Posting has been thin and sporadic here lately, and rather than hurl myself back into the breach, I've decided it's time to take an extended break and maybe come back next year with a different approach, or at least a broader focus. I do have other interests besides politics. Is it the end of PuddingTime? Could be, could be....

Why the time is now, or what that new approach might be, I can't say for sure. I'm not depressed, dejected, or disaffected. Just feeling a little dried up and uninspired. Mostly I'm just glad the election is over, and feeling pretty busy at home, at work, and with this band I'm in, and I could stand to finish out the year without the distraction and obligation of keeping things going here at PuddingTime.

Thanks as ever to Michael Hall for his support and encouragement, and thanks to everyone for reading. Feel free and invited to contact me at kitchel66@msn.com, especially if you'd like to be informed whenever we get something new going.

Happy holidays, whichever ones you celebrate,

pk

TrackBack (0) | ]]> 2006-11-22T13:33:36-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/10/forward_not_bac.php Digby: The Republicans and the Christian Right are leading America on a backward march into the Dark Ages--and that is stepping on our dreams. As a culture, we have always been idealistic about progress and inspired by new discoveries to improve the lot of the human race. We're about invention and reinvention. It's one of our best qualities. These people are telling us that those days are over. We have to depend upon brute force, superstition, and ancient revelation. Science is dangerous. Art is frightening. Education must be strictly circumscribed so that children aren't exposed to ideas that might lead... 4744@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ Digby:

The Republicans and the Christian Right are leading America on a backward march into the Dark Ages--and that is stepping on our dreams. As a culture, we have always been idealistic about progress and inspired by new discoveries to improve the lot of the human race. We're about invention and reinvention. It's one of our best qualities.

These people are telling us that those days are over. We have to depend upon brute force, superstition, and ancient revelation. Science is dangerous. Art is frightening. Education must be strictly circumscribed so that children aren't exposed to ideas that might lead them astray.

It's a pinched, sour, ugly vision of America. [F]or the rest of us, things like scientific breakthroughs or artistic achievement are inspirational, soaring emotional connections with our country and our fellow man. It makes us proud. The dark-ages conservatives want to take that away from us.

This country has been divided at 50/50 for some time. That probably cannot continue much longer and a real majority will emerge before long. Tax-cuts have held together the GOP coalition up to now, but their dark vision of the future may be the thing that finally drives the suburban, educated voters to our side of the ledger for a long time to come. We're the ones with the progressive dream of the future and that's as American as a Big Mac and fries.

TrackBack (0) | ]]> politics 2006-10-31T08:48:22-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/09/a_profound_betr.php Glenn Greenwald, again: [E]ven with the extreme range of abuses the Bush presidency has brought, this is undeniably something different, and worse, by magnitude, not merely by degree. There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest. Our laws reflect our values and beliefs. And our laws are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous... 4641@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ Glenn Greenwald, again:

[E]ven with the extreme range of abuses the Bush presidency has brought, this is undeniably something different, and worse, by magnitude, not merely by degree.

There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest. Our laws reflect our values and beliefs. And our laws are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous and defining powers of tyranny -- one of the very powers this country was founded in order to prevent.

One could cite an infinite number of sources to demonstrate what a profound betrayal this bill is of the fundamental promises of the American system of government. [And he does. pk]

In one sense, these observations are compelling because they define the core of what our country is supposed to be. But in another sense, they don't matter, because our Government is controlled by people and their followers who literally don't understand and, worse, simply do not believe in the defining values and principles of America. They know that this bill is a seizure of the most un-American powers imaginable, but their allegiance is to the acquisition of unlimited power and nothing else.

It was taken as an article of faith by Beltway Democrats that Americans want to relinquish these protections and radically change our system of government in the name of terrorism, so no political figures of national significance really tried to convince them they ought not to. We'll never really know whether Americans really wanted to do this or not because the debate was never engaged. It was ceded.

And as a result, we are now about to vest in the President the power to order anyone -- U.S. citizen, resident alien or foreign national -- detained indefinitely in a military prison regardless of where they are -- U.S. soil or outside of the country. American detainees are either cut off from any meaningful judicial review and everyone else is cut off completely. They can be subject to torture with no recourse, and all of this happens on the unchecked say-so of the administration. Really, what could be more significant than this?

TrackBack (0) | ]]> politics 2006-09-28T11:08:08-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/09/the_presidents.php Glen Greenwald, Salon, Sept. 26: The administration is obviously aware of the transparent, and really quite pitiful, election-based fear that is consuming Democrats and rendering them unwilling to impede (or even object to) the administration's seizure of more and more unchecked power in the name of fighting terrorism. As a result of this abdication by the Democrats, the Washington Post reports, the administration spent the weekend expanding even further the already-extraordinary torture and detention powers vested in it by the McCain-Warner-Graham "compromise." To illustrate just how profoundly dangerous these powers are, it is worthwhile to review a specific, current case... 4637@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ Glen Greenwald, Salon, Sept. 26:

The administration is obviously aware of the transparent, and really quite pitiful, election-based fear that is consuming Democrats and rendering them unwilling to impede (or even object to) the administration's seizure of more and more unchecked power in the name of fighting terrorism. As a result of this abdication by the Democrats, the Washington Post reports, the administration spent the weekend expanding even further the already-extraordinary torture and detention powers vested in it by the McCain-Warner-Graham "compromise." To illustrate just how profoundly dangerous these powers are, it is worthwhile to review a specific, current case of an actual detainee in the administration's custody.

