Libby Team Still In Love

Everybody agrees that I. Lewis Libby will just have to go to jail, right? I mean, what else can you do? The President already committed himself, remember?

"I am troubled by the initial news stories," Bush said. "I'm mindful that there's a thorough investigation going on. If in fact, laws were broken, there will be punishment."- Oh, wait, that was when he was talking about the Marines in Haditha.

What Bush said was "anyone involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA operative would be fired." This was tough talk, coming from the swaggering Texan.

But, when it seemed to look like maybe the leaker was Rove, Cheney, as well as Libby, but only Libby got indicted, Bush back pedaled, "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Well, it seems unlikely the legal system will vindicate Libby. He really has no trial errors which will get him a new trial or an appellate reversal. The only errors in his trial were tactical.

Scooter Libby may well have had an excellent legal team; in fact, the “best that money can buy”. However, they botched his defense in a fundamental way. The defense relied on two paths to not guilty, and both required Mr. Libby to testify in his own defense.

The defense walked first path in the aggressive opening statement. The defense theory: Libby took the fall for more powerful figures in the Administration. "They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Libby’s attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling Libby's end of the conversation. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected." According to Wells, the confidential conversations Libby had with several well-known journalists were not intended to spread the identity of Valerie Plame, the covert CIA officer. Instead, Libby's attorney said, he was acting at Cheney's instructions to respond to allegations that the vice president withheld information that would have raised doubts about whether Iraq was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. Libby, Wells said, told Cheney he feared "people in the White House are trying to set me up." Wells then showed the jury the text of a note Cheney had jotted that said: "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." Defense Portrays Libby as Scapegoat Jury Is Told About White House Rifts By Amy Goldstein and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post Staff Writers, Wednesday, January 24, 2007; A01

After abandoning any effort to prove this, the defense resorted to jury nullification. Jury nullification reflects a jury's absolute right, as the finder of fact, to render a verdict of "not guilty," even though they believe the State has proved the elements of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” As the United States Supreme Court has observed, “The jury could not function as circuitbreaker in the State's machinery of justice if it were relegated to making a determination that the defendant at some point did something wrong, a mere preliminary to a judicial inquisition into the facts of the crime the State actually seeks to punish. United States v. Apprendi, 542 U.S. 296, 307 (2000). Although courts generally bar defense lawyers from directly asking the jury for nullification, a good lawyer will do that every time.

As his final dramatic flair in closing argument, Wells trotted out nullification one last time: “He's been under my protection for the last month. Just give him back." Wells' voice cracked and he spoke his final words through sobs. "Give him back to me! Give him back!" He rushed back to his chair at the head of the defense table, covered his face and then stared at the floor. Libby's last disinformation campaign. By Sidney Blumenthal.

The problem with both trial tactics lies in the singular prerequisite that the defendant testify. A jury really wants to hear the defendant say I didn’t do it, and if I did it, I’m really sorry, and if I am not sorry it was no big deal anyway.

The defense prepared the jury for a counter-attack by painting Libby as the fall guy. They took up the gauntlet of presenting a defense instead of relying on the defense of Not Guilty. The rational jury then expects to hear some evidence in the defendant’s case-in-chief establishing the facts of the defense. In the juror’s mind the defense moved from the position of “has the state proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt” to the mind, “Which side proved their case to me?” In Libby’s cause this burden shift produced a crucial error.

Furthermore, if you want the jury to nullify the verdict in the face of the evidence, you must give them more than a cross-examination about “faulty memory” to do that. As the juror who spoke out observed, “I will say there was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury,” said the juror, Denis Collins, a former newspaper reporter. “It was said a number of times: ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ ” ‘Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?’ Juror says Libby was guilty but was set up to take the fall in Plame probe By Alex Johnson Reporter MSNBC Updated: 8:50 p.m. CT March 6, 2007.

To find Libby not guilty, the jury needed to hear him say something on his own behalf, either I did not do it, or I am sorry I did it but Cheney made me. It seems in not calling either Libby or Cheney, the defense hopes to obtain a pardon from the president. It seems Libby acted the fall guy.

More Hypocrisy In Congress

Lately, politicians have been repeating one another’s platitudes; distilling the position on the Iraq war to a nice sound bite. “While I support the troops I cannot support this war of choice.”

