.

Let's not equivocate. After forgetting to see if Iraqis wanted the Iraq we envisioned, 'success' was - and is - impossible.

* * * * *
Mr. Cohen, if in a round-about way, correctly identifies why America is struggling in Iraq. It would be nice, in the face of thousands of American casualties, to see him have the courage to take that realization to its logical conclusion: Anything other than withdrawal will simply be throwing American blood and treasure into a lost cause.

Richard Cohen War in Iraq Failure

Martin Luther King Day

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

When I stop to think about it, I marvel that despite the fact that the likes of Dick Cheney, Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Mitch McConnell, and John McCain voted against its creation, there is a national holiday honoring Dr. King - an honor that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln do not share.

* * * * *
For my generation - and any other generation too young to have been there - there is a need to tell ones self that if they had been alive during the Civil Rights movement, they would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Dr. King on the side of good.

My generation's attitudes about race are certainly more in line with those of Dr. King than Gov. George Wallace's, but does that mean that if you were there then, a product of those times and that culture rather than our own, that you would stand up for civil rights?

I once read, and forgive me for not remembering where, that a very good indicator of where you would stand on Civil Rights if you were alive in the '60s is your stance of Gay rights right now.

Though that statement seems self evident today. It was a revelation when I read it back when I was in high school in the '90s. Though I would have probably self identified as a Democrat and a liberal then, I was far less interested and far less involved in politics and/or social causes at the time.

People on both sides of the debate would probably point out differences between the struggle that Dr. King embarked upon and the one facing so many Americans today. And yes, there are incidental differences, but at the root, both struggles are the same -to ensure that every American, even those in maligned minority groups, is ensured equality.

Anti-gay forces understand that King's stance was the right stand. That's why they are so vocal in their claims that one struggle for civil rights is so different from the other. A realization by the public that they are the same struggle would lend incredible credence to to the efforts to end discrimination, both personal and governmental, against the LGTB community.

When we remember Dr. King, we do best to remember his struggle for equality for all Americans, period. The specific fronts in his battle are different than fronts we face today. Both are invaluable steps towards fulfilling the promise of America.

Martin Luther King

I Knew It.

I knew there was a reason I hated Simon Cowell. This is it:

One of the show's judges, Simon Cowell, says he has never bought a Dylan record because he "bores me to tears."

The British pop impresario says in the February issue of Playboy that he would "plug my ears and run in the other direction" if he were to see a 21-year-old Dylan singing "Blowin' in the Wind."

[...]

On the other hand, he told Playboy that inaugural champ Kelly Clarkson is "a young Aretha Franklin," and he much preferred her music to Dylan's

If I were Aretha Franklin, I'd sue.

Kelly Clarkson over Bob Dylan? Unbelievable...

The Disaster of Being Unimaginative

I have slowly begun to form a thesis that, at its core, Conservatism's greatest weakness (and fatal flaw) is that it lacks imagination. Illustration:

From Freedom's Power by Paul Starr, via Ezra Klein:

Far from making the United States stronger, Bush’s policies have dissipated American power. In his speech, the president suggested that if the United States failed in Iraq, Iran would be emboldened. But Iran has obviously already been emboldened because its leaders believe that an America mired in Iraq can make only empty threats.

To use power ineffectually is to destroy it. Conservatives may have believed that the unilateral assertion of American military might is the best way to extend American influence abroad and promote democracy. The experience of the past several years, however, show how limited an understanding of power that is. The Bush strategy has undermined not just America’s soft power--its ability to attract support throughout the world--but its hard power as well.

What I take away from this isn't that Bush consciously squandered America's 'soft power' - he never knew that America had it.

Perhaps Bush (and his ideological brethren) couldn't imagine that power, the ability to get other people/parties/nations to do what you want, could come from anything other than the end of rifle. (Or a multi-billion dollar joint tactical strike force.) Perhaps he couldn't imagine himself as someone that is always the one with less power in any given situation.