Bilal Hussein is an Associated Press photographer and Iraqi citizen who has been imprisoned by the U.S. military in Iraq for more than five months, with no charges of any kind. Prior to that, he was repeatedly accused by right-wing blogs of being in cahoots with Iraqi insurgents based on the content of his photojournalism -- accusations often based on allegations that proved to be completely fabricated and fictitious. The U.S. military now claims that Hussein has been lending "support" to the Iraqi insurgents, whereas Hussein maintains that his only association with them is to report on their activities as a journalist. But Hussein has no ability to contest the accusations against him or prove his innocence because the military is simply detaining him indefinitely and refusing even to charge him.

Under the military commission legislation blessed by our Guardians of Liberty in the Senate -- such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- the U.S. military could move Hussein to Guantánamo tomorrow and keep him there for the rest of his life, and he would have absolutely no recourse of any kind. It does not need to bring him before a military commission (the military only has to do that if it wants to execute someone) and as long as it doesn't, he is blocked from seeking an order from a U.S. federal court to release him on the ground that he is completely innocent. As part of his permanent imprisonment, the military could even subject him to torture and he would have no legal recourse whatsoever to contest his detention or his treatment. As Johns Hopkins professor Hilary Bok points out, even the use of the most extreme torture techniques that are criminalized will be immune from any real challenge, since only the government (rather than detainees) will be able to enforce such prohibitions.

Put another way, this bill would give the Bush administration the power to imprison people for their entire lives, literally, without so much as charging them with any wrongdoing or giving them any forum in which to contest the accusations against them. It thus vests in the administration the singularly most tyrannical power that exists -- namely, the power unilaterally to decree someone guilty of a crime and to condemn the accused to eternal imprisonment without having even to charge him with a crime, let alone defend the validity of those accusations. Just to look at one ramification, does one even need to debate whether this newly vested power of indefinite imprisonment would affect the willingness of foreign journalists to report on the activities of the Bush administration? Do Americans really want our government to have this power?

The changes that the administration reportedly secured over the weekend for this "compromise" legislation make an already dangerous bill much worse. Specifically, the changes expand the definition of who can be declared an "enemy combatant" (and therefore permanently detained and tortured) from someone who has "engaged in hostilities against the United States" (meaning actually participated in war on a battlefield) to someone who has merely "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

Expanding the definition in that way would authorize, as Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies points out, the administration's "seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield." The administration would be able to abduct anyone, anywhere in the world, whom George W. Bush secretly decrees has "supported" hostilities against the United States. And then they could imprison any such persons at Guantánamo -- even torture them -- forever, without ever having to prove anything to any tribunal or commission. (The Post story also asserts that the newly worded legislation "does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant," although the Supreme Court ruled [in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld] that there are constitutional limits on the government's ability to detain U.S. citizens without due process.)

The tyrannical nature of these powers is not merely theoretical. The Bush administration has already imprisoned two American citizens -- Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi -- and held them in solitary confinement in a military prison while claiming the power to do so indefinitely and without ever having to bring charges. And now, it is about to obtain (with the acquiescence, if not outright support, of Senate Democrats) the express statutory power to detain people permanently (while subjecting them, for good measure, to torture) without providing any venue to contest the validity of their detention. And as Democrats sit meekly by, the detention authority the administration is about to obtain continues -- literally each day -- to expand, and now includes some of the most dangerous and unchecked powers a government can have.

There are two reasons, both supported by our quaking fear of the omnipotent terrorist threat, why these measures are being politely discussed rather than angrily dismissed. The first is because we don't care about the presumption of innocence for anyone suspected of terrorism; the second is because there's a popular denial of the humanity of the potentially innocent people in question. There's no other reason we're able to even consider suspending habeas corpus, denying due process, and defying the moral injunction against torture. And to think we're being led into it by the ideologues who drape their think tanks and foundations with names like Liberty and Freedom and Heritage and Christian.

Those laws aren't there to protect black-hearted terrorists with scimitars and dripping fangs. They're there to protect innocent people. But what if we don't consider those innocents to be people? Americans who never knew Natalee Holloway or Laci Peterson or Terri Schiavo will weep real and copious tears for them because "they're just like me." But someone like Bilal Hussein or Maher Arar, victims not of rare and random violence or misfortune but of systematic government actions? Not so much. They're foreign, you see. We may not actively hate them or wish bad things upon them but...eh, stuff happens.

But dehumanization doesn't stop at the border. Look at the way the extremists on the right talk about liberals and "the left." We're treasonous, immoral goons; when they're not laughing at our fool-headed clowning, they're reviling us as libertine traitors who hate this country. Always our "rage" and "hatred" are underscored--we are not alarmed citizens or political opponents seeking to better our nation: we are irrational enemies of America and freedom. There's no such thing as an "innocent liberal." The less sense it makes--why would we seek the destruction of the place where we live?--the more irrational it proves we are, and the less entitled we are to the protections the Constitution once guaranteed.

Who is it, really, that hates our freedom? The Republicans, with the spineless Democrats' acquiescence, are seeking to win another election by throwing red meat to the mob. They are cowards peddling fear, and if they succeed, it will eventually be the mob that rules.

UPDATE: I thought I might be being a tad hyperbolic with that fear-talk about liberals being next and stuff....

But inserted at the very end [of the summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism"] is this one overlooked, though seemingly quite important, passage that identifies other terrorist threats:

"Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint." It continues: "We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train and obtain logistical and financial support."

There have been scattered reports [2nd link mine--pk] over the last several years that the Bush administration's anti-terrorism programs have targeted domestic political groups solely because such groups espouse views contrary to the administration's. That this claim about "leftist" terrorist groups made it into the NIE summary is particularly significant in light of the torture and detention bill that is likely soon to be enacted into law. That bill defines "enemy combatant" very broadly (and the definition may be even broader by the time it is enacted) and could easily encompass domestic groups perceived by the administration to be supporting a "terrorist agenda."