Susan Walsh / AP

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., right, Reps. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill, House Jim Clyburn of S.C., and John Larson, D-Conn. at a news conference prior to the start of debate on a resolution on Iraq.

Well this formula does not be make sense. Anyone who knows a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine can tell you, these people are imbued with the ultimate “can-do” spirit. That is after all, the reason they joined up. To them, the mission is everything, and they are the mission. To support them but not their mission smacks of hypocrisy. The military drowns in hypocrisy, and it’s fighters have a keenly honed eye for detecting bullshit.

The anti war politicians must embrace their anti war stance. There is no loving the sinner and hating the sin. I am not suggesting that hey hate the fighters, just don’t pander to them, while the voters may gobble it up, hypocrisy has enough of a hold on American politics.

End the war. We never prepared for occupation. Our volunteer army long ago abandoned a force structure capable of this mission. All we can accomplish is death.

Thank You Molly!

Stand Up And Be Counted!

Humorist (and Bush critic) Molly Ivins will be sorely missed. Her astute and acerbic observations on the foibles and felonies of George W. Bush in particular, and American political life in general helped pull back the curtain and expose the charlatan,for a broad class of Americans, to understand how deeply flawed our leaders can be.

In her writing, she managed with humor and common sense, to cut to the heart of politics. She knew right from wrong and was unafraid to expose both. Her own words best describe her world view, "Tell them that we had fun!"

Congress' War Powers

The Congress Has The Power To End The War, They Merely Lack The Will To Do So

What happened to the Democrats? Very few dispute the election’s meaning: we want them to end the war. We do not want posturing, politicizing, and predicting. We do not want bipartisanship. If we wanted bipartisanship, we would have voted for moderate republicans, such as Lincoln Chafee. We voted for change. The politicians are worried about getting re-elected; otherwise, the war would be over.

The Republicans worry about insulting the President. George Bush showed remarkable ability to raise money. The Texas oilman has been better connected than any modern politician in modern history. The forces of big Pharma, oil, and finance together with the staggeringly wealthy have been richly rewarded for their investments in this administration. The Bush team managed to dismantle the regulators that had checked the rapaciousness of these groups since the New Deal. Bush spent more money than any candidate ever. His receipts for the 2004 election amounted to $367,228,801. (had he relied on government funding the figure would have been a still staggering $74.6 million in government funding for the general election). Bush demonstrated that he can bring the goods. With no heir-apparent, the Republican who can get Bush on board will have a real advantage; they have no edge in making him angry with protest votes now.

The Democrats worry about not showing “support for out troops”. No one wants to be shown as “soft on terror.” Even with a majority opinion that Bush has recklessly proceeded in Iraq, the Dems fear positioning themselves as losing the war.

Do the trappings of Washington power really have mind control forces? It would seem so. It seems to be one thing to complain about Washington in Minneapolis, and another to complain in DC.

The Congress has the power to end the war in two ways. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution vest war making powers in the Congress, a part of the often voiced “checks and balances’ genius of the document:

The Congress shall have the power... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...

This power includes not only the intent to begin war, but also the extent of the war. In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war’s scope and duration. The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.” The Congress may also end the war by not funding the war-the so-called “power of the purse.”

In other words, the Democrats have the power to end the war, they merely lack the will to do so. With the election on the horizon, too many Senators running for office are in key positions and will not do the right thing.

May God have mercy on us all.

What Now In Iraq?

It Was Always About The Oil (And Natural Gas)

The Military

The Iraqis who could have accomplished unification, ordinary educated middle class citizens have abandoned the country. The Iraqis remaining are the poor, too stupefied by psychological response to violence to prevent further victimization, and the young idealists, alienated under the old regime and now ready to die for the last group, the religious zealots who envision a fundamentalist Islamic state free of any non-conformers conditioned by years of war to believe that horrifying levels of violence against anyone fully justified by the desire for a perfect state.

