Light one candle for hope

I woke up at 2 am this morning and couldn't get back to sleep until after 4. I've read that some are calling this anxiety PEAD, or Pre-Election Anxiety Disorder. I can tell you that alcohol doesn't really help the condition long term. Maybe meditation might, or a good workout, or good Belgian chocolate in abundant quantities.

But what I am proposing is that Monday night, all of us who are in favor of regime change, light a candle against the darkness. And that we place these candles in our windows as signals to our neighbors that we will not allow the forces of darkness to overwhelm us. And that we will battle our enemies, both outside and within the US, until justice triumphs and freedom is ours once again.

Moe

p.s. Of course, make sure not to put your candle next to anything flammable such as draperies or left over Halloween candy. ;>)

The Washington gubernatorial race tightens up

According to the NYT, linked above in the title, the race for Washington state governor has pulled to a virtual tie. They may be right, but I do think that Gregoire, the Democratic candidate known as COG, will probably eventually win as a result of Kerry's coattails. However, I don't think that the Times got the real reason for Dino Rossi's surprising showing in the state polls. The answer is actually: personality. In his ads and with voters, Dino comes across as a warm likeable fellow. Truly someone you could sit down and have dinner with, if not a beer. In contrast, COG is an ice queen. Any reference to family, or attempt to show emotion comes across in a very forced manner. She seems she would be much more comfortable cracking the whip, or screaming at flagging subordinates, as in fact has been the case, witness the Janet Capps fiasco as the tip of CoG's management temperament iceberg. Surprisingly, voters seem to get that and recoil from her presentation.

COG may have the better policies to provide the state, but she has forgotten that what Mary Poppins sang about was true: a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. Dino seemingly has that ability.

Bush's missing TANG time 'splained for us

It appears that the pResident's volunteer work at a Houston project for the disadvantaged in 1973, adroitly acronymed PULL, was: a) not volunteer; and b) not management experience. It also occurred during the time that the pResident was supposed to be reporting for his National Guard service in Alabama. Which he did not do. Now what would be so overwhelmingly important that the pResident would risk being found AWOL and sent to Vietnam? Hmm....could it have been a cocaine charge that was only going to be wiped out if said 'volunteer' service were performed?

If I were a betting man......

Sexual Politics

When was it that the door was opened and the sexual pecadillos and orientations of our elected officials became a subject of public discourse? Certainly after LBJ and JFK had exited stage left. To my mind, the first ghost of it came with the interview of Jimmy Carter where he confessed that he had 'lust in his heart' for women other than his wife, Roslyn. Or maybe it showed up with Congressman Wilbur Mills who danced in the fountain with Fanne Fox, the young woman of questionable virtue. Such is the value of age, that these foibles fade from mind, though they were sharply incised once.

Then at some point the focus veered from hetero to homosexual philanderings. I remember when Bob Bauman, the very conservative congressman from Maryland was outed in 1981 for his taste in young boys. The jokes around D.C. were fast and furious: "born in Maryland but reared in D.C." was one of them. Eventually Barney Frank and others gave a sober face to gay politicians but the whinge factor is still there. As witnessed by the cringing when John Kerry uttered the "L" word in his third and last debate with President Bush, referring to Mary Cheney and her sexual orientation. What it seems to come down to is that the Republicans, though they refuse to say it, think that being gay or lesbian is a choice, like whether you have gas or oil heat in your house. The Democrats, by and large, believe that it is an innate preference, akin to being lefthanded or having brown eyes.

I have a brother who is gay. Back when we were closer than we are now, he asked me, "Do you think that, knowing all the trouble that this would cause me in life, I actually chose this oritentation?" I believed him. But my mother as late as 4 years ago still said daily rosaries for him to 'come to his senses,' and my sister gave him a pamphlet that indicated with enough prayer he could lead a happy hetero life. Obviously, they saw his homosexuality as a choice.