Similarly, the administration has claimed previously that it eavesdrops on the conversations of Americans only where there is reasonable grounds (as judged by the administration) to believe that one of the parties is affiliated with a terrorist group. Does that include "leftist" groups that use the Internet to organize? This NIE finding gives rise to this critical question: Are "leftist" groups one of the principal targets on the anti-terrorism agenda of the Bush administration, and if so, aren't the implications rather disturbing?

TrackBack (0) | ]]> politics 2006-09-27T08:07:51-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/09/truth_is_strang.php "You might think that the enormous gulf between Bush's perceptions and reality on such a life-and-death topic would be, well, newsworthy": BLITZER: I'll read to you what Kofi Annan said on Monday. He said, "If current patterns of alienation and violence persist much further, there is a grave danger the Iraqi state will break down, possibly in the midst of a full-scale civil war." Is this what the American people bought into? BUSH: You know, it's interesting you quoted Kofi. I'd rather quote the people on the ground who are very close to the situation, and who live it day... 4623@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ "You might think that the enormous gulf between Bush's perceptions and reality on such a life-and-death topic would be, well, newsworthy":

BLITZER: I'll read to you what Kofi Annan said on Monday. He said, "If current patterns of alienation and violence persist much further, there is a grave danger the Iraqi state will break down, possibly in the midst of a full-scale civil war." Is this what the American people bought into?

BUSH: You know, it's interesting you quoted Kofi. I'd rather quote the people on the ground who are very close to the situation, and who live it day by day, our ambassador [Zalmay Khalizad] or General [George] Casey [the top U.S. military official in Iraq]. I ask this question all the time, tell me what it's like there, and this notion that we're in civil war is just not true according to them. These are the people that live the issue. . . .

The Iraqi government and the Iraqi military is committed to keeping this country together. And so therefore, I reject the notion that this country is in civil war based upon experts, not based upon people who are speculating. . . .

That's how I learn it. I can't learn it--I can't--frankly, can't learn it from your newscasts. What I have got to learn it from is people who are there on the ground.

"Blitzer let the issue drop. The reality check only came several hours later, as Soleded O'Brien was talking to CNN Iraq correspondent Michael Ware":

O'BRIEN: You heard what the president had to say, which is, essentially, the good news that out there is not getting reported. Have you found that to be true on the ground where you have been?

WARE: Oh, look, really, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, the fact that, when President Bush talks about those living on the ground, and he cites General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad, I mean, these are men who could not be more divorced from the Iraqi reality. They very much live within a bubble, be it physically within the Green Zone or be it within the bubble of heavy U.S. protection. And this is true even for their advisers and for the commanders and the American soldiers. I mean, they never take the uniform off. The Iraqi people can never talk to them unless through a filter.

It's very different than living amongst them. And when people say not enough good news stories are being told, you ask an Iraqi family what it is that they're experiencing when their street--the bodies of their neighbors are showing up on their streets. Their kids can't go to school, for fear of crossing sectarian lines. And the kidnapping and killings are just going on around them.

There is no reality outside the cave shadows of American politics. Whoever tells the more compelling narrative holds the floor, and the wags and handicappers in the press cock an eyebrow and say, "Well played, Mr Rove!" Maybe they, too, dread being held accountable for their culpability when and if there's a return of honesty and responsible oversight.

All the media's lapses notwithstanding, the truth is there in plain view for anyone willing to see it. It comes down to the voters deciding, against all the political and procedural odds stacked in Bush and the Republicans' favor, that it's time for them to go; that they rise above this fog of propaganda and argument and judge things for themselves. To those still in need of convincing, the howls of the left are merely the ravings of rage-addled zealots whose hatred for Bush was somehow encoded in our DNA, and not the product of observation and reasoned analysis over the past six years.

Even the most simple statement of fact is now so contrary to administration statements that, in order for the unconvinced to believe what you say is true, they must first be convinced that Bush Is A Liar. And here we come up against the conundrum of the Big Lie. Its audacity is its greatest advantage. The right's dishonest narrative is so effective because it's so difficult to baby-walk even innocent believers backwards to its points of origin. I know: I've tried, with decent, well-meaning people. There are too many layers of things that people must be convinced are not so, and at any step, their wall may go up. In fact, even if they hear and accept everything you say, they may still remain fundamentally unchanged, because their identification is still so strong as an opponent of what you say and all the nasty people they've heard saying it. What you say may be true, but they're too invested in the conflict to just let it go.

I go dumb for long stretches here because what is there to say about Iraq that was not true in November of '02 or March of '03? What is there that was true then that hasn't grown more stark and deadly serious every month since then: the lies that took us there, the historical factors that always stood in the way of success, the blatant and seemingly willful incompetence that guaranteed failure? How have the bombings in Madrid and London, the reliable reappearances of bin Laden, even the administration's own shameless hyping of overblown and hypothetical terrorist threats FAILED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE that we are not, on Bush's terms, "winning the war on terror"?

