Why does George Allen hate Marines

Cowardly Virginia Senator George Allen, in the best authoritarian manner, like his beloved Confederacy, attacked yet another Marine.

Former Marine and UVA first year law student, Mike Stark was asking Allen about his sealed arrest record and sealed divorce.

At that point, Allen's political thugs assaulted Stark and nearly smashed his head through a window.

Oddly enough, this is how civil rights protestors were dealt with, by violence, when they protested peacefully.

Allen's campaign may have had reason to attack Stark, since he had asked the senator if he had ever used the word nigger.

Which began his slide in the polls.

Now, the veteran law student is pressing charges against the goons who assaulted him. This kind of oppression people enlist in the military to prevent.

Last week, it was Jim Webb's novels, this week, it's Mike Stark being assaulted like a dissedent in a dictatorship.

Why does George Allen hate Marines?
Update

Letter from Mike Stark

Richmond Times-Dispatch

Oct 31, 2006

The following is a letter to NBC29 from Mike Stark, the man who was tackled for a comment he made at Senator Allen's campaign stop in Charlottesville on Tuesday.

My name is Mike Stark. I am a law student at the University of Virginia, a marine, and a citizen journalist. Earlier today at a public event, I was attempting to ask Senator Allen a question about his sealed divorce record and his arrest in the 1970s, both of which are in the public domain. His people assaulted me, put me in a headlock, and wrestled me to the ground. Video footage is available here, from an NBC affiliate.

I demand that Senator Allen fire the staffers who beat up a constituent attempting to use his constitutional right to petition his government. I also want to know why Senator Allen would want his staffers to assault someone asking questions about matters of public record in the heat of a political campaign. Why are his divorce records sealed? Why was he arrested in the 1970s? And why did his campaign batter me when I asked him about these questions.

George Allen defends his support of the Iraq war by saying that our troops are defending the ideals America stands for. Indeed, he says our troops are defending our very freedom. What kind of country is it when a Senator's constituent is assaulted for asking difficult and uncomfortable questions? What freedoms do we have left? Maybe we need to bring the troops home so that they can fight for freedom at George Allen's campaign events. Demanding accountability should not be an offense worthy of assault.

I will be pressing charges against George Allen and his surrogates later today. George Allen, at any time, could have stopped the fray. All he had to do was say, "This is not how my campaign is run. Take your hands off that man." He could have ignored my questions. Instead he and his thugs chose violence. I spent four years in the Marine Corps. I'll be damned if I'll let my country be taken from me by thugs that are afraid of taking responsibility for themselves.

It just isn't the America I know and love. Somebody needs to take a stand against those that would bully and intimidate their fellow citizens. That stand begins right here, right now.

W. Michael Stark

posted by Steve @ 8:04:00 PM

Give me a break

No sex, please: You're 20-somethings

As the GOP asked recently, what are the stakes in the Nov. 7 election? Well, one complaint you hear a lot about the current Republican regime is that they want to regulate what people do in the bedroom. Sometimes that sounds like political hyberbole, until you read something like this: The Bush administration is spending millions in an effort to stop unmarried people in their 20s from, well, doing the wild thing:

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."

As the article notes, "well over" 90 percent of people in their 20s have already done the dirty deed. And experts say that if the issue is reducing out-of-wedlock births in this age group is the goal, a successful program should involve contraception -- not surprising, considering the above statistic. And you really have to wonder how much of this is really concern about the potential social consequences of unwanted pregnancy, and how much is the latest offensive from the American Taliban?

Here's a question for the conservatives that like to populate the comment section here. In what way or sense is this Bush-backed government program truly "conservative." You've got Big Government telling adults what to do in the privacy of their own home, and wasting millions of your tax dollars to do it.

Seems like the lunacy of this is somewhere where liberals and conservatives could actually find some common ground.

posted by Steve @ 11:44:00 AM

The myths of 2004

Deflating the Myths of 2004
By Thomas F. Schaller
NYTimes Select, October 30, 2006

With the 2006 midterms around the corner, it’s worth pausing a moment to first clarify the story of the 2004 elections….

The post-election summaries of the state of the two parties were strikingly different. The Democrats and their less-than-inspiring presidential nominee, we were told, were out-smarted, out-strategized, and out-maneuvered by their opponents. President Bush and the Republicans, on the other hand, were blessed with sharper consultants, more agile candidates with firmer backbones, a more substantial political infrastructure, less party infighting, and delivered a clearer and simpler message about the ideals and issues the party represented.

But there were other, more concrete factors that had already tipped the scales in the Republicans’ favor. By 2004 the Republicans controlled all of both elected branches of the national government, the federal courts, and a majority of governors and state legislative chambers. They benefited as well from a media echo chamber driven by Fox News, 24-hour conservative talk radio, and a battalion of well-funded conservative think tank experts who were willing and able to repeat every talking point and focus group-tested phrase, from “cut and run” (Democrats) to “stay the course” (Republicans).

As an incumbent running for re-election, Bush also had the power of bully pulpit and the luxury of a two-year head start on the Democrats — plenty of time for Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, the Bush-Cheney ’04 campaign chairman, to build their field campaign in the key states like Ohio.

If these advantages were not enough, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provided the president with something that none of his predecessors in half a century could claim: a truly transformative issue. One must go back to at least the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision and the civil rights movement, if not all the way back to the 1929 stock market crash and ensuing Great Depression, to find an episode with the potential to so fundamentally alter the political and partisan landscape.

And what was the result of all of this? Bush picked up three points and Iowa…[because] New Mexico’s five added electors were essentially cancelled out by the four lost in New Hampshire...

Elsewhere on the ballot, the Republicans had to dine on rather thin gruel.

Thanks to five southern Democratic senators retiring at once, the G.O.P. did manage to boost their Senate majority by four seats. But they added a mere three seats in the U.S. House, and would have lost ground had Tom DeLay not used his power to re-redistrict Texas in the middle of the decade. There was no movement in the total share of governors; Republicans picked up Indiana and Missouri; Democrats captured Montana and New Hampshire. And Democrats won the state legislative battle by adding 60 seats nationally, while capturing eight new legislative chamber majorities to just four for the Republicans

So there you have it: Three points plus Iowa in the presidential race, four additional U.S. senators and three House members, no net new governors, and losses in the state legislatures. If that’s a landslide, I’m the starting power forward for the Knicks.

The real story of 2004 is that Bush and the Republicans blew the best opportunity in two generations to alter the partisan landscape in substantial, enduring ways.

posted by Steve @ 10:55:00 AM

Internet coward

I'm tough

Larry C. Johnson

Florian Sokolowski, Coward

If you caught the Stephanie Miller show today, you probably heard her chat with the fellow who sent her a death threat (Brad's Blog has posted up a copy of the letter). The coward is an elderly gent, Florian A. "Sock" Sokolowski. His letter lists Centerville, Ohio as an address but apparently he lives in Dayton.

This clown apparently was trained in the Dick Cheney School of word parsing, because he insists he did not threaten to kill her, but here is what he wrote:

As with Cindy Sheehan the best thing that could happen to you would be seeing some WONDERFUL activist sticking an AK-47 up your Glory Holes and sending you into eternity.

What is it with these closeted Republican homosexuals? Pent up rage? They are obsessed with glory holes and pages.

But wait, there is more. Stephanie called him up and he willingly got on the phone. Here's what he had to say (mp3 link).

Florian "the Sock Puppet" Sokolowski, fancies himself a political activist. He wrote the following letter to the editor last year:

DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, leftists, whatever they wish to be called, view a glass as half empty and wallow in negativity and pessimism while Republicans, conservatives, rightists, our preferred designations, see a glass as half full and look for positivity and optimism, a distinction that becomes obvious when comparing the dual agendas of our parties.

Having returned to Ohio after 10 plus years in the Sunshine State I look forward to resuming a hobby that worked well in Florida i.e., recruiting potential first-time voters, young people as well as oldies to the Republican Party. Obviously, both states are very pivotal in federal elections and, hopefully, both will remain a flaming red.

I personally have found that young people particularly, but others, too, prefer optimism, especially in dark times, and, therefore, opt for the glass half full choice as regards their candidates for president as well as lesser offices.

As proven in the Bush v. Kerry presidential race, they want the candidates to offer their agenda for the nation rather than simply hate and venom for the opposition. They want to consider alternatives on a range of issues, but all the left offered was a hatred toward our president while George W. Bush offered his plans for the country. Approve or disapprove of what was presented, the right exhibited plans for consideration while the left did not.

Conservatism must win the political wars being fought and those to come. The future, the successful futures of our children and, in my case, too, our grandchildren depend on our being the ultimate victors.

FLORIAN "SOCK" SOKOLOWSKI

Dayton Daily News, 25 June 2005

Florida authorities may want to go back and make sure that Sokolowski is not a Mark Foley type of Republican. A guy this angry surely has some repressed sexuality. Let's hope he didn't molest any children in Florida in his zeal to recruit new voters.

After a Democratic victory in the House, and maybe the Senate, perhaps the Sock Man will have a chance to get back on his blood pressure medicine, lay off the viagra, and realize that the Democrats won't cut off his social security or throw his ass into Guantanamo. He's a nasty, small minded man. He claims that Democrats are vessels of hate, but after reading the poisonous, vile trash that he put on paper, Sock Sokolowski needs to have a good face-to-face with himself in his own mirror. That's where you'll find the hate and venom Socks.

posted by Steve @ 10:41:00 AM

They reek of fear

No, you aren't the Shah, Mr. Bush

Bush Says 'America Loses' Under Democrats
White House Talk Heats Up As Polls Show Tight Races

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; Page A01

SUGAR LAND, Tex., Oct. 30 -- President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week's midterm elections.

Democratic operatives continued to broaden the field of races they believe are competitive enough to merit last-minute investments, as the party's House election committee launched ads in typically conservative districts of Kentucky, Nebraska and Nevada. In the Senate battle, new public and private polls yesterday indicated very tight races in Tennessee, Virginia and Missouri, the last of which is shaping up as possibly the country's tightest contest.


President Bush returns a crying toddler to his parents at a campaign rally at Georgia Southern University. Bush said Democrats retaking control of Congress would be a victory for terrorists.

Faced with potential GOP defeat in both chambers, Bush and Cheney aimed to avert that by convincing voters that they cannot risk giving the opposition party any power in Washington.

"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," Bush told a raucous crowd of about 5,000 GOP partisans packed in an arena at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, one of his stops Monday. "That's what's at stake in this election. The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq."

Democrats reacted sharply to the latest White House attacks. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said Bush "resorted to the same tired old partisan attacks in a desperate attempt to hold on to power." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said Bush is looking to retain a "rubber-stamp Republican Congress that has done nothing to change our failed Iraq policy."

Cheney, meanwhile, said in an interview with Fox News that he thinks insurgents in Iraq are timing their attacks to influence the U.S. elections.

"It's my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we've got an election scheduled," he said. Cheney said the insurgents believe "they can break the will of the American people," and "that's what they're trying to do."

George Bush has confused the opponents of the GOP with the enemies of the United States.

He needs a reminder that there is a difference.

posted by Steve @ 3:01:00 AM

I wonder what the FBI was really looking for

Robert J. Gurecki/Delaware County Caily Times, via Associated Press
Curt Weldon, crooked as a mountain road

Italian Arms Contractor and a Pennsylvania Congressman Share Close Ties

By LESLIE WAYNE
Published: October 31, 2006

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — In November at the five-star Hotel Splendido overlooking the harbor in Portofino, a playground of the Italian rich, Representative Curt Weldon was the center of attention.

The second-ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Weldon was a main speaker at a conference sponsored in part by the Italian military giant Finmeccanica. At the gathering of Italian, British and American political leaders, Mr. Weldon, of Pennsylvania, spoke on behalf of Italian arms makers who were seeking a bigger share of Pentagon contracts.

Taxpayers paid for Mr. Weldon’s stay. He received a $1,153 daily expense allowance from the federal government and flew over on a military jet.

For Mr. Weldon, the conference was a victory lap. After several years of promoting Italian military contractors, the Italians had scored some big victories at the Pentagon. But Mr. Weldon’s efforts were equally beneficial for his district, his family, his friends and his campaign coffers.

Today, the Italians may well have second thoughts about their embrace of Mr. Weldon, who has represented his suburban Philadelphia district since 1987 and is now the subject of a federal investigation into possible influence peddling and, as a result, is in a tight re-election race.

The Justice Department is looking into whether he used his position to steer almost $1 million in consulting contracts from a Russian energy company and other Eastern European interests to a lobbying firm headed by his daughter Karen, 31. Her home and her office were searched two weeks ago by federal officials.

Law enforcement officials said they were examining a wide variety of Mr. Weldon’s connections with foreign companies, but they would not discuss whether the inquiry focused directly on Finmeccanica.

So why is an American congressman protecting the interests of an Italian company? Maybe because they hired his daughter Kim, who was a social worker?

posted by Steve @ 1:43:00 AM

Cut the bullshit

Why vote? Because she deserved better

I am sick and tired of the vote suppression disguised as thoughtful comments

"Karl Rove is going to steal the election"

"Bush will declare marshal law"

Jesus fucking christ, stop panicking and start thinking.

One, elections are run by states. As crappy and badly designed as Diebold is, there is no evidence that an election has been turned by them. There are plenty of other machines as well, but the weak link is the age of the poll workers. The average age is 72. They aren't conversant with computer technology.

But to steal an election, you need a swing district and a close race where Republicans have been elected in the recent past.

My bet is that the GOP will claim illegals voted in large numbers, not mess with the machines, which vary from district to district.

If you are concerned about election fraud, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING. Work the polls, volunteer to watch them for campaigns. Don't sit on your hands and whine. You can do your part in this, make sure at least a few people are going to have their rights protected. But stop screaming that they're going to steal the election. Because that only keeps people from voting which is what the GOP wants

Martial law.

It's very simple. This is a country of 300m people. Most of the Army is deployed overseas. The Army wants nothing to do with civil law enforcement, not in Iraq or New Orleans.

There is no national police force, which is essential for creating martial law.

During the LA riots, it took the LAPD, an LAV Battalion from the Marines and a brigade of the National Guard to calm things down. That's a lot of people for a city of three million, where maybe 100,000 were in the rioting area.

Local law enforcement detests the FBI, which only has 13,000 agents, half assigned to counter intelligence duty.

Bush could declare it from the Oval Office, but he would have an extremely difficult time enforcing it, especially with so many Iraq war vets in the ranks.

Oh, and to the asshole in the last thread who wants a new, uncorrupt third party which will not soil his hands.

Grow the fuck up. People live and die on who's in office. You may not see the difference between the two parties, but if you get Medicaid, you will. If you work in Wal Mart, you will. People don't have the luxury of washing their hands then having the balls to ask that opinion be respected.

If you don't vote, don't bitch.

Even if all you do is take your parents to vote, do something, anything.

posted by Steve @ 1:14:00 AM

The trials of Jim Gibbons

REUTERS/Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus (UNITED STATES)
Cocktail waitress Chrissy Mazzeo (R)
listens as her attorney Richard Wright speaks
to reporters during a news conference in Las
Vegas, Nevada October 25, 2006.


Nev. congressman assault probe reopens

By RYAN NAKASHIMA, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 56 minutes ago

LAS VEGAS - The district attorney said Monday that authorities have reopened their investigation into a cocktail waitress' claim that a Republican congressman running for governor assaulted her in a parking garage after a night of drinking.

District Attorney David Roger said the case involving Rep. Jim Gibbons — which had been closed after the woman, Chrissy Mazzeo, dropped her complaint — is under investigation again.

Sheriff Bill Young, who supports Gibbons for governor, said last week his office would reopen the investigation if Mazzeo requested it. Young did not immediately return a phone call Monday.

Mazzeo, a Las Vegas Strip casino waitress, accused Gibbons, 61, of pushing her up against a wall Oct. 13 and propositioning her. Mazzeo, 32, said she had been pressured and offered cash from people linked to the Gibbons campaign to drop the complaint.

The five-term congressman, who is in a close race with Democratic state Sen. Dina Titus for Nevada's open governor's seat, has denied wrongdoing and sued Monday to force police to release surveillance videos he said would disprove Mazzeo's claim.

A judge set an emergency hearing for Tuesday.

Mazzeo's lawyer, Richard Wright, said he met with Roger on Monday morning to discuss how to proceed with the case, then went with Mazzeo to a police station, where she retracted her request to drop the allegations.

"I just want them to conduct an investigation just like they would conduct any other investigation when a woman alleges a battery or coercion," Wright said.

Someone got her back, maybe her union, but someone, because she was scared witless.

But then, Gibbons' had a rough couple of weeks, with the illegal alien and all.

posted by Steve @ 1:00:00 AM

Marilyn Musgrave Attacks

What a coward. Not only won't she answer ahy questions, she tries to manhandle the questioner. Next time, send a teenage girl and see if the same thing happens.

This is a gift for the opposition. First she ran from Michael Schiavo, now this.

posted by Steve @ 12:54:00 AM

CONGRESSMAN CALL ME

Ah, another day, another You Tube video mocking the GOP

posted by Steve @ 12:48:00 AM

The 40 year occupation

(AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)
Who do they work for, the Mahdi Army
or the Badr Organization

In Baghdad, a Force Under the Militias' Sway
Infiltration of Iraqi Police Could Delay Handover of Control for Years, U.S. Trainers Suggest

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; A01

BAGHDAD -- The signs of the militias are everywhere at the Sholeh police station.

Posters celebrating Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mahdi Army militia, dot the building's walls. The police chief sometimes remarks that Shiite militias should wipe out all Sunnis. Visitors to this violent neighborhood in the Iraqi capital whisper that nearly all the police officers have split loyalties.