I think they fear that if it isn't a choice, there is no accountability, no responsibility for his actions. He is free to do as he pleases. Kind of like when W found 'god'--it absolved him from his responsibility for his 20 year drug and drinking binge and obtaining an abortion for his girlfriend. What they forget is that one always has accountability for one's actions regardless of sexual orientation. And if this sexual orientation 'thingy' as GHWB used to say is a matter of choice, then all it takes is an act of will for gays to come back to the fold. That is why Republicans can support a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Because if they admitted that being gay is not a matter of choice, then they would have to admit that they are imposing second class citizenship on a group of US citizens that is simply akin to that done to African Americans in the Dred Scott decision. This is the real place for Dred Scott, not the abortion debates. But then that makes the Republicans no better than Justice Taney, which should be an anathema. Thus, they continue to perpetrate their illusions.


But in the end and at the core, this is all about sex, and American society has at least since Victorian times been schizophrenic when it comes to sex. Always a sunny, androgynous, face to present to the world, with the darker implications of one's sexuality left in dank, dark basements of our minds and sometimes even literally in our lives. Until we as a society can address this conflict that lies at the foundation of our weltanschaung, we will never be able to free ourselves from the chains that such an approach creates.

Lets start to clean out our basements and actually bring out sexuality in to the open for a good, thorough examination. Ironically, if we can do this, things might get healthier in our lives and in that of the body politic.

Want to make a difference?

Sinclair Broadcast Group has announced plans to air "Stolen Honor" a nasty smear job on John Kerry, in a thinly disguised attempt to win the election for W. Fight back. Attached is a list of those companies who advertise on Sinclair tv stations. Use the list to identify companies you have patronized then write to them and tell them that if they don't get off their butts and either yank their ads or pressure Sinclair to drop the hatchet job, you will take your bidness elsewhere.

And mean it. Vote with your wallet as well as your ballot. The link is in the title of this note. And btw, thanks. Every little bit helps.

What a difference two years makes

Bush gave the following speech:


For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002


President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:31 P.M. EDT

Purple Hearts

Very, very powerful. Worth recommending to all your friends

The view from the USAF jet in Iraq

Not for the fainthearted:


http://tinyurl.com/6a3mj

Walk that way

Over the past few months I've read the opinion of a number of commentators that one of the Shrub traits that they find offensive all by itself is Bush's swagger. Now, I have never seen Bush walk on television, mainly because I tend to turn it off when he comes on. Extends the life of the television set.

But buried in a long kos thread a few days ago, a poster by the name of DCdrone or DCinsider (something that gives the impression of a well-placed federal govt worker in the Capital),said that the inside the beltway rumor was that Bush has genital herpes and when it flares up, he tends to 'walk that way.' Now I am sure a thorough physical would either confirm or disprove this rumor, but guess what? Bush is not going to take his 2004 physical. How convenient. How history repeats itself.

moe, feeling malicious today


edit: Like any good lawyer, I feel more comfortable when I have the citations to back up my statements. Here is the info on Bush shrugging off his 2004 physical.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=afp/us_vote_bush_health

Exhibit A in why the Dems need to get rid of Tom Daschle

Today Porter Goss, who was recntly confirmed as the uber head of the CIA, named 4 partisan politicos to positions of power and influence directly reporting to him in his new agency. Where the bipartisanship he claimed during his confirmation hearings? Geezum Peezum. We are left like Charlie Brown on the ground after Lucy has pulled back the football for the umpteenth time. And why exactly is that? Well, because Tom Daschle, the Minority Leader of the Dems is running for re-election in a tight race that has completely emasculated him. And frankly, given his locale, his seat will always be iffy. Undoubtedly he is constantly looking over his shoulder, thinking of the fate of House Speaker Tom Foley, whose Eastern Washington constituency is very similar to that of South Dakota.

The Democrats have to shake off their current system of governance and instead select a leader who can, well, to be frank, lead. Right now we've got Chester Milquetoast and his minions giving it all away to the Pubbies. This is ludicrous. Even if the Senate some how magically becomes Democratic after Nov. 3, Daschle will still be a frikkin wimp. He has to go. Sentiment has no place in the equation. We need someone who will force discipline on the rank and file (bet the Senators love to be called rank and file). Get the g*dd*mned whips out!!

