Schadenfreude

You ever seen someone berate someone else with such exacting language that you can't help but feel rotten....and you're not even the one being yelled at?

Enter Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez (U.S. Army - Retired). Last Friday, at the Military Reporters and Editors luncheon briefing, General Sanchez took the press corps to task first, then Congress and the President. He doled-out shame like candy at Halloween.

For a transcript, look here.

And he is right, in my estimation. He is right to berate the press folks for dishonesty and self-aggrandizement. And he is equally right to dismantle Congress and the Preznit for...well...exactly the same thing.

Some gems:

LET ME REVIEW SOME OF THE DESCRIPTIVE PHRASES THAT HAVE BEEN USED BY SOME OF YOU THAT HAVE MADE MY PERSONAL INTERFACES WITH THE PRESS CORPS DIFFICULT:

"DICTATORIAL AND SOMEWHAT DENSE",

"NOT A STRATEGIC THOUGHT",

LIAR,

"DOES NOT GET IT" AND

THE MOST INEXPERIENCED LTG.

IN SOME CASES I HAVE NEVER EVEN MET YOU, YET YOU FEEL QUALIFIED TO MAKE CHARACTER JUDGMENTS THAT ARE COMMUNICATED TO THE WORLD

Okay. So far, so good. Call them out for their personal attacks. But it gets cooler.

THIS IS THE WORST DISPLAY OF JOURNALISM IMAGINABLE BY THOSE OF US THAT ARE BOUND BY A STRICT VALUE SYSTEM OF SELFLESS SERVICE, HONOR AND INTEGRITY. ALMOST INVARIABLY, MY PERCEPTION IS THAT THE SENSATIONALISTIC VALUE OF THESE ASSESSMENTS IS WHAT PROVIDED THE EDGE THAT YOU SEEK FOR SELF AGRANDIZEMENT OR TO ADVANCE YOUR INDIVIDUAL QUEST FOR GETTING ON THE FRONT PAGE WITH YOUR STORIES! AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR MEASURE OF WORTH IS HOW MANY FRONT PAGE STORIES YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF YOU WILL COMPROMISE YOUR INTEGRITY AND DISPLAY QUESTIONABLE ETHICS AS YOU SEEK TO KEEP AMERICA INFORMED.

Heh. Take that....everyone.

ALL ARE VICTIMS OF THE MASSIVE AGENDA DRIVEN COMPETITION FOR ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL SUPREMACY. THE DEATH KNELL OF YOUR ETHICS HAS BEEN ENABLED BY YOUR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO ALIGN THEMSELVES WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS. WHAT IS CLEAR TO ME IS THAT YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE CORROSIVE PARTISAN POLITICS THAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND KILLING OUR SERVICEMEMBERS WHO ARE AT WAR.

That says it all.

Here's some gems of his assessment of Iraq:

AFTER MORE THAN FOUR YEARS OF FIGHTING, AMERICA CONTINUES ITS DESPERATE STRUGGLE IN IRAQ WITHOUT ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO DEVISE A STRATEGY THAT WILL ACHIEVE "VICTORY" IN THAT WAR TORN COUNTRY OR IN THE GREATER CONFLICT AGAINST EXTREMISM. FROM A CATASTROPHICALLY FLAWED, UNREALISTICALLY OPTIMISTIC WAR PLAN TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S LATEST "SURGE" STRATEGY, THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO EMPLOY AND SYNCHRONIZE ITS POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND MILITARY POWER. THE LATEST "REVISED STRATEGY" IS A DESPERATE ATTEMPT BY AN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REALITIES OF THIS WAR AND THEY HAVE DEFINITELY NOT COMMUNICATED THAT REALITY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AN EVEN WORSE AND MORE DISTURBING ASSESSMENT IS THAT AMERICA CAN NOT ACHIEVE THE POLITICAL CONSENSUS NECESSARY TO DEVISE A GRAND STRATEGY THAT WILL SYNCHRONIZE AND COMMIT OUR NATIONAL POWER TO ACHIEVE VICTORY IN IRAQ.