And then one rainy night this month, the Sholeh police set up an ambush and killed Army Cpl. Kenny F. Stanton Jr., a 20-year-old budding journalist, his unit said. At the time, Stanton and other members of the unit had been trailing a group of Sholeh police escorting known Mahdi Army members.

"How can we expect ordinary Iraqis to trust the police when we don't even trust them not to kill our own men?" asked Capt. Alexander Shaw, head of the police transition team of the 372nd Military Police Battalion, a Washington-based unit charged with overseeing training of all Iraqi police in western Baghdad. "To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure we're ever going to have police here that are free of the militia influence."

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., predicted last week that Iraqi security forces would be able to take control of the country in 12 to 18 months. But several days spent with American units training the Iraqi police illustrated why those soldiers on the ground believe it may take decades longer than Casey's assessment.

Seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias, primarily the Mahdi Army, according to Shaw and other military police trainers. Police officers are too terrified to patrol enormous swaths of the capital. And while there are some good cops, many have been assassinated or are considering quitting the force.

"None of the Iraqi police are working to make their country better," said Brig. Gen. Salah al-Ani, chief of police for the western half of Baghdad. "They're working for the militias or to put money in their pocket."

U.S. military reports on the Iraqi police often read like a who's who of the two main militias in Iraq: the Mahdi Army, also known as Jaish al-Mahdi or JAM, and the Badr Organization, also known as the Badr Brigade or Badr Corps.

One document on the Karrada district police chief says: "I strongly believe that he is a member of Badr Corps and tends to turn a blind eye to JAM activity." Another explains that the station commander in the al-Amil neighborhood "is afraid to report suspected militia members in his organization due to fear of reprisals."

American soldiers said that although they gather evidence of police ties to the militias and present it to Iraqi officials, no one has ever been criminally charged or even lost their jobs.

Among the worst of the suspected Mahdi Army members is Lt. Col. Musa Khadim Lazim Asadi, station commander of the Ghazaliyah patrol police. "He has stated to us that he does not believe the Mahdi Militia is a bad organization," a military report said. "He had a picture of Sadr in his vehicle until we said something about it."

"He is a cancer to the station and the people of Ghazaliyah," the report concluded.

...................
Among Ani's bosses are the police chief for all of Baghdad, who has been linked to the Mahdi Army, and the minister of the interior, who is a member of Sadr's political bloc.

"I think he's trying to do the right thing," said Lt. Col Aaron Dean, the battalion commander, as he walked to his Humvee after the meeting with Ani. "But I know they're all under certain influences. If you take a big stand against the militias, they're going to come after you."

The difficulty of eliminating corruption and militias from the Iraqi police forces can be exasperating for the American soldiers who risk their lives day after day to train them. "We can keep getting in our Humvees every day, but nothing is going to work unless the politicians do their job and move against the militias," Moore said.

Sitting in the battalion's war room with four other members of his team, Moore estimated it would take 30 to 40 years before the Iraqi police could function properly, perhaps longer if the militia infiltration and corruption continue to increase. His colleagues nodded.

"It's very, very slow-moving," Estes said.

"No," said Sgt. 1st Class William T. King Jr., another member of the team. "It's moving in reverse."

posted by Steve @ 12:31:00 AM

101 dead, eight days out

She's a Republican, we're going to eat her.

Voter Turnout Myths

by Chris Bowers, Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:16:59 PM EST

In a great article in the Washington Post, Professor Michael McDonald tells us about five voter turnout myths that every political junkie should know. Here is the truth behind the CW:

* 1. Voter turnout isn't lower than in previous decades:

Turnout rates among those eligible to vote have averaged 55.3 percent in presidential elections and 39.4 percent in midterm elections for the past three decades. There has been variation, of course, with turnout as low as 51.7 percent in 1996 and rebounding to 60.3 percent by 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, in fact, is on a par with the low-60 percent turnout rates of the 1950s and '60s.

* 2. Citizens of other countries don't vote more regularly than Americans do:

Americans are asked to vote more often -- in national, state, local and primary contests -- than the citizens of any other country. They can be forgiven for missing one or two elections, can't they? Even then, over the course of several elections, Americans have more chances to participate and their turnout may be higher than that in countries where people vote only once every five years.

* 3. Negative ads don't reduce voter turnout.

Negative TV advertising increased in the mid-1980s, but turnout hasn't gone down correspondingly. The negative Swift boat campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) apparently did little to depress turnout in the 2004 presidential race.

Some academic studies have found that negative advertising increases turnout. And that's not so surprising: A particularly nasty ad grabs people's attention and gets them talking. People participate when they're interested.

* 4. Republican GOTV does not give them a decisive advantage:

Studies of a campaign's personal contact with voters through phone calls, door-to-door solicitation and the like find that it does have some positive effect on turnout. But people vote for many reasons other than meeting a campaign worker, such as the issues, the closeness of the election and the candidates' likeability. Further, these studies focus on get-out-the-vote drives in low-turnout elections, when contacts from other campaigns and outside groups are minimal. We don't know what the effects of mobilization drives are in highly competitive races in which people are bombarded by media stories, television ads and direct mail.

Republican get-out-the-vote efforts could make a difference in close elections if Democrats simply sat on the sidelines. But this year Democrats have vowed to match the GOP mobilization voter for voter. So it'll take more than just knowing whether a prospective voter owns a Volvo or a BMW for Republicans to eke out victory in a competitive race.

* 5. Increased voter registration does not necessarily mean increased voter turnout, but Election Day registration probably does:

Sizable increases in turnout can be seen in states with Election Day registration, which allows people to register when they vote. This may be related to the fact that lots of people don't make up their minds to vote until Election Day, rather than months in advance when they get a license.

Form the perspective of trying to win campaigns, the negative ad myth is the most interesting one to me. It certainly puts more context behind the modern Republican political machine, in that going nuclear on Democrats is actually an essential part of their GOTV. In fact, I bet it was going nuclear on John Kerry via Swift Boating and other tactics that allowed Republican turnout in 2004 to surpass Democratic turnout. Given this, in isolation, I'd bet that the Republican 72-hour program and the Amway-stuff probably wasn't superior to our GOTV operations by much, if at all. What was clearly superior was their messaging to drive up base turnout, with going nuclear on gay marriage and equally nuclear on John Kerry serving as essential factors. This could also explain why Democrats appear more mobilized in 2006 than Republicans. We can go nuclear on Bush to the base, but they can't pull off going nuclear on "generic Democrat," which is essentially who we are to about 50% of the electorate right now (notice the utter ineffectiveness of their attacks on Nancy Pelosi). Thus, our newfound ability to appeal to the base through progressive media and the general midterm opposition edge of the Generic Advantage might be even bigger factors in this election than I at first thought. If Democrats turn out at higher rats than Republicans those two factors will be as key as our GOTV operations.

• Google Bomb the Elections--It isn't too late to join in.
• Do More Than Vote--Take action no matter where you are.
• Call for change--Participate in the most sophisticated and effective progressive voter contact program.

P.S. If Election Day was a national holiday every year, and same day voter registration was available, I'd be open to the idea of fining people who are eligible to vote but choose not to do so. But only under those two conditions

P.S. If Election Day was a national holiday every year, and same day voter registration was available, I'd be open to the idea of fining people who are eligible to vote but choose not to do so. But only under those two conditions.

We can win if we work to win. We can win if we vote.

posted by Steve @ 7:39:00 PM

They hate you

Follow me.

Amy Sullivan is clueless. Just mind numbingly clueless.

It's hard to believe, but Bush does disdain evangelicals.
Little Initiative
by Amy Sullivan

arly Monday morning, a tell-all book from a former Bush White House official hit Washington like a small explosion, generating at least a color orange political threat level. Here was a conservative Republican, someone who had been on the inside of the president's signature domestic policy agenda of the first term, leveling damaging accusations of hypocrisy, wide-scale manipulation, and deceit. Conservatives reacted accordingly. They charged the traitor, former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives David Kuo, with timing the book to do maximum damage in the midterm elections, and they compared him to Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus. "What David Kuo is saying about the President and his efforts," said David Contreras, Texas director of the Council on Faith in Action, "is nothing more than a cynical attempt to sell books and line his pockets with 30 pieces of silver [a reference to the payment Judas received for turning Jesus over to the Pharisees.]"

The reaction from the left has been, to put it mildly, slightly less vigorous. It is in stark contrast to the way in which liberal commentators and bloggers embraced other revelations, such as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's memoir or the latest Bob Woodward book. This time, the responses have ranged from total silence to yawns to fears that the book could backfire on the Democratic Party. In general, most liberals have chosen to distance themselves from Kuo and his case.

This could just be smart politics. After all, Republicans are in such a free-fall at the moment that it might be best for liberals to stay out of the way and let conservatives fling recriminations at each other, as has largely been the case with the Mark Foley scandal. But something else is at play, too. Despite the evidence Kuo presents in Tempting Faith, liberals simply don't believe him. They've spent so much time fear-mongering about American theocracy that a book illustrating the opposite simply makes no sense to them. In fact, the real revelation of Kuo's book is not that the Bushies don't care about evangelicals; it's that liberals are too wedded to their views to capitalize on it.

The first clue that the left didn't see any political value in Kuo's book came last week on msnbc's "Scarborough Country." Another msnbc show had obtained an advance copy of the embargoed book and reported passages on how White House aides routinely referred to conservative evangelical leaders as "nuts" and "goofy." In response, Lawrence O'Donnell--former Democratic Senate aide and the resident liberal commentator at msnbc--dropped the ball. "I think the good news here is that people working in the White House think that Pat Robertson is nuts," he said. "They should. Pat Robertson is nuts." It seemed a little off-message--after all, this was a politically embarrassing book for the Bushies, and here O'Donnell was praising them. True, Robertson does regularly spout off truly nutty and dangerous statements (his call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; his prayer for the death of liberal Supreme Court justices; his belief that UPC symbols are the Mark of the Beast as foretold in Revelation). But what rankled O'Donnell the most was Robertson's "insane" belief that Jews are going to burn in hell. "

While most of them would put it more delicately than Robertson, it is an article of faith for millions and millions of evangelicals that the only way into heaven is through belief in Jesus Christ. (The good reverend has also said he believes Methodists will burn in hell, but that's not really the point.) By condemning and mocking that doctrine, O'Donnell managed an impressive feat. He took Robertson, a figure widely disliked and discredited throughout the evangelical community, and found a way to criticize him that would also insult and alienate evangelicals. Congratulations, Lawrence O'Donnell--you're the new poster-boy for secular liberal intolerance.

Since they haven't done so yet, they're missing a golden opportunity. Evangelicals have become increasingly disillusioned with the Bush administration and the Republican Party in general over the last two years. While 78 percent of white evangelicals voted for Bush in 2004, only 57 percent approve of the job he's doing now, and only 52 percent say they are likely to support Republicans in the November elections.

Those numbers have not dropped because conservative evangelicals picked up Kevin Phillips's American Theocracy and became worried that Bush was too religious. Instead, evangelical support has plummeted in large part because they, along with other religious conservatives, have begun to suspect they've been played by Republicans--used for their votes and then ignored
......................

Amy Sullivan , a contributing editor at The Washington Monthly, is writing a book about religion and the left

Amy Sullivan, who was extremely pissed when I suggested that she missed the anti-semitic tone behind attacks on Hollywood, which oddly enough came out during the war on Christmas campaign.

Now, she's blowing off the anti-semitism rampant in the fundamentalist movement. Oh, it's not really a big deal that Jews are doomed in Robertson's world view. A lot on the Israeli right has unwisely accepted fundie support, not realizing that the ultimate outcome is conversion or death.

It's not a minor deal, it really isn't. Robertson repeated a key anti-semitic tenet of the fundie faith and Larry O'Donnell is supposed to ignore it? Why? When Muslims make similar comments, they are excoriated in the American media. I can't accept that as an idea which needs to be validated in our democracy. If they're insulted, so what? It's a foul idea, a wrong idea and ignoring it is immoral.

Sullivan was one of the big voices screaming about "values voters" meaning toss the gays and pro-choice people under the bus. Of course she was wrong, and her downplaying the Dominionists creates a massive blind spot.

The leaders of the religous right aren't playing. They want power and they want it to make Christianity the dominant religion. Sullivan thinks if we just talk nice to them, they'll vote for Democrats. Which is insane.

The best comparison would be to the Klan of the 1920's. People joined socially, but the movement was undone by it's corruption. Sullivan constantly undervalues Democratic beliefs in order to appeal to the minority of Americans who are evangelical.

What Sullivan will find out when they stop bullshitting her is that a lot of these people are evangelicals because it is the way they can preserve their world view, and it isn't a happy one.

posted by Steve @ 6:12:00 PM

If the Dems win........

Bush White House: "A Cataclysmic Fight to the Death"
by BriVT [Subscribe]
Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 11:01:32 AM PST

One guess who a GOP strategist was talking about fighting in that title. Osama Bin Laden? Bwahaha! No. The "insurgents" in Iraq? More plausible, but still no.

No, that unnamed staffer was talking about having a "cataclysmic fight to the death" with none other than the Congress of the United States.

If the Democrats take over and try to investigate the White House, that is. More below ...

The quote comes from a Time Magazine story about the state of the Bush Presidency. After quite a bit about his "loneliness" and how GOP candidates suddenly remember a hair appointment when Bush comes to town, the article gets to the real meat of the story, as far as I'm concerned.

If lame-duck Presidents are to achieve anything, they often have to look for ways to go around Congress, especially when it is in the hands of the other party. Clinton used Executive Orders and his bully pulpit to encourage school uniforms, impose ergonomic rules on employers and prevent mining, logging and development on 60 million acres of public land. White House press secretary Tony Snow says Bush may take the same bypass around Capitol Hill. "He told all of us, 'Put on your track shoes. We're going to run to the finish,'" Snow said. "He's going to be aggressive on a lot of fronts. He's been calling all his Cabinet secretaries and telling them, 'You tell me administratively everything you can do between now and the end of the presidency. I want to see your to-do list and how you expect to do it.' We're going to try to be as ambitious and bold as we can possibly be."

In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist describes as "a cataclysmic fight to the death" over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is "going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation."
Um ... wow. That is stunning in its breathtaking arrogance and destructiveness. "Every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation." Well, don't that just sum it all up right there.

I could go on and on about how wrong that is, how un-American, how against the basic framework laid down by the Founding Fathers ... but I don't want to go on too long here ... you guys can take care of that in comments.

But what I do want to say is this: November 7th may be a very big day on the political calendar, but you have just been served notice. If you didn't know it before, you should know it now. The fight does not end on November 7th, it begins in earnest on that day.

This fight will have to be waged across multiple fronts at all times. From efforts like Major Danby's FINGER project to all the liberal blogs to every Democratic politician, all of us will be needed to fight this White House's unprecedented power grab. The Bush White House has laid down the marker: no compromise, no discussion. They don't want to hear from Congress, and the fact that the country will have voted against them means nothing to them. They are not interested in the will of the people; they are interested in the triumph of the will of George W. Bush.

So, work hard through Election Day (and for god's sake get Joe Lieberman out of there!), take a day or two off, and then get ready for the real work of taking this country back.

You've been warned.

First, this means, despite the bravado, Bush is preparing for war with the Congress. A Democratic Congress.

If the Bush Administration tries this, not only will they lose the American people, within six months, no matter what Nancy Pelosi says today, there will be a consitutional crisis leading to impeachment.

Bush is unpopular now. If the Republicans are turfed out like the pessimists think, forget the optimists, this is going to hurt him a lot more than Congress.

But if, let's say 40 seats change hands and the Senate is 50-50, why does Bush think he can ignore Congress? The last two Congresses gave him leeway. This one is likely not to. Does Bush think he's gonna offer up Social Security theft and the unlimited war in Iraq without opposition?

He may think that, but right now he's just above Nixon numbers, a refusal to deal with Congress would lead to a sharp decline.

Bush talks tough, he loves to talk tough, but his right wing lackies will not be able to protect him. If the House changes hands, the Dems get the floor and Bush is on 24/7 defense. And they haven't done defense all that well.

The tenor of DC will have changed. The Vichy Dems will have been proven wrong and Dean proven right. Going after Bush will not have the penalties it did in the past. The people who abandoned the GOP won't be coming back after the election.

posted by Steve @ 5:36:00 PM

Train them early

Tesco condemned for selling pole dancing toy
by COLIN FERNANDEZ Last updated at 23:13pm on 24th October 2006

Mother of two Karen Gallimore was searching for Christmas gifts for her two daughters, Laura 10, and Sarah, 11, when she came across the 'toy'
Enlarge the image

Tesco has been forced to remove a pole-dancing kit from the toys and games section of its website after it was accused of "destroying children's innocence".

The Tesco Direct site advertises the kit with the words, "Unleash the sex kitten inside...simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!

"Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars".

The £49.97 kit comprises a chrome pole extendible to 8ft 6ins, a 'sexy dance garter' and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves.

The kit, condemned as 'extremely dangerous' by family campaigners yesterday, was discovered by mother of two Karen Gallimore who was searching for Christmas gifts for her two daughters, Laura 10, and Sarah, 11.

Mrs Gallimore, 33, of Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, said yesterday: "I'm no prude, but any children can go on there and see it. It's just not on."

Dr Adrian Rogers, of family campaigning group Family Focus said yesterday that the kit would "destroy children's lives".

He said: "Tesco is Britain's number one chain, this is extremely dangerous. It is an open invitation to turn the youngest children on to sexual behaviour.

