There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.

Who would've thought that something as simple as word tense can make all the difference in the world? Yesterday Robert M Gates the heir apparent to Rummy's empty seat told the Senate Armed Services Committee "is not winning the war in Iraq." This just so happens to dovetail nicely into the sensible centrist McCain/ Lieberman position of doing whatever it takes to "win," usually manifest in the form of sending in more troops. "Not winning" is the perfect expression politically because it not only implies that there's still a chance to "win*" but also plays neatly to the American sense of rooting for the underdog.

In the afternoon and after Gates took some hits from critics on the right in that "not winning" could be interpreted as "losing" he amended his comments to say what he meant is that we are "neither winning or losing" in Iraq. Way to muddle things further, Bobby.

It occurs to me that Gates' characterization of the war is so confusingly nebulous and our options so murky is that he simply is using the wrong tense of "to lose" when describing the situation. Myself and somewhere upwards of 60% of Americans recognize the war in Iraq is already "lost" in the sense the U.S. can achieve military goals that will bring political stability. The U.S. army is the finest fighting force in the world but it was built to fight conventional, not guerilla wars.

Still- I have to give Gates and others credit for demonstrating signs that they're beginning to understand what's going on by entertaining the idea of losing in Iraq. It's just that they're about two years behind everybody else when it comes to deciding what needs to be done.

All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important!

It's been a crazy week. Besides the wonderful things that have been happening nationally work's been just nuts and my ability to post has been cut considerably by the collapse of my home computer to the dreaded motherboardblowsup virus. It appears it won't be recovering. So here are a few random thoughts on various items I'd wanted to talk about this week but didn't get the chance--

The Virginia Senate seat - I was trying to figure out the math on the senate make up with Lieberman and what it would mean if Allen beat Webb. In that case the Senate would have stood at 48 Democrats and 50 Republicans with 2 independents. As I understand it (I could be wrong about this) the Vice President doesn't vote when it comes to determining Majority Leader, only on bills before the Senate that are tied. This would've really put Lieberman in the cat bird's seat. Webb's win then diffused some of Lieberman's bargaining power though I don't doubt he'll still leverage quite a bit out of Democrats.

Governor Schwarzenegger - I don't believe his moderate act but, truth be told, what really gets me down about his re-election is that it makes it unlikely this film will ever be made. I may not like Arnold the Governator but I enjoy Arnold the bad actor immensely.

Conservatives - My very cool brother gave me John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" for my birthday and probably the best parts of that book are the beginning chapters in which Dean searches for the definition of "conservatism" itself by examining the statements of it's leaders. The long and the short of is that it that the only thing conservatives seem to have in common is an overwhelming belief that "liberals" are bad. It's really a movement more easily defined by what it isn't rather than what it is.

With that in mind I got a good chuckle out of people like Ann Coulter, George Will and Rush Limbaugh trying to spin this election as a victory for conservatives by concentrating on the moderate Dems just elected and claiming America was really voting against liberals again. Who did they vote for? Who did the rest of the Bush wingnut base vote for? Moderate Democrats or Republicans?

Face facts guys: this election was to movement conservatism the same thing that Ned Beatty's run in with a toothless hillbilly on a river rafting trip did- America saying "Squeal piggie!"

Investigations vs. Impeachment - A lot of progressives seem to be fretting because Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have said impeachment is off the table. First comes first, guys. Investigate and THEN impeach. ;-)

Rummy b' Gone - I spent yesterday morning looking for a quote from Rumsfeld which was something he said at his press conference with Bush to the effect that "if voters understoond what kind of war we're fighting the election would've been different." Bush made similar comments- owing the results to the inability of our simple minds to wrap around the complex strategy they've put in place to prosecute the GWOT.

Dear Rummy - You're no Sun Tzu. You aren't even a Sonny Bono. True military strategists adapt to the patterns of the enemy, not stumble blindly forward on the same path fighting the war you wish you were fighting. Small, rapid troop deployments combined with high-tech military equipment may be effective when fighting conventional armies but that's not what we're facing in Iraq, you worthless hack.

There is no "I" in team, but there is an "I" in pie. And there's an "I" in meat pie. Meat is the anagram of team... I don't what he's talking about.

"Back off" says Secretary Rumsfeld to those of us critical of the war; "No one can predict the future with absolute certainty.”

Of course Rumfeld's also the guy who said in February of 2003 that we'd be "welcomed" by Iraqis and "“It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

The problem, Mr. Secretary, is that you can't even predict the future with semi-correct certainty.

How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?

Before I write the rest of this post on the torture bill now being considered by the Senate I want to make very clear that I'm making a conscious effort to check myself for hyperbole.

In light of that I think it's important to read the actual bill as just passed the House yesterday. Particularly the sections on torture, suspension of habeas corpus and the "definitions" section.
It appears the bill does indeed suspend habeas corpus but it does so for only for "aliens." Defined under the bill thusly: "The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." I guess legal residents are out of luck and that human rights are simply a matter of birth.