We cannot just leave the region, but we must obviously disengage. At this point we only inflame the radicalism of both Shia and Sunni. We must stop arming the populace under the name of “training Iraqi forces” this has degenerated into merely training combating sides. Also, we have national interests at stake, the very reason Bush attacked in the first place. (No not WMDs which was always a red herring) but vast oil and natural gas reserves that would otherwise have gone to the French or Russians. Iraq contains 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Iraq contains 110 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven natural gas reserves, along with roughly 150 Tcf in probable reserves. After all during the prewar build up, Vice President Cheney intensley focused on Iraq's energy reserves. Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” "




Iraq is important to world energy markets because it holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of gas."[ US Government's Country Analysis Brief on Iraq, December 1999. ]



"No matter what decision the president makes [on Iraq], the United States will always be better off with a policy that provides more energy independence"(Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman)[ Miami Herald (from Reuters), "White House: No Link Between Iraq Policy, Oil Price", 6 September 2002 ]



The most blunt statement comes from former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, a leading advocate of U.S. military action against Iraq: "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." Woolsey also said, "If they throw their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."



Second, we need to avoid a regional war. As the Sunnis, Shia, or Kurds appear to gain the other hand, no doubt Iraq, Saudis, and the Turks will feel compelled to intervene. In addition to the horrors of such a war. A regional broadening of the war would destroy the oil-dependent global economy.

Third, if in fact a genocide begins, as many Sunni predict, would America standby as we did in Rwanda and are doing in Darfur. In other words, if had no military in Iraq and witnessed genocide, wouldn’t we want to try to intervene as a matter of humanitarianism.

Fourth, our war created a refugee crisis of unimaginable proportions. The military can be very good at the logistics of moving food, medicine, supplies, and portable housing where it needs to go, in cooperation with neighboring states.

The State Department

The time long passed for turning this war over to the state department. Regional diplomacy remains the best way to end the secular, sectarian, psychotic violence we loosed in Iraq. The only goal now is an end to fighting, a mere cease fire. Get the people to lay down their arms and then work out what kind of government they want. We must ignore President Bush’s uninformed, paternalistic desires to impose a western style democratic republic. Obviously that will not happen. But we need not abandon our desire to help Iraqis shape their own government. We must have a role in insisting on civil rights, the protection of ethnic minorities, and equal status for women, as well as all the other benefits modern government, in it’s varieties of compositions can provide.

These goals lie fully within the State Departments mandate and not in the Pentagon. Our military will always win on the field, but they will always loose if they must fight the entire population.

What We Must Do

Prevent the disunion and partition of Iraq. Look at the disaster that followed the partition of India. The Viceroy Lord Mountbatten viewed the ethnic strife between Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh populations which exploded after the plan to keep India unified but ruled by ethnic provinces. He persuaded the British Parliament to abandon this plan after the rioting became full-blown civil war. The India Independence Act caused the migration of over 15 million Indians as the new countries exchanged populations. Millions died during riots, civil war, and migration.

After division, the region saw continued wars, in 1965, the Indio-Pakistan War, in 1971 again Indio-Pakistan but also the division and birth of Bangladesh. The 1971 war includes the genocide of Bengalis, by 1972 Newsweek reported over 10 million Bengal refugees. The Kargali War of 1992 witnessed conflict between nuclear armed neighbors. Tensions between the new countries continue today, with a nuclear armed Indian and Pakistan still fighting over Kashmir. India continues to be tormented by Kashmiri separatist terrorists, including attack on the India Parliament building by separatist gunmen.

The division of India should inform military planners in Iraq. The massive population displacement, the millions dead from secular fighting, and the continued regional tensions do not bode well for similar response in Iraq.

Millions dead, many more millions displaced, and generations of violent tension. Is that what America hopes to duplicate in the Middle East? While division does seem to be where the inertia at work in Iraq seems headed, the British might be of even more help in planning than they have proved so far. After all, they have India, Afghanistan, and Israel experience before us. They tried and filed and now we have tried and failed. The lessons of Colonialism seem to be revisited on the world wherever our "national interests" demand. Division of Iraq may prove equally explosive, after all, the British planned the India partition.

The military should disperse from the cities of Iraq. We should stop training and arming the Iraqis, as they stand up: they seem to be fighting one another as well as us. It is time to disarm as many of them as we can. Protect the frontier entry points and patrol to prevent infiltration from neighboring states. We should defend the oil infrastructure that both Iraq and the world depend. We should move north to work with the Kurds and help avoid invasion by their historical enemy the Turks. We need to stay in theater in case of genocide, but out of the way to try to reduce the simmering tension felt from our mere presence on Iraqi streets. Let the process of negotiation by the statesmen try to proceed.

