« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Time to move some goalposts. The White House today released its third benchmark report (pdf) on Iraq, and, miracle of miracles, it shows some achievements. Iraq is now making "satisfactory" progress toward de-Baathification reform. Repeat after me, in your best Johnny Drama voice: Victory!
Of course, the Iraqi parliament has been on vacation for all of August, almost half of the time since the White House's last benchmark status update. Needless to say, no law relaxing the purge of overwhelmingly Sunni ex-Baath Party officials has been passed. Just last week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office bluntly assessed the de-Baathification benchmark as "not met" in its report. So what gives?
What gives is the White House has seized on an agreement between the different factions of the Iraqi government in August to relax the de-Baathification program as evidence of progress. Now, the salient fact here is that the government of Nouri al-Maliki doesn't contain any Sunnis. One influential Sunni official, Tariq al-Hashemi, signed onto the agreement. But that was largely out of politesse. Not only did his Sunni political bloc not rejoin the government, but one of his deputies dismissed the agreement as "an irrelevant media production."
And that's exactly why it's good enough for President Bush. The report expects the American people to believe that yet another in an endless litany of promises is a sign of the inevitable march of sectarian healing. "The fact that legislation has not yet passed the [parliament] should not diminish the significance of the agreement," the report hectors. But the GAO included the agreement in its assessment, which is far more realistic: "No consensus exists on reforming the current de-Ba'athification policy, and many Iraqis are concerned about the prospect of former Ba'athists returning to power."
And there lies the new way forward for the Iraq war: to paraphrase Senator George Aiken of Vermont, declare victory and stay in forever.
Comments (22)
Jesus wrote on September 14, 2007 9:43 AM:The Bush admin is comprised of a gang of seriously sick sociopaths.
jjhunsecker wrote on September 14, 2007 9:57 AM:Is anyone surprised? I'm recommending a most enlightening article in the October issue of Harper's. It's by Garret Keizer. It calls for a general strike on election day, this November. Time to take back what is ours. These games of white-collar office politics involve the shedding of real blood.
No wonder Bush doesn't want us to talk to the French. We might get a taste for some May Events, n'est-ce pas?
vox clamantis in red state wrote on September 14, 2007 10:03 AM:Time for revolution.
Pearl wrote on September 14, 2007 10:12 AM:A general strike? Great idea. I've been howling for one since 2004. I'll be happy to participate -- since Nov. 6 falls right before I board the plane taking me out of this country.
JimBob wrote on September 14, 2007 10:12 AM:"Revolution" is a little strong. But making enough noise that no one -- maybe not even Bush -- can pretend this farce is going down with the voters, even a general strike (good idea).
Mike Mid City wrote on September 14, 2007 10:29 AM:Bush's credibility makes LBJ look like another George, Washington.
Nothing that comes out of this administration is on the (code word) square.
alex wrote on September 14, 2007 10:29 AM:A general strike? Are you insane, or do you want Rudy for President? The way to meaningful change is through responsible political activism. The last time we had anything credible going in the streets was 1968 -- and look who got elected President.
Is that what you want?
Then calm down, and get to work, please.
Diane wrote on September 14, 2007 10:41 AM:I will support a general strike. Alex, go read the article. Of course we'll vote for a Democrat. But we have over a year of George W. Bush and a lot can happen in that time that is even worse than what we've seen. I am on for a general strike and everyone who supports it should get on every blog. NOVEMBER 6 - General Strike!
T-Town Steve wrote on September 14, 2007 10:47 AM:Those who argue Bush has no Iraq strategy are wrong. The Bush strategy is clear: Keep the war going for 16 more months, then drop the Iraq turd in the lap of the next president. Oh, and one more thing - take no responsibility for the consequences.
jvill wrote on September 14, 2007 11:21 AM:Alex, the '60s aren't really a parallel example. A big part of the reason there was a backlash against the protesters was because of the cultural revolution that was also taking place. There is no such revolution, no "dirty hippies" this time. There is no backlash against the troops.
This war is deeply unpopular within the general populace and everyone blames the Republicans and this president.
I'd support a general strike.
madashell wrote on September 14, 2007 11:23 AM:I think we should have a general strike on Nov.6...2007. then everyone should hit the ground running to make sure we do not perpetuate the Bush war any further than January 21st 2009. Bush wants his war to continue so he can claim his lies to be truth. The land which is now called Iraq has been at war for four centuries. Bush enflamed the conflict and our presence make the flames hotter. We must get out. Let's put out concentration back on Bin Laden.
Clay wrote on September 14, 2007 11:27 AM:T-Town, you are right about the strategy. But just like all of the other strategies Bush has come up with, it is doomed to fail. He will go down in history as a villain and it will be remembered that he kept us in Iraq for years at the cost of many lives, injuries, and hunreds of billions of dollars as an act of supreme ego.