It's breathtakingly bold politics to willfully shove the truth to the opposing side and then slander it as rhetoric, talking points, moonbattery. And what do you know, it works! Everything's possible at that point. If one side has to be lying for a conflict to be sustained, then anyone can be lying. The elevation of narrative (however dishonest yet compelling and flattering) over facts (which conveniently grow more and more difficult to confront) in the political conversation has trapped us all. It has forced us all through the looking glass. It confounds me, really, what the polticians, pundits, and bloggers of the right--and I'm talking about the supposedly reasonable ones, not the outright shit-eaters--think they will have won in the end. To them, it seems, there are no ends, only the consistently profitable means, and the more they stoke the fires of conflict and controversy--which the promotion of lies cannot fail to do--the more attention and ratings there are to be garnered, playing upon the people's easy preconceptions, biases, and desire not to be bothered. They've built a giant edifice of lies whose very existence legitimizes it. Reputations, careers, networks, whole government agencies--how can all of this be built on deception? The strength of that audacity attracts and seduces even innocent supporters, who don't just buy those lies, they invest in them. As the consequences of failure and exposure increase, so does their resolve. They don't want to look like liars, much less chumps, much less admit defeat to the corrupt or comically inept opponents they've seen vilified for so long....

Right-wing Republican control of America is a bubble, and one day it will burst. It's an old story. The only questions are how violent the explosion will be; whether there will be anything left of our government or political system; and whether that will be a good thing or a bad thing.

That's a nice sharp point to end on, but there is another possibility: That the voters are still willing and able to go to the polls, privately recant, and let the air out slowly.

TrackBack (0) | ]]> 2006-09-22T11:18:00-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/09/executive_of_al.php Glenn Greenwald: Just look at the things we're debating--whether the U.S. Government can abduct and indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens without charges; whether we can use torture to interrogate people; whether our Government can eavesdrop on our private conversations without warrants; whether we can create secret prisons and keep people there out of sight and beyond the reach of any law or oversight; and whether the President can simply disregard long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws because he has deemed that doing so is necessary to "protect" us. These haven't been open questions for decades if not centuries. They've... 4614@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ Glenn Greenwald:

Just look at the things we're debating--whether the U.S. Government can abduct and indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens without charges; whether we can use torture to interrogate people; whether our Government can eavesdrop on our private conversations without warrants; whether we can create secret prisons and keep people there out of sight and beyond the reach of any law or oversight; and whether the President can simply disregard long-standing constitutional limitations and duly enacted Congressional laws because he has deemed that doing so is necessary to "protect" us.

These haven't been open questions for decades if not centuries. They've been settled as intrinsic values that define our country. Yet nothing is settled or resolved any longer. Everything--even the most extremist and authoritarian policies and things which were long considered taboo--are now openly entertained, justifiable and routinely justified.

TrackBack (0) | ]]> 2006-09-18T08:37:12-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/09/september_11th.php -----Original Message----- From: Kitchel, Phil Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 7:51 PM Subject: welcome to normal My apologies, but I'm sending a blanket reply, given the number of inquiries in my mailbox this morning. I was in the office Thursday, but the e-mail was down, and I didn't come in on Friday. [This gets really long. I should've just sent a quick "Hi! We're OK!", but I've had a lot on my mind.] Cindy and I are fine, as are nearly all of our closest friends here. Unfortunately, our landlord, neighbor, and friend Scott is gone. He and his wife,... 4588@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ -----Original Message-----

Subject: welcome to normal

My apologies, but I'm sending a blanket reply, given the number of inquiries in my mailbox this morning. I was in the office Thursday, but the e-mail was down, and I didn't come in on Friday. [This gets really long. I should've just sent a quick "Hi! We're OK!", but I've had a lot on my mind.]

Cindy and I are fine, as are nearly all of our closest friends here. Unfortunately, our landlord, neighbor, and friend Scott is gone. He and his wife, Kelly, and their two kids live in our four-story building, and he was on the 100th floor of the north tower. It's unspeakably tragic. In the ironic way of these stories, they had just finished renovating the second floor to be their bedrooms (they'd been living on the first floor and sleeping in the finished basement). After five-six years, they finally had a two-story house with a basement and a back yard--basically a city-living fantasy--and nothing to do but enjoy it and raise their kids. Last Sunday I finally told Kelly we were moving, and in the course of our conversation I said, "You guys have it made now," and she said, "We're DONE! We're NEVER LEAVING!" In addition to the cloud we're all under now, there's a much darker one over our home here and our upcoming departure.

I was in my underwear, brushing my teeth, when the local NPR anchor said there was smoke coming from the north tower at the World Trade Center. He didn't know anything else, and said he'd keep us posted. We live on Park Slope in Brooklyn, and our roof has a panorama of the harbor and Manhattan, about two miles away. Remembering a couple weeks ago when some bonehead got his parachute stuck on the Statue of Liberty's torch--I had still been at home and could've gone up and seen it if I'd known--I thought "I'm not missing this!" and ran to pull on shorts and a t-shirt. I grabbed binoculars, the camera, and the radio and headed up. By this time they were saying a "small plane" had hit it; I figured it was some guy in a Cessna who got his throttle stuck or something.

Continued reading September 11th was a Tuesday...

TrackBack (0) | ]]> culture 2006-09-11T19:13:37-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/09/lies_lying_liar.php Joe Conason, Salon, Sept. 8, 2006: Suspicions of bad faith about the production of "The Path to 9/11" have less to do with the alleged personal bias of Cyrus Nowrasteh, the conservative writer responsible for the script, and more to do with what he chose to invent on-screen--and what he and the producers chose to omit. Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night,... 4571@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ Joe Conason, Salon, Sept. 8, 2006:

Suspicions of bad faith about the production of "The Path to 9/11" have less to do with the alleged personal bias of Cyrus Nowrasteh, the conservative writer responsible for the script, and more to do with what he chose to invent on-screen--and what he and the producers chose to omit.

Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night, a CIA agent known only as "Kirk" leads a Special Forces team into the remote mountain compound where the al-Qaida chief is hiding. "The package is ready!" cries Kirk over the satellite phone, but Berger aborts the operation because he doesn't want to take responsibility.