Paper's Readers "Too Stupid" To View Photograph

St. Francis High School in Anoka.

When I first heard the story I immediately began a First Amendment analysis. The next morning I read the story in the Strib and saw a copy of the picture. The incident, although it implicates free Speech rights, does not even rise to that level.

The Strib quotes the superintendent as citing the image’s potential “as offensive by community standards”. The school system's superintendent insults the community more by his view that the newspaper’s readers would be too stupid to understand what the story covered, a school play.

Even assuming for he sake of argument that some idiot might be offended because he only saw the picture and did not read the caption or article explaining the image, does this justify the school's decision? Absolutely not. These students do not surrender their constitutional rights at the school door. The newspaper in no way disrupts the school's purpose.

"Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority's opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk; and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom-this kind of openness-that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society." Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

The time long passed in which our high schools should be debating the Iraq War. They are the great pool from which the military draws.

First, We Kill All The Lawyers

Assistant Secretary of Defense Cully Stimson told Federal News Radio that the nation’s major corporate CEOs ought to pressure their law firms not to represent “terrorists”:

"I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."

Mr. Stimson is a lawyer and ought to know better, he graduated from George Mason Law School and worked for the Navy. He is the top Pentagon official in charge of detainee detention. I would like to think that one could not graduate from law school without a firm understanding of the American legal system. Fundamental to the process is the notion that the defendant enjoys a right to a lawyer. John Adams (our second president) represented the British troops responsible for the Boston Massacre.

No wonder that he Bush Administration has so long run afoul of basic legal rights, it’s lawyers are so stupid. The other possibility of course is that Bush lawyers are merely craven and they do no better. I don’t know which possibility is worse. Is the attitude of Mr. Stimson a function of the 9-11 attacks, or was the attitude merely given cover by the attacks? I wonder whether the evidence against the detainees is so weak that no possibility exists of proving a case in any adversarial forum.

Bush Demonstrates His Contempt For Diplomacy

I am surprised he waited. Mere hours after declaring war on Iran, US soldiers raided an Iranian consulate in Iraq. Now we have six Iranians personnel held hostage and the circle is complete. The helpful White House PowerPoint presentation lists attacking Iran right up front, as a Key Tactical Shift: "Increase operations against Iranian actors"

Under International law and practice, embassy grounds may not be entered by the host country without permission. That after all is the whole point of refugee asylum in embassies. Even the North Koreans respect this, that is why North Korean nationals in China flee to third-party embassies.

Lawlessness in Iraq now being spread by the United States. What other country would President Bush dare to attack an embassy? Can even Prime Minister Blair tolerate standing with the President on this one? The governments of the world will condemn us.

The President's action demonstrates the contempt with which he holds diplomacy. Unless the military quickly exposes the facility as a bomb producing plant, we have some explaining to do.

Division Of Iraq

History, that wicked wretch, sneaks up, extend it’s palm and begs for alms. History meets us at the airport chanting “Hare Krishna.” History arrives in the post, “You may already have won!” Try as we might, never will history shake itself loose.

In his editorial Making the Surge Work, which started appearing on the 7th, David Brooks advocates using President Bush’s miliary escalation in Iraq to divide the country in ethnic parts.

"Perhaps, in other words, it’s time to merge the military Plan B — the surge — with a political Plan B — flexible decentralization. That would mean using adequate force levels (finally!) to help those who are returning to sectarian homelands. It would mean erecting buffers between populations where possible and establishing order in areas that remain mixed. It would mean finding decentralized governing structures that reflect the social and psychological facts on the ground.

"The record shows that in sufficient numbers and with sufficient staying power, U.S. troops can suppress violence. Perhaps more U.S. troops can create a climate in which decentralized arrangements can evolve.

"We can’t turn back time. But if the disintegration of Iraqi society would be a political and humanitarian disaster, perhaps we should finally commit military resources, and create a political strategy, commensurate with the task of salvaging something. "

Brooks should take a look at India's experience in Partition. The Viceroy Lord Mountbatten viewed the ethnic strife between Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh populations which exploded after the plan to keep India unified but ruled by ethnic provinces. He persuaded the British Parliament to abandon this plan after the rioting became full-blown civil war. The India Independence Act caused the migration of over 15 million Indians as the new countries exchanged populations. Millions died during riots, civil war, and migration.