"This will be sold to four, five and six-year olds. This is a most dangerous toy that will contribute towards destroying children's innocence."
.....................
Tesco last night denied the pole dancing kit was sexually oriented and said it was clearly marked for "adult use".

A spokesman added: "Pole dancing is an increasing exercise craze. This item is for people who want to improve their fitness and have fun at the same time."

Ok, it's stupid to think people are going exercise by pole dancing, but why in God's name would you put this in the toys and games section of a department store?

posted by Steve @ 3:05:00 PM

Getting Out the Base (GOP Style)

The General strikes again. Vote Con...Republican for "traditional values"

posted by Steve @ 10:35:00 AM

The price of war

Photos from Today's New York Times
Doug Mills


Jennifer Adcock's husvand, Shane was
killed in Iraq


Peggy Johnson's son Carl was killed in Iraq

Sydney Dyer's father, Scott, was killed in Iraq


Terri Walsh's son, Justin, died in Walter
Reed Hospital after being wounded in Iraq.


The graves of recent war dead

posted by Steve @ 3:44:00 AM

The worst ever

If President George Bush's hasty news conference on Iraq this week was the Republican October Surprise -- unveiling some sudden presidential flexibility after three and a half years of stubbornly staying a losing course -- it didn't work
..................

Oh yes. One other bit of news: the White House that says nothing is too good for our troops has turned its back on a plea by Army leaders for a $25 billion increase in its 2008 budget so it can carry out the missions the administration has assigned to it.

The White House Office of Management and Budget rejected Army chief Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker's extraordinary plea by for the additional funds to pay for repairing and replacing thousands of worn out and blown up tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and Humvees.

Instead of the $25 billion that Schoomaker says the Army needs just to keep doing what it's been doing with spit, adhesive tape and baling wire for the last five years, the Pentagon says the Army can have $7 billion.

The president declared himself confident that Republicans would sweep to victory and maintain their stranglehold on both houses of a Congress that's done nothing but rubberstamp Bush's war policies and Republican efforts to enrich their fat-cat donors and themselves, of course.

If he's right and that's the result of the Nov. 7 elections, then the American people will finally have fulfilled H.L. Mencken's prophecy that we'd continue choosing the lowest common denominator until, in the end, we get precisely the government we deserve.

............................

This unseemly circus and its clowns in Congress can't go away fast enough and with enough dishonor and disgrace to suit the circumstances. Their place in America's history is secure: They will go down as the worst administration and the worst Congress we've ever had. Period.

Oh, but you're going to build new subs and the F-22. Why? Because careers hang on them as they convert more POG (Persons other than Grunts) into grunts, via military alchemy, and barely train them.

Do we need more subs? No.

We need a new military, but we're not going to discuss that as long as these clowns are in power.

posted by Steve @ 3:23:00 AM

Fuck Zakaria

His plan is bullshit, pure and unfiltered

This was posted by a reader.

This is so horribly incompetently wrong on so many levels its pitiful. I just want to make a few scattershot points.

1) The Iraqi leaders that Washington has to give a good talking to are finger puppets. Their government is based out of the green zone. Any conversation there is basically masturbation.

2) Zakaria has this notion that the United States is basically benign and positive. Sorry, that's not how the Iraqi's see it. They see America as the oppressors, people who have wrecked their country.

3) The proportion of Iraqi's who support attacks on American troops is much higher than 61%. That includes the Kurds. If you exclude them, the figure is 61% of about 80%. The real number is 77% of Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites support attacks on Americans. They hate Americans.

4) Zakaria suggests that the problems are an ineffective occupation, lack of security, lack of jobs, failures of reconstruction, corruption, and Abu Ghraib. Then he simply says, too bad, so sad. Like the Iraqi's will just forget about it.

5) His solution is to 'return to normalcy, jobs need to be created, electricity supplied regularly, more oil produced and exported, and more security.' Unfortunately, his plan will worsen the situation.

6) "We should stop trying to provide basic security in Iraq's cities and villages. US forces should become a rapid reaction force to secure certain core interests." Basically, all destruction all the time, with the good stuff being someone elses problem. He notes "True as we draw down, violence will increase."

7) We should have three goals. The first of which is to just keep on doing whatever the hell it is we were failing at in Anbar province, under the guise of fighting Al Quaeda. He imagines that Al Quaeda goes in for stand up battles. He also imagines that Al Quaeda is the dominant aspect of the Sunni insurgency (94% local, 6% foreign, 3% Al Quaeda). He has no clue.

The fight in places like Anbar is largely not a Jihadist crusade against America, but a Sunni struggle for control of the country. Uhm.... WRONG!!! If a minimum of 75% to 90% of Sunni's support attacks on Americans, that should tell you something.

9) Second objective: Secure Kurdistan. From what, for what, he doesn't know. No clue. He just likes the Kurds. Oh, Turkey's upset about something. Best not get too involved. Idiot.

10) Prevent a bloodbath. By pulling out of Town's and Villages and acting as a rapid strike force. Uh huh. Really. Turns out that this will require monitoring Iraq's roads and highway, and controlling the police and army. Iraqi forces will henceforth operate under the command or supervision of American 'advisors'... presumably on their days off from being rapid reaction forces.

11) Keep the four superbases and 44,000 soldiers 'to look after American interests'. Mighty white of America.

12) To look after the Iraqi's, 16,000 'advisors', a squad of 30 or 40 attached to every 600 or so. To 'act as the spine.'

12) I love the part about 'catchment basins' to trap refugees fleeing towards the border. What comes after that? Napalm?

13) Just remember the good thing! We deposed Saddam Hussein, who killed 500,000 Iraqi's in thirty years. And we only had to kill 650,000 in three years!

I dunno. I think if I was an Iraqi civilian, reading this 'plan', I'd be picking up a rifle. Condescending, cold blooded, dishonest, inept, incompetent, recipe for bloodbath... I can't say enough good things.

Den Valdron

Why try to rewrite what he said? It's all true.

Here's my point, Iraq isn't anything like Korea. The Korean Army was actually trained and fighting, not defecting to the Communists. There was an international agreement that the war was worth fighting, even though Americans were skeptical.

But the biggest difference was that we were not occupiers in Korea. We were invited.

However, this is not my biggest objection to his beltway nonsense.

Who is going to do the dying? Not his friends or their kids. Faceless POG's and Grunts sent to the sandbox, not just once, but two, three, four times. Broken families, destroyed marriages, the wounded and the dead. Nearly 3000 killed, 22000 wounded, and at least 5k absent.

Who the fuck does he think is going to fight his war? Spacemen? Because the US Army isn't going to much longer. They're forcing men into the Infantry for God's sake.

I am so sick and tired of these Washington armchair pundits. They act as if soldiers are disposable parts and not humans.

He should discuss his plan at Walter Reed and see if he leaves without it shoved up his ass.

I am just so sick of these risk playing motherfuckers acting like we can tell Iraqis what to do. If I was a Shia, you're goddamn right I'd want to run the country from Irbil to Basra. And I wouldn't be up for any deals on the subject. Just because the Hakims are more loyal to Tehran than Iraq is not my problem.

One simple point: what kind of idiot thinks Maliki can make a deal that can be kept? The Iraqi government was elected during an occupation, like Vichy. Who would trust them to do anything to protect the country?

The simple fact is this: Iraq will be one country. It will be run by the Shia. The odds are high that Shia will be Moqtada Sadr or a disciple of his. The Sunnis will cut their deal with him, kill the AQ lunatics and then join the Turks and Iranians in repressing the Kurds.

posted by Steve @ 2:25:00 AM

Give me a fucking break

posted by Steve @ 2:20:00 AM

A case of the stupids

We've come for the American

Missing Soldier Said to Be Wed to an Iraqi


By MICHAEL LUO and QAIS MIZHER
Published: October 29, 2006

BAGHDAD, Oct. 29 — The missing American soldier who has been the subject of an intensive manhunt here in the capital since he was kidnapped by gunmen outside the heavily protected Green Zone last week was secretly married to an Iraqi woman and had been visiting her at the time of the abduction, several people who identified themselves as his in-laws said Sunday.

Such a marriage, if confirmed, would not only be highly unusual but also a violation of American military rules and would put the mystery of the missing soldier in an entirely new light.

The American military command has been circumspect in the details of the missing soldier, saying he was an Iraqi-American translator who had left the Green Zone without permission to visit unidentified relatives in Baghdad. Search squads have shown local residents the missing soldier’s picture, but the military has not even released his name.

The new details of his family connections were disclosed as a spate of attacks reported elsewhere in Iraq left at least 33 people dead, including a police academy ambush in southern Iraq that killed 17.

The people who said they were the missing soldier’s in-laws identified him as Ahmed Qusai al-Taei, 41. They showed visitors to their Baghdad apartment an enlarged wedding photo of him and the bride, whom they identified as Israa Abdul-Satar, 26, a college student. They also showed the visitors glossy snapshots of the smiling couple in Egypt for their honeymoon.

The couple had married, they said, three months ago. The precise dates of the wedding and honeymoon, and whether the soldier had been on active duty at the time, were not clear.

The people also described in vivid detail how members of the Mahdi Army militia, led by a local commander known as Abu Rami, came to the wife’s home in the central Baghdad neighborhood of Karada last Monday, the first day of the Muslim holiday Id al-Fitr, and dragged Mr. Taei away.

“They were saying, ‘He’s an American journalist,’ ” said a woman who identified herself as his mother-in-law and asked that she be identified only by her nickname, Um Omar, because of fear of reprisals. “We were saying, ‘No, he’s an Iraqi,’ ”

Um Omar and the others in the home said they had not learned until after his kidnapping that he was an American soldier.

Military officials would not comment when asked on Sunday about these new details, and it was impossible to corroborate independently the account given by Mr. Taei’s purported in-laws.

The military’s fraternization policies prohibit active duty personnel from marrying local civilians, said Lt. Col. Josslyn Aberle, a military spokeswoman. But she said privacy rules barred her from providing any details about the missing soldier.

In 2003, a pair of Florida national guardsmen famously married Iraqi doctors they met in Baghdad soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in a joint ceremony. One of the soldiers’ marriages dissolved soon afterward, but the one whose marriage lasted was confined to his base and eventually discharged from the military.

The people who claimed to be the missing soldier’s in-laws said he and his immediate family, Sunni Arabs from the capital’s Adhamiya neighborhood, had fled to the United States before the fall of Mr. Hussein. They explained how he came to marry Ms. Abdul-Satar, also a Sunni.

Mr. Taei had friends in Karada, a mostly well-to-do commercial district that sits outside the Green Zone, Um Omar said. As she described it, he spotted her daughter one day as she was en route to classes at Mutsamsirya University in central Baghdad, where she is enrolled in the science college.

Through friends, he arranged to speak with her parents, Um Omar said, and after some discussion, Ms. Abdul-Satar agreed to marry Mr. Taei, whom her mother described as a “gentleman.”

After the couple married, Um Omar said, Ms. Abdul-Satar moved out of her mother’s cramped apartment on the third floor of a dreary complex on a side street in Karada near the National Theater, to a cousin’s one-story home down the block.

Mr. Taei came to visit every few days, said a neighbor who lives across the street from the cousin’s home, where the kidnapping took place.

“We thought he was a businessman,” said the neighbor, who asked to be identified only by his last name, Nadhir.

.........................

Ms. Abdul-Satar and her brother are now staying in the Green Zone for their safety and to answer additional questions from the military, their mother said. She has heard from her daughter a few times, but there has been no news.

American troops, along with their Iraqi counterparts, have cordoned off much of eastern Baghdad, including Sadr City, in their search for the missing soldier.

On Sunday, thousands of residents, along with politicians from Mr. Sadr’s political bloc, gathered in Sadr City to protest peacefully the security cordon around the neighborhood.
.........................

For Um Omar, the last week has been filled with waiting and worrying. If she had known that Mr. Taei had been in the United States Army, she said, she would have forbidden him from visiting.

“I’m praying,” she said. “I’m calling on Allah for his safety.”

What the fuck was he thinking?

People are getting killed over his stupidity. Sadr City almost blew up over it.

Originally, I thought he was a deserter who planned to escape with his wife. But now, wow. Did he think no one would notice he was an American? That no one would follow him, remember seeing him?

My God, what the hell was on his mind, and don't say pussy. Because he had to know there was a serious risk in even socializing with an Iraqi, forget a wedding. And even if the homeless militia leader didn't know he was a soldier, he soon fucking found out. Jesus. People can't be that stupid.

posted by Steve @ 1:28:00 AM

The history of Iraq

You need to read this series in total.

Most of the people who talk about Iraq don't have any idea of the history of the place. There is no deal in the offing, as our next article proposes.


History of Iraq: What History Teaches Us
by gjohnsit [Subscribe]
Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 07:19:40 PM PDT

Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 07:19:40 PM PDT

"Clio, the muse of history, is as thoroughly infected with lies as a street whore with syphilis."
- Schopenhauer

"All modern wars start in the history classroom."
- Anonymous

"We learn from history that we never learn anything from history."
- Hegel

Writing history is much easier than learning from it. Writing history only requires limited information and time. Learning from history requires vast quantities of information and wisdom.
Unfortunately I am gifted with neither.
So why should I bother? Because others in the Bush Administration who have less respect for information and wisdom than I are trying to tell us all what lessons to learn from history. They are trying to make reality conform to their agenda. I'm trying to make an agenda based on reality.

• gjohnsit's diary :: ::
• 
  

This is Part 10, and the final part, of my series on the History of Iraq. This is the part where you take all that information and try to apply it to today's world. Inevitably, this is also the part where I make lots of mistakes.

"History teaches everything including the future."
- Lamartine

"History is a myth that men agree to believe."
- Napoleon

The first trick to learning from history is not to learn the wrong thing from history. For instance, Bush and the rest of the pro-war, right-wing liked to reference Neville Chamberlain before WWII as reasons to invade Iraq (and now, Iran). The Republicans are right to compare WWII and Iraq, but not for the reasons they think.
If the Republicans weren't so ignorant about history they would have compared Yugoslavia to Iraq. No, not Yugoslavia in the 1990's. I'm talking about Yugoslavia during WWII.

Like Iraq, Yugoslavia was artifically put together by the victorious allies after WWI, and combined several ethnic groups that had long, hostile relationships. They managed to live together for decades until Hitler decided that he didn't like their current government in April, 1941. Hitler invaded for no other reason than he wanted "regime change". Yugoslavia's army collapsed quickly. However, that was mearly the beginning.

Hitler did not have enough troops available to contain any outbreak of ethnic strife, and Yugoslavia decended into civil war.

In Croatia [in 1941] the indeginous fascist regime set about a policy of "racial purification" that went beyond even Nazi practices. Minority groups such as Jews and Gypsies were to be eliminated as were the Serbs: it was declared that one-third of the Serbian population would be deported, one-third converted to Roman Catholicism, and one third liquidated.
- Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th Edition

In the end, three times as many people died in Yugoslavia during WWII as died in the Yugoslavian civil war in the 1990's. The trigger was the overthrow of the government without the military force to enforce its will on an ethnically diverse people. Republicans learned the wrong lesson from history. Saddam Hussein wasn't Hitler. Saddam was King Peter II.

Well, not really. But you get the idea.

There are a few things about Iraq that we can all agree on. The most pertinent of those things is that the current bloodbath in Iraq has its roots in history.

The Shiites and the Sunnis are killing each other because of things that happened a month ago, a decade ago, as well as things that happened centuries ago. It's our job to try to understand it, because if we don't understand it then we may as well "stay the course", or "cut and run", or whatever else the right-wing media has labelled it today.

"If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act."
- George W. Bush

"I guess every generation is doomed to fight its war...suffer the loss of the same old illusions, and learn the same old lessons on its own."
- Phillip Caputo

The Kurdish Problem

Of all the seemingly intractable problems of Iraq, the Kurds are probably the simplest. The reasons are thus: they never wanted to be part of Iraq, they never accepted being part of Iraq, and their agenda has never changed - separating themselves from Iraq.

The Kurds have fought nine different rebellions for independence since the creation of the idea of Iraq. They were literally fighting for independence from Iraq before Britain had finished creating Iraq as a nation. They have suffered genocidal military campaigns by the Iraqi army, and still continued to fight for independence. Even the name of the Kurdish warrior - peshmerga - means "those who face death."

The simple fact is that these guys aren't going to give up their fight for independence. It's a political fight based on an ethnicity, and it will never end until they have achieved their goal...or they are wiped out. Whichever comes first.

As it stands now, the Kurds have a de facto independent state of Kurdistan. The flag of Iraq is banned in Iraqi Kurdistan. The peshmerga have taken over security in Kurdistan, by agreement of the Iraqi government. In fact, the Iraqi government has agreed not to even send the military into Kurdistan unless the Kurds agree to it first. Right now, Kurdistan is only part of Iraq in name only.

There are two problems with their goal for independence, one internal, one external.

The internal one goes by the name - Kirkuk.

The Kurdish Democratic Party, the more powerful of the two Kurdish groups that control parts of northern Iraq, is determined to make Kirkuk the political capital of a Kurdish federal state in a post-Saddam Iraq. The KDP has drafted an Iraqi constitution outlining such a state, with Kirkuk as its most important city. Turkey opposes Kurdish control of Kirkuk, fearing it would strengthen Kurdish autonomy.

"We have a claim to Kirkuk rooted in history, geography and demographics. This is a recipe for civil war if you don't do it right".
- Barham Salih, Prime Minister for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan

The Kurds will not give up Kirkuk. Period. One of the major reasons for the failure of the 1970 Accord, that led to the disasterous Second Kurdish-Iraq War, was because the Kurds refused to accept the Ba'thist determination of the borders of the Kurdish area, which excluded the oil-rich Kirkuk province. After war ended in 1975, Hussein implimented the Order of 111. The Order of 111 is believed to have facilitated Saddam's efforts to Arabization the region-often by forcefully evicting local, non-Arab residents from their homes.