The rest is an elaboration on exactly that point. But be assured, his angst is directed at who was in charge when we invaded...and the Congress that is in charge now. And the Preznit.

There are some keys in his discussion, including disdain for the "coalition" that's been put together. It was hasty, as he put it, and is under-resourced, especially as the coalition members withdraw. And they withdraw, in his estimation, because we have no plan other than individual political gain.

Go read it in its entireity.

Then let's discuss.

Read more...

A Bloody Game of Chess

From Crooks and Liars:

Over the weekend, Ayman al Zawahri, al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, released the latest in a series of bizarre videos, this time discussing his barely coherent “insights” on the war in Iraq. The video was quickly seized upon by partisans on both sides on the U.S. political divide, but one side seems wrong.

...

But if Zawahri’s comments are important when they bolster White House talking points, then they’re equally important when they don’t.

...

[quote on C&L from ABC News]In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.

“This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap,” Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.

Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, “We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson.”

The usual folks came out and said that Zawahri, as supported by his video quoted above, favors the Democratic withdrawal plan, and that pullout is the proof Zawahri needs to show the U.S. is defeated.

But I have to agree with Steve at C&L. Zawahri indeed wants us to stay as long as possible so he can kill more of our troops. Look at the last 2 paragraphs of the quote above. He says the bill will deprive us of the opportunity to trap and kill more U.S. troops.

Now, like Steve at C&L, I see that Zawahri is a total lunatic and really, I don't think you can lend creedence to anything he says. But the Administratiuon sure does, so following that logic train, you have to regard everything he says, even if it starkly disagrees with your current policy. Thus, it seems to me that playing into the terrorists' hands...giving them what they want...is protracting, endlessly, our occupation of Iraq.

Read more...

This Sh** is Bananas! B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

Gods, but I want to blog. I really do. But by the end of the day, after crazy work hours, early mornings, kid time, wife time and a good, solid beer, I run out of gas. I should find a way to be a one-man show...and do a really good job of it like this guy, or find more people to post as contributors on my blog who are as good as these guys in terms of pop-culture know-how and general relevent snark.

At any rate, enough bitching. A news roundup:

--Though the real story is here, it was billed in a much more provacative fashion here of all places. It reads that Chiquita Admits to Making Payments to Terrorists. So remember: when you eat a banana, the terrorists win.

--I never really understood the gravity behind the Valerie Plame debacle. But after reading this, compliments of John Cole's Balloon Juice, I get it. It's so much biger than Scooter Libby lying, which all in all, while still illegal in this case, is just unexciting. No, this is much, much bigger and there are more people who shoulda burned for it. So now I feel like I should sell t-shirts saying "We Went to Court, and All We Got was Scooter Libby."

--I also predicted in this post on my blog, in the same post that I argued that the Plame "scandal" was really sort of no big deal, that this U.S. Attorney thing was also going to turn out to be no big deal. Looks like I got that one wrong too. [h/t Balloon Juice, again]

--Lansing, MI is getting a brewpub!! I am thrilled. But moreso, I am thrilled that they are offering fully-refundable investment opportunities. Starting at $500, there more you invest, the higher your permanent discount on your total bill is. If you're interested, throw me an email or post a reply.

--It's been four years. Jesus.

--Not only has it been four years, but now this. It' not a poll of Americans. No. ABC News polled Iraqis. 51% say it's cool to kill Americans. Hit the link and have a listen to the audio clip of the interview. Depressing.

That's all I got. Crack a beer and enjoy your day.

Read more...

These Aren't Toy Soldiers

This post should have been up last night. Long story.

Given that, thanks to Balloon Juice, who thanks Obsidian Wings for this post. As Cole on Balloon Juice says, my first reaction was "this has me so god damned mad I can’t even write a restrained and reasonable post."