AARGH.

moe, w/ patch on eye


Update 10/04/04

Well, Porter Goss seems to be on his way to setting a certain 'tone' at his uber agency per Tapped:

October 04, 2004
OH, PORTER. I misspoke last week when I strongly implied that Porter Goss just might reinforce the notion that he's a partisan hack by installing four partisan hacks in senior positions at the CIA. I want to apologize to Michael V. Kostiw, whom Goss has named to the number-three position in the agency, for implying that he’s a partisan hack. What I meant to call Kostiw was a petty thief:
Michael V. Kostiw, chosen by CIA Director Porter J. Goss to be the agency's new executive director, resigned under pressure from the CIA more than 20 years ago, according to past and current agency officials.
While Kostiw, a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, longtime lobbyist for ChevronTexaco Corp. and more recently staff director of the terrorism subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has been through the CIA security vetting procedure, final clearance to take the job has not been completed pending review of the allegations. The job is the third-ranking post at the CIA.

In late 1981, after he had been a case officer for 10 years, Kostiw was caught shoplifting in Langley, sources said. During a subsequent CIA polygraph test, Kostiw's responses to questions about the incident led agency officials to place him on administrative leave for several weeks, according to four sources who were familiar with the past events but who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information.

Goss sure is showing spectacular, confidence-inspiring judgment in these early decisions. Just wait until he gets to make the really momentous decisions pertaining to the whole-scale restructuring of America’s intelligence community.
--Sam Rosenfeld

Final Debate I comments

This goes to some of the substantive misrepresentations made by Bush during the debate, that Kerry did not pick up on in rejoinder. I know how hard it is to keep track of all the spinning balls when you are in a debate situation, so I think it imperative that others point these critical lapses by our Commander in Thief, often and loudly:


I.
BUSH: And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan.
Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic. They're given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.
[Moe: Current population of Iraq is 9.5 million including children who obviously cannot vote]

II.
BUSH: That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.
[Moe: pre-September 10th? What happened on that date?]

III.
KERRY: The president -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected.
Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X- rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed.
Does that make you feel safer in America?
This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first.
BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap.
[Moe: remind me how we got into this huge tax gap situation to begin with]

IV.
BUSH: Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job.
BUSH: And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year
[Moe: Actually, we have less than 10,000 Iraqis fully trained to do the job at the present time]

more debate comments pt 2

Here are a couple more misspeaks from the Leader in Thief from last night's debate:

1. Dont' forget Poland? WTF? Poland has called Bush on the lack of WMDs as being a fraud perpetrated to get us into this war. And their troops (such as they are) will be gone from Iraq at the end of the year. So, tell me why it is so important to remember Poland when counting up our allies on the ground w/ us in Iraq?

2. vociferously when the word choice should have been viciously. Hmmm.....

3. "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein, uh, Osama bin Laden."

4. the grimaces, the lipsmackings, the eyerollings, the muggings. I guess Shrub thought split shots would not be allowed. Silly him. He behaved worse than Al Gore w/ his sighs in 2000. But of course, he will not get called for it. Geo. Bush was always the kid who sat in the back of class throwing spit wads and smiling beatifically while denying it to the teacher.

more debate comments

Geo W is famous for his wordsmithing. Hence the title of this blog. Last night, he made a couple that are worth mentioning because it shows something about the way his mind works. And in fact I would argue that deep down, his subconscious is warring with his conscious mind over all the lies and deceit he's engaged in over the years, and it's showing up in his speech. Not that his history of drinking and drug use would have anything to do with it either, but there you go.

The first one, is one that I cannot find in the transcripts and I think it's because someone's spell checker corrected it, but at some point Bush misspoke and said "mexed missages." Now when he mixes the words trying to convey that his opponent sends out mixed messages, somehow I think he's unconsciously saying that this is in fact a lie.

The other one is more fun, simply because this phrase came up over Labor Day weekend in a speech where he was talking about medical malpractice and how OB-Gyns could not find insurance (which is a debatable point in and of itself). At any rate here is the quote:

BUSH: You know, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest -- the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband or wife.
You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Bryan, they came to see me. Her husband PJ got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.
You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040907/od_nm/odd_bush_dc

Nice work George. Hope Missy wasn't wearing a blue dress.