Since our 2003 invasion of Iraq, Kurds have been returning to Kirkuk and forceably evicting the same Arabs that Saddam put there. Either way its ethnic cleansing, and it can't go on for long without causing violence.

Mosul and other cities also historically lean Kurdish and were subject to Saddam's "Arabization", but no other city are the Kurds so determined to hold onto as Kirkuk.

The external problem with Kurdistan independence mostly involves Turkey. While Iran has also endured its share of Kurdish revolts, Turkey has been the only nation who's Kurdish problem can compare with Iraq's. Turkey is also the only nation which has launched full-scale invasions of Iraq because of Kurdish rebellions.

After the truce in 1999, the PKK seemed to be working out their issues with Turkey. But Bush's invasion of Iraq had cascading effects and more than 2,000 Turks have died in resulting violence since then.

History shows us that the Kurds of Iraq have ethnic bonds with the Kurds of Turkey and elsewhere. Like the Pushtan tribes along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, they will continue to give their rebellious, neighboring tribes safe haven irregardless of the consequences.

"Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results."
- Machiavelli

So what does history teach us in regards to the Kurds?

While the goals of the Kurds have never changed, their tactics have. They started with unorganized, tribal revolts under Barzanji. They evolved to more militaristic, guerrilla tactics under Barzani. Then, after the genocide in 1988, the Kurds became more politically savvy. For instance, they stopped fighting after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait simply because they wanted to see how it would play out.

Starting with Operation Safe Haven in 1991, the Kurds have learned to live with an autonomous region. Since the fall of Baghdad in 2003, Kurdistan has actually grown stronger in relative terms to Iraq. Therefore it is likely that the Kurds won't declare independence while American troops are on the ground in Iraq. However, once we leave that could (and probably will) change. The trick to keeping Turkey out of Iraq will be in getting the Kurds to continue playing the farce that they are still part of Iraq. As long as Jalal Talabani is still president of Iraq the Kurds have reasons to play along.

While the Kurds are Sunnis, its important to remember that they are not like the religious fanatics that are fighting American troops in central Iraq. For example, the Kurds have incorporated thousands of Kurdish women into the peshmerga.

There is also another element that may or may not play in the future of Kurdistan - the PUK/KDP rivalry. This rivalry has led to open civil war in both the late 1970's and the mid-1990's. The mid-90's Kurdish Civil War actually disrupted CIA attempt to overthrow the Hussein government. Will this erupt again in the future? In the past it only erupted after a crushing defeat at the hands of the Iraqi army. Therefore I believe that as long as Kurdistan prospers we likely won't see it again.

The Sunni vs. Shia Problem

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
- George W. Bush

"I believe that history is capable of anything. There exists no folly that men have not tried out."
- C. G. Jung

"The past is never dead; it's not even past."
- William Faulkner

With the failure of the Bush Administration's plan for Iraq, you are increasingly hearing calls for the partitioning of Iraq into three states. While this may make sense for the Kurds, it makes absolutely no sense for the rest of Iraq. When you look at the ethnoreligious map of Iraq above you can't help by notice something standing out right in the middle of the map - the big gray stain around the Baghdad area. There exists more than a third of the population of Iraq in that area and it is hopelessly mixed between Sunnis and Shiites. There is no clean, geographical division between the two religious groups.

There is simply no way to partition Iraq between Sunnis and Shias without causing a civil war that would make Yugoslavia's 1990's experience look bland in comparison. To put it another way, the partitioning of Iraq between Sunni and Shia would constitute a worst-case scenerio. Every other solution would be better, without question.

And if that wasn't enough to discourage you from the "partition solution", the full-scale civil war that would follow would likely draw Iran into the war on behalf of the Shiites, which would bring Saudi Arabia in on the Sunni side. Plus, the Kurds would no longer have any motivation to maintain the farce of them being part of Iraq, and that might draw Turkey into Iraq. In other words, we are talking full-scale regional war with no way to know what the likely outcome would be.

"While the mediocre European is obsessed with history, the mediocre American is ignorant of it."
- Anonymous

So what are the alternatives? For starters, its good to remember that the history of Iraq didn't begin in 1990. Everyone remembers the Shia Revolt of March 1991. What most Americans seem to not be aware of is that this was the first and only Shia revolt in Iraq's history. Before 1991 the Shia and Sunnis largely fought together in every conflict.

the theory of sectarian strife was undercut by the behavior of Iraq's Shia community during Iran's 1982 invasion and the fighting thereafter. Although about three-quarters of the lower ranks of the army were Shias, as of early 1988, no general insurrection of Iraq; Shias had occurred.

Even in periods of major setback for the Iraqi army--such as the Al Faw debacle in 1986--the Shias have continued staunchly to defend their nation and the Baath regime. They have done so despite intense propaganda barrages mounted by the Iranians, calling on them to join the Islamic revolution.

It appears, then, that, however important sectarian affiliation may have been in the past, in the latter 1980s nationalism was the basic determiner of loyalty.
[...]

In summary, prior to the war the Baath had taken steps toward integrating the Shias. The war placed inordinate demands on the regime for manpower, demands that could only be met by levying the Shia community--and this strengthened the regime's resolve to further the integration process. In early 1988, it seemed likely that when the war ends, the Shias would emerge as full citizens-- assuming that the Baath survives the conflict.

It wasn't just the 80's. The Great Iraq Revolution of 1920 was mostly a Shia revolt against British occupation with Sunni participation. In the Anglo-Iraq War, the Sunnis and Shias fought side by side (albeit poorly). The al-Wathbah Uprising in 1948 included both Sunni and Shia, both rural and urban.

So in other words, the violent conflict between Shia and Sunni in Iraq today is a new development that never happened on this scale before American troops first walked on Iraqi soil in 1991.

So what does this mean? It means that the Sunni/Shia situation is not as hopeless as many would lead you to believe (unlike the Kurdish situation). What is required is leadership that doesn't exist at the moment, and less foreign involvement. But to find a solution to this problem first requires people to understand what the current situation in Iraq actually is.

Another report, by the Centre for American Progress, says sectarian violence is one element in a security situation spiralling out of control. "Iraq's conflict is now worse than civil war; it's on the brink of total collapse," the report says. "The country suffers from at least four internal conflicts that risk further spiralling out of control -- a Shiite-Sunni civil war in the centre, intra-Shiite conflicts in the south, a Sunni insurgency in the west, and ethnic tensions between Arabs and Kurds in the north."

Of those four conflicts, the last one (Kurdish tensions) is manageable in the short-term. As long as the Kurds feel they have something to gain by participating in the Iraqi government, they won't try to make an aggressive move on Kirkuk.

The second to last one (Sunni Rebellion) will be fixed the moment that America pulls its troops out - assuming that the Sunnis are empowered in whatever government exists, and the country has not been partitioned.

The intra-Shiite conflict is a little more tricky (not that they aren't all complicated).

But Mr Maliki is in a complicated and perilous position. His key difficulty is that the Shiite militias are linked to political parties that are part of his Government coalition. He won office in April partly through the support of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who controls the Mahdi Army militia, blamed for many of the sectarian killings.

Sheikh Sadr also controls 30 of the 275 seats in Parliament, and up to five cabinet posts. He has assumed, as a report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) put it in July, "the role of Shiite kingmaker".

Hence the Prime Minister's dilemma: he can't afford to alienate Sheikh Sadr, yet Washington wants him to disband Sheikh Sadr's militia.

To complicate matters, some of the militias are splintering into more radicalised groups.

According to the Washington Post there are twenty-three militias in Iraq, a majority of them Shiite. The reason for the rise of the militias was very simple - the violent choas that followed the fall of Hussein's government left the people of Iraq nowhere to turn to for security except for the tribal militias.

The key word here is "tribal". It's a very unreported aspect of Iraqi culture. Ever since Britain first created Iraq there has been efforts to break the power of the tribes in Iraq, and those efforts have largely worked. By the 1970's the combination of land reform and urbanization of society had reduced the power of the tribes in Iraq to marginal players. But then King Bush decided to eliminate the government and fire the army (note: after the Anglo-Iraq war in 1941, the British decided against disbanding the Iraqi army. Because of this Iraqi never decended into chaos. The Bush Administration decided to learn nothing from this historic example). Suddenly everything holding back the power of the tribal chiefs was wiped away.

There are two dominant militias - the Badr Brigade and the Madhi Army. The Madhi Army, led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has his power bases in Sadr City and Najaf.

"I think the Sadrists are a social movement, not really so much an organization," Juan Cole, a Middle East expert at the University of Michigan, told the New York Times. Mahdi followers have infiltrated Iraq's interior and defense ministries. Some police cars in parts of Baghdad openly display the organization's insignia.

The Badr Brigade is a very different organization.

It is the Iranian-trained wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the most powerful Shiite party in Iraq. The organization was built by Iraqi Shiite defectors and soldiers captured by Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Its members were funded, trained, and equipped by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Badr Brigade's power base is purely southern Iraq, which leads to another significant difference between the two militias - the Badr Organization advocates an autonomous region for southern Iraq (similar to Kurdistan), while the Mahdi Army opposes it. In other words, the Badr Brigade with strong links to Iran, advocate the eventual break-up of Iraq, something that the Mahdi Army opposes.

Given that information you would think that the Bush Administration would embrace the Mahdi Army over the Badr Brigade. You would think wrong. Instead the Bush Administration has decided on two allies to build a new Iraq around - the Badr Brigade and the Kurdish peshmerga. Both groups want an eventual partitioning of Iraq. It makes a person think that the Bush Administration's piss-poor performance in Iraq was by design, rather than incompetence.

"All who affirm the use of violence admit it is only a means to achieve justice and peace. But peace and justice are nonviolence...the final end of history. Those who abandon nonviolence have no sense of history. Rathy they are bypassing history, freezing history, betraying history."
- André Trocmé

"If history teaches anything about the causes of revolution-and history does not teach much but still teaches considerably more than social-science theories-it is that a disintegration of political systems precedes revolutions, that the telling symptom of disintegration is & progressive erosion of governmental authority, and that this erosion is caused by the government's inability to function properly, from which spring the citizens' doubts about its legitimacy."
- Hannah Arendt

"History, history! We fools, what do we know or care."
- William Carlos Williams

The most important obstacle to peace in Iraq is the Shia/Sunni civil war in the Baghdad area. For this problem, Iraq's history is a poor teacher. Sunni/Shia relations have simply never been this bad in Iraq's history. You would have to go back to pre-Ottoman days to find an applicable historical lesson, and that is not an era in which I am very familiar with.

Iraq's history says things shouldn't be this bad, yet they are. Of course, Iraq never went through an extended period of time without a functioning government and army before. So in looking for lessons to learn from history here, I have to look at other nations. In this case, I look at Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia, despite a horrific civil war, created its own solution in the latter part of WWII. A strongman emerged with popular support and Yugoslavia went on to experience four decades of relative peace and prosperity.

That seems to be a likely scenerio for Iraq. An elightened leader that the people will rally around seems to be an unlikely outcome. A capitalist democracy suddenly taking hold, the neocon wet-dream, is largely a dead issue at this point. I don't know who this strongman might be, but chances are he won't be much better than Hussein.

The other player

"Nothing falsifies history more than logic."
- Guizot

"Happy people have no history."
- Leo Tolstoy

Of course there is one other element that needs to be considered - the occupying army.

How long will Iraq be occupied? What will the occupying authority decide to do? I can't honestly say. So far the Bush Administration has made every single wrong decision. In fact the decisions have been so totally devoid of logic, and contrary to history's lessons, that I am incline to think that chaos in Iraq was the plan all along. And if that is true then guessing what the Bush Administration might do next is a waste of time.

But the Republicans can't defy the laws of gravity forever. The militaries of both America and Britain are overstretched and breaking down. Our list of allies grow thinner every month. The budgets of America and Britain are stretched to the breaking point. History shows that empires generally have to retrench when they reach this point, whether they want to admit it or not. By 2008 we will have to start withdrawing no matter what the condition of Iraq is.

The question is: how much more damage can we inflict before that happens?

One last note: Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was delayed for a month because of his decision to invade Yugoslavia first. Those four weeks later became critical when the Germany's invasion bogged down in the deep Russian winter, just 20 miles from Moscow.

posted by Steve @ 1:13:00 AM

It just gets better

Now, I am getting amused by this race. Allen tripped a wire with Webb and he's going to beat him like he beat Ollie North at Annapolis.

In 1968, when they still had college boxing, Webb and North fought each other and reportedly, Webb kicked North's ass.

From the Webb campaign comes senior strategist Steve Jarding's response to Mary Matalin, who helps raise money for George Allen and previously worked for Dick "Waterboarding" Cheney...

P.S. I've made a few edits just to break up a really long paragraph and make this visually more appealing on the page.

To: Mary Matalin
From: Steve Jarding
Re: Until you have run a race in Virginia, you might refrain from acting as an expert here.

Mary,

Yesterday, you sent out a statement from the Allen campaign commenting on Jim Webb and Virginia campaigns. A couple points.: First, you said that Jim Webb is running the "most personally negative campaign in Virginia history." You even said that the Webb campaign has run "the worst attempt at character assassination in Virginia history." That is rich Mary, even for you. And besides, how would you know? You have never run a campaign here. Until you have, I suggest you quit playing reporters for idiots. They see what has gone on here. Before you attempt to rewrite the history of this campaign, get your facts right. The truth is that this campaign has been the "most personally negative campaign in Virginia history" and this has been "the worst attempt at character assassination in Virginia history" because George Allen, not Jim Webb is waging it.

Allen has not run an ad in this campaign that was not an outright lie and distortion of Jim Webb's words and actions. He even went on statewide television in an overblown hyped joke of an ad saying he wanted to run a clean, issue-based campaign, only to see a negative Allen ad run right before the two minute snow job ad did. Then four days later, Allen ran a new negative ad. Mary, we are not that dumb in Virginia. We see through this charade. Then, in one television ad, Allen actually cites himself as the source for his claim that Webb would raise taxes (Nice work. Mary, did they teach your young operatives this in Dirty Politics 101?)

In another ad, Allen has a woman contending that Jim Webb "misquoted" her in a story in which she was not even quoted and in which she offered the additional lie that she was a "Democrat" when we don't register by party in Virginia and voting records show that she votes in Republican primaries (You must be proud to work with these bozos.) The Allen campaign has yet another ad suggesting Jim was responsible for Tailhook, when Webb wasn't even there at the time - don't let the truth get in the way of a good sleazy ad Mary.

Oh, and then there is the ad saying Jim doesn't think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman - when that is the only position he has ever taken on that issue - and you guys know it! (So, now you've stooped to lying about a man's religious beliefs - on what page of your family values playbook did that little gem come from?)

Mary, the Allen campaign has repeatedly attempted to assassinate Jim Webb's character, unfortunately for you and them, it is tough to kill someone when you are shooting blanks. Mary, you should have stopped these political Neanderthals before they destroyed your 2008 horse. But that race isn't happening anymore now is it. And the truth is these guys are Neanderthals because they reflect their leader. And as you heard Jim Webb say on Saturday, "a fish rots from the head down."

Second, you claim in your little notice to reporters, that "George Allen's record is an open book." Really. Well, good to know. Then I guess you will be handing over those sealed Allen divorce records that reporters have been asking for. And I guess you will be offering the two Allen arrest records from the 1970s that mysteriously disappeared from court files - reporters have been clamoring for those as well. Then too, Senator Open Book will now finally tell reporters how he made all that personal money from various companies while he did them electoral favors!

I guess Senator Open Book will quit hiding from reporters like a snake under a rock and will begin to answer their questions, do their interviews and will quit screening their questions on conference calls, and will quit having them "submit" questions to the campaign for Allen to answer instead of putting him on the phone with reporters? They will be so glad to hear this, as will all the voters in Virginia who have seen their phony, tough, cowboy, macho Senator Open Book look more like Barney Fife than Marshal Dillon in this campaign.

Finally, Mary, on the matter of a person's character, how about having Senator Open Book explain to the League of Women Voters how he could make a promise to them-- in writing-- in a contract no less--and then break it by using footage from their debate in television ads.

Then too, Senator Open Book signed his name to an ethics report in the Senate - knowing he had lied on it, was hiding stock options from the committee, but didn't seem to care. Gee, that one doesn't look too good either Mary.

Character does matter, Mary. A person's word does matter, Mary. The problem with George Allen's campaign is that Jim Webb is the candidate who keeps his word and who is the candidate with character and your horse isn't. That's probably why you were forced to say such ridiculous things in your little statement to reporters.

Now, here's the Allen campaign press release by Mary Matalin:

Mary Matalin of the Allen Campaign Responds to Webb's Latest Round of False, Negative Attacks

For Immediate Release:
October 29, 2006
Contact: Press Office
703.845.3689

Webb's Writings Cause Him to Continue the Most Personally Negative Campaign in Virginia History

ARLINGTON, VA - Mary Matalin, informal advisor to the Allen campaign, responded today to Jim Webb's latest round of false, negative attacks with the following statement:

"Mr. Webb has promoted himself as a writer as he has run for U.S. Senate. Virginia's voters are now looking at his writings, which even he said were inappropriate to read over the radio.

"Time and time again, when voters scrutinize Jim Webb's record, his campaign has launched false negative attacks against George Allen. As disappointed as Virginians are by Jim Webb's latest attacks, this is not surprising coming from someone whose campaign has been behind a coordinated series of false, negative smears that have been the worst attempt at character assassination in Virginia history.