But before we citizens breath a sigh of relief that we won't be hearing any knocks on the door in the middle of the night, we should also read through Marty Lederman's take on the bill. Lederman points out that other sections of the bill may be just as dangerous to citizens and non-citizens alike.

But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.

This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's not limited to aliens -- it covers U.S. citizens as well. It's not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it's not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime.

I don't know about you but the idea that Rumsfeld will be deciding who is and isn't an "unlawful enemy combatant" just doesn't give me much degree of comfort. It's got me questioning my involvement with the Democratic party, this blog and even a few things I've done all in this context.

A few months before the start of the Iraq war President Bush came to my city for a political fundraiser. Naturally it led to a huge protest march.

Being the curious soul I am I bopped down to the march which was winding it's way through the center of downtown. For some reason there was a mix-up in the route of the Presidential motorcade which put it on a path intersecting the march which sent the secret service and the police escorts into a bit of a panic. They wound up stopping the march and holding the protesters back as the President was driven directly past them... and me.

I did what any patriot American would do as the President passed just a few feet from me: I gave him the finger.

I wonder if that would consider me an "unlawful enemy combatant." Conservatives would probably say this question is an example of liberal hyperbole. I hope so.

But I'd really like them to seriously explain what protections we'll have to keep this from happening. What mechanisms in our government will be in place after this bill passes that will keep American citizens from being imprisoned on a presidential whim?

Because "trust us" just doesn't cut it.

Earn this.

"We are not descended from fearful men."

I won't bother to link to Keith Olbermann's takedown of Rumsfeld and this administration from last night. It's all over the net and I'm sure you've seen it. (What the hell. It's here. ) I just had a couple of thoughts while watching this barnburner.

The first is that Olbermann read one of the best speeches I've ever seen on broadcast television. Ever. He deftly turned Rumsfeld's proposition that the critics of the war in Iraq are appeasers of fascism, on it's head and effortlessly dovetailed that into the threat of American fascism as it's manifested itself through our history in names like Nixon and Joe McCarthy.

But more importantly it struck me for the first time as I watched Olbermann's speech that I've finally found something to be thankful of with regards to the Bush presidency. It's put me back in touch on a visceral level with what it truly means to be an American.

Over the course of the last couple of years I've read and re-read the constitution probably a dozen times. I've read the federalist papers for the first time since college. I've read supreme court decisions such as United States v. Butler and Griswold vs. Connecticut, even though I'm no lawyer. I just wanted to know what the constitution meant by "promote the general welfare" and what the Supreme Court saw as the limitations to our privacy.

I've read again that wonderful document that started it all: the declaration of independence. The words of which have blown past me without reflection every 4th of July. This time I thought about the words, about the frame of mind of the men who wrote that document telling the most powerful man in the world to "shove it." I thought about their stunning courage in that act. How they risked everything for an idea.

I've dug out my old high school civics textbooks and contemplated the seperation of powers. I can think of no other invention of the framers written into the constitution that meets the importance of that doctrine. Everything we are as a nation stems from that initial recognition by the framers of the constitution that even the best of men could be corrupted by power.

History's come alive for me. Particularly the middle part of the twentieth century. I have wondered for some time what the average German went through as the Weimar republic collapsed to the Nazi putsch. Why did so many good people just go along for the ride? Why were heroes so few and far between? I'm starting to better understand the answers to those questions.

My kids have come out for the better as well. They've participated in a civics lesson far more important than anything they could've read in books. They've learned by watching this president that leaders aren't infallible and that, in a democracy, the people are the ultimate check on the abuse of governmental power. That's why bad governments try and keep us afraid. They're afraid of the people.

So thank you President Bush for making me a better American. It may not have been your intention but that's the ultimate result. Through your ineptitude and disdain for the country you've actually done us a great service in forcing us to stop taking things for granted. I salute you for that.

Well, isn't that a pretty picture, Santa rolling down the block in a PANZER!

Rumsfeld to GIs' families: I'd love to be Santa Claus, but I'm not.

Hmmm....


The North Pole - atop a majestic mountain of snow sits Santa's Castle.

Inside Santa Rummy and Mrs. Claus sit at the kitchen table. She pushes a steaming plate of ham in front of him.

Mrs. Claus: Eat, Santa, eat. Nobody likes a skinny Santa.

Santa Rummy: Could I eat that ham? Probably. Would I eat it even though you made it and your cooking is atrocious? Goodness gracious no.

As she leaves the room crying the Elf Foreman slinks nervously up to the table.

Elf Foreman: Sir, could I have a moment?

Santa Rummy: Of course. But remember - a stitch in time, saves nine.

Elf Foreman: Er, thanks. Sir, the elves want me to ask you to reconsider your plan to cut back on the the elf workforce this Christmas. They don't think there'll be enough elves to finish all the toys in time.

Santa Rummy: Well, one celebrates Christmas with the toys he has rather than the toys he wishes he had.

Elf Foreman: Right. Along those lines it's kind of hard to know what toys we need to make if you don't take the time to read the letters from the children.

Santa Rummy: It's not really necessary to the broader strategic initiative.

Elf Foreman: But how will we know what to make?