Change is good

I changed the title of my blog this ayem. Decided that the Moe's misadventures was not as descriptive as Moe's misunderestimations. And as I generally post about political subjects, and enjoy alliteration, and detest the current occupant of the White House (OWH) who coined the word, it seemed appropriate. I await the verdict of my loyal readership. All 2 of you.

Moe

Putting his girls on leashes?

I only heard part of the debate last night as I was attending one child's tennis match and taking the other to a dr's appointment, so most of my knowledge comes from reading the transcript.

But count me amazed at the following exchange:

KERRY: You begin to get a sense of what [having your father be president] means to your families. And it's tough. And so I acknowledge that his daughters -- I've watched them. I've chuckled a few times at some of their comments.
(LAUGHTER)
And...
BUSH: I'm trying to put a leash on them.
KERRY: Well, I know. I've learned not to do that.




As a parent and as a dog owner, I find that appalling. Without going into the weird Abu Ghraib associations it brings up (I understand Andrew Sullivan who I generally detest has already done so), there are a couple of points that need to be made.

1) Mr. Bush, your daughters are adults now. They get to do whatever they want to do and all you get to do is grin and bear it. They did not choose to have a father in the public eye, that was your decision.

2) If you want them to behave better, perhaps you should have set a better example for them when they were young. Most kids' behavior is modeled on their parents' behavior, either mimicking or rebelling against. I won't speculate as to which camp Jenna and Bar's party hearty behavior has its roots in.

3) Leashes are only for dogs and only in leash only areas.

I fear for your family dog. I hope that you didn't go home and kick it last night.

moe, just returned from taking Scooter the wonder weiner dog out to barf in the backyard.

email from Iraq

Steve Gilliard posted the following email from a medical professional stationed in Iraq. I think it should be required reading. Unfortunately, with all the MASH reruns, we have forgotten the horror that attends this sort of grueling but necessary work:

This is an e-mail a reader sent me. It's from a friend of his in Iraq

The daily news reports are somewhat antiseptic and it's easy to lose track of the meaning of the words. Those in our positions should not.This is a note I received this morning from a colleague working in Iraq. This is what it's like. Today. Last week. I've taken the ID off of it, but it's a trustworthy source from my immediate sphere of friends and I know him well.

GSW is gunshot wound. EPW is Enemy Prisoner of War. IED is Improvised Explosive Device (a roadside bomb). KIA is Killed in Action.

Subject: Casualty reportHello,How is everyone at [Deleted]? I suspect things are all still going well and the clinic continues to run smoothly. Apart from a sighting of the bat in the bat cave, things in general are about the same out here. The bat was a trip, as it flew around in circles in the hooch like, well, a bat out of hell I guess. The casualties picked up some this week which was too bad, and we had one day in particular which was a bad one. Otherwise life out here has developed a routine, and it seems as though the time is starting to go by faster. The team itself is getting better and more efficient with each resuscitation, and we all seem to work well with each other for the most part. Our surgeon, although for the most part a really good guy, can get a little uppity sometimes if things don't go exactly how he says they should (he seems to think the only person in the room with any clinical judgement is him), but even that isn't really a big deal. It's just a bit of an adjustment stepping out of the role of being in charge and being the boy again. I'm good at being the boy and can do what I'm told as well as anybody else, but it has been a bit of an adjustment.

Anyway, I thought I'd drop you a line to let you know we've seen over the last couple of weeks or so.I'm not sure if I told you about the family who came in I think a little over a week ago (time out here is a weird thing and hard to keep straight). The story is a little muddled, but apparently they ran a check point. It's unclear whether they confused stop with go or if they were really running the check point, but regardless of the specifics they ran a check point and were taken under fire by a combination of M-16's and at least 1 50cal machine gun. The car was apparently a wreck and we had 5 casualties come into us. There were apparently 2 or 3 KIA at the scene, including a young child who I think was 8 (they don't bring the civilian KIA in to us thank goodness). The guy I took care of had his right foot nearly taken off by a 50cal round. It was hanging by tissue and sinew, and ultimately got amputated. Apart from now being a legless old man, he otherwise did fine. The other casualties included an old woman with a GSW to the L chest who had a large L sided hemothorax with 800cc of bloody drainage. She eventually developed respiratory distress and got intubated, but otherwise didn't have any injuries. She was transferred to Al Asad, but I have no idea what happened to her after. Another woman had a GSW to her L flank, and despite maybe having a hemotoma around her L kidney on FAST exam was otherwise hemodynamically stable and did fine while she was here. Another guy had a GSW to his L shoulder and developed a tension PTX (picked up on follow up exam as subQ air). He had a chest tube placed and his shoulder dressed and did fine while he was here. He was also sent to Al Asad. The 5th guy had a some superficial wounds but did fine.