"Look, George Allen's record is an open book. Whether as Governor or Senator, people can see what he's stood for and accomplished as a public official. I can't imagine him losing control and lashing out like Jim Webb did with lies and negative personal attacks if someone questioned one of his votes in the Senate or one of his vetoes as Governor. This is more disturbing behavior from Jim Webb and his campaign, and Virginians will reject his mean spirited false smears and attacks."

Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.

It's a funny thing. The more Allen says, the more Webb can use his record, share his experiences. It seems to be a real problem for the Allen campaign. The more they talk, the more that they look stupid.

posted by Steve @ 12:46:00 AM

It's Clinical

Togetherness In Baghdad
A surreal facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge it.
By George F. Will
Newsweek

................

A surreal and ultimately disgusting facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge that fact. Iraq's civil war has been raging for more than a year; so has the Washington debate about whether it is what it is.

In a recent interview with Vice President Cheney, Time magazine asked, "If you had to take back any one thing you'd said about Iraq, what would it be?" Selecting from what one hopes is a very long list, Cheney replied: "I thought that the elections that we went through in '05 would have had a bigger impact on the level of violence than they have ... I thought we were over the hump in terms of violence. I think that was premature."

He thinks so? Clearly, and weirdly, he implies that the elections had some positive impact on the level of violence. Worse, in the full transcript of the interview posted online he said the big impact he expected from the elections "hasn't happened yet." "Yet"? Doggedness can be admirable, but this is clinical.

.................
Which brings us back to Iraq, which Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times covered for two years following the 2003 invasion. He recently returned. His Oct. 23 report ( "Into the Abyss of Baghdad") begins:

"I keep seeing his face. He appears to be in his mid-20s, bespectacled, slightly bearded, and somehow his smile conveys a sense of prosperity to come. Perhaps he is set to marry, or enroll in graduate school, or launch a business—all these flights of ambition seem possible. In the next few images he is encased in plastic: His face is frozen in a ghoulish grimace. Blackened lesions blemish his neck. 'Drill holes,' says Col. Khaled Rasheed, an Iraqi commander who is showing me the set of photographs."

Electric drills are the death squads' preferred instruments of torture. McDonnell:

"One evening I accompanied a three-Humvee convoy of MPs through largely Shiite east Baghdad ... The objective that evening was to patrol with Iraqi police, but the Iraqi lawmen are hesitant to be seen with Americans, whom they regard as IED [improvised explosive device] magnets. The joint patrol never worked out ... The next night, an armor-piercing bomb hit the same squad, Gator 1-2. A sergeant with whom I had ridden the previous evening lost a leg; the gunner and driver suffered severe shrapnel wounds."

For what?

To finish the job......of installing Moqtada Sadr as President of Iraq.

posted by Steve @ 12:10:00 AM

Jim Webb Responds Vigorously to False Personal Attacks

For a long time, Vietnam Vets have not called those who avoided the war cowards. Partly because opposing the war was right, partly because the war ended badly.

Jim Webb broke that taboo in launching after George Allen. Webb did not use Vietnam in his campaign, those that knew his service record, knew he served honorably in Vietnam. But Allen, already in trouble, had to go through his books and raise the issue in a way which would hurt him.

posted by Steve @ 10:01:00 PM

The most loathesome act of a loathesome year

WY-AL: Changing stories

by kos

Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:51:28 PM PDT

So Cubin changes her story again, and then throws in an apology.

"It was person to person and it was not an attack on the disabled," Cubin said in a telephone interview from Rock Springs, Wyo. "In retrospect I was wrong in what I said and I apologize."

Cubin, who is seeking a seventh two-year term against Democrat Gary Trauner and Libertarian Thomas Rankin, also presented different account of what she said compared to what Rankin recalled and her account of the incident was different from the one her campaign initially issued.

Rankin, who has multiple sclerosis and uses an electric wheelchair, said that after the debate Sunday night Cubin "walked over to me and said, 'If you weren't sitting in that chair, I'd slap you across the face."

Cubin said she went over to Rankin, challenged his debate assertions and remarked that "if you had said that to anyone else, they probably would have smacked you."

Again, to be clear -- Cubin said she'd resort to violence against Rankin if he wasn't wheelchair bound, all because Rankin had the gall to point out that Cubin took money from Tom DeLay. Which she did.

Of course, there would be no need for Cubin to apologize had she really said what she now claims she had said (which remember, was different than what her campaign said she said yesterday).

As Rankin said earlier today:

"The best response Barbara Cubin could give would be a resignation," he said. "Nothing less than that would satisfy me.

"She is not the type of person Wyoming residents want representing them," he said.

Is she insane? She would threaten to beat down a handicapped man for telling the truth? I guess Kiss of Death is her favorite movie. I bet she'd be happy to stand on staircase and cackle as she pushes him down a flight of stairs like Tommy Udo.


Of course the good people of Wyoming find such thuggery appaling

WY-AL: The Slap Effect

by georgia10

Sun Oct 29, 2006 at 05:09:32 PM PDT

A new poll, commissioned by the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, shows Democrat Gary Trauner in a statistical dead heat with Republican Barbara "If You Weren't Sitting In That Chair, I'd Slap You Across The Face" Cubin. Cubin leads Trauner by just under 4%, 44%-40.4%. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2%.

That a Democrat has made this race competive is nothing short of incredible, given the fact that President Bush carried Wyoming in 2004 by an overwhelming margin (69%-29%). But let's look a little closer at this poll to see something truly amazing--the Slap Effect:

Cubin's well-publicized threat to smack Rankin, who has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, across the face following a broadcast debate on Oct. 23 became news at a point when a third of this poll had yet to be conducted.

Breaking down the numbers shows that between Oct. 18-23, Cubin was at 48.6 percent. For the final two days, her numbers dropped to 35.3 percent.

Trauner was at 36.9 percent for the first period; he gained 10.1 points to 47 percent.

Rankin also gained; he was at 3.7 percent and jumped to 7.8 percent.

Because the pool of survey respondents was smaller for the final two-day period, the margin of error for these numbers is 7.1 percent. Even so, the shifts in support for Cubin and Trauner were greater than that margin.

We have yet to see the full extent of fallout from Curbin's bully behavior. What we do know is that this is--and will likely remain--a very, very close race, so close in fact that the GOP is deploying Dick Cheney himself next week to Wyoming to help remedy the situation. Also, the RNC and his opponent have started airing attack ads against Trauner. You can watch Trauner's response here.

Nine days. Let's give Trauner all the help we can give and make history.

posted by Steve @ 8:28:00 PM

Why do you suck?

The goal is not to worship him,
but emulate him.

I have my own opinions on this. It won't be much nicer.

"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser

That's quicksand, that ain't mud

An open letter to the "Gang of 500"

Dear "Gang of 500":

Did you pursue a career in journalism so you could help shed much-needed light on important topics, so you could help educate and inform your fellow citizens, so you could seek the truth and hold those in power accountable to the people they are supposed to serve?

Or did you pursue a career in journalism because you wanted to discuss whether Hillary Rodham Clinton has had plastic surgery, which candidate "looks French," and which "looked scary"?

We know of no poll that shows that respondents consider Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco residence of primary importance in this November's elections. We know of none that suggests that Tennessee voters care more about whether Harold Ford Jr. went to a "Playboy party" than they care about keeping America safe. We see no indication that the public is calling out for more "analysis" of the candidates' appearance, or even that their primary concern is how the midterm elections will affect the 2008 presidential prospects of various members of Congress.

No, the American people know what is important. Iraq is important. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is important. Keeping America safe, securing our ports, and preventing future attacks are important. The growing gap between rich and poor is important; the fact that millions of Americans lack health care is important.

The American people know these things are important -- and they tell you that every time you ask. You pick the poll, any poll you want: We guarantee you the poll shows that people think these things are important.

You won't find much evidence that the pressing questions on their minds have anything to do with Hillary's hair, or whether Pelosi's "San Francisco looks" turn them off, or whether the latest political ad "goes too far."

So please -- please -- use these last 10 days well. Use them to educate your readers and viewers and listeners about the things that really matter. Use the next 10 days to help people understand what the candidates want to do about Iraq and whether their solutions have worked in the past. About how we've failed to capture Osama bin Laden and what we're doing to change that. About what is happening in Afghanistan, about port security, about the budget deficit, about wage stagnation, about runaway energy costs, and about health care.

Don't just use this time to play an RNC ad -- or a DNC ad, or any ad -- over and over and over and over again. Voters will see these ads; the parties and candidates are paying for voters to see them. That's the whole point of an ad. Voters don't need you to air these ads nonstop, for free. The parties want you to do that. You're doing their bidding. You're telling voters about campaign tactics rather than issues. But campaign tactics don't keep us safe, don't keep our troops from dying needlessly in Iraq, don't put food on the table, and don't help people get health care.

We know: The vicious attacks demand attention. But not at the expense of issues that really matter. That isn't mud they're slinging -- it's quicksand they're leading you and the voters into. It swallows up and suffocates everything that gets caught in it, transforming elections that should be about Iraq, about bin Laden, about the economy, about the minimum wage, and about health care into a race to the bottom dominated by substance-free bickering. The campaigns responsible want you -- and the voters -- to get swallowed up in the quicksand. You know a radio host's attack on an actor shouldn't be the dominant story of the days before Americans choose their representatives. Your audience doesn't consider it the most important issue. So don't treat it that way.

For 10 days -- just 10 days, that's all -- use your platform to focus attention on matters of substance, not on the horse race. Don't tell us how an issue is "playing" -- tell us where the candidates stand, what they plan to do, and how they'll do it. We'll tell you how it "plays" on November 7, when we vote.

Once November 7 comes and goes, by all means, knock yourselves out telling us what our votes meant, what the future holds, what you think about the cut of Barack Obama's jib or John McCain's "steely resolve." There's plenty of time for you to do that. Plenty.

But for 10 days -- just 10 short days -- think about what really matters.

Think about why you first put pen to paper, what your motivation was the first time you asked a politician a question, what you think the highest aim of journalism should be.

Think about what makes your profession one of the highest callings a democracy has to offer, what makes journalism so essential to our existence as a nation that its freedoms are enshrined in our Constitution.

Think about the people who have fought and died for those freedoms. Think of your colleagues who have had their phones tapped, who have risked being killed in order to report from war zones, who ended up on "Enemies Lists," who have gone to jail because of their pursuit of the truth.

Did they do all that so you could bring us a story about the Democratic Party's "Two Left Feet," or about allegations that Hillary Clinton has had cosmetic surgery?

Or did they do it so you could tell us the truth about why we went to war, how that war is progressing, and what our leaders plan to do to get us out of it?

Ten days of substance. That's all we ask.

Too many recent elections have been decided based on earth tones and sighs, on windsurfing and swift-boating, on claims that are false or trivial, or both. Too many votes have been cast by voters who are misinformed about some of the most important issues of our -- or any other -- time.

The media don't bear sole responsibility for those things, of course. Our political leaders (on all sides) and those who help elect them deserve their share of blame, to be sure. And the voters themselves bear ultimate responsibility for not being better informed.

But, yes, you in the media are responsible, too; of that, there can be no doubt.

And in the next 10 days, your own performance is the only thing you can change. You cannot change the fact that some politicians will lie; that others will have great ideas but be less tactically savvy than their opponents; or that voters would rather watch Fear Factor than the evening news.

But you can make sure that those voters who read your newspapers and watch your television shows -- who try in these last 10 days to make an informed decision -- get the information they need about things such as war and health care, rather than trivia and pointless prognostication.

You can do that in these last 10 days. And by doing so, you can force the candidates (and help the voters) to talk and think about substance, about issues, about the future of our nation. Your readers and viewers and listeners need you to do that. Your nation needs you to do that.

Isn't that why you wanted to be a journalist in the first place?

posted by Steve @ 8:21:00 PM

The GOP pron connection

I give to Republicans

posted by Steve @ 5:09:00 PM

Do something

He wants you to vote Republican

GOTV

by georgia10

We've been hearing a lot about the GOP's get-out-the-vote machine, so let's take a look at what Democrats have been up to:

DNC state-level organizers have been contacting drop-off Democrats-those who vote in presidential elections but not midterms-and have reached half a million in Pennsylvania alone in the past year and a half. Roughly 4,500 of those contacted have taken an active role in this election, displaying a yard sign or staffing a phone bank. "We're doing exactly what we need to do to be organized ..." says Claire McCaskill, the challenger to Republican Jim Talent in Missouri's tight Senate race. "This year just feels so much different than last time."

Unlike the centralized Republican effort, the DNC and the Democrats' House and Senate election committees are each running separate turnout programs. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has put $10 million into its effort, more than twice as much as in 2002, and started working last summer with 40 Democratic House campaigns-mostly challengers-to create field programs that could replicate the GOP's 72-hour plan. The DCCC is also microtargeting voters for the first time, identifying Democratic voters in majority Republican areas rather than simply working Democratic strongholds.

Simply put, every vote counts in every competitive race. As Mike Podhorzer over at AFL-CIO has emphasized:

Easily forgotten is how close 15 of the Republicans' victories were in 1994. Had Democrats in key districts won a combined 52,000 more votes, there would have been no "Speaker Gingrich." That failure continues to devastate our country.

Every vote counts. Take some time and email everyone in your address book and remind them to vote Democratic on November 7th. Follow up again on Election Day.
Get involved. Stay involved. Make history.

• Do More Than Vote



• MoveOn's Call for Change



• MoveOn's Pre-Halloween Phone Parties



• DNC | DCCC | DSCC

posted by Steve @ 4:49:00 PM

Corker ain't miscegenated

Why use text when subtext is so much more fun

posted by Steve @ 4:17:00 PM

Why the Republicans are in trouble

Come election day, we're gonna find out about a few thing, but a week or so out, here's why the GOP is in trouble.

Many of the incumbents are second rate:

Dennis Hastert,Curt Weldon, Tom Reynolds, Rick Santorum. Would you hire any one of theese people? Would you let them run your business?

Are you kidding?

These guys are miserable legislators and more interested in petty bickering than doing their jobs. They aren't fit to hold Bob Dole's pen, much less shine Howard Baker's shoes. You may have found many of Barry Goldwater's stand odious, but when it came to character, there was no question. The Republicans who sat in the House and Senate before 2000 were men and women who understood their duty to the country.

Even middleweight hacks like Dick Armey and Phil Gramm were people who took government seriously.

But these guys don't and it's clear. They have placed party above country to the detriment of both. And people know it. They know that party has been placed above country or even decency. I haven't written much about the Military Commissions Act because I believe that most of it will be tossed in the garbage can in the first court it hits.

The shameful fact is so much that it passed, and that IS shameful, but that no one in the GOP was serious enough to oppose it. Because it is wrong, it is wrong for our country and wrong for our values. And a Congress of men and women who cared for their country would have stood up to Bush, if they were more than Rotary Club hacks and synchophants to the White House.

So when you get a Joe Sestak or a Jim Webb running, a former carrier battle group commander, and a Navy Cross winner, the character gap is clear and obvious. You wouldn't trust Curt Weldon with a latrine. You couldn't trust George Allen not to burn a cross on your lawn and laugh.

It isn't because these men were given great trust, they were, but others have too. The problem, the men who serve in Congress now are simply incapable of being given any trust. They can't protect the country, they can't protect children.

Once the playing ground levels out, and the Dems get solid candidates with financing, the GOP is in real trouble. You have Rick Santorum airing commercials with wrestlers and talking about Lord of the Rings. You have George Allen going through Jim Webb's novels

Dems have started fighting back

It wasn't that the Swift Boat attacks worked, according to John Zogby, they failed pretty badly, but that Kerry let them fester, and the perception of his lying about his military service was out there. Not based in fact, but perception. And instead of the GOP just counting their blessings, they overplayed their hand.

Jim Webb was a Marine who won the Navy Cross. That is not easy to do, partly because awards are usually knocked down, and you can get killed in the process. Was he the ideal candidate? No. But Allen crossed a line and Webb got sick of dicking around with him and finally threw down the gauntlet today and reminded people Allen spent Vietnam on a dude ranch.

Same with Joe Sestak. Weldon implied that he sat around being waited on all day, instead of running a carrier battle group with the lives of thousands of men and women in his hands. For some reason, despite the blogosphere war on the chickenhawks, that they could just attack people's military service and get away with it. And it's blowing up on them.

Even pro-life Bob Casey has managed to gain the support of liberals because Santorum is just that bad, and when he was challenged, using his father, Casey cut the bullshit and went straight for him. He wasn't having it.

You can't defend everything

When the Dems were using their key district strategy, it was a lot easier for the GOP to swamp districts, because there were only a few in play. All their work was designed to deal with a few key districts and the Dems could never match their resources.

So with their 72 hour plan and their money advantage, they could run down the Dems who had far fewer resources. It was an uneven contest.

Now, the Dems, using a 50 state strategy, are in races no one would have predicted would have been close six months ago. Stu Rothenberg mocked Chris Bowers for daring to suggest such a thing. But the reason it works is simple. Yes, the Republicans have more money, but they cannot defend everywhere. Mike DeWine is in trouble behind that.

But then, the help that Bob Corker got was so much not help, that it didn't really work to his benefit. The idea is that the GOP is going to ride in with money and save the day is less likely because of the number of people they have to save.

Off key and out of tune

The Republicans are talking about taxes and Nancy Pelosi when people are thinking about selling their house and protecting pedophiles in Congress.

Every time Bush stands up and says "We will stay in Iraq until the job is done" a mother sees her child being trapped in the Army and Iraq.