That incident simply never occurred. As Clarke himself would have told Nowrasteh, no CIA officer ever tracked bin Laden to his hideout. Neither did Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who is shown guiding the aborted operation. The handsome, charismatic Massoud, later assassinated by al-Qaida agents, asks Kirk angrily, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" That sort of rhetoric is frequently uttered by actors portraying characters such as Massoud and O'Neill, who are no longer around to dispute the script.

Had Nowrasteh consulted the 9/11 Commission report, not only would he have found no evidence to support his exciting imaginary assault on the bin Laden compound, but he would also have learned that the underlying assumptions were completely wrong. The report states explicitly, as Clarke and other senior officials have affirmed, that Clinton and Berger ordered the CIA and the military to use any force necessary to get bin Laden.

The movie shows former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright--who is played as a fussy, irritable Margaret Dumont-style matron--thwarting a missile strike against bin Laden's desert camp by warning his Pakistani friends in advance. That never happened, either.

And in its most blatant appeal to right-wing pathology, the movie repeatedly suggests that Clinton was either distracted or prodded by the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the ensuing impeachment, taking action or deferring action for political reasons. Clarke has repeatedly denied that considerations of that kind influenced policy on any occasion.

If the producers of "The Path to 9/11" unfairly indict the Clinton administration with fabricated scenes and notions, they go out of their way to exonerate the Bush White House by ignoring certain damning facts--and creating substitutes that make the president look better. The movie shows a smarmy, condescending Condoleezza Rice demoting Clarke in January 2001 when she takes over as national security advisor. Clarke tries to warn her that "something spectacular" is going to happen on American soil, and she assures him that "we're on it," which they assuredly were not.

Indeed, the script downplays the neglect of terrorism as a primary threat by the incoming Bush team--and never mentions the counterterrorism task force, chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney, that never met for nine months before 9/11. The famous Aug. 6 presidential daily briefing, which warned the vacationing Bush that al-Qaida intended to strike here, is given due attention. The movie then shows Rice telling her associates that "as a result of the Aug. 6 PDB, the president wants to take real action" against al-Qaida. But the 9/11 Commission report's section on the PDB clearly states that the August warning was not followed up on by Rice:

"We found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an Al Qaeda attack in the United States." No action was contemplated before 9/11 and the movie's attempt to claim otherwise is another distortion.

Tell Walt Disney president Robert Iger that you hold his company responsible. I did:

Mr. Iger,

Recent comparisons have shown that the ABC docudrama "The Path to 9/11" simply does not adhere to the historical record as presented in the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's report, which is purported to be the film's source.

ABC should not take revelations of the inaccuracy of this film lightly. The production's fallibility would be regretful enough even if ABC hadn't sent hundreds of advance copies to various right-wing outlets, while declaring it unavailable for preview to those public figures whose reputations it inaccurately impugns.

In order to avoid the inescapable conclusion that partisan concerns have trumped its commitment to truth and accuracy, ABC would be well-advised to cancel this film's broadcast. Such clear evidence of biased programming will permantly ruin the legacy of thoughtful, honest journalism established by ABC News legends like Peter Jennings and Ted Koppel.

I respectfully ask that ABC withdraw "The Path to 9/11" from consideration for broadcast.

Sincerely,

Phil Kitchel

LATER... Or I guess you could say it like this:

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

Brinkley probably is a better name to drop than Koppel. And that other stuff's pretty good, too--"discredit," "disgrace"...wish I could have worked those in. But I didn't want Mr. Iger to think I was a CRAZY LEFT-WING MOONBAT WITH GOOGLY EYES AND FLIPPERS FOR ARMS.

The Scholastic angle, which I meant to work in before, has almost bugged me more than anything else about this whole thing. First you school the kids in alternative histories, then you get them some snappy little uniforms.... Thankfully, like a lot of other aspects of ABC's drunkenly deceptive lurch through recent history that are starting to slide downhill, Scholastic has now backed away.

So it's been a fun toboggan ride for a short news week. For a minute I wondered whether this wasn't just another teacup tsunami for the lefty blogosphere to hot-flash over, but I decided, no: facts matter, history matters. Edward R. Murrow's grave-flipping could already power turbines sufficient to light a small city, and traditional and once-authoritative outlets of information were long ago sucked into the maw of corporate politics. But the day the "free press" starts producing propaganda as blatant and clumsy as this, while we either stuff ourselves with hash brownies and wait for the lights to go twirly, or admire the imaginary garments that we either see, pretend to see, or pray to see on our various Emperors...is a...well, that's a really bad day.

It's funny, actually, that it was one bad day that gave them the chance and the balls to try it.

TrackBack (0) | ]]> politics 2006-09-08T07:14:10-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/09/happy_birthday_1.php Well, what do you know: "On This Day" reminds me again that it's PuddingTime's anniversary--the fourth now. What I said last year pretty much holds: If I'm the editor in chief, Michael Hall is the publisher, so four cheers to him as well. I've been funneling some of my obsessions through this medium for over three of those years, gradually and unofficially assuming responsibility for the content while Mike pursued experiments in more conducive formats, which has now led him here, even as he continued to provide the technical and design support without which I'd just be a guy with... 4569@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ Well, what do you know: "On This Day" reminds me again that it's PuddingTime's anniversary--the fourth now.

What I said last year pretty much holds: If I'm the editor in chief, Michael Hall is the publisher, so four cheers to him as well. I've been funneling some of my obsessions through this medium for over three of those years, gradually and unofficially assuming responsibility for the content while Mike pursued experiments in more conducive formats, which has now led him here, even as he continued to provide the technical and design support without which I'd just be a guy with opinions and mad typing skillz. To me, this is still Mike's establishment; I just pour the drinks. Thanks for the outlet, dude.