We had a couple other Iraqi civilian/EPW casualties related to check point violations around the same time (I'm not sure if this was because the Marines have been jumpy recently, or there was some kind of insurgent offensive going on).One guy was driving a water truck and had both feet nearly completely taken off by a 50cal round. Impressive injuries which shattered the bone and left his L foot dangling, but he was amazingly neuromuscularly intact. He kept both legs, and after having on external fixater placed on his L leg he was sent to Baghdad for definitive repair. Another guy had several GSW to his chest but had amazingly had no significant injuries and didn't require any procedures. Bullets are funny things and seem to have a mind of their own sometimes.

And the last Iraqi civilian was a poor old woman who came in last night at around 0400. The Marines were apparently conducting a house to house search, and this woman didn't answer her door right away. Can't blame her really because at 0400 we didn't answer our door right away either when they came to tell us about her. She apparently did answer, but not in time, for as she was reaching to open the door the Marines blew the lock with a shotgun. It appears as though she took most of the shotgun blast to her L arm, for when she came in the L distal L humerous and proximal radius were shattered with no complete loss of structural integrity to her L arm. Although the arm was vascularly intact, she had no sensation and ended up losing the arm. I got to intubate her in the OR, but otherwise all of these stories are pretty tragic and sad, and events like these unfortunately will not go far in the campaign to win the hearts and minds of the people. It's difficult to really explain the emotions they conjure (other than sadness I'm not sure I had to many), but one question comes up over and over again when I see these types of accidents- "What the fuck are we going out here?" I guess that's not really for me to ask right now though. I don't place any blame on the Marines for this stuff. They are doing their job, and if I went out everyday with the prospect of getting killed by an IED or some other unseen enemy, I would most assuredly shoot first and ask questions later in the wake of any suspicious activity. It's a dangerous place, and one can only hope that it gets better over the next few years.

We've also unfortunately had some Marine casualties. On Monday (at least I think it was Monday), we had a slew of them. We got two guys initially with superficial shrapnel wounds sustained when their Humvee was hit by an IED. They had minor wounds and did fine.

About an hour later we got two Marines from different locations. One guy had taken a head shot by what people think may be a sniper out there. He had a GCS of 3 and was initially intubated, but after a more thorough exam was found to have a transcranial injury with a fixed and dilated L pupil and was triaged to expectant. He was given morphine for comfort care, and eventually died an hour later. The second guy ran over a mine in his Humvee. He had some facial burns and had sustained by bilateral lower extremity wounds. His R leg was twisted at impossible angles and pulseless, and had open fractures to his L foot and I think he may have and an open femur fracture. He was intubated for airway protection in light of his facial burns and had a disarticulation of his R leg at the knee, the L leg was just splinted, and he was transferred to Baghdad. Apparently they fixed his L leg somehow, and Pete is probably now taking care of him in Germany.

While that guy was in the OR we got a call about another guy who was coming in as an urgent surgical (really sick). He unfortunately had also sustained a head shot from a sniper (who knows if it was the same one or not), and he died before he got here. When we saw him, the back of his head was shattered and you could feel the bones floating around. While moving him into the body bag, his bandage slipped off his head, and I found myself looking into the young man's eyes. He had big green eyes, and appeared to be looking right through me. What he was asking me I don't know, and will probably never know. Although I had his blood all over my boots and pants and was a bit shaken as I was washing it off, he has not haunted me the way some of the others have, so I don't think he was angry with me in any way. It was a bit disturbing and capped off a shitty day.