If the GOP goes along with this strategy, then they are planning their own political funerals, which will take place in fall, 2008.
Unless, of course, Hillary gets nominated. Then, she'll leave troops there forever to keep Israel and the big corporations happy as she shuffles back toward the right (campaign from the left, then after the nomination, become another Rudy).
notKeith wrote on September 14, 2007 12:12 PM:It's an agonizing prospect, putting up with Dubya for another 16 months. And the very real possibility that the Iraq "turd" will expand into Iran. My only comfort in all this is that there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, irrespective of whether or not BushCo recognizes the World Court. Frankly, I doubt Dubya could find the Netherlands, much less The Hague, on a world map.
dfong63 wrote on September 14, 2007 12:23 PM:No matter; when he goes there, it won't be by his own volition.
Bush is just begging to be impeached.
djcrow22 wrote on September 14, 2007 12:49 PM:Everyone is overlooking the ONLY reason Bush/Cheney/Exxon-Mobil et al invaded and slaughtered a million human beings. Is there a reason no one ever mentions the oil? Why was the Oil Ministry Building the only one surrounded by US troops and tanks during the initial invasion? Four military superbases built and ten more under construction. The only mention in the mainstream press as well as the so called progressive media as well are references to the "oil sharing revenues" as benchmarks that have not been met. If you were an Iraqi and a foreign military superpower has invaded your country under blatantly false pretenses, destroyed your country, murdered innocent civilians and demanded you sign and approve a binding contract that gives eighty percent of your only natural resource away to a greedy,gluttonous and vicious imperial power, what would you do? Exactly, you would stall, go on vacation and do as little as possible. Good for you! Why do you think the anti-Maliki and pro-Allawi power play is happening now? When are we going to call this pig what it is and has always been. The very existence of this failing experiment called America depends solely on the constant flow of oil to sustain our economy, our car culture and our incredibly selfish and wasteful way of life. Democrats have failed miserably because they know pullout from Iraq without the oil equals failure and waste of all the humanity that has been crushed under the wheels of the military industrial complex. The democrats have done NOTHING! Has anyone ever seen any figures that accurately show the levels of petroleum consumption by the military over the past 5 years in Iraq? The fuel consumption of the US military would stagger the mind. Oil is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The stalling tactics(we need more time,progress is being made ect)) are part of a concerted effort to NEVER leave Iraq. Every one of the dead in Iraq has died to obtain and control the oil. The US will not leave Iraq without it. Wake up. The invasion has always been about the oil and the illegal,immoral imperial invasion and occupation will continue for many years to come. By the way, the invasion and attack on Iran will not only pacify the warmongering Israeli faction of the US Government but will secure another large oil reserve for this country and give the corporate oil/military industrial complex superior footing against OPEC. Talk about having the biggest stick. So go on blabbing about troop withdrawal, troop surges, meeting benchmarks and every other so called issue designed to misdirect and distract from the fact that this country deliberately shifted military forces away from Bin Laden to invade a sovereign Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11, slaughter whoever stood in the way to pacify, control, steal and extract for the corporate oil corporations the lifeblood of the American way of life. OK, no more run on sentences. Peace to all(another pipe dream...)
Anonymous wrote on September 14, 2007 1:12 PM:Amen to everything you've said, djcrow22. This is all about "protecting" the "non-negotiable" American way of life: corporate rule backed by cheap hydrocarbons and force. The cost is too high, Boehner be damned, and our money and energy would be better spent preparing for the necessary changes in our energy consumption habits. But I suspect we'll just be driven off the cliff by our "leaders."
YoloMike wrote on September 14, 2007 1:13 PM:Amen to everything you've said, djcrow22. This is all about "protecting" the "non-negotiable" American way of life: corporate rule backed by cheap hydrocarbons and force. The cost is too high, Boehner be damned, and our money and energy would be better spent preparing for the necessary changes in our energy consumption habits. But I suspect we'll just be driven off the cliff by our "leaders."
YoloMike wrote on September 14, 2007 1:13 PM:Amen to everything you've said, djcrow22. This is all about "protecting" the "non-negotiable" American way of life: corporate rule backed by cheap hydrocarbons and force. The cost is too high, Boehner be damned, and our money and energy would be better spent preparing for the necessary changes in our energy consumption habits. But I suspect we'll just be driven off the cliff by our "leaders."
Dobie wrote on September 14, 2007 2:35 PM:Posted in Dkos open thread yesterday:
Specific Suggestion: A general strike
Recommended by:Think People THINK
In the October issue of Harper's Magazine (www.harpers.org, not bazaar), Garret Keizer writes this months "Notebook" column - "Specific Suggestion: General Strike".
Their website's not yet updated with this current issue, so I can't cut/paste the sweet spots. It runs about ten columns over three pages. Suffice to say, he lays out a literate seven point treatise on the merits of a General Strike.