Santa Rummy: That's unknowable. There are knowns and known unknowns. That's a known unknown.

Elf Foreman: Then how will you know where to deliver these toys?

Santa Rummy: That's easy. We know where the children are. They're in the area to the North, the South and the East around the North Pole.

Elf Foreman: But Sir...

Santa Rummy holds up his hand.

Santa Rummy: Enough! We aren't going to go off henny-penny planning when the children will greet us as liberators. Now get to work. Oh, one more thing.

Elf Foreman: Yes, Sir?

Santa Rummy: Herbie, that elf that keeps talking about wanting to be a dentist. I want you to review the "don't ask, don't tell policy."

Elf Foreman: I admit he's annoying but he just doesn't want to make toys. I don't think he goes in for candy canes or anything.

Santa Rummy: Sure he doesn't. Sure.

Apology accepted, Captain Needa.

The efforts by the administration to rush to Rummy's defense are pretty damn laughable. I particularly enjoy former Air Force Gen. Richard Myers statement:

"We gave him our best military advice and I think that's what we're obligated to do," Myers said on ABC's "This Week." "If we don't do that, we should be shot."

Of course this ignores the small item that the generals who spoke out against Rumsfeld last week weren't claiming that they weren't able to give him advice, only that their advice was routinely ignored. Neither Myers statement nor Rumsfeld's defensive memo sent out to officers at the end of last week which detailed lots of meeting with officers do anything to counter that point.

Perhaps the saddest element to this pathetic counter-offensive in the media to the "Rumsfeld is incompetent" meme is the fact that the debate itself is completely meaningless. We don't need former Generals to point out that Rumsfeld is the most incompetent strategist since Montgomery. We simply have to turn on the evening news and find out what's happening in Iraq on a daily basis.

Sorry General Myers. I'm not going to believe you over my lying eyes.

Is that how a warped brain like yours gets its kicks? By planning the death of innocent people?

John Belushi was a comic genius. It frustrates me to no end that he threw his life away in a speedball overdose some years ago. A complete and utter waste.

If I was to try to imagine what went through Belushi's drug-addled brain in the moments before his death I see all sorts of psychedelic visions of flying ponies, talking hamburgers and, more than likely, Donald Rumsfeld talking about Iraq's "known unknowns." Listening to Rumsfeld is just about that surreal of an experience.

I can't for the life of me remember an administration appointee from ANY administration that came into office with as much hype as Rumsfeld only to fail so miserably. Rumsfeld was going to modernize the military and bring it into the 21st century. Left unspoken was that his concept of modernity was the stuff of Star Wars fantasy. Literally. A missile defense shield which fails even fixed tests that he convinced the President was ready to spend billions of dollars deploying in Alaska. No doubt he had to promise the President he'd get the first lightsaber.

Don't even get me started on his approach to the human element of the military. If there was a way to cut costs and go it on the cheap it, especially at the expense of our men and women in uniform, he'd find it. Cut down on support. Check. Cut armor for humvees. Check. Cut benefits and hazard pay. Check. The man is obviously more in love with technology, especially unproven, over the health and well being of the actual soldiers who serve under him.

In public he comes across as a sort of bespectacled Mr. Spock, more computer than man. This is supposed to demonstrate his value as Secretary of Defense. Coldly and impeccably logical. Cool in the face of danger. A slave to reason. All complete bullshit.

There has been nothing in our strategy towards the war in Iraq that has been logical. From the lack of appropriate numbers of soldiers at the start of the war, to the allowances for looting, to the disbanding of the Iraqi military because of worries about Sunni officers-- it's been one downright stupid move after another.

So I found Rumsfeld's public jabs at Condi Rice amusing on a couple of levels. The first is that Rumsfeld wants to play a semantical game. Rice referred to mistakes in Iraq as "tactical errors." Because she's talking about the bigger picture and not the actual prosecution of the fighting by our military I assume she ment to say "strategical errors." In military terms "strategy" is the planning made by generals and above before and during the war to achieve victory. "Tactics" are what the troops on the ground put together to implement the strategy. Rumsfeld is pretending he doesn't understand Rice and, in the process, is being too cute by half:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he did not know what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was talking about when she said last week that the United States had made thousands of "tactical errors" in handling the war in Iraq, a statement she later said was meant figuratively.

Speaking during a radio interview on WDAY in Fargo, N.D., on Tuesday, Rumsfeld said calling changes in military tactics during the war "errors" reflects a lack of understanding of warfare. Rumsfeld defended his war plan for Iraq but added that such plans inevitably do not survive first contact with the enemy.

"Why? Because the enemy's got a brain; the enemy watches what you do and then adjusts to that, so you have to constantly adjust and change your tactics, your techniques and your procedures," Rumsfeld told interviewer Scott Hennen, according to a Defense Department transcript. "If someone says, well, that's a tactical mistake, then I guess it's a lack of understanding, at least my understanding, of what warfare is about."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502269_pf.html

I'd just point out one final thing: Rumsfeld's entire "understanding of what warfare is about" could easily fit on one side of a post-it. But listening to him talk is quite the high.