Still Fighting

Activism

Tell the Government to Stop Hiring the Bad Guys. Not all government contractors are evil. Many simply bid for contracts, get them awarded, and do their jobs. It's the Halliburtons of the world that give a bad name to government contractors. So, why does the government continue to give them contracts, especially no-bid contracts? We're over the fact that these evil contractors are using their positions of influence to do shoddy work and make money off of the taxpayers, and it's time to put this practice to an end. Go to the link above and sign the Project on Government Oversight's petition to stop giving contracts to the "bad guys." Your voice will make a difference!

News

'Holiday' Cards Ring Hollow for Some on Bushes' List. It's not often that we agree with the White House, but in this case, we must give credit where credit is due. The White House sent out this year's holiday cards (to 1.4 million or so "close friends"). Don't worry - it's paid for by the RNC. The cards wish people a happy "holiday season," and if you can't see where this is going, where have you been? Yes, you guessed it. Religious extremists are royally upset that "Christmas" has been taken out of the White House's holiday cards. Can you hear that, folks? It's the persecution train - all right-wing zealots, hop aboard! In a statement, the White House indicated that the Bushs' cards "in recent years have included best wishes for a holiday season, rather than Christmas wishes, because they are sent to people of all faiths." Never mind the hypocrisy of these extremists; they claim to be persecuted, but by demanding that the White House send out Christmas cards, they are supporting the discarding of all other religions. Hey, extremists, we'll make a deal with you: You can have your Christmas cards between now and 2008, but then we elect a Jewish president. Hope you like Hanukkah: you can expect those first "Hava Nagila" cards to be delivered sometime around November, 2009.

Iraq VP Disputes Bush on Training of Forces. It comes down to who you believe. If you believe Bush, who has a tremendous track record for telling the truth, then the Iraqi forces are being trained quite well. However, if you believe Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer, troops are not being trained, and "the army and other forces are being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains." Who's got more credibility? The man who won't come off of vacation for a national disaster, or the man who is actual IN Iraq, and can see what's happening?

Lieberman Calls For Formation Of 'War Cabinet'. We are officially prepared to throw the towel in on Joe Lieberman. It's hard for us to say, because he is a Democratic Senator, but it's time to face the fact that Lieberman no longer has the party's interests at heart. On Tuesday, Lieberman called for Bush to create a "War Cabinet," to provide advice and direction on the war effort. Perhaps the Senator is unfamiliar with the Secretaries of Defense and State, whose combined responsibilities include "advice and direction on the war effort." Not that we have a whole lot of faith in Rummy and Condi in the first place, but we certainly wouldn't have faith in a new, redundant "cabinet." It's sad to say, but Lieberman's time in the Senate seems to have passed. And with Lieberman possibly being challenged next year by Lowell Weicker, who would run as an Independent, that time could end rather quickly.

Editorials

The Next Iraq Offensive. General Wesley Clark has an op-ed piece in the New York Times, where he discusses what needs to happen next in Iraq. Clark is not a "Hill Man;" he is a retired, four-star general and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. He also led forces into Kosovo, under Clinton, where not a single American soldier died. Clark knows a little something about the world stage, having been out and in it for 38 years plus. So when Clark says that we need to stay in Iraq, but that the course needs to change radically, we believe him. In addition to the things we need to do militarily, such as guard the borders and train the Iraqi troops, Clark notes that we also must extend the hand of diplomacy to the insurgents. Unfortunately, right now, this administration knows as much about Muslim culture as they do about telling the truth, and it shows. American muscle should only, and always, be used as a last resort, and not to settle petty grudges. Clark realizes this. We realize this. Why doesn't the administration realize this?

It's Not Whether You 'Win' or 'Lose'... Ever seen the movie "A Fish Called Wanda" ? Well, if you haven't, you should. In it, Kevin Kline plays borderline-psychotic thief "Otto", who fancies himself a warrior and a patriot. He can't stand the British, and when America's superiority is challenged by mentioning Vietnam, he replies "We did not lose in Vietnam! It was a tie!" Definitely a classic line, but it's amazing how that caricature has nicely captured the mentality of some of our war hawks. On the heels of Howard Dean's comment that "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong.", Applebaum's column is becoming increasingly relevant. Bush has never defined what victory means; he's just blithely asserted that it's inevitable. But Dean and Applebaum are right - a war is not a binary operation, where at the end, you either win or lose. Some of your goals are accomplished (getting rid of Saddam), and some aren't (bringing stability to Iraq). At this point, it is very unlikely we'll win. Maybe we should start thinking differently. It would, however, require elevating our political discourse just a little, so let's not hold our breath.

Blogger Commentary

The Economic Picture. We touched on the state of the economy yesterday, in quoting this Paul Krugman article. But Kevin Drum nicely sums up the "economic picture" in just a few short sentences. Productivity is up, but the real hourly compensation is down. What does this mean? Basically, we're working harder, and making more money...but for whom? If it's not going to the people doing the work (in the form of compensation), then where's it going? Hop on over to the link for the answer. Krugman was reluctant to blame Bush very much for the current state of the economy, but certainly the Republican Party isn't doing a whole lot to try and turn things around. Why should they? After all, it benefits them directly.

Opinion-making and Accountability. As long as we're quoting from Kevin Drum, why not quote from someone else who analyzes Kevin Drum? Greg Sargent takes a look at Drum's assertion that liberals should get over the fact that some liberals supported the war, and aren't going to apologize for that fact. He thinks it's unreasonable to expect us to "force tearful confessions of doctrinal error out of them", and we can see his point. But Sargent wants to take a look at the phrase "doctrinal error". He asserts that "The decision to support or oppose the Iraq war wasn't about doctrine. It was about judgment," and make a whole lot of sense in doing so. Sure, there were ideologues who led us to war, following their absurd doctrine of "spreading democracy" or "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" or even "lie us into war so all my defense contracting buddies get rich and Bush gets re-elected". However, the majority of the public isn't made of ideologues. Our elected officials, the pundits, and the people who voted for those officials exhibited poor judgment. Our leaders didn't do their jobs. The media didn't do their jobs. The pundits didn't do their jobs. "If we look at those who are now mea-culpa-ing about the war and see their decision retrospectively as having been driven by doctrine or ideology, not judgment, it absolves them of professional failure." He follows up with a fantastic point that not enough people are asking: "Because if they don't think they should be held accountable for past judgments, why should anyone turn to them for future ones?" Good question, Greg.