Once again, readers, I appreciate your attention and your indulgence. I hope you occasionally find it worth your time, and will continue to stop by.

pk

TrackBack (0) | ]]> 2006-09-07T13:38:07-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/09/demand_abc_corr.php Or maybe just shitcan the damn thing: ABC is planning to air a two-part mini-series entitled The Path to 9/11 this Sunday and Monday. In spite of its claim to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report, the film reportedly includes numerous inaccuracies and lays the blame for the September 11 tragedy on the Clinton Administration. One scene reportedly depicts a senior Clinton Administration official calling off the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. This depiction of events has been refuted by former Bush Administration anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke. It also has been reported that the film blames the... 4568@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ Or maybe just shitcan the damn thing:

ABC is planning to air a two-part mini-series entitled The Path to 9/11 this Sunday and Monday.

In spite of its claim to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report, the film reportedly includes numerous inaccuracies and lays the blame for the September 11 tragedy on the Clinton Administration. One scene reportedly depicts a senior Clinton Administration official calling off the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. This depiction of events has been refuted by former Bush Administration anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke.

It also has been reported that the film blames the intelligence breakdowns on bureaucratic obstacles allegedly created by the Clinton Administration, even though Republican 9/11 Commissioner Slade Gordon has previously refuted that claim.

Because of my concerns that false and inflammatory information would be widely disseminated to the American public, I, along with Representatives John Dingell, Jane Harman and Louise Slaughter, asked ABC to correct the film before airing it. To view a copy of our letter, click here.

The more people the network hears from, the more likely they are to correct the errors in the film. But we do not have much time. Contact them now to let them know they should not politicize this tragic event in our nation's history.

Thank you again for your commitment to a stronger democracy.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

It's kind of a watershed, really--not some backwater propaganda hacks or a shoo-fly cable channel but one of the fabled Big Three, an erstwhile Voice of America owned by Walt Damn Disney, siding against the People, the Republic, a fair reading of History, and even the profit imperative in a lead-pipe foist for the oli-gar-chy: 1. government by the few, 2. a government in which a small group exercises control esp. for corrupt and selfish purposes.

They're not even bothering to cover their tracks or unstick the toilet paper from their shoe: "Hey, Johnny Armchair, here's a throat-full of revisionist, partisan lies! Why not wash it down with an ice-cold Lite Beer from Miller? Say--you know who seems like a good guy to have a beer with...?"

I don't think I've watched ABC regularly in 20 years, so that's no loss. Giving up the Happy Meals will be tough on my boys, but that's probably for the best anyway. I guess what we're really gonna miss is the Pixar films. And our unsullied memories of Dumbo, Pinocchio, and that cute little mouse--what was his name?

TrackBack (0) | ]]> politics 2006-09-07T12:16:12-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/08/lets_say_iraq_i.php How's it going, then? “The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.” [...] [T]he new assessments provide evidence that violence in Iraq is at its highest level yet. And they describe twin dangers facing the country: insurgent violence against Americans and Iraqi security forces, which has continued to increase since the killing of Mr. Zarqawi, and the... 4525@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ How's it going, then?

“The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”

[...]

[T]he new assessments provide evidence that violence in Iraq is at its highest level yet. And they describe twin dangers facing the country: insurgent violence against Americans and Iraqi security forces, which has continued to increase since the killing of Mr. Zarqawi, and the primarily sectarian violence being aimed at civilians.

[...]

Some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq’s democratically elected government might not survive. "Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy," said one military affairs expert.

Oh. You know, I'd sure feel safer from the terrorists if those lazy journalists would go report some good news. And it sure does befog the mind to ponder what sorts of "alternatives to democracy" they might be considering.

But at least it sounds like the UK terror plot was hyped up and its announcement carefully timed by Bush and Blair for short-term political gain. Turns out those "terrorists" didn't have bombs, plane tickets, or passports, so they were nowhere close to even taking a "dry run." And those liquid explosives? They sound about as easy to make on a plane as, I don't know, Beef Wellington.

Isn't that a relief? Even if we're losing the war on terror in Iraq, we're merely not-winning it here at home. It would be nice if we could trust our governments to only scare and inconvenience us when there's actually something scary and inconvenient happening, but hey: Freedom isn't free.

TrackBack (0) | ]]> 2006-08-17T09:59:39-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/08/all_in_the_timi.php "One question to ask is: Why now? The [British] police have had a 'mole' inside this operation since late 2005, but have yet to explain why they felt the need to swoop down and arrest alleged plotters at this moment (two days after the Connecticut primary produced a triumph for anti-war politics). The early claim that a massive takedown of a dozen airliners was set for August 16 is 'rubbish,' according to London authorities. So who decided this case was ripe for its public rollout?" "U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the... 4519@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ "One question to ask is: Why now? The [British] police have had a 'mole' inside this operation since late 2005, but have yet to explain why they felt the need to swoop down and arrest alleged plotters at this moment (two days after the Connecticut primary produced a triumph for anti-war politics). The early claim that a massive takedown of a dozen airliners was set for August 16 is 'rubbish,' according to London authorities. So who decided this case was ripe for its public rollout?"

"U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

"British officials knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

"In contrast to previous reports, one senior British official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports."

"The White House’s Wednesday attack on Democrats as weaklings in the war on terror came as administration officials knew of the pending British arrests of terror suspects who allegedly planned to down several planes.