I've picked some highlights:
1. Of all the various depredations of the Bush regime, none has been so thorough as its plundering of hope. Iraq will recover sooner.
2. Are we willing to wait until the next presidential election, or for some interim congressional conversion experience, knowing that if we do wait, hundreds of our sons and daughters will be needlessly destroyed?
3. It is one thing to endure abuses and to carry on in spite of them. It is quite another thing to carry on to the point of abetting the abuse. We need to move the discussion of our nations health to the emergency room. We need to tell the doctors of the body politic that the treatment isn't working - and that until it changes radically for the better, neither are we.
4. No one person, least of all a freelance writer, has the prerogative to call or set the date for a general strike. Still, what day more fitting for a strike than the first Tuesday of November, the Feast of the Hanging Chad?
5. But, how would it work? A curious question to ask given that not working is most of what it would entail. Not working until the president and the shadow president resigned or were impeached. Never mind what happens next. Rather, let our mandarins ask how this came to happen in the first place. Let them ask in shock and awe.
6. But, we don't have to do it, you say, because "we have a process." Dick Cheney showed his superlative talent for le mot juste when in the halls of the U.S. Congress he told VT Senator Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself. He has since told congressional investigators to do the same thing. There's your process.
7. Already I can hear the nauseating gush: "Such a welcome relief after Bush!" Relief, yes. But relief is not hope. How much better if we could say to our next administration: Don't talk about Bush. We dealt with Bush. We dealt with Bush and in so doing we demonstrated our ability to deal with you.
I'm sorry to say I don't know much about strikes. I should. My dad was union; he was a GE lifer back when they owned Berkshire County in Western Massachusetts. During the late 50s and early 60s, he walked the picket lines in whatever weather Mother Nature threw their way. He was upset with me because my best friends parents were "scabs" - they didn't try to break the lines to work, but they didn't pay their union dues either, and reaped the benefit of every consession my dad and his union won. When he wasn't on the line, my dad shoveled snow off the train tracks to supplement whatever strike benefit the unuion may have provided. During the May Student Strikes of 1970, I was getting ready to (finally) graduate from high school. My school was no hotbed of reaction, and I was barely paying attention, but our local community college was full-tilt strike. That's where I went the following year, after the strikes had passed. It was a seminal event of my generation, and I was on the side-lines.
Given another chance, I wouldn't be.
by dobie on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 01:41:13 PM PDT
[ Reply to This ]
I am Spartacus wrote on September 18, 2007 1:54 AM:djcrow22 wrote on September 14, 2007 12:49 PM:
Everyone is overlooking the ONLY reason Bush/Cheney/Exxon-Mobil et al invaded and slaughtered a million human beings. Is there a reason no one ever mentions the oil?
Alan Greenspan to the rescue!!!!
discodon wrote on October 13, 2007 1:19 PM:Some of you say you will support a general strike. Most of you write about the pros and cons of such an (in)action. I wonder (and this is an honest question on which I'd love to hear feedback) How many of you will not go to work, will not continue to abett the corporatist policies paid for with our tax dollars and spending habits that seem fiendish to a "They Live" (John Carpenter film) degree?
I will not be reporting to work election day (or Black Friday [there is some debate about which day would be the more appropriate to strike on]) and not one day thereafter after until I can rest assured that I am not contributing in such a way to the demise of a people. Of course, there is always going to be some "evil" associated with every action in whcih I partake. I do not expect the world to turn Jain, but I do deem myself responsible for the logical outcomes of my actions. What will result may be better, whatever that entails; it may be worse. However, if I stay the course, as it were, then I have no right to expect a different world to emerge.
Mason wrote on November 2, 2007 1:17 PM:This strike,as Keizer mentions, is a message for the leading Democrats as well.
"Don’t talk about Bush. We dealt with Bush. We dealt with Bush and in so doing we demonstrated our ability to deal with you. You have a mandate more rigorous than looking good beside Bush. You need a program more ambitious than “uniting the country.” We are united—at least we were, if only for a while, if only in our disgust."
Hopefully, this will encourage Obabma and especially Clinton to return to their roots. As individuals in this terribly powerful nation, we can not afford to let an opportunity like this pass. This is not a choice between striking and experimenting with not being a consumer. This is one 24 hour cycle of total protest.
Other people in this world have done and do as much, endangering and sometimes sacrificing their lives. This is merely a gesture of absolutely no confidence, easy to do! No production! No consumption!
I am turning the main breaker off in the cellar the evening before the strike (if you want to do the same, but worry about the fridge, just leave the kitchen breaker on). The power doesn't go on until i wake up the day after.
No Television or internet or digital clocks. The car stays parked. Family and friends can visit and stay together. Keep each other warm! Be glad! This should be a celebration!
-mason