In short, they are out of sync with the national mood. The war in Iraq has gone on longer than WWII and people see no progress, no way out. They want to get out of it. Bush never asked the American people if they wanted to rebuild Iraq, because they don't. They didn't mind dumping Saddam, but four years of war in which things are getting worse?

Juan Cole says in Time that the US promised to end the Sunni insurgency so Maliki could ask the Shia to disarm. Well, how the hell was the US going to do that? Bring in 100K more troops that don't exist?

When Bush says "Democrats will raise your taxes" people are staring at him and thinking "what about Iraq".

Remember Bush is unpopular with the majority of Americans.

The Republicans thought they could scare people about Mexicans, but the party split on that issue and the racists jumped out of the woodwork. It was oooga booga mexicans, when the GOP needs Latino voters. Tom Tancredo and Kotex Jim Sensenbrenner got to define the GOP as the "we hate Mexicans" party when they needed their votes the most.

And now that the country wants answers to war, Bush's stubborn refusal and dogged insistance on war forever is losing people.

While Bush and friend enjoy a booming stock market, average voters look at their neighbors and see them placing statues in the ground to help sell their houses. They don't see a booming economy. While Bush isn't offering solutions. Now, he wants to mess with Social Security again, despite the fact that it scares people witless.

Times change

Rove's GOTV tactics work when you can pick your targets and people generally are happy with you. This is not the case here. People are unhappy, as unhappy as can be with the Republicans. So this 72 Hour campaign may simply not work when they use it.

Why?

Well, while the fundies did the leg work, moderates listened to GOP arguments. They were the targets for the national security pitch.

Now, there's another issue, child sex predators, and it is a dagger in the heart of that middle class Republican mom. Sure, there's Iraq, there's the economy to be unhappy with, but at the end of the day, the Republican leadership stood around and watched while at least one member tried to seduce pages and refused to act. Then lied about it when exposed.

That was the point when many people stopped listening. If Rove had demanded decisive action, like Hastert resigning on the spot, the GOP might have stemmed the bleeding. But they didn't.

Then, you have the racist Corker ad. It was a mistake because everyone knew what it was saying. In another state, California, it might have passed, but in the South, well, it was clear what it meant.

And while Chuck Todd didn't get it, I bet people in Memphis did. Why?

Because they used to kill black men for dating white women. It wasn't just disapproval. They would accuse you of rape, because no white woman would willingly choose to be with a dusky negro, drag you out of jail, hang you, castrate you and set you on fire.

So while the NRSC was trying to be cute, they were playing with napalm. People flipped out because the subtext is so nasty.

What worked during 2002 and 2004 may work again, but it's against a vastly different Democratic party, better funded and better led. They have been able to pick the fights and force even long time Republican strongholds into competative races, which is how the GOP won in 1994, by going after Dem seats in the South.

The GOP is reaching into it's bag of dirty tricks one more time. The way things look, it may be one time too many.

posted by Steve @ 12:24:00 PM

Dividing Iraq

Harold Ford suggested today that we divide Iraq into three parts.

Here's what happens if the Galbraith Plan, as I call it, goes into effect

Kurdsitan declares independence.

Turkey invades the border area

The Shia start their civil war. When Sadr wins, he attacks Anbar, then Kurdistan.

Why?

Because the Shia have been denied the pleasure of running Iraq for centuries. Do you think when they have the main chance to do so, they're going to agree to any deal which would deny them that?

Right now, Maliki is saying "if you let us run the Army, we'll stop the guerrillas in six months". In English, that means, let us use our death squads to kill Sunnis.

If you think a Shia government is going to share oil with Kurds or Sunnis, you're on crack.

posted by Steve @ 1:51:00 AM

Vote Democratic, really

Can ya help a multibillion dollar corporation
out?

Businesses Seek Protection on Legal Front

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: October 29, 2006

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — Frustrated with laws and regulations that have made companies and accounting firms more open to lawsuits from investors and the government, corporate America — with the encouragement of the Bush administration — is preparing to fight back.

Now that corruption cases like Enron and WorldCom are falling out of the news, two influential industry groups with close ties to administration officials are hoping to swing the regulatory pendulum in the opposite direction. The groups are drafting proposals to provide broad new protections to corporations and accounting firms from criminal cases brought by federal and state prosecutors as well as a stronger shield against civil lawsuits from investors.

Although the details are still being worked out, the groups’ proposals aim to limit the liability of accounting firms for the work they do on behalf of clients, to force prosecutors to target individual wrongdoers rather than entire companies, and to scale back shareholder lawsuits.

The groups hope to reduce what they see as some burdens imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, landmark post-Enron legislation adopted in 2002. The law, which placed significant new auditing and governance requirements on companies, gave broad discretion for interpretation to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The groups are also interested in rolling back rules and policies that have been on the books for decades.

To alleviate concerns that the new Congress may not adopt the proposals — regardless of which party holds power in the legislative branch next year — many are being tailored so that they could be adopted through rulemaking by the S.E.C. and enforcement policy changes at the Justice Department.

The proposals will begin to be laid out in public shortly after Election Day, members of the groups said in recent interviews. One of the committees was formed by the United States Chamber of Commerce and until recently was headed by Robert K. Steel.

Mr. Steel was sworn in last Friday as the new Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance, and he is the senior official in the department who will be formulating the Treasury’s views on the issues being studied by the two groups.

The second committee was formed by the Harvard Law professor Hal S. Scott, along with R. Glenn Hubbard, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Bush, and John L. Thornton, a former president of Goldman Sachs, where he worked with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.

That group has colloquially become known around Washington as the Paulson Committee because the relatively new Treasury secretary issued an encouraging statement when it was formed last month. But administration officials said Friday that he was not playing a role in the group’s deliberations.

Its members include Donald L. Evans, a former commerce secretary who remains a close friend of President Bush; Samuel A. DiPiazza Jr., chief executive of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting giant; Robert R. Glauber, former chairman and chief executive of the National Association of Securities Dealers, the private group that oversees the securities industry; and the chief executives of DuPont, Office Depot and the CIT Group.

The only way to stop this is to elect a Democratic House and Senate who can investigate and subpeona and pass bills which will prevent this. Because otherwise, people will lose the right to whatever justice they can get now.

They don't believe in the law, or justice, just protecting their own.

posted by Steve @ 1:25:00 AM

So, you've found yourself assigned to the infantry

Welcome to the grunts, former artillerymen

Army to spread burden of combat
Updated 10/27/2006 10:25 AM ET
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The prospect of combat in Iraq for at least another four years is prompting the Army to realign its forces to prevent a small slice of soldiers who are shouldering much of the fighting from wearing out.

Pentagon records show one-fifth of the Army's active-duty troops have served multiple tours of war duty while more than 40% haven't been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

That disparity is behind the Army's plans to shift some soldiers to high-demand wartime specialties that could ease the burden on combat forces.

The Army announced this month that it plans to maintain its current force level in Iraq through 2010. There are about 105,000 soldiers in Iraq, 15,000 in Kuwait and 16,000 in Afghanistan.

The Army is moving soldiers from specialties such as artillery and air defense to high-demand roles: infantry, engineering, military police and intelligence, Special Forces, civil affairs and psychological operations, said Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for Army personnel.

The Army has more soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan than the other services combined. It expects to complete the realignment by 2011.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged this week that the Pentagon is sending active-duty troops overseas more frequently than it wants to, which is once in three years.

About 42% of the Army's 500,000 active-duty soldiers have not deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. They include about 80,000 fresh recruits, most of whom are being trained. More than 90,000 others are in the so-called institutional Army, those who train, equip and manage soldiers.

By 2011, there will be 50,000 more troops available for deployment than in 2001. Part of that will be accomplished by having civilian Army employees take over certain jobs from soldiers, freeing them up to fight.

Five years of fighting have put the Army on the verge of wearing out vital soldiers, said James Carafano, a retired Army colonel and military analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

So guess what happens? People start leaving the military.

Infanty isn't for everyone, and once you start forcing people into being 11B's, they're gonna find ways to get out of the Army. Before the Iraq War, it was pretty hard to be an infantryman. Despite the image of cannon fodder, only the most fit and motivated men chose the crossed rifles as their MOS. Most people are quite happy to sit at a keyboard or drive a truck, get out and find a job.

So when men chose 11B, recruiters were careful to weed out the loons and gun nuts and push the ex-jocks and the hard workers to the combat arms. Three years ago a Steven Green wouldn't have been allowed near an infantry unit. Now, he's on trial for rape-murder.

I know people doubt this, but look at this way. The people who run the military come from the combat arms. Even if they wind up in a non-combat arms branch at the end of their career, leadership under arms is how the winners in the Army are chosen. Senior NCO's also come from the combat arms. So they used to pick and choose who got to join the grunts.

There is no room for error in a combat unit. People depend on you doing your job. Slackers and the slowwitted get people killed.

The fact that the Army now has to demoblize people and force them into the grunts is the latest decline of the Army.

posted by Steve @ 1:03:00 AM

Shut your trap, you silly, silly, woman

Put on head, have someone hit,
you'll make as much sense as
Camille Paglia

Thanks For Helping

Posted at 23:05 by Gavin M.

With a crucial election only days away, social critic Camille Paglia has some advice for her fellow Democrats:


Above: Camille Paglia

The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push [the Mark Foley] story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was “Foley, Foley, Foley!” — and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

[…]

We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian.

[…]

All that’s been accomplished by [the Foley] scandal is to call into question one of the central erotic archetypes of gay male tradition — the ephebic beauty of boys at their muscular peak between the ages of 16 and 18. It goes back through Western iconography from Michelangelo’s nudes to Hadrian’s Antinous and beyond that to Greek sculpture. It’s a formula at the heart of Plato’s dialogues, as in the Symposium, which shows Socrates in love with but also declining sex with the handsome young Alcibiades.

[…]

And why didn’t Democrats notice that they were drifting into an area which has been the province of the right wing — that is, the attempt to gain authoritarian control over interpersonal communications on the Web? It’s very worrisome and yet more proof that the Democrats have lost their way.

[…]

Every feminist who wants to smash the glass ceiling should realize she has a stake in Condi Rice’s success.

[…]

The Democrats’ portrayal of Republicans as fat cats out of touch with ordinary Americans just doesn’t fly anymore, and they should drop it. I think the center of the Republican Party really is small-businessmen and very practical people who correctly see that it’s job creation and wealth creation that sustain an economy — not government intervention and government control, that suffocating nanny-state mentality.

[…]

The Democrats have to start fresh and throw out the entire party superstructure. I was bitterly disappointed after voting for Ralph Nader that he didn’t devote himself to helping build a strong third party in this country.

[…]

[W]hy is Clinton undermining the authority of the president when national security is so sensitive?

[…]

I thought that Bill [Clinton]’s recent performance on Fox News was very ill-advised. I know many Democrats loved it: “Oh, finally someone going toe-to-toe with Fox!” Well, what is this shibboleth about Fox as some sort of satanic force in American politics? Get over it!

[…]

Liberal secularism has become bourgeois and materialistic. It’s snide, elitist, and politically marginalized. The chattering class clearly has no effect whatever on decision-making in Washington. Conservative radio hosts have been claiming that liberal criticism of Bush’s decisiveness in invading Iraq mirrors the shilly-shallying of 1930s intellectuals during Hitler’s rise. The intellectuals, with their cultivated internationalism, always counsel procrastination and leave it to the men of action to deal forcefully with fascist regimes.

We’ll, uh, get right on it, Camille.

[Hanx: Tbogg]

Was she ever right about anything?

No?

So why does Joan Walsh still send her money for this bullshit.

posted by Steve @ 1:26:00 AM

How Webb won the Navy Cross

James Webb's Navy Cross

The Virginian-Pilot
© October 27, 2006

Editor's note: The Navy Cross is the nation's second-highest award for bravery in facing an enemy. James Webb has refused to use it in his campaign. We are publishing it with our endorsement of him because we believe it testifies to his character.

The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam.

On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb's platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out.

Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers.

Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel.

Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade.

Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body.

Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker.

By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.

What was George Allen doing?

Praying to the Confederacy and hating black people. He was avoiding Vietnam, while supporting it.

posted by Steve @ 1:16:00 AM

Charlie, Charlie

Been to any Playboy Parties, Charlie?


Crist Denies Trysts

A young rising star in the Republican Party has boasted to witnesses of his sexual relationship with Charlie Crist, the frontrunner in the Florida governor's race who has repeatedly denied that he is gay.

The GOP staffer, 21-year-old Jason Wetherington, told friends at separate social functions in August that he had sex with Crist, according to two credible and independent sources who heard Wetherington make the claim first-hand.

Wetherington, who recently worked as a field director for U.S. Senate candidate Katherine Harris and currently works for state representative Ellyn Bodganoff's reelection campaign, also named a man whom he said is Crist's long-term partner, a convicted thief named Bruce Carlton Jordan who also recently worked for Harris in her long-shot Senate bid.

Jordan made headlines recently when the Miami Herald learned that the felon was working as Harris's travel aide. The newspaper noted that Jordan, 42, was reported to be close friends with Charlie Crist, whom he convinced to attend an annual Florida Funeral Directors Association meeting in 2003.

Jordan was charged in 2003 with stealing thousands of dollars from two organizations for whom he worked, including the Tallahassee-based Florida Funeral Directors Association, where he served as executive director. He completed a 60-day jail sentence in February and will be on probation until the year 2011, according to state records.

When the Herald questioned Crist about Jordan this past August, the frontrunner in the governor's race told the newspaper that he doesn't remember the man. "I don't know who Bruce Jordan is," he said at the time. "It doesn't mean I haven't met him. I don't know who you are speaking about."

I asked Crist during a phone interview on Monday morning if he had ever had sex with Jordan.

"No," he said. "I don't recall the name."

That Crist doesn't remember Jordan seemed incredible to me. Not only did the attorney general make a special appearance at the funeral directors' conference, but former presidents of the association say Jordan was known to be pals with Crist. Attempts to reach Jordan weren't successful, but his father told me that Crist and his son are friends.

"He talks about [Crist], but I don't think he's seen Charlie in a while," said Albert Jordan, who lives in Inverness, where he and his wife raised their son.

When asked if his son and Crist had a sexual relationship, the father simply said, "Not as far as I know."

I recounted some of those facts with Crist.

"I'm not saying I haven't met him, I probably have," he said. "I just can't picture him, that's all."

I also asked him about Wetherington's claim to sources that he'd had sex with Crist. "That's ridiculous," he said. "Completely false."

Then I asked him if he'd ever in his life had sex with a man.

"Never," he said.

While there is no proof that what Wetherington has said is true, it's clear that he said it. I first learned about his claims after receiving an anonymous e-mail on October 6. The e-mail was linked to a 2003 story of mine reporting that now-disgraced congressman Mark Foley was gay.

"Why don't you do the same story for another hugely visible FL politician running for office? Call if you want a starting point."

Immediately I knew the e-mailer was referring to Crist. For years, it has been rumored that Crist, the favorite to move into the governor's mansion after the November 7 election, is gay.

I was interested in pursuing the lead mainly because I've come to believe that any closeted politician in the Republican Party — which openly woos homophobes into its ranks while opposing gay rights — is fair game for the media.

Crist, for his part, has been moderate on those issues and supports civil unions. "I'm a live and let live kind of guy," he told me.

But the Palm Beach Post reported on Friday that Crist can be heard in recently recorded phone calls targeting voters saying, "I support a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriages, and I oppose adoption by gay couples."

When you have to deny having sex with men, your campaign has a problem. It doesn't drive people to the polls. My candidate, sans wife or girlfriend, who has an attractive man saying they were lovers, is denying sex with men. Ok.

Until September, Mark Foley would have said the same thing.

posted by Steve @ 12:46:00 AM

Forget the polls

Look, Cook and Rothenberg can predict a tidalwave all they want. It's what they do, but the polling doesn't mean shit. It just doesn't.

Why?

Because the GOP is collapsing before our eyes while Dems are just getting motivated. Now one of our loyal readers was pissed that I compared one report to the destruction of Army Group Centre. Now, that's NOT my opinion, but the opinion of the writer. The comparison is mine, but the claim wasn't.

Now, I know people get pissed when I predict things, not that I care. It's an old journalism trick and it serves me well, even if people would go nuts.

But with this election, I was asked today how many seats the Dems would take, and my reply was "I don't know numbers, it's all turnout".

And it is. If Republicans stay home or vote Dem, Bush will face a resolutely hostile Congress. If things get tight, the Dems may have less of a majority. Will the GOP keep the House? Unlikely, because they're already down five seats they aren't going to win and everyone knows it.

But the fact is that most of these races will need people and money until election day. There is no sitting back, and while I think the GOP is on the verge of a historic fracture, one I've seen coming for years, it can't happen if we sit back and do nothing. This isn't 2004, the same "let's target a few races" crew aren't around any more. We're playing to run the table, and get as many seats as we can. I don't know how many that is. It could be 16 or 60, there's a week to go.

Polls don't elect people. We elect people.

You think this is just bullshit? Read Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone

But the 109th Congress is no mild departure from the norm, no slight deviation in an already-underwhelming history. No, this is nothing less than a historic shift in how our democracy is run. The Republicans who control this Congress are revolutionaries, and they have brought their revolutionary vision for the House and Senate quite unpleasantly to fruition. In the past six years they have castrated the political minority, abdicated their oversight responsibilities mandated by the Constitution, enacted a conscious policy of massive borrowing and unrestrained spending, and installed a host of semipermanent mechanisms for transferring legislative power to commercial interests. They aimed far lower than any other Congress has ever aimed, and they nailed their target.

Congress isn't just broken, it is morally adrift. It needs a replacement.

And only people, not polls, can do that.