The last 2 Marines we had come in the other day. Their tank was hit by some kind of missile, and I think these were the guys up in the turrets. One guy came in KIA with the left side of his face blown away, and his left arm missing. I didn't go see this guy (I don't know but maybe I needed a break). The other guy came is with an open fracture of his L humerous with exposed muscle and the like all up the back of his arm, and open fractures of several of his R metacarpals with avulsion of most of the skin off his R hand. He had a small L neck hematoma and some superficial facial lacks, but he had a GCS of 15, was talking to us, had bilateral breath sounds and was hemodynamically stable. Our anesthesia provider and I both thought his airway was intact, and felt that although he needed to go to the OR for debridement and the like, he was not in need of an emergent airway. I suppose because of the neck hematoma, our surgeon disagreed and started to tell us to intubate him in that pompous holier than thou kind of way all surgeons seem to have. Despite his urgings, we took the opportunity to finish our exam before placing the ET tube, to which he took further exception. The guy eventually got intubated and went to the OR for a successful debridement of his wounds and arrived in Baghdad without incident. The surgeon, however, made a big deal about us not following his instructions to the letter when he told us to, sqwauking about he was the resident expert on trauma (he is), how we were making him look bad in front of the corpsmen, and how we were hurting his feelings by questioning his clinical judgement (like we don't have any of our own).

We had a meeting about the whole thing which resulted in people deciding that because he is the resident expert we will do whatever he tells us to do. Hence my earlier comments about being the boy. I guess that's just surgeons, but the fact that he cried like a woman because he didn't get his way irked me for a few days. He's really a good guy and I've gotten over it. I'll just be the boy. I am the junior guy with the least experience in this stuff after allAnyway, that's all I have for you guys. I hope you are all well. I'll keep sending periodic updates about what is happening over here. Hopefully things will slow down some.

Where does the time go for political seers?

We are down to almost a month before the election and 2 days to the first presidential debate and the trends, if there are any, in this fevered period are less visible than Cassieopeia on a cloudy Seattle night.

It seems that Washington, the state, will go Democratic in a big way. Rossi has failed to create any momentum from his first debate with Gregoire and McKenna is a nonentity. Normally in state wide races, I could care less how the republicans do, it's just that McKenna's opponent, Deborah Senn, is such a walking disaster that it's hard not to worry about the long term ramifications should she win.

The Attorney General is the second most visible statewide office in state government and one of the keys to a successful tenure is a good relationship with the state legislature. Not only does the legislature fund the 460+ attorney office, it also must approve any legislative initiatives coming from the AG's office which seek to amend bad laws and propose new laws to meet new situations. And from my insider informant in the state house, it is clear that a Senn election would be met not just by stony silence from both sides of the aisles in Olympia, but by active sabotage efforts. When Senn was the Insurance Commissioner, she regularly tried to ride over the backs of state legislators to get what she wanted. And when that didn't work, she resorted to connivance. Many of these legislators are still in office and they not only have long memories, they have long knives as well. As I can certify, testifying before a legislative committee is not as fun as a root canal. But it is necessary if you want to get those things like pay raises that are so necessary to running the AGO. Don't expect Senn to do the hard work required. Instead I predict that should she be elected, her tenure will be marked by guerilla warfare and a trenches mentality, with Senn sending in proxies to do her job so she has someone else to blame when things go south

Hope I'm wrong.

Moe, busy reading entrails on this harvest moon night

Publius hits one out of the park

Legal Fiction

law, politics, and culture from a southern, non-Federalist Society (ex)-law clerk
Friday, September 24, 2004

PARDON MY SHRILLNESS

___________Lately I’ve been trying hard to avoid shrillness. After reading Dana Milbank’s collection of quotes today, I’m convinced that shrillness is the only proper response.Before I get to that, let’s start with the latest Glenn Reynolds/Andrew Sullivan outrage – Joe Lockhart’s disparaging comments about Allawi being a puppet. Sullivan is outraged by them – Reynolds is as well. Now, I will agree that under normal circumstances, the following comments would be irresponsible:

The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and
you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips.