After division, the region saw continued wars, in 1965, the Indio-Pakistan War, in 1971 again Indio-Pakistan but also the division and birth of Bangladesh. The 1971 war includes the genocide of Bengalis, by 1972 Newsweek reported over 10 million Bengal refugees. The Kargali War of 1992 witnessed conflict between nuclear armed neighbors. Tensions between the new countries continue today, with a nuclear armed Indian and Pakistan still fighting over Kashmir. India continues to be tormented by Kashmiri separatist terrorists, including attack on the India Parliament building by separatist gunmen.

The division of India should inform military planners in Iraq. The massive population displacement, the millions dead from secular fighting, and the continued regional tensions do not bode well for similar response in Iraq.

Millions dead, many more millions displaced, and generations of violent tension. Is that what America hopes to duplicate in the Middle East? While division does seem to be where the inertia at work in Iraq seems headed, the British might be of even more help in planning than they have proved so far. After all, they have India, Afghanistan, and Israel experience before us. They tried and filed and now we have tried and failed. The lessons of Colonialism seem to be revisited on the world wherever our "national interests" demand.

Rosecoveredglasses Comments on Daisy Post

There are good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:

I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.

If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armaments”

http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html

The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment, budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Administrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.

How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the new Sec. Def.Mr. Gates, understand such complexity, particularly if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?

Answer- he can’t. Therefore he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.

From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.

This situation is unfortunate but it is absolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.

This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen until it hits a brick wall at high speed.

We will then have to run a Volkswagen instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.

Remember Daisy

Daisy , a 30-second campaign ad featuring a little girl pulling petals from a daisy may well have put Lyndon Johnson in the White House in 1964. Superimposed over her count comes the familiar launch countdown, then a nuclear mushroom cloud. Finally President Johnson states, "These are the stakes! To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die." Another voice over then says, "Vote for President Johnson on November 3. The stakes are too high for you to stay home."

Anyone over a certain age remembers Daisy.



Among the first pieces of business the Senate Armed Forces Committee must do is crack open Pentagon planning for "tactical" nukes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Sy Hersch at The New Yorker reported in April17, 2006, on Bush plans for Iran. Now Israel has also revealed such planning according to the London Sunday Times .

What a crazy world! and this from the people that brought you the Summer of Love. What happened to these people. We have a president who seems to understand the world in terms of the sound bites devised for him, featuring "Post-911 World" and "The War On Terror" which make his so very dangerous.

As the Iraq War clearly demonstrates, we can not face Islam Radicalism by declaring war on the Middle East. Terrorism remains a strategy for political and social change and not state action. defeating terrorism requires a completely different approach than the nationalism and militarism now prevalent. These are the same "isms" that ushered in the great military conflicts of modern history.

Furthermore, the War on Terror consumes vast resources which should be put to use in funding a new economy. The planet can no longer balance an economy based on burning carbons. We must spend the wealth, both human and capital, on going green. Our future depends upon it.

President Bush would certainly push the Iraq debacle a notch down in "Huge Blunders By President Bush" (an already incredibly long list) by filling the top spot with "Nuking Iran" or even allowing Israel to nuke Iran for us. There is no question in my mind that the Pentagon has been gaming the scenario. Could there really be an outcome that ends positively for the world?

The Right Man At The Wrong Time

The President finally appointed a new commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus. Gen. Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne during a tour in Iraq in 2003. He managed the most successful integration of the military in Iraq society. Petraeus rejected the prevailing military view that the Iraqis were terrorists who needed to be pacified. Instead he made the focus of his attention living among the Iraqis and struggling to see the world fro their point of view. Petraeus enjoyed startling successes in 2003.

Petraeus reflects a change in two significant ways. The military must view appointment to the Iraq theater as a necessary step in a career path. This ensures that he best and the brightest seek a tour there. Otherwise, the military culture will write off the Iraq war and focus attention elsewhere. Second, the military and the White House needs to stop seeing Iraqis as the enemy.