But I did some thinking about it, and am basing my response on what I know Executives do to budgets at the State and Federal level, drawing on my experience as a lobbyist. It is equally infuriating and equally depressing, but I see why it is happening, or at least it's what I think is going on. To set the stage for those of us who are a little lazy to click the links:

Iraq War veteran Christopher Carbone said he wouldn't mind a decrease in his medical benefits if it meant that additional federal dollars would be used for armored Humvees on the battlefield.

But Carbone, a survivor of an improvised explosive device attack in Iraq in October 2005, couldn't help being a little jarred when he learned the Bush administration planned to cut funding for veterans' health care by 2 percent in 2009 in order to balance the federal budget by 2012.

"It's kind of surprising," Carbone, 28, of North Haledon, said Monday. "It's one of those things that you always expect to be taken care of after everything you do." (...)

That's where my blood begins to boil. To the men and women who are shot, blown up, depressed, etc., we at least owe them the resources to become whole, or as close to whole as they can become. I disagree with the Chairman's explanation and thoughts on what this surprising cut means.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends, sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better, critics say.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget, "or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."

OK. Maybe I can see that this Administration might base something on unrealistic assumptions. They kinda have that track record. But I don't think they are willingly proposing massive cuts in VA healthcare.

A common tactic from the Executive level when introducing a budget proposal is to cut deep into some sacred cows. You do some sacred cows of your opposition party to show solidarity within your own, and you do some of your own to provide political cover to your own party for them to support a program that may not be possible to pay for without cutting the opposition's sacred cows.

So Bush proposes a cut to VA benefits. This throws people into fits while at the same time forcing them to vote for increases in the VA and DOD budgets that they may not have otherwise. It provides cover to the Rs to go the way the President needs them to go; it allows them to "buck the President" and become hometown heroes by restoring funding to VA benefits. It's good for the Rs because it allows them to again separate themselves from the Prez and add it to the "stuff they've done right." It allows the Ds to beat the shit out of the Prez a little more, but it certainly diverts their attention away from the Rs in Congress.

Thus, the plan all along is to fully-fund VA benefits. Other stuff is going to have to get cut to do that, and the Ds will suffer themselves some of their own sacred cows so they don't have to cut VA benefits. The Rs get to buck the Prez, show some leadership, and also increase VA benefits. The Prez? He gets an increase in VA benefits on his watch. Everybody wins, and the Rs may come out a little on top in that the Ds may have to cut some other Really Important Programs in order to fund the VA benefits.

The depressing part here is the field the game is being played on. They're not cutting Bridges to Nowhere or corn production studies at Mid-West Universities. They are playing an unbluffable poker game on the backs of our troops that got broken. In my mind it is more cynical and shameful that a common budgetary game is being played on the emotional ties of the troops and their families who want to see them fixed. A game of this magnitude, on the backs of these types of programs, have devastating results. Play this game with Corn Studies. Then, a grad student has to wait a little longer before she gets her project funded. This poker game takes a while to resolve itself. Given the time it takes, this is what happens.

Sad, and infuriating.

Read more...

Reconstruction Deconstructed

Let's set the stage. Bush unveiled his budget today (and by unveiled, I mean like the kind where you went to a strip club, but it turned out to be a drag show...that kind of "unveiled) for a whopping $2.9 Trillion.

Of that $2.9 Trillion, including $624.6 billion in Defense spending, which is an 11.3% raise from last year.

On its face, this is not awful. It includes, among other things, a 3% raise for troops. A whopping 3% raise. Thanks George. Inflation, by the way, is at 3.1%.

Here's where it gets fun. The figure includes $93.4 billion in aditional money for the war this year, and $141.7 billion in "anticipated" costs for next year to repair, replace and retool. No problem; war tends to beat equipment up.