But these are not normal circumstances. Allawi was brought here – forty days from the election – as part of the Bush re-election strategy, and everyone knows it. This was supposed to be a victory lap, further solidifying the themes presented at the Republican Convention – until Kerry and reality intruded. Indeed, Allawi even adopted Bush talking points about how much progress Iraq was making, and that the terrorists were "getting more desperate."

So, let’s dispense with the little charade about how this trip was beyond politics. It was entirely about politics.Second, given that Bush is so radioactive in Iraq right now, I think that trotting out Allawi in the Rose Garden does little to help his legitimacy in the eyes of American-hating Iraqis. On this point, Lockhart is right on. The more Allawi is seen as a puppet of Bush (which was pretty much confirmed this week), the less chance of success he – and thus we – have. If I'm right, then Bush is sacrificing Allawi's legitimacy for the sake of his re-election.I also want to address some of the despicable quotes listed in Milbank’s article today in which he describes the clearly coordinated attack that Kerry’s criticisms are hurting our troops and helping the enemy. Here are a few:

Bush: “You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message. You can dispirit the Iraqi people by sending mixed messages. You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages.

Cheney: John Kerry is trying to tear down all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive to our effort in Iraq and in the global war on terror.The surrogates were even more explicit. Milbank lists more. My favorite was Orrin Hatch: “[Democrats are] consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there.”I’ll tell you what undermines our troops – getting troops killed undermines troops, Mr. Hatch – not criticizing the failed policies that got them killed in the first place. Bumbling an occupation and having no plan undermines troops. And Mr. Cheney, I’ll tell you what’s destructive to our effort in the global war on terror – your invasion of Iraq, which was Osama’s wet dream. And Mr. Bush, I’ll tell you how to embolden an enemy – invade the second-holiest land of Islam for no reason and then execute the war without a shred of competence. Lying about our progress also sends the wrong message to the people who are actually fighting your terrorist-aiding war. Let’s not forget that. We know exactly who – and what policies – have emboldened our enemies and undermined our troops. And it’s not John Kerry, or his criticisms of your failure. Nice try, though.And last thing, Glenn Reynolds wins the Hermann Goering Award today.

If you’ll remember Goering’s famous line:
Gilbert [the interviewer]: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

And now, Glenn Reynolds:
This is behavior that is absolutely unacceptable coming from a Presidential campaign in wartime, and it's not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of such behavior. Joe Lockhart should apologize for these remarks, and Kerry should fire him. Otherwise you're going to hear a lot of people questioning Kerry's patriotism. And they'll be right to.I for one am sick and tired of hearing attacks on those who attack failed policies that got our troops killed, destabilized the Middle East, and have been the biggest gift ever to militant Islam. Don’t blame the messenger, buddy.

Iraq: looking through the lens of history

By Barbara Garson

Barbara Garson is the author of the 1960s antiwar play "Macbird" and, most recently, "Money Makes the World Go Round" (Penguin, 2002).

September 23, 2004

During a lull in the war between Athens and Sparta, the Athenians decided to invade and occupy Sicily. Thucydides tells us in "The Peloponnesian War" that "they were, for the most part, ignorant of the size of the island and the numbers of its inhabitants ... and they did not realize that they were taking on a war of almost the same magnitude as their war against the Peloponnesians."

According to Thucydides, the digression into Sicily in 416 BC -- a sideshow that involved lying exiles, hopeful contractors, politicized intelligence, a doctrine of preemption -- ultimately cost Athens everything, including its democracy.

Nicias, the most experienced Athenian general, had not wanted to be chosen for the command. "His view was that the city was making a mistake and, on a slight pretext which looked reasonable, was in fact aiming at conquering the whole of Sicily -- a considerable undertaking indeed," wrote Thucydides.

Nicias warned that it was the wrong war against the wrong enemy and that the Athenians were ignoring their real enemies -- the Spartans -- while creating new enemies elsewhere. "It is senseless to go against people who, even if conquered, could not be controlled," he argued.
Occupying Sicily would require many soldiers, Nicias insisted, because it meant establishing a new government among enemies. "Those who do this [must] either become masters of the country on the very first day they land in it, or be prepared to recognize that, if they fail to do so, they will find hostility on every side."