"The White House and the GOP, in a coordinated effort, had moved quickly on Wednesday to portray Democrats as weak on national defense. Cheney, in an extraordinary procedure, took questions from wire service reporters during a conference call as he was in Wyoming. Cheney rarely, if ever, takes questions from groups of reporters."

"What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people - not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times."

"For Cheney--and other Republicans like GOP National Chairman Ken Mehlman--to suggest that those Americans are encouraging terrorism is reprehensible. To exploit a very real terror threat that could have led to major casualties, and to even indirectly implicate Americans who were exercising their democratic right by going to the polls and making a choice borders on the criminal, to say nothing of the insane."

"The GOP message machine knows how ludicrous it is to keep tying the war in Iraq to the war on terror, but they also know how effective it has been. So there they go again, with Cheney claiming that Lieberman was 'pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security.'

"They know being against the war in Iraq doesn't mean you are against fighting the war on terror. It means you are against a failed policy that has created more terrorists than it has killed, that has cost America 2,591 lives and $305 billion dollars, that has thrown Iraq into a bloody sectarian civil war, and that has so lessened our standing abroad that we are unable to be a real power broker in an exploding Middle East.

"What Lamont's victory should really do is embolden Democrats to aggressively counterattack the Republicans' scare-tactics nonsense.

"It would help if the MSM reacted to the GOP drivel by treating it with the contempt it deserves instead of dutifully reporting it as if it contained even an ounce of logic or sanity."

"Friends, we are on a losing trajectory in Iraq, and, as the latest London plot underscores, the wider war with radical Islam is only getting wider. We need to reassess everything we are doing in this 'war on terrorism' and figure out what is worth continuing, what needs changing, and what sacrifice we need to demand from every American to match our means with our ends. Yes, the Democrats could help by presenting a serious alternative. But unless the party in power for the next two and half years shakes free of its denial, we are in really, really big trouble."

(Arranged and contextualized with links mostly poached from Dan Froomkin's always worthwhile White House Briefing.)

TrackBack (0) | ]]> politics 2006-08-16T09:08:36-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/08/sense_andthe_no.php Even George Will agrees: Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement has validated John Kerry's belief that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world." Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior [Bush] administration official," insisting on anonymity, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard: "The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, loveable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. (Democrats) do not have... 4516@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ Even George Will agrees:

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement has validated John Kerry's belief that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior [Bush] administration official," insisting on anonymity, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, loveable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. (Democrats) do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work." [Italicized not included in the Star's edited version. pk]

Indeed, George, indeed.... But elsewhere on our Indianapolis Star's opinion page, desperate housewife Kathleen Parker, with last week's GOP talking points neatly printed on 3x5 cards and laid out on her dining-room table, announces that Lieberman lost not because primary voters simply preferred Ned Lamont, whom even she admits is "perfectly respectable, well-spoken, attractive, gracious, and rich" (I wonder if he has a brother!), but because the Democratic Party is a "ruthless, radical, anti-war, far-left, Stalinist machine." Then she gives Michael Moore's bloated carcass a couple of angry, breathless kicks before straightening her pearls and composing herself.

Have some more iced tea, Kathleen. After the Democrats sell America to the terrorists, maybe instead of being bundled off to a life of desert servitude, you'll be the first woman we hunt down for sport on our private compound in Cuba.

MORE on Will's column here, here, and here:

There is, at long last, a growing recognition that waging more wars does not make us stronger or more secure. It does exactly the opposite. Those who want to pursue our failed policy in Iraq indefinitely or who want to attack more countries -- in the process alienating the whole world even more and exacerbating the Islamic radicalism which even the President says is what causes terrorism -- are not people who are "strong on security." They are gradually, though inexorably, destroying our security through a mindless militarism which becomes more reckless and crazed the more it fails. And this bloodthirsty militarism becomes more desperate as the sense of weakness and humiliation felt by its proponents -- including those in the White House -- intensifies.

If George Will can come out and say that John Kerry was right about how best to approach terrorism and the Bush approach does nothing but increases it, then perhaps we can soon reach the point where national journalists will understand that there is nothing "strong" about wanting more and more wars, and nothing "weak" about opposing warmongering and advocating more substantive, rational and responsible methods for combating terrorism.

TrackBack (0) | ]]> 2006-08-15T11:28:56-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/08/say_it_again.php This time it's Kevin Drum: It's human nature to demand action following an attack. Any action. Counseling restraint in the hope that it will pay off in the long run is politically ruinous. But our lives may depend on figuring out how to make this case. If it wasn't obvious before, it should be obvious by now that conventional military assaults are usually counterproductive against a guerrilla enemy like the ones we're fighting now. We can't kill off the fanatics fast enough to win, and in the meantime the war machine simply inspires more recruits, more allies, and more sympathy... 4514@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ This time it's Kevin Drum:

It's human nature to demand action following an attack. Any action. Counseling restraint in the hope that it will pay off in the long run is politically ruinous. But our lives may depend on figuring out how to make this case.

If it wasn't obvious before, it should be obvious by now that conventional military assaults are usually counterproductive against a guerrilla enemy like the ones we're fighting now. We can't kill off the fanatics fast enough to win, and in the meantime the war machine simply inspires more recruits, more allies, and more sympathy for the terrorists.

[A]ctually having a coherent long-term strategy to pair up with a short-term counsel of forbearance would make the job easier. Ditto for a more aggressive short-term approach to homeland security. But neither of those will do the trick alone. Someone has to figure out how to sell the basic plan.

I'm just meandering around the point here, trying to marshal my own thoughts by setting them down on the blog. If that seems a bit pointless, I apologize. But I'm probably going to keep doing it from time to time. After all, I'd hate to think that this is a flatly impossible problem.