We can survive two more years of Bush, but why should we. We need a Congress which does it's job, nothing more or less.

But, don't be fooled. This is the first step, just the first. A friendly Congress is only the beginning. Bush is stubborn and thinks you're stupid, so that means a fight, a hard fight. So if you think sending Angie Paccione or Dave Meijas to the House solves your problems, you are very much mistaken.

Do more than vote

posted by Steve @ 12:24:00 AM

Another person who needs a pink slip

Fuck those old fogies, get, get them the fuck
outta here.

Granny Get Your Gun…Oops, Make That Donuts

by James Parks, Oct 27, 2006

Seems like in Allison Park, Pa., near Pittsburgh, the biggest threat to public security is 40 senior citizens carrying donuts. Yesterday, staff at Rep. Melissa Hart’s (R-Pa.) district office called for three armed police from nearby Hampton Township to disperse the group of seniors, all members of the Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans (PARA), who sought to deliver donuts to Hart’s office to protest the new Medicare law.

The AFL-CIO is urging members to call Hart’s office and tell her: Shame on you for treating your own constituents like criminals simply because they wanted to express their opinion. You can call Hart at her Allison Park office at 412-492-0161 or at her Ellwood City office at 724-752-0490.

Under the new Bush administration Medicare Part D rules passed by Congress in 2003, out-of-pocket prescription expenses between the annual amounts of $2,251 and $5,100 are not covered—a nearly $3,000 “donut hole.” Of the 11.8 million Medicare enrollees whose plans include a coverage gap, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates at least 6.9 million of them could hit the donut hole.

The badly crafted law means some 170,000 seniors in Pennsylvania must pay full price for their prescriptions while still paying their full monthly premiums. Hart backed provisions in the Medicare drug bill that prevent the government from negotiating lower prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies and she voted for the bill that created the donut hole.

PARA issued a report this month that finds Keystone State seniors who received their medications through Medicare Part D paid more in drug co-pays and monthly premiums, were subjected to significant coverage gaps and had more significant restrictions on covered medications than those in the other major categories.

Declaring that the donut hole is “no treat for seniors,” Jean Friday, president of PARA, says Hart would rather

listen to the big drug companies than to seniors in her district who are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need.

Hart, who is running for re-election after representing Pennsylvania’s 4th Congressional District for six years in Congress, has accepted $127,167 in campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies. She’s had plenty of time to show she cares about seniors and working families, but, instead, she has voted against working family interests 85 percent of the time. In this Congress, she voted with George W. Bush 91.01 percent of the time.

The AFL-CIO has endorsed her opponent, health care executive Jason Altmire, who wrote worker-friendly health care legislation when he served as a congressional aide in the 1990s.

Altmire supports allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada and allowing Medicare to negotiate group discounts to lower costs and save billions
of dollars for the taxpayers.

posted by Steve @ 12:18:00 AM

Bloomberg to the rescue

Bloomberg Sends Troops to Help Lieberman

By DIANE CARDWELL
Published: October 28, 2006

In his battle for re-election to the United States Senate without the backing of the Democratic Party, Joseph I. Lieberman is deploying a secret weapon in the race’s closing days: a sophisticated operation to identify and turn out voters, courtesy of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York City.

The Bloomberg group includes several top-level operatives who played key roles in the mayor’s decisive re-election last year or who are in the administration, and have taken leaves from their jobs to work on Mr. Lieberman’s campaign.

Since Mr. Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut to Ned Lamont, they have helped open campaign offices, devised a strategy to reach voters and are corralling enough volunteers to cover 2,800 shifts at more than 700 polling sites on Election Day, Nov. 7.

Given that Mr. Lieberman does not have a party apparatus to help build his field operation, the efforts of the Bloomberg team could prove critical in one of the most closely watched races in the nation.

“There is no independent network,” said Stu Loeser, Mr. Bloomberg’s chief spokesman, who played the same role in the re-election effort. “To a certain extent, we were the last independent campaign.”

The workers on loan are the most vivid example yet of how Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican who often breaks with his party on issues, could build a permanent political apparatus to support like-minded independent candidates across the country — if not a national bid for himself.

With his re-election bid behind him, Mr. Bloomberg is relishing his role as kingmaker, endorsing Gov. Rod Blagojevich in Illinois and Gov. M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, raising money for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in California and appearing in a television ad for Representative Christopher Shays in Connecticut. (Mr. Blagojevich is a Democrat; the others are Republicans.)

But his work for Mr. Lieberman, which includes substantial fund-raising and Mr. Bloomberg’s first out-of-state stumping in addition to the gift of manpower, marks his most intense and direct engagement in someone else’s political bid. It may not only broaden his image of nonpartisan, influence-free pragmatism, but it could also test how well his political machine can function in an independent campaign with national repercussions.

Just after losing the Democratic primary, Mr. Lieberman’s campaign enlisted Josh Isay, who had worked on Mr. Bloomberg’s re-election campaign, as the new media consultant. From his administration, the mayor dispatched Korinne Kubena, the chief of staff to Kevin Sheekey, a deputy mayor who oversaw Mr. Bloomberg’s two mayoral campaigns, to direct the get-out-the-vote effort for Mr. Lieberman. Brian Honan, who was the deputy field director in the mayoral campaign and now works in the Bloomberg administration’s state lobbying operation, is serving as Ms. Kubena’s deputy.

Ariel Dvorkin, an administration aide, is helping compile a voter database for Mr. Lieberman; Josh Gold, who was on Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign field staff, is now the deputy director of Mr. Lieberman’s Stamford campaign office; and Neil Giacobbi, who became chief of staff to City Councilman David Yassky after running the volunteer effort for Mr. Bloomberg, is the director of the Lieberman office in Stamford.

“The mayor has obviously decided to try to make a difference in a few races in which he believes in the candidate,” Mr. Sheekey said. “In some places you can help them by doing a fund-raiser in New York, others where you can help by showing up for a day, and others where you can help by putting folks on the ground.”

Lieberman aides say that Mr. Bloomberg brings a certain gloss and legitimacy to Connecticut, where he appears to have a strong appeal.

“He is an icon of independence and straight talk and putting the public interest over party consideration,” said Dan Gerstein, Mr. Lieberman’s communication director. “He’s a great practitioner and advocate for the kind of politics Joe Lieberman practices.”

Aides to both men say they have known each other since before Mr. Bloomberg became mayor and admire each other’s accomplishments and independent streaks. Described as having a casual, friendly relationship, they have run into each other at events in Washington over the years and have worked together on various issues involving the city, including domestic security.

Capitalizing on all this, the Lieberman campaign plans for Mr. Bloomberg to greet commuters with the senator on Monday morning in Stamford, and then to attend a fund-raiser there. Mr. Bloomberg already headlined one fund-raiser in Chicago this week, which raised close to $230,000, according to the campaign. He plans to hold a third fund-raiser at his Upper East Side town house on Wednesday.

Lieberman aides say the money the mayor is raising is crucial, but it is the staff additions that represent an unusual degree of engagement for Mr. Bloomberg and show how he has developed his own potent political team that he can deploy as he wishes.

Oh,this is bullshit. Bloomberg bought his second term outright. Freddy Ferrer fucked up badly and didn't have the skills to recover.

All Bloomberg did was toss money around and go on TV every two minutes. He would have lost to Mark Green if spite wasn't a factor. The man spent $100m to become mayor again.

Obviously, fucking Al From put a bug in his ear and this is his test run for his presidential bid, Mr. Charismaless. Hillary Clinton is a rockstar compared to him.

First of all, there's 10 days to go in the campaign. This should have been done months ago. Second, sure, they can get volunteers, but can you trust them? Who vets them? Is Bloomberg going to wave his money at some New Yorkers to wander around Connecticut?

Is he getting access to the voter rolls and other info the parties have?

Before flipping out, remember, Bloomberg had a massive GOTV campaign before and lost, and that was with party support. This is without party support and they're starting from scratch when Lamont's people have been on the ground for weeks.

Bloomberg is doing this for himself, make no mistake. Of course, his bloodless, arrogant style of leadership only appeals to Democrats who hate passion

posted by Steve @ 11:58:00 PM

The Destruction of Army Group Centre

How High the Wave? Don’t Just Think 1994; Think 1974, 1958, 1982

By Stuart Rothenberg

With only a couple of weeks until Election Day, we know there will be a Democratic wave on Nov. 7. And we can be fairly certain that by historical standards it will be high - possibly very high. But we still don’t know how many Republicans once considered safe will be swept out of office.

The national political environment currently is worse than it was in 1994, when the Democrats lost 52 House seats, eight Senate seats and 10 governorships, and when Republicans won GOP control of the House for the first time in decades.

You heard me right: It’s worse this year than it was in 1994, when voters were dissatisfied with the first two years of the Bill Clinton presidency.

President Bush’s approval ratings are worse than Clinton’s were - Bush’s are in the upper 30s, while Clinton’s were in the mid-to-upper 40s - and the 16 percent approval rating for Congress in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll ranks far below where Congress stood prior to the 1994 midterms (24 percent).

Similarly, the generic ballot in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll was much closer back in ’94, when Republicans held a 5-point edge right before the elections. Now, there’s a 15-point Democratic advantage.

Moreover, the problems hounding Republican Congressional candidates - which range from a second midterm election (as compared to a less dangerous first midterm in the Clinton administration) to House scandals to an unpopular war - are far more challenging than anything Democratic Congressional candidates faced in 1994.

If you are looking for a midterm election year that is comparable to 2006, you need to move beyond 1994 to include other recent "wave" midterms, particularly 1974, 1958 and 1982. In 1974 and 1958, the president’s party, in each case the Republicans, lost 48 seats. In 1982, Republicans lost 26.

Each of these three elections holds a lesson for anyone trying to understand what is likely to happen in House races on Nov. 7.

The 1994 midterm was about Clinton - particularly the Clinton health care plan, gays in the military and his perceived liberalism.

In 1982, the election was about Ronald Reagan and "his recession."

In 1974, the election was about Richard Nixon and Watergate, and then-President Gerald Ford’s September pardon of the disgraced former president. To some extent, it also was about a party that too frequently seemed to defend and shield Nixon.

And the 1958 election was about a farm recession and dissatisfaction with the Eisenhower administration in a part of the country that made up a big chunk of the GOP’s base.

Now, I take this with a grain of salt, shit can happen, but he's talking about is the crushing of the GOP in a historic manner, like the destruction of Army Group Centre.

The destruction of Army Group Centre was the most dramatic victory of the Red Army in WWII.

The battle

The attack began on the morning of June 22, 1944, three years to the day after the German attack on the Soviet Union. OKW had been expecting an attack on Army Group South, which had already been severely weakened and driven from most of the Ukraine, and therefore received armaments diverted from Army Group Centre just prior to the attack.

Operation Bagration pitted over 2.3 million Soviet soldiers in 200 divisions and large formations with almost 6,000 tanks and massed artillery against the 34 German divisions of Army Group Centre. The defeat of this force resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops.

The Lvov-Sandomierz Operation was launched on July 17, 1944, and quickly routed the German forces in the Ukraine. The rapid progress of that offensive brought the Soviet forces to the gates of Warsaw in the final days of July. Operation Bagration also cut off and isolated the German units of Army Group North fighting in Courland. The disruption caused by these operations in turn helped the Soviet Union to advance into the Balkans in August 1944.

The operation halted only when Soviet supply lines were in danger of over-extension, so complete had their successes been. However, controversy still rages about the decision to provide only limited - and late - assistance to the Polish Home Army in the Warsaw Uprising which began just as Soviet forces reached the eastern outskirts of that city.

Contributing to the German defeat was the transfer of units in response to the invasion of Normandy two weeks earlier. Four Soviet “Fronts” (army groups) totaling over 120 divisions therefore smashed into an even more thinly-held German line. The Soviets were able to achieve a ratio of ten to one in tanks and seven to one in aircraft over their enemy. At the points of attack, the numerical and qualitative advantages of the Soviets were overwhelming. The Germans crumbled.

The capital of Belorussian SSR, Minsk, was taken on July 3, trapping fifty thousand Germans. Ten days later, the Red Army reached the pre-war Polish border. Overall the near-total annihilation of Army Group Centre cost the Germans 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. German losses are estimated at 300,000 dead, 250,000 wounded, and about 120,000 captured; overall casualties at 670,000. Soviet losses were 60,000 killed, 110,000 wounded, and about 8,000 missing, with 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 aircraft also lost.
[edit] Aftermath

Considering comparisons to other battles, this was by far the greatest victory in terms of numbers for the Soviets, having inflicted nearly 4 times as many losses for the Germans and capturing a vast amount of Soviet land back in a span of 2 months. It was one of the few major Axis-Soviet battles in which the Germans lost more troops than the Soviets.

posted by Steve @ 5:20:00 PM

Time to give

Mr. King, this is for you

Breaking Peter King Scandal -- Lies About Lobbyist Son!
by pontificator [Subscribe]
Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 10:16:54 AM PDT

We're all the way down to the wire, now, and Dave Mejias is poised to take out Peter King. He's two points down in the only non-partisan poll conducted in this race, and he's just been added to the DCCC's Red to Blue list, which means that internal polling shows this race can be won.

And Mejias is a hell of a candidate -- a fighter who's willing to take the offensive. Today, he is all over King's dishonesty regarding his access to his Lobbyist son:

Democratic congressional candidate David Mejias yesterday accused Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) of lying about his son's role as a lobbyist for companies seeking to influence the House committee King chairs.

"Peter King has been caught in two lies," charged Mejias, a Nassau County legislator.
"He said his son is not a lobbyist, which he clearly is," Mejias said, citing a New York State lobbyist registration form.

And, Mejias charged, King said his son doesn't work with clients with business before him or his committee, but a video suggests he has.

"This is the very essence of the culture of corruption in Washington," Mejias said.

This race is winnable, and we have a candidate who is willing to work over the bloated incumbent with brass knuckes and a lead pipe. But nevertheless, he still massively outfunded, as challengers often are.

Therefore, I am going to ask one last time, on the last day the money will do any good, for you to give to Mejias's Actblue account HERE.

The asshole is really going down. All the way down. Can't you feel it? I know I can. Throw Peter King an anvil and give. That way, in 2007, we'll have no more of this!

Defeating him would be a good thing.

Pete King is an asshole, he needs to be unemployed. He has failed the district he serves and the state of New York. Unemployement would suit him well in the new Democratic New York.

I would also recommend FDL's Blue America Act Blue list if you want to fund more candidates.

Other races I have contributed to:

Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)	$25.00
Victoria Wulsin (OH-02)	$25.00
Angie Paccione (CO-04)	$25.00
Blue America PAC

Patrick Murphy (PA-08)	$25.00
Joseph Sestak Jr (PA-07)	$25.00

posted by Steve @ 12:03:00 PM

Who's fighting the war

I wonder who's fighting this war?