The case for war, meanwhile, was made by the young general Alcibiades, who was hoping for a quick victory in Sicily so he could move on to conquer Carthage. Alcibiades, who'd led a dissolute youth (and who happened to own a horse ranch, raising Olympic racers) was a battle-tested soldier, a brilliant diplomat and a good speaker. (So much for superficial similarities.)

Alcibiades intended to rely on dazzling technology -- the Athenian armada -- instead of traditional foot soldiers. He told the Assembly he wasn't worried about Sicilian resistance because the island's cities were filled with people of so many different groups. "Such a crowd as this is scarcely likely either to pay attention to one consistent policy or to join together in concerted action... The chances are that they will make separate agreements with us as soon as we come forward with attractive suggestions."

Another argument for the war was that it would pay for itself. A committee of Sicilian exiles and Athenian experts told the Assembly that there was enough wealth in Sicily to pay the costs of the war and occupation. "The report was encouraging but untrue," wrote Thucydides.
Though war was constant in ancient Greece, it was still usually justified by a threat, an insult or an incident. But the excursion against Sicily was different, and Alcibiades announced a new, or at least normally unstated, doctrine.

"One does not only defend oneself against a superior power when one is attacked: One takes measures in advance to prevent the attack materializing," he said.

When and where should this preemption doctrine be applied? Alcibiades gave an answer of a sort. "It is not possible for us to calculate, like housekeepers [perhaps a better translation would be "girlie men"], exactly how much empire we want to have. The fact is that we have reached a state where we are forced to plan new conquests and forced to hold on to what we have got because there is danger that we ourselves may fall under the power of others unless others are in our power."

Alcibiades' argument carried the day, but before the invasion, the Athenian fleet sailed around seeking allies among the Hellenic colonies near Sicily. Despite the expedition's "great preponderance of strength over those against whom it set out," only a couple of cities joined the coalition.

At home, few spoke out against the Sicilian operation. "There was a passion for the enterprise which affected everyone alike," Thucydides reports. "The result of this excessive enthusiasm of the majority was that the few who actually were opposed to the expedition were afraid of being thought unpatriotic if they voted against it, and therefore kept quiet."

In the face of aggressive posturing, Nicias appealed to the Assembly members to show true courage. "If any of you is sitting next to one of [Alcibiades'] supporters," Nicias said, "do not allow yourself to be browbeaten or to be frightened of being called a coward if you do not vote for war... Our country is on the verge of the greatest danger she has ever known. Think of her, hold up your hands against this proposal and vote in favor of leaving the Sicilians alone."
We don't know how many Athenians had secret reservations, but few hands went up against the war.

In the end, the Athenians lost everything in Sicily. Their army was defeated and their navy destroyed. Alcibiades was recalled early on; Nicias was formally executed while thousands of Athenian prisoners were left in an open pit, where most died.

The Sicilians didn't follow up by invading Attica; they just wanted Athens out. But with the leader of the democracies crippled, allies left the Athenian League. Then the real enemy, Sparta, ever patient and cautious, closed in over the next few years. But not before Athens descended, on its own, into a morass of oligarchic coups and self- imposed tyranny.

What if the US was in Iraq's position?

I've been a fan of doomsday scenario science fiction books. On the Beach was an early one that I enjoyed. A Canticle for Leibowitz by Miller goes a long way to explaining the medieval mind to modern day denizens, and as a medieval history major in college, it really helped bring that period to life in a way that dry history texts could not.

That said, I think the following observations by Juan Cole, professor at the University of Michigan make it far more clear the hell we have created in Iraq and why we will not win there. Read it and understand. Someday, we too will be the statue in the desert, Ozymandius, proclaiming to the empty desert to despair at our mighty works.


www.juancole.com:

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

If America were Iraq, What would it be Like?President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country.

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number. Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans.

What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire?

What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis?

What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence.

What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country?

What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?

What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?

What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?

What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers?

What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial?

What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?

What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country?

What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.

What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami?

What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly?

What if unemployment hovered around 40%?

What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?

What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?"

What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?

What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?