Examination: Bush is a white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant male from an elite, monied and powerful family and the son of a President. Never in his life has he been forced into being the less powerful party in a situation. Apply this mentality to international politics...

If all power flows from strength of arms, why wouldn't every nation in the world roll-over in front of America's clear status as the world's only super-power? Nobody can (militarily) stop America from invading Iraq, why worry about U.N. approval? The other nations need to know their place. Until they're in a position to land an army on America's shores, they have no right to tell America how to use it's military strength.

"Nobody has the right to infringe on our rights as a sovereign nation" is a phrase that only somebody who can't imagine being the leader (or citizen) of a less powerful nation would use.

The 'just send in more troops' approach to salvaging The War in Iraq is an equally viable example of lack of imagination. If a strategy isn't working, doing the same thing 'harder' isn't likely to work - but if you can't imagine any other method to achieve your goal 'more troops' it's the only option you have.

* * * * *
This applies to any number of social issues as well. Conservatives deride us as 'bleeding heart liberals.' We are moved to compassion for others because we can imagine ourselves in 'X' situation.

I know, I know. Fascinating idea, but the theory isn't completely developed. I'm sure with a bit of work, I could find more and better examples and articulate what's bouncing around in my head.

Maybe next week...

Conservatives Imagination War in Iraq

A Day Late and a Dollar Short - As Usual

So, yeah, another day with a meager post count. I'm leaving work a bit early today to head out of town to visit friends, so (of course) work's been crazy. My apologies.

Somehow it's escaped my notice that today marks the end of De-Lurking Week. Being a serial lurker myself, I think the idea of people saying 'hi' sounds like a great idea, so if you happen by here regularly, de-lurkerize yourself if the spirit moves you!

Of course De-Lurking Week has a downside.

This post opens me up to the possibility of a confidence crushing realization that nobody reads my blog. Ever. People just end up here due to google searches that turn up some of my posts about the Foley scandel and run away screaming when they realize that my blog isn't, well, stimulating in the way they expected.

Bloggers, or at least this blogger, likes to pretend that they don't care if nobody reads their blog. They say things like 'the writing helps me organize my thoughts.' But they really do want people to read it. Hell, one of the happiest blog-moments I've had is when I had a troll tell me I was going to hell for siding with 'Abortionists' instead of Jesus and little babies. I had my very own troll!

Sadly, it turned out to be a one time thing...

Anyway, thank you to all (any?) of my readers. If no one de-lurks, I'll just figure you're all shy.

Citation du Jour

"I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq" and "no expert on military matters."

- New Defense Secretary Robert Gates in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, as quoted by CBS/AP.

Robert Gates Secretary of Defense War in Iraq SurgeCongress

Bush's 'Surge' Isn't Popular

From the AP:

WASHINGTON - Americans overwhelmingly oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll that serves as a strong repudiation of President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops.

The opposition to boosting troop levels in Iraq reflects growing skepticism that the United States made the right decision in going to war in the first place and that a stable, democratic government can be established there. Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move.

Why have half of the people that supported the war 12 months ago turned against it? Because they don't think that a stable, democratic Iraq is possible, no matter how many troops Bush throws in.

Will having seven out of ten Americans on their side be enough for Democrats and a collection of honest Republicans to stand up and resist?

Your guess is as good as mine.

War in Iraq Surge George W. Bush Approval

Fifteen Percent?

From Bush's Speech:

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.

There are currently 132,000 U.S. Troops in Iraq. Bush has said he will add an additional 20,000 - a 15% increase.

We are failing in the 'decisive ideological struggle of our time' and Bush only musters a 15% increase?

If Bush really believed that Western Civilization was doomed if Iraq descended into chaos (well, more than it already has) and that committing more troops to was the only way to secure our future as a nation, I would hope that he would be aware enough to do something more than squeeze a 15% increase out of an already exhausted military.

World War II, the last 'decisive ideological struggle,' saw every able bodied person drafted into the army, industry retooled for the war effort, civilians making huge sacrifices including growing their own vegetables and using ration books to get staples like sugar and gasoline.