The problem, of course, remains that the appointment, while amounting to a significant change in military orientation, comes far to late to matter. US Military commitment can no longer make much difference in Iraq. We have proved incapable of separating the parties vying for power, for revenge, for chaos, for world view. We never made any attempt to understand the Middle East before entering Iraq. The President had to have the various religious sects explained to him, well after he ordered bombing to begin.

The Shia/Sunni divide hardly needs US troops for targets. The struggle in the Middle East for dominance started coming apart at the seams (again) soon after the rise to power of a Shiite government in Iran, after the fall of Reza Shah in 1979. The US felt the tremors first in the kidnapping of Americans from the embassy.

Any settlement of violence in Iraq, and the avoiding of spreading further in Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, lays in resolving this timeless rift in Islam. Something America is uniquely unqualified to do. A beginning must be made and that means negotiating with Iran. We may have little to say to one another, but we must begin.

Another positive note may be appointment to the UN of Zalmay Khalilzad.

Hang On To Saddam 2

The New York Times reports today, Friday, January 5, 2007, page A6, that, while the President has not seen it, the video of Saddam's hanging upset lawmakers in Washington. What surprise! The Iraqi government promptly hangs the dictator in an undignified, rushed and violent manner. The question really should not be the hanging but the surprise here. What should we have expected out of Iraq. I wonder what Iraqis think. Their government protested that nothing was amiss; maybe they really think so, after all, Saddam's government apparently acted the very same way.

The hanging should demonstrate to lawmakers that there is no precipice to withdraw from: Iraq fell long ago. The chaos only threatens to worsen and more US military will serve no useful purpose.

Already Washington spins the midterm elections. The message could not be clearer: Withdraw now. Lawmakers from both partys now see ethics, or taxes, or "change" as the message. What more must we do?

End the war now!

Get Lonely by The Mountain Goats

The 2006 release Get Lonely by The Mountain Goats (Released 21 August) shows continuing maturity to John Darnielle’s production values, without conceding any ground in either in his songwriting or production ethic. From the beginning, the Mountain Goats have captured the intensity of Darnielle’s lyrical vision by utilizing very low-tech productions. The music traveled by cassette tape from a cassette recorder Darnielle used at his work as a psychiatric nurse. For percussion he used the background hiss of late-night television. John toured with a bass player, first Rachel Ware and then Peter Hughes, including California and Chicago, where he later moved. He released an EP, Nine Black Poppies, in (emperor jones records, p.o. box 49771, Austin TX 78765).

In The Sunset Tree, the previous release, Darnielle explored his own emotional state, creating songs largely based on his relationship with an abusive and alcoholic step-father. Get lonely while equally and as intensely personal, delves , more deeply into emotional state, hopefully not Darnielle’s own, but based on his experiences as a psychiatric nurse. The opening track gives us the first person account of a schizophrenic, wandering out of his home to start his day:

I leave the house as soon as it gets light outside
like a prisoner breaking out of jail.
and I steal down to business 15-501
like I had a bounty hunter on my tail

…I laugh to myself and look up at the skies
and then I think I hear angels in my ears
like marbles being thrown against a mirror…

The hearing voices operates not as metaphor but as description. The Durham 15-501, currently under construction, marks a “superstreet” in Darnielle’s current home town.

The catchiest tune on the CD might be Woke Up New. I caught my 12-year-old daughter working the song out on the piano, singing the catch

and I sang oh
what do I do?
what do I do?
what do I do?
what do I do without you?

The song, like much of Darnielle’s writing, tells of recent romantic loss. Another break-up song comes in the title track Get Lonely a truly, hauntingly beautiful song, both tune and lyric.

The Mountain Goats opened their recent world tour here in Minneapolis, at the Triple Rock on September 14th. I had an extra ticket to the show. When I got to the Triple Rock, on the campus at the University of Minnesota, the line already stretched down the block. There is no question that I was by far the oldest person there. I would guess the crowd averaged about 22, and every one of them sat on the sidewalk reading a book-if only I had a camera! The reading no doubt demonstrates the literacy of both the band and the fans. Darnielle peppers his songs with classical illusions, and I mean classical in the Roman/Greek sense, not classic rock.