U.S. evangelical support for Iraq war slipping
``````````````

DALLAS, Oct 26 (Reuters) - A new poll shows support for the war in Iraq is slipping among white evangelical Protestants, previously a key pillar of support for President George W. Bush's conduct of the conflict.

The poll is the latest bad domestic news for Bush and the Republicans about Iraq with just 12 days to go to congressional elections in which the Democrats are widely expected to capture control of the House of Representatives.

Conducted by the PEW Research Center, it found that 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants surveyed felt the United States made the right decision in using force in Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, below the 71 percent in a previous poll in September.

This compared to little change overall among committed Republicans, with 78 percent saying it was the correct course versus 76 percent in September.

Flagging public support for the war as the death toll among U.S. forces mount in Iraq is one of the main reasons why analysts see Republicans losing House seats on Nov. 7.

Political activists in the evangelical community have been unwavering supporters of the war they see in part as a broader "clash of civilizations." Distaste among their flock for the conflict therefore highlights the depth of its unpopularity.

Scott Keeter of the PEW Research Center said it was hard to say why evangelical support seemed to have fallen so sharply but geography could be one reason.

"Many evangelicals are in the South and the military presence there is quite large and so the impact of the war on local communities is probably greater there," he said.

The PEW poll also found that only 48 percent of white evangelical Protestants now thought the war effort was going very or fairly well, versus 61 percent in September.

The latest poll was conducted nationwide from Oct. 17 to 22. It also found that nationally the Democrats hold a double-digit lead over Republicans heading into the elections.

Uh, who's sons and daughters face the choice of Wal Mart or Iraq? It ain't the Dobsons of the world sending their kids to the sandbox. Who's spending their nights looking at their broken children in Walter Reed? Not the rich, not the connected. When that phone call comes, god forbid, the knock on the door, the odds are good that a evangelical is behind it.

Their kids are the ones coming home broken and dead and Washington lies to them and they know it.

And this, combined with Foley, is dooming Bush and the GOP's election chances. He may think he's winning, but the people with the 21 year old who spends all day drinking or the 22 year old daughter learning to walk with a new leg, know Iraq is all fucked up and Bush won't admit it.

Which is why he had to speak in dog whistle to them about Iraq. They're bearing the burden of the war and they're tired of it.

posted by Steve @ 9:36:00 AM

Ooops, about that defense

What am I, a clown to you?

While we are all caught up with midterm elections, the wheels of justice are grinding slowly but relentlessly and Patrick Fitzgerald is sharpening his ginsu knife.

Yesterday, there was a pretrial hearing in Judge Walton's court on bringing expert witnesses on human memory and its failings.

Elizabeth Loftus, a UC-Irvine professor of criminology and psychology, was the expert witness at the hearing.

Libby's whole defense argument, if you recall, will rest on jumbled up memory and recalling events in wrong sequence or something like that. Well, the man himself cross-examined.

Wapo tells the story.

With withering and methodical dispatch, White House nemesis and prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald yesterday sliced up the first person called to the stand on behalf of the vice president's former chief of staff.

If I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was not afraid of the special counsel before, the former Cheney aide, who will face Fitzgerald in a trial beginning Jan. 11, had ample reason to start quaking after yesterday's Ginsu-like legal performance.

Loftus testified that her three decades of research showed that human memory has its limits and many potential jurors do not understand this.

But when Fitzgerald got his chance to cross-examine Loftus about her findings, he had her stuttering to explain her own writings and backpedaling from her earlier assertions. Citing several of her publications, footnotes and the work of her peers, Fitzgerald got Loftus to acknowledge that the methodology she had used at times in her long academic career was not that scientific, that her conclusions about memory were conflicting, and that she had exaggerated a figure and a statement from her survey of D.C. jurors that favored the defense.

You would think that Libby's multi-million-dollar lawyer team would prepare by reading the expert's writings, identifying potential trouble spots and preparing rejoinders to Fitz's potential questions. They apparently did none of that.

There were several moments when Loftus was completely caught off guard by Fitzgerald, creating some very awkward silences in the courtroom.

One of those moments came when Loftus insisted that she had never met Fitzgerald. He then reminded her that he had cross-examined her before, when she was an expert defense witness and he was a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in New York.

I have a feeling this is going to end badly for Libby.

Damn. That's a thing of beauty to read on it's own. Fitzgerald grilled her like steak at a tailgating party. It was ugly when he finished with her.

posted by Steve @ 9:26:00 AM

About sacrifice, pt I: the stab in the back

Some people serve


Jamie Rose for The New York Times
Some people serve drinks

At Play in the Realm of Political Animals
Partying heartily at Swine on the Vine at the Potomac Polo Club near Washington.


By KAYLEEN SCHAEFER
Published: October 22, 2006

POOLESVILLE, Md.

THE gravel driveway for the Potomac Polo Club is unmarked, but the 200 young men and women who traveled here, 45 minutes from Washington, knew they were at the right place when they spotted the black Hummer limousine and saw the crowd at the beer bong.

They had arrived at the fall party, Swine on the Vine, of the Capital Club, a Washington group of 100 politically connected young men, who are known for partying like they’re back at a fraternity kegger.

For a certain set of young Washington, the parties are a raucous antidote to the restrained fund-raisers and embassy cocktail gatherings that otherwise make up the district’s social life.

“The Capital Club has no mission except to show its members and their many dates a good time,” said Jayne Sandman, associate publisher of the Washington magazine Capitol File. “It’s hedonistic relief from a city of suits and ties.”

Among the club members and their guests, most in their 20’s and 30’s, were White House staff members, Capitol Hill aides, lawyers, publicists and lobbyists. About 90 percent of club members are Republican, and 80 percent work in government. Barbara and Jenna Bush have been known to show up at some of the parties, six a year, which provide a glimpse of Washington’s young power elite with ties loosened, six years into the Republican domination of government.

When the cover band took a break at Swine on the Vine, guests crowded around the beer bong, eager to take their turn guzzling a can of beer poured down a funnel. A young man shook a portable outhouse because he knew his buddy was inside.

The dress code was preppy enough for a polo ground: women in pearl necklaces, lightweight wrap sweaters and jeans tucked into riding boots. Men favored oxford shirts with sunglasses strung around their necks. Jeff Kimbell, a lobbyist who is a former club president, wore a belt buckle made from a car’s gearshift handle (with options for “drive and reverse,” he said suggestively). Josh Overbay, who works for the United States Chamber of Commerce, wore a camouflage hat that said, “Support Wildlife. Drink Wild Turkey.”

“Girls love to hate them,” observed Bridget Bunner of the Capital Club’s 100 men. Ms. Bunner, a 23-year-old fund-raiser for Democratic Congressman Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia, added, “They’re the kind of guys their moms want them to marry.”

This summer, members sent each other Internet links to a Smirnoff ad on YouTube that parodied every cliché of the WASP elite, down to their seersucker suits and the popped collars of their polo shirts. It featured three blondes in pearls and tennis clothes, with young men rapping “where my WASP’s at?” and calling haters “jealous because our families run the nation.” Capital Club members said it reminded them of themselves.

Members of the club have connections throughout government, and in some cases are wired right into the brain trust at the White House: the Republican lobbying firm DCI Group, which has strong ties to the Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman and the White House senior adviser Karl Rove, has sponsored its parties. But club members insist their gatherings are not about networking or advancing anyone’s career or political agenda.

If we are to discuss Bush's failures, and we are, let's start with his greatest one: a refusal to call for sacrifice.

A bunch of vermin, otherwise known as Republican staffers , feel not a pang of guilt over living it up, while others die to make their fantasies come true. I'm sure ifg you asked these moral cowards about the price of freedom, they would spout some nonsense about supporting the troops.

Sure, as long as they didn't have join them. Instead, they play at being rich and connected and other people die, every day, in the sandbox.

The Iraq War was doomed from the very start for many reasons, but in the end, one which stands out is the colonial detachment which it was treated with. Oh, the "soldiers" will fight our colonial war.

This the same group of people who gave you the CPA, or as I called it, the GOPCPA. The callow young Republican who's never missed a meal in his life. Never sweated in a swamp or carried a rifle, but is certain other people should do those things. Not even willing to question it.

So this is what we get, the kind of culture which permits this without calling anyone to account. Young Republicans rejoice in their privlege, while the 11B's, which come from an entirely different world, does their dirty work.

There's a reason we give to veterans groups in my family. We know they get treated like shit, and the people quickest to do it are these same people. The ones who cheered them on, but wonder why that guy walks with a limp or has a missing arm or in a wheelchair and then goes right back to their plasma TV and blonde future pundit. They see no connection between their indulgence and the sacrifice they demand of others. No sense of shame or need for sacrifice.

Iraq is an "issue", not the place where three Americans a day are dying and triple that are wounded. Nope. It's an issue. It doesn't affect their lives one bit.

And that, is the stab in the back. The people who wanted a war they would not fight, would not lift a finger to support.

posted by Steve @ 9:05:00 AM

Vice President for stupidity

So I suck the blood from the living,
big deal

Cheney's Remarks Fuel Torture Debate
Critics Say He Backed Waterboarding

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 27, 2006; Page A09

Vice President Cheney said this week that dunking terrorism suspects in water during questioning was a "no-brainer," prompting complaints from human rights advocates that he was endorsing the use of a controversial technique known as waterboarding on prisoners held by the United States.

In an interview Tuesday with Scott Hennen, a conservative radio show host from Fargo, N.D., Cheney agreed with Hennen's assertion that "a dunk in water" may yield valuable intelligence from terrorism suspects. He also referred to information gleaned from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the captured architect of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but stopped short of explicitly saying what techniques were used.

"Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" Hennen asked.

"Well, it's a no-brainer for me," Cheney said, "but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."

The comments underscore continuing uncertainty over precisely which techniques can be used legally during CIA interrogations of terrorism suspects. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other lawmakers have said recent legislation that established ground rules for interrogations should effectively bar waterboarding and other methods that are viewed as violations of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. criminal law.

Thanks. Dick.

So when Mr. Mohammad's lawyers claim his confession was coersed by torture, your admission will be entered into evidence.

I know Cheney thinks he's gonna put these guys before some kangaroo court and be done with it, but that isn't going to be the case.

He may never be convicted of anything because you did this. There was no need for it, no need to do it, and now, it may have stripped any hope of justice away.

Why?

Because you tortured a man, and no court and no jury will overlook that, nor will the world.

Only the simpleminded thinks this is how you stop terrorism. Adults realize that this only leads to failure and regret. Always the coward's way out with them. Always.

posted by Steve @ 8:47:00 AM

Not so fast, Mr. Bush

Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
President Bush speaking at a luncheon Thursday
for Jeff Lamberti, a Republican

G.O.P. Moves Fast to Reignite Issue of Gay Marriage
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: October 27, 2006

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — The divisive debate over gay marriage, which played a prominent role in 2004 campaigns but this year largely faded from view, erupted anew on Thursday as President Bush and Republicans across the country tried to use a court ruling in New Jersey to rally dispirited conservatives to the polls.

Wednesday’s ruling, in which the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples, had immediate ripple effects, especially in Senate races in some of the eight states where voters are considering constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

President Bush put a spotlight on the issue while campaigning in Iowa, which does not have a proposal on the ballot. With the Republican House candidate, Jeff Lamberti, by his side, Mr. Bush — who has not been talking about gay marriage in recent weeks — took pains to insert a reference into his stump speech warning that Democrats would raise taxes and make America less safe.

“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,” Mr. Bush said at a luncheon at the Iowa State Fairgrounds that raised $400,000 for Mr. Lamberti.

The president drew applause when he reiterated his long-held stance that marriage was “a union between a man and a woman,” adding, “I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”

The ruling in New Jersey left it to the Legislature to decide whether to legalize gay marriage. Even so, the threat that gay marriage could become legal energized conservatives at a time when Republican strategists say that turning out the base could make the difference between winning and losing on Nov. 7. With many independent analysts predicting Republicans will lose the House and possibly the Senate, President Bush’s political team is counting on the party’s sophisticated voter turnout machinery to hold Democratic advances enough that Republicans can at least maintain control.

“It’s a game of margins,” said Charles Black, a Republican strategist who consults frequently with Karl Rove, the chief White House political strategist. “You’ve got about 20 House races and probably half a dozen Senate races that are either dead even or very, very close. So if it motivates voters in one or two to go vote, it could make a difference.

Here's the problem: Mark Foley.

If I was faced with this nonsense, I would be lightning quick to point out that while Bush was talking about gay marriage, gay Republican members and staffers were protecting Mark Foley, a child sex predator and thus have zero credibility on the subject.

When they raise the issue raise Iraq. Pure and simple. They want trivia, we want answers.

posted by Steve @ 8:30:00 AM

Bob Corker ain't miscegenated

The General comes up with a less subtle version of NRSC advertising

posted by Steve @ 8:07:00 AM

Screwing the pooch, big time

Good boy, just parrot those lines like a puppet,
negro.

I won't say Chuck Todd is an idiot for saying the Dems made too much of the Ford ad, but he is wrong, WAY wrong.

Why?

Rove Protégé Behind Racy Tennessee Ad

NASHVILLE, Tenn., Oct. 26, 2006(CBS/AP) A protégé of White House political guru Karl Rove produced the controversial Republican National Committee ad targeting Tennessee Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr., that some have called racist, CBS News has learned.

The ad, in which a white woman with blonde hair and bare shoulders looks into the camera and whispers, "Harold, call me," and then winks, was produced by Scott Howell, the former political director for Rove's consulting firm in Texas.

The RNC ad doesn't mention that "Harold" is black, but the NAACP and others have complained the commercial makes an implicit appeal to deep-seated racial fears about black men and white women.

The race between Ford Jr. and Republican Bob Corker is among the most competitive and nasty U.S. Senate races in the nation. But it didn't just happen with a racially-charged ad from Republicans, reports CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts.

The Democrats struck first weeks ago by playing the class card in an add which states that Corker's "personal income grew by 40 percent to $11 million."

Howell is no stranger to controversy. He was media consultant for Sen. Saxby Chambliss when his campaign ran an ad showing a picture of then-Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who lost his legs in the Vietnam War, alongside Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

He also produced an ad for Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn that accused Democrat Brad Carson of being soft on welfare while showing two black hands counting cash.

Howell also worked for Republican Jerry Kilgore in last year's Virginia gubernatorial race when Kilgore ran an ad saying that Gov. Tim Kaine wouldn't have used the death penalty against Hitler.

Race was always an element of the Tennessee contest as Ford seeks to become the first black man elected to the Senate from the South since Reconstruction. The issue slammed into the public consciousness this week with the latest ad.

---

Watch RNC political ad attacking Harold Ford Jr.

---

"I've not met any observer who didn't immediately say, 'Oh my gosh!' It was a race card," said Vanderbilt University professor John Geer, an expert on political attack ads.

The goal of the ad is to persuade people who don't like Ford — and who might have been thinking about sitting at home this election — to vote, reports CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger.

The RNC has taken the ad off the air after a five-day run. However it was still appearing on at least one TV station in Chattanooga — WRCB-TV — as of Wednesday. The station was still airing the ad because it did not want to run the GOP's replacement commercial. The new ad says Ford "voted to recognize gay marriage" and "wants to give the abortion pill to our schoolchildren," reports the Nashville Tennessean.

Hilary Shelton, director of Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said the ad plays off fears some people still have about interracial couples.

"In a Southern state like Tennessee, some stereotypes still exist," he said. "There's very clearly some racial subtext in an ad like that."

And according to the HuffPo, Terry Nelson, a second producer of the ad, and a consultant to
St. John McCain of Arizona, is getting canned by Wal Mart.

Ever notice how many Republicans do part time work for Wally World?

But the problem is that not only does this continue to have legs, it reflects badly on Rove.

Ford's family is well, colorful, but there isn't a shred of evidence that he's ever done anything off the straight and narrow. No kids, no arrests, nothing. So Rove's former henchmen brings back Loving v Virginia with a silly ad. Only problem is that Harold Ford, as light as one can be and called black, is not the kind of person who conjures up fear of the jungle unleashed.

Same with Deval Patrick. He looks like your boss, not some Roxbury thug.

What is happening is the fairness factor coming in. Some people could be hurt by such attacks. but Ford? Patrick? It backfires. Because it's so obvious that whatever these men are, sterotypes they are not. These attacks are seen as unfair, because they go against the grain of these men's public lives. You know how badly a race based attack has to fail in Massachusetts to help a black candidate? Or to turn the Tennessee Senate race competative?

The GOP is flummoxed. The old cards are not playing as they once did. A few years ago, Ford would have been done, now people are on his side and calling it openly racist.

You know, you win enough times, you forget to change the playbook. We could be seeing that right now.

posted by Steve @ 3:12:00 AM

This the king of all the meats

cooking for engineers
Prime Rib

There's a Quiznos commercial pushing their prime rib sandwich. Here's the real thing.

Recipe File: Prime Rib or Standing Rib Roast

Prime rib used to refer to a prime grade standing rib roast, but these days all rib roasts (and some rib steaks) are called prime rib regardless of the USDA grade it recieved. The rib roast cut is usually so good that it doesn't need much seasoning. The ingredients I use are simple: a standing rib roast, salt, and pepper.

Preparation is also quite simplistic for an entree with such a grand reputation. In fact, with a couple tools, this dish is easier to prepare than any other special event food (roast duck, turkey). The items you'll need are a roasting pan (usually comes with your oven or you can get a large baking pan and a wire rack to place in it), a probe thermometer (like the Polder model that I use), some kitchen twine, and a pair of tongs.

Hmmm, now you need a standing rib roast (also known as prime rib even if the beef isn't prime quality). The term "standing" means that because the bones are included in the roast, the roast can stand by itself. A rib roast with the bones removed is commonly referred to as a rolled rib roast. My preference is for the standing variety because the bones provide additional flavoring to the roast. A rib roast comprises of seven ribs starting from the shoulder (chuck) down the back to the loin. Each rib feeds about two people, so if you have a party of eight, buy and cook a four rib roast. The rib roast closest to the loin is more tender than the rib roast nearest the chuck. This end is referred to as the small end rib roast or loin rib roast or sirloin tip roast. The chuck end of the rib roast is bigger and tougher and is sometimes referred to as a half standing rib roast or large end rib roast.

Depending on preference, you can dry age the roast for a few days to bring out additional flavor and produce a more buttery texture in the muscle (aging allows the natural enzymes to break down some of protein in the meat). Age the beef up to a week in the refrigerator by leaving it uncovered on a wire rack over a large pan to catch any drippings for at least a day and no more than seven days. When you are ready to cook the beef, trim off any dried pieces after the aging. It is common for a roast to lose about 10% to 15% of its weight during a week of aging.

Take the rib roast out of the refrigerator and let it sit on the counter for a couple hours to raise the roast temperature to near room temperature. To help cook the roast evenly, we'll need to tie the roast. Using kitchen twine, tie the roast parallel to the rib bones at least at each end. I usually tie between each pair of ribs. Heat the roasting pan or a separate pan on the stove until hot with a little oil. Place the roast on the pan and sear for three minutes on each side. Remove from heat and season heavily with salt and pepper. Place on the grill of your roasting pan or on a wire rack. Now stick the probe of your thermometer into the roast so that the probe is approximately in the middle of the roast (and not touching a bone). Position the pan on an oven rack in the lowest position of your preheated 200°F oven. Yes, 200°F. The low heat will evenly cook the roast so that most of the roast will be at the desired temperature. Cooking at a higher temperature will finish the roast faster, but you will probably result in well-done on the outside of the roast that gradually results in a medium-rare interior (if you are trying to cook a medium-rare roast). Roasting at 200°F will result in almost all the meat ending at medium-rare.

Set your thermometer for 130°F for a medium-rare roast (125°F for rare; 145°F for medium; any higher and it's overdone - you might as well be serving a cheaper piece of beef). When the roast is done (about 45 minutes per pound), remove from the oven, set the roast aside, and let it sit to redistribute juices for at least twenty minutes. This is a good time to make a jus from the drippings of the roast.

Pour off any extra grease that's collected in the pan. You can save this to make Yorkshire pudding if you wish. Now deglaze the pan by pouring in 1/2 cup beef broth and bring to a boil. After you've scraped off the bottom of your pan and mixed it into the jus, season with salt and pepper. Simple.

When slicing the roast, first cut the rib bones out and then lie the roast on the cut side to carve large slices off the roast

posted by Steve @ 1:54:00 AM