But we're not doing any of those things.

So either this isn't the 'decisive ideological struggle' that Bush is trying to convince us it is or he's the the most derelict president in the history of the Republic.

Escalation or 'Surge' is a bullshit political gesture that does nothing but ensures that American Forces leave Iraq when somebody else is president.

War in Iraq Decisive Ideological Struggle George W. Bush

Not Good. Not Good. Not Good. Not Good.

Yeah, yeah, the President's speech. The only important parts (at least in Bush's mind) were the ones where he laid the groundwork for this:

From the BBC:

US forces storm Iranian consulate

US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff.

The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

Ok, so if my calculations are correct, if it's 3:00 am in Irbil (GMT +3) when the raid took place then it was 7:00 pm the previous day in Washington (GMT -5) at the time of the raid - just over two hours before George W. Bush gave his speech.

Details are few, but this action changes the forcefulness, if not the nature of a later part of Bush's Speech.

Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

We will expand intelligence sharing, and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

It also completely changes the way that I read 'The Surge.'

This 'Surge' isn't about securing Baghdad. This (along with the additional carrier group deployed to the gulf) is about showing Iran that despite having both feet firmly stuck in the Iraqi quagmire, we're still willing to bluster and bluff in the hopes of scaring the Iranians into doing what we want.

(More Evidence at Unclaimed Territory.)

Here's the rub - You don't have to be a military expert to know that Iran's standing army isn't the push-over that Iraq's turned out to be. The Iranians know this and aren't likely to just roll over.

Nobody thought that the Neo-cons were this stupid, but it's starting to look that way. Maybe they have decided that the next two years is the last chance they'll get. (The presidential election in 2008 - no matter which party wins - will most likely bring in an executive far less likely to engage in intervention and adventurism.) But then again, maybe they Neo-cons are just unhinged.

Most likely, I think they've realized that they've miscalculated on a grand scale. They selected Iraq as the target instead of Iran back at the beginning. Four years down the road, it's clear that Iraq wasn't a strategic threat to anybody. Iran is. They're trying to turn around a bad situation that Neo-cons themselves made worse by refusing to admit a miscalculation years ago.

They're too proud to admit that they attacked the wrong country. To stubborn to admit that for all the blood and treasure expended, America (and the world) finds itself in a more dangerous position than it was before the invasion not least because it has created an unchecked power, Iran, in the Middle East.

Though the Bush Administration (or at least certain hard-line elements within it) would like to see the next two years shape up as a show down with Iran, my prediction is a show down of a different kind.

Constitutionally, the congress has the means to force a president to curtail a military operation. The congress simply stops allocating money to pay for the guns, fuel, food, and other supplies that the military needs to carry out the campaign while providing money to transport the troops and equipment back to the United States (or anywhere else.)

For congress to do this, exercise the power of the purse to end a war, requires incredible political will. Any congressperson voting to withhold funds will face accusations of a sin second only to Mark Foley's - not 'supporting the troops.'

In the face of these attacks (and you can be sure that BushCo's attacks will be swift and vicious) the only shield is public opinion. There needs to be overwhelming public support for ending the war to allow Senators and Representatives to go back to their constituents with this vote and feel that they can still win reelection.

And because George W. Bush is sure to veto any budget bill that requires he end his Iraqi Adventure, there needs to be a lot of Republicans that are willing to stand up and be counted among those voting to end the war.

Recent polls suggest that the majority of the public is leaning that way:

Most Americans oppose President Bush's call to send additional U.S. military forces to Iraq and just over a third say the new plan makes victory there more likely, an initial public rebuke of the strategy he unveiled last night in a nationally televised address.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted following the President's speech finds broad and strong opposition to his call to send about 21,500 more troops to Iraq: 61 percent oppose the force increase, with 52 percent "strongly" opposing the build-up. Thirty-six percent support the additional troops; only one-quarter of the public is strongly supportive.