The Mountain Goats’ played Get lonely straight through at the Triple Rock show. (Joanna Newsom tried the same thing with Ys down the street at The 400 on December 8, a tough venue for a harp player.) Darnielle could barely contain his excitement during the show, flailing away at his guitar as he tried to remember the lyrics. The crowd sang along to most of the songs, except for a remarkable take on the outstanding Cobra Tattoo, during which you could hear a pin drop. Darnielle did not disappoint ardent fans. For the mosh pit, they played both Cubs in Five and See America Right

Get Lonely ranks the top of essential listening for the releases for 2006.



September 14 - Minneapolis, MN, Triple Rock Social Club

http://www.mountain-goats.com/ (band website)
http://www.themountaingoats.net/ (fan site with discography, lyrics, and tabs)
http://www.islandgardensong.com/home/mg/live/ (fan site with concert recordings for download)
http://www.alibris.com/wish/list.cfm?action=list&S=R&email=editor%40lastplanetojakarta.com&Go.x=16&Go.y=10 (John’s wish list)
http://www.lastplanetojakarta.com/index.php (John’s web log)
http://3bos.com/ (3 Beads of Sweat, Mountain Goats news, and Cd’s)
http://www.fivetools.com/ (Peter’s erratic web log)
http://www.archive.org/index.php (Internet Archive with fan recordings for download)
http://sixeyes.blogspot.com/2006/09/mountain-goats-john-darnielle.html (A Blogspot interview)

Republicans On The Out

I laughed out loud. Listening to the radio this afternoon, NPR reported that the Republicans were upset. Apparently, the Democratic leadership did not involve them in planning for the upcoming session.

I am sure they were, like Captain Renault, in Casablanca, “I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! ..."

I see the freeze out as perfectly consistent with the first item on the Democrat’s ‘six point plan” (although the title referred to 2006):

Honest Leadership & Open Government

We will end the Republican culture of corruption and restore a government as good as the people it serves, starting with real ethics reform. http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

I seem to remember the Democrats complaining that the Republicans froze them out. Not to long ago the big Washington news focused on Democrats having to watch out for the “nuclear option” in filibustering judicial nominations because they were so wholly without power.

Congressional power flows to the majority power. Work gets done in the standing and special committees, which operate at the mercy of the chair, positions filled by the majority leader. The Senate and House have “rules and precedents” under which they operate. This is why the President’s immediate reaction to the mid-term election results required him to start crowing about “bi-partisanship.” He wanted the Republicans in.

So now we get t hypocrisy. Is either party clean? Did not the Dems howl at the heavy handed way the Republican leadership bused the system? Long open-vote periods. Closed door meetings. Refusal to docket minority bills. That was what the whole tone of Washington that Bush ran on in the first place. And rove has become master at his attack. Rove made divisiveness into a consummate art politic.

Also the Dams have such fertile ground. It seems a long time since we have heard from some of these committees. There has just been no oversight. The Dems could spend both years catching up. They have expressed some desire to just let the last six years pass. Maybe they intend to let history be the judge of Bus record.

I think I is important to drag these yahoos in, sit them, down, put them under oath, and find out what happened. The influence of money, stupidity, and putridity must be exposed.

How can we enact laws about warrantees seizure of phone records without exposing what has been done? How could Qwest be the only corporation that even asked to see a warrant, or eve a letter from the Attorney general. How could all this money, literally bales of cash be lost in Iraq. America deserves to know.

We may not get any their legislation accomplished. But America can live with that. What we really need to know, s just what fools they thought we were, how much damage has been done, and who needs to finally be made to stand up and admit accountability. It has been a long time coming.

To hell with bi-partisanship.

Minnesota Agenda 2007

Minnesota State Government agenda items:

1. Transportation Policy

Transit

Sprawl

Jobs

Business/Manufacturing

Accelerate Light Rail development

2. Green Energy

Research

Power Production

Climate Change- non-carbon sources

Energy efficiency

District heating/cooling

3. Education

University

High school

Address standardized testing, sports, arts and music

4. Single Payer Health Care

U Care Minnesota

5. Criminal Justice

Funding

Sentencing guidelines

Prison reform

6. Waste Management

Composting

Recycling

e-waste

7. Local government financing

Internet access

8. Election Laws

How we count the votes “It’s not who votes that counts-it’s who counts the votes.” (attributed, probably erroneously-to Joseph Stalin)