Interestingly, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments:

Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the president's proposed increases bring the Defense Department budget back up to where it was during the 1980s, a peak period for Pentagon spending, when calculated in today's dollars.

"An 11.3 percent increase is the kind of increase we had right after 9/11 and in the four or five years of the (President) Reagan buildup," Kosiak said. "So by historical perspectives, it's a pretty big jump."

The stage is set.

I seem to remember Paul Wolfoqitz saying:

“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Remember, back in '03, how Wolfowitz dressed-down the General at the time by saying the war wouldn't cost as much nor would reconstruction require the level of troops that the General (Shinseki) said it'd require? A reminder, compliments of the February 28 edition of the New York Times:

Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables.

Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

Just sayin'.

And speaking of the "cost" of war, take a quick listen to Ted Koppel's report about who we don't hear about: the number of civilian contractors killed in Iraq. Their casualty figures are not reported in the DOD statistics, and they are used more now than ever before (Koppel's report focused on comparing contractor involvement in Vietnam and Iraq. And keep them as much in you thoughts as anyone else.

Read more...

A Perfect Storm

First of all, this picture, at first quick glance, made me laugh pretty hard.

It also sums up what James Baker may actually think of the Boy King's Administration and their botch of the training of Iraqis, and this whole mess in the first place. Well, it would if that actually were his middle finger. But really, at first glance, it looked like it.

The Iraq Study Group contends that the wrong agencies were sent to Iraq to train Iraqi police and shape their judicial system.

The U.S. erred by first assigning the task of shaping the judicial system in a largely lawless country to the State Department and private contractors who "did not have the expertise or the manpower to get the job done," Hamilton and Meese said in testimony obtained by The Associated Press.

In 2004, the mission was assigned to the Defense Department, which devoted more money to the task. But department officials also were insufficiently trained for the job, Hamilton and Meese said.

As a result, Iraq has little if any on-the-street law enforcement personnel or a functioning judicial system free of corruption, they said.

Justice Department officials, they said, should lead the work of transforming the system. Police executives and supervisors should replace the military police personnel now assigned.

I know. I know. You're shocked and awed that this too was botched. I could hardly believe it myself. That being said, under the grand leadership of Alberto Gonzales, I am not so sure that the Judicial system in Iraq would be any better. I guess they could fire all the existing attorneys in Iraq and replace them with strict anti-Iranian, pro-Isreali attorneys who have spent all their time doing political opposition research. Hasn't that happened somewhere else?

Anyway, read the rest of this article for more on the Police and Judicial system. One of the recommendations, as seen in the above quote, is to have cops train cops, not MPs train cops. Totally different mindset. Ask any cop.

On my way into work this morning, there was a 3 or so minute piece from Ted Koppel on NPR. Check it out here. It's an audio clip right now, not yet in writing, but is excellent. It is a clip about how dishonest the Iraq debate is, from both parties.

Koppel picks holes in both the strategy of troop increases and in the strategy of an immediate withdrawal. Interestingly, he contends that the debate and resulting timeline for withdrawal ought to focus on completion of certain benchmarks, not on failure to complete certain benchmarks. It's a great point.

The way it's being pitched now, if Iraqis fail to meet a benchmark, we will leave, leaving them worse off. Instead, if they meet a benchmark, which we can play a role in helping them get to, then we can leave and they're better off. Seems intuitive.

He spent a moment to define what the Administration means by "the Region (as in withdrawal will make things worse in the region):" not Iraq, but the total oil-rich region. He then contends that despite "Cheney's bravado" that things really are worse in the region and Iraq. If oil is what we want, alluded to by Koppel, we have actually made it harder to keep secure.

He does, nonspecifically, take the Dems' part of the debate to task as being dishonest as well, most likely meaning it was more for their own poliical gain than to actually fix Iraq. But hey, I agree. It got 'em elected. Prove us wrong, and show you're really interested in fixing Iraq, not just in being exactly the opposite of Bush.

Read more...