So Much Nonsense, So Little Time

The ongoing right wing & bush administration psychosis was running rampant this week. What to talk about?

The folks who wanted Clinton lynched for Monica-related sins begging the white house to pardon Scooter? The Justice Department finally noting that the FBI has been having its way with us through various patriot act laws? Bush's assertion that people have to be paid to protest against him & his policies?

No, I think I'll talk about the recent ruling here in DC that our no handguns in the home law is somehow unconstitutional. You know all of those people who spend weeks running around and shreaking on FOX newsless about activist judges? I've stood for a while with a hand to my ear, waiting and listening for their outrage. But all I hear is silence. Because apparently if the judge's rulings go your way, they're not activist judges. As a longtime DC resident, I'm used to being a Congressional plaything. We're the place Congress goes to make a point, making laws that rule how we live in DC to show off for the folks back home.

But this wasn't the usual Congressional rape of DC. This was a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It's a ruling that seems primed to head to the Supremes, which would mean the rest of the country would soon be paying attention. But for now, I can rest comfortably in my apartment, knowing that it's ok for the guy next door to have a gun. It's ok for us all to have guns. But we'll be ok, because as we all know, guns don't kill people, lunatic people with drinking and behaviorial problems kill lots of people when they have easy access to something more deadly than a stick or a knife.

Victory is Not an Option

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William E. Odom's front page in today's WaPo Outlook section, "Victory is Not an Option," shares some realitites about Iraq that Gen. Odom believes Congress is ignoring:

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained.

2) We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991.

3) We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become.

4) We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?

Follow the link to this article to read it in full. If only the Bush/Cheney war machine would.

Why the Bushies Are Glad They Lost in November

No, really. Sure the American public kicked them in the teeth. And sure, the Republicans and Bush administration have finally convinced a majority of Americans that they can't be trusted with handling policy matters above city dog catcher.

So you would think that the Bushies really mean it when they look sad about November's election and the loss of the House and Senate to the Democrats. But as Fareed Zakaria points out in his last Newsweek column, having Democrats in Congressional control is something they can use in Iraq. How you ask? Easy. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has been content to sit back and watch the US flail around while pushing a pro-Shiite agenda. And why not? Bush isn't about to pull the troops out of Iraq or change policy, Maliki has no reason not to keep going the way he has been.

From Zakaria's column,
"The Maliki government, and the Shiite leadership more generally, understand that they must crack down on militias and compromise with the Sunnis. Why? In the words of one senior U.S. official—under instructions to stay anonymous—because Shiite political leaders understand they no longer have 'unquestioning American support anymore, especially from Capitol Hill.' This suggests that the administration finally understands that Bush's blank-check policy for the Iraqi government has proved totally counterproductive. The one action that might be forcing the Iraqi leadership to make some compromises has been the threat that Congress would force a withdrawal of American support. One month ago, the White House was criticizing Congress as being borderline treasonous for suggesting such a thing. Today its strategy in Iraq rests on the fruits of that assertiveness."

Yup, those traitorous folk are apparently the ones who the Bush administration may be relying on to pull their balls out of the fire. I wonder when we get our thank you notes?