That sounds good - but there's a problem. Most of the benchmark numbers - approval of Bush's handling of the war, Bush's approval rating, etc. - are very low, in the 30s, but stable. Among Republicans (and one would think especially among Republican Primary voters) support for the war is still nearly 75%.

As the New York Times notes, Bush has invited an 'epic clash' with congress that could be the most important test of our Constitution since Watergate. Only time will tell how it plays out.

On a separate note, let's examine the timing of this speech.

Democrats have regained power in the House and Senate for the first time in 12 years. They've embarked on a '100 Hour' legislative push to pass many measures wildly popular with the public - enacting recommendations of the 9/11 committee, a minimum wage increase, allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies for better prices, funding for stem cell research, etc. - only to see all their media attention disappear. Bush has again forced Democrats to respond to his actions and forced them to face the most contentious issue in the country and among the Democratic Caucus.

Nobody will be talking to Pelosi or Reid about the stem cell research bill scheduled for a vote today - it will be 'all Iraq, all the time' in Washington.

And all Bush had to do to regain control of the news cycle was send 20,000 Americans into somebody else's civil war...

War in Iraq Iran Consulate Irbil

Tentative Details on 'The Surge'

The AP has a preview of tonight's upcoming escalation speech:

Ahead of the speech, Bush and senior officials briefed journalists Wednesday morning — among them "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams, who described the president as "energized" but also recognizing that he faces a tough job in convincing Americans that his strategy is vital to the stability of the entire Middle East.

A breakdown of the additional troops was provided by a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the increase has not been officially announced:

• Bush is committing 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province.

• He is committing 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad, equivalent to five combat brigades. The first brigade will arrive by next Monday. The next brigade is to arrive by Feb. 15. The reminder will arrive there in 30-day increments.

• The Iraqis are committing three brigades for Baghdad, the first to be delivered on Feb. 1. Two more will arrive on Feb. 15th.

So those are the facts. Other parts of the AP story give us clues about the narrative that Bush will use to try to sell this unpopular proposal to a skeptical nation:

President Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night he will send more than 21,500 additional American forces to Iraq, acknowledging that it was a mistake earlier not to have more American and Iraqi troops fighting the war.

Seeking support for a retooled strategy to win support for the unpopular war, the president will acknowledge that the rules of engagement were flawed because certain neighborhoods in Baghdad were put off limits by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. “Military operations sometimes were handcuffed by political interference by the Iraqi leadership,” he said.

So there you have it.

'Things haven't gone exactly as planned in Iraq - but it wasn't our fault. The Iraqi leadership kept meddling in our business and screwed a bunch of stuff up. We'll fix it, but it'll take 21,500 American troops and 6.8 billion dollars.'

Notably absent was the 'six month deployment' that has quietly dropped out of the Bush Administration's discussions of the not-so-secret plan to 'surge' the way to victory. If the President mentions any time frames at all tonight, I expect that it will be closer to 18 months than six.

Remember, Bush has promised that there would be U.S. Troops in Iraq as long as he's president.

A (world-wide) PR 'surge' will begin sooner than the actual 'surge' itself, starting with an appearance in front of Bush's favorite audience - people in uniform that can be ordered to applaud - in this case at Fort Benning, Ga.

The speech itself is tonight in prime-time. Let's see if Dubya can summon up enough communication skills to sell this one...

War in Iraq Surge George W. Bush

That Other Little Detail...

As we (rightly) focus our concern on the human cost, both American and Iraqi, of George W. Bush's proposed 'Surge,' one other detail has escaped discussion - until now.

Think Progress reports that NBC is putting the cost of the 21,500 addition troops Bush wants to send to Iraq at $6.8 billion.

I'm sure that China would be happy to tack another couple of billion onto what we already owe them...

War in Iraq Surge Cost

Citation du Jour

"He was a pro-choice, he's anti-choice, he's multiple choice."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), on Hardball, on possible Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R), who ran against Kennedy in 1994