I don't see why he's apologizing. I'm convinced--and have been since 9/12--that this is the key to preventing warring fundamentalists from ruining our lives. Forbearance, justice, an authoritative world body, and a global consensus to stop terrorism that isn't constantly being undermined by freelance warmaking. This isn't pacifism, it's pragmatism.

TrackBack (0) | ]]> 2006-08-14T10:46:21-08:00 http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/archive/2006/08/we_should_never.php The One Percent Doctrine author Ron Suskind, Salon interview, 8/11/06: [T]he thinking is that al-Qaida has the ability to attack us at any time or place of their choosing, that we should not view the passage of time as a kind of proxy for victory and view it in any kind of self-satisfied way, that we're doing something that's stopping them from this next destructive moment. What we know about al-Qaida is that they think very long-term. We think in news cycles; they think in decades. They have spent a good deal of energy thinking about what is appropriate to... 4507@http://www.puddingbowl.org/puddingtime/ The One Percent Doctrine author Ron Suskind, Salon interview, 8/11/06:

[T]he thinking is that al-Qaida has the ability to attack us at any time or place of their choosing, that we should not view the passage of time as a kind of proxy for victory and view it in any kind of self-satisfied way, that we're doing something that's stopping them from this next destructive moment. What we know about al-Qaida is that they think very long-term. We think in news cycles; they think in decades.

They have spent a good deal of energy thinking about what is appropriate to follow 9/11. It could take years for them to come up with something that is a sufficiently destructive next act in this drama that they are driving. If the next attack is bigger than 9/11, what it does is create an upward arc of terror and anticipation between that second act and whatever follows, however many years later.

[...]

The fact of the matter is, it may mean absolutely nothing that they haven't attacked us in the past five years. As I point out in the book, they may not have been trying to attack us. They are probably waiting for a time and place significant and dramatic beyond 9/11. If we start feeling this sort of self-aggrandizing regard for our abilities and capabilities, we will fall prey to exactly what they are hoping we will: We will be less rigorous.

One of the things that I think is clear about the moment we're in now is that in a way this is a new kind of war, a new kind of conflict we're fighting now, with a kind of global insurgency. We know insurgencies, we've seen many of them through history, and very often it's the case where gleaming armies come down from on high with banners waving and march in to some homeland or other to fight insurgents. It almost never works. Whatever moral claim that the army has made as the trumpets blare soon sinks into the ugliness of destruction, especially amongst civilian populations. In Iraq, in the Israel-Lebanon situation, and in other parts of the globe--in Afghanistan, to a certain degree--we are seeing precisely this model.

If we're not thinking with, let's just say, next-era clarity about the nature of these enemies and what best to do about them--where we are not involved solely in tactics, which is mostly what has been driving us, tactics where we're often running around like a chicken with no head, and instead thinking about strategy, where actions fall into a larger good, a larger model that essentially bespeaks progress--we are going to create more and more people around the world who are angry at the United States. The fact is, by virtue of our power, our authority, that's always going to be the case. But if that group, that angry mass of people, grows and grows--and some percentage of them, in this era, are apt to turn to violence--we could be facing a very difficult situation.

If one out of 1,000 people who are angry turn to violence, maybe that's a manageable number. If it's 10 out of 1,000, well, that's a lot of people. If it's 100 out of 1,000, we're facing an army beyond anything we can challenge in terms of even our vast capabilities, especially in an era when individuals, based on the extraordinary power of the information age, can carry the destructive power that was once reserved for nations. That's a very troubling combination, and it becomes a troubling combination if we are creating armies of people who are bent on destruction and violently angry at the United States. If our tactics are metastasizing, creating a growth of that number, then our tactics are not working, plain and simple.

You believe that's happening?

I think it is.

Lieberman, Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the Republicans have seized on Lieberman's loss and the latest UK terror plot to insist that Democrats who oppose the Iraq war don't care about Islamic terrorists or protecting America. This is both illogical and a lie. Moreover, it is a lie that smears a growing majority of Americans, because, contrary to the claim that Lieberman was beaten by the radical, peacenik fringe of a radical, peacenik party, polls show that opposition to the Iraq war is a mainstream American belief. Which means the claim is nothing but a desperate Hail Mary pass, and Bush and Lieberman are dearly hoping someone is open.

The terror plot foiled this week in Britain does not prove that we need to support Joe Lieberman, or Bush's failed policy in Iraq. It proves that their strategy against terrorism has been wrong all along. We invaded Iraq, yet there are terrorists in England. Iraq had nothing, or negligibly little, to do with terrorism in 2001 or 2003, yet in 2006 the very real prospect of a total collapse of Iraq as a nation will have grave ramifications. The fact that Bush and Lieberman made it so means they are not the ones to be trusted with doing whatever is to be done about it now.

But it's not the existence of terrorists and plots that proves the Bush strategy against terrorism is wrong. Terrorists and plots are going to exist, and attacks are going to take place. Either way, people will die. But not only does war have guaranteed costs, war is guaranteed to make the situation worse, as it has done. War means collateral damage and generations of rage and bitterness. No sweeping military offensive could have or will ever bring us "victory" in Iraq or security from terrorists.

War is not the answer, not in Iraq, not in Lebanon, and not in the fight against terror. I put several links to this up there on the right: The way to stop terrorists is intelligence and law enforcement. The way to stop terrorism is justice and diplomacy. Ordinary Americans who want real security from terrorism need to understand this, and polls show they are beginning to.

This week the British showed us how to stop terrorists. I wonder who will show us how to get out of Iraq?

TrackBack (0) | ]]> politics 2006-08-11T07:33:01-08:00