Unbecoming Levity

OIC, No Human Rights For Me

Abacquer — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:40:00 -0400

This freaking blows me away. I'm speechless (literally.)

Congressman Patrick Murphy

Abacquer — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:32:00 -0500

He's not exactly eloquent, but he's clearly a decent, intelligent, man. He's also the only member of the US Congress who is an Iraqi War Veteran, having served the military as a paratrooper captain before running for office against a Republican incumbent in Pennsylvania and winning despite all expectations to the contrary.

One of my favorite NPR/WBUR programs "On Point" had a 45 minute call in interview with Congressman Murphy yesterday, and it was fascinating. Murphy pulls no punches on his opinion of the Iraq war, his informed opinion of some of the hawkish nonsense arguments that crop up whenever getting troops out of Iraq is discussed, and touches on everything from veterans support, to whom he's backing for President.

It was so refreshing to hear a congressman talking so straight and with so much candor and making sense. Just listening to it gave me hope. The interview is available as a podcast, and I recommend you give it a listen.

Saving the Sky

Abacquer — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:45:00 -0400

I really need to learn how to use exposure lock on my camera, then I might not need to do this to my pictures in order to get the sky to look properly exposed. I suppose this would work better if I shot at the waterline instead of above it, but that wasn't possible in this case, and this modification was an afterthought. Maybe today at lunchtime I can get out and experiment with exposure lock for a few minutes.

Took this shot while in the (now public) portion of Devens, MA, and contemplating the sacrifices of our military for our nation. It's a sacrifice we should never squander. I feel so badly about supporting the Iraq war these days when I think of all the lives lost in it, considering what we've learned in the meantime. I refuse to "update my rhetoric" and take to heart all the new excuses for our presence there. I was lied to, but I refuse to lie to myself. I couldn't call myself a patriot if I did.

Politickers Politicking

Abacquer — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:24:00 -0400

During the presidency of George H. Bush, the UN requested US troops be deployed in Somalia. Shortly after he lost for re-election, in December 1992, Mr. Bush agreed and sent the troops to Somalia. Then during the Clinton administration, Republicans kept up a fairly constant refrain that American troops should not be deployed in Somalia (I guess stabilizing Somalia isn't important.) The interesting thing is while these Republicans were complaining, it never occurred to them that they were "encouraging the enemy" or "demoralizing the troops".

Atlantic Free Press put out a great opinion piece this morning (Statesmanship or Hypocrisy?) comparing Republican statements made in 1993 to statements made in 2007, and it's hard to believe from the statements alone that the same person is speaking. Featured are Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Arizona Senator John McCain, and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell (Minority Leader).

Here's a sample...

Mitch McConnell 1993:
The only issue here tonight is how we leave and, in my judgment, the Byrd amendment better defines the proper exit for the United States in this most unfortunate experience in Somalia...

Mitch McConnell 2007:
I think it is inappropriate for the Congress to try to micromanage, in effect, the tactics in a military conflict. I don't think Congress has the authority to do it.

Following the hyprocisy thread, the article reminds the the reader that three days before Nancy Pelosi visited Syria, no less than three Republican representatives (Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, and Robert Aderholt of Alabama) were in Syria meeting with the Syrian President. In response to Ms. Pelosi's visit, Mr. Bush said that sending delegations to Syria didn't work, while his party had sent a delegation just a few days before. No mention of that delegation while Mr. Bush was busy denigrating Ms. Pelosi. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is noted as observing that Ms. Pelosi's trip is evidence of the "dysfunction" in Washington. Unsurprisingly, he also makes no mention of the Republican delegation.

The article ends on the sad note that as long as this politicking continues, American soldiers and Iraqi citizens continue to die. The closing paragraph makes clear that Democrats are not off the hook, and the job of resolving the situation in Iraq belongs to all parties, not just the Republicans:

...While politicians of both parties volley high-sounding words back and forth across the political net, American soldiers and Iraqi citizens are dying. Non-binding resolutions will not prevent these tragedies; only acts by Congress that require nothing close to the courage of American soldiers and Iraqi freedom fighters will stop this war. Yet there is little to indicate that many members of Congress have the strength of conviction to accomplish this life-saving task. And so the tragedy continues.

It's a great (if depressing) read. Check it out.

Wolfowitz? Now What Has He Done?

Abacquer — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:17:00 -0400

Remember that guy? Patron of the "topple Saddam, democratize Iraq, (magic happens), democracy spreads across the Middle East" creed? Handed the presidency of the world bank when the ill-fated Iraq policy imploded? Yeah, that guy. Not sure why this would come as any surprise, but the World Bank isn't too happy with him right now either.

Apparently it has something to do with him making arrangements to get ridiculously huge salary for his girlfriend at the World Bank. Hard to blame him. His time of ascendancy came with the Bush administration, and so cronyism probably sounds like the right way to do things to Mr. Wolfowitz. He himself has basically said that he didn't realize it was wrong at the time.

Okay, I'm kidding, it's very easy to blame him. What a sleaze.

Having a girlfriend who receives her salary from the organization you are President of is probably fine as long as she is qualified, and she has worked for the World Bank for eight years, so there's no doubt she is qualified for the work. But her salary is wayyy out of scale with the salary awarded to other employees working in similar positions at the World Bank. From a BBC article:

...When Mr Wolfowitz took over at the bank in mid-2005, Ms Riza - then a World Bank employee for eight years - was transferred to work for the US state department, to avoid any conflict of interest.

But rapid rises in her tax-free World Bank salary to about $193,000 - more than the $186,000 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice receives before tax - have aroused ire among other bank employees...

So we knew Wolfowitz was delusional because of the cockeyed Iraq policy, and now we know he's crooked as well. One thing is certain, this guy needs to stop working in positions where he gets to give orders or advice. He's clearly unfit to manage. A manager has to have a firm grasp on the pragmatic--pipe dreams and money schemes do not a great manager make.

And the World Bank is considering just that as the board is meeting to decide what to do with him. I don't think they'll ask him to step down, but certainly some sort of reprimand must be coming. Stay tuned...

Pelosi Does Bush's Job -- Glad Someone Is...

Abacquer — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:49:00 -0400

So Pelosi went to Syria to meet with President Bashar al-Assad and deliver a message from Israel signaling that Israel would like to resume peace talks with Syria.

... "Peace in the Middle East is a high priority ... We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations (for) peace with Israel," Pelosi added...^[1]

Wouldn't it be nice if the peace talks resumed? Needless to say, one person doesn't think so.

...At the White House, President Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi's visit, saying it sent mixed signals to the Middle East and to President Bashar's government.

"Sending delegations hasn't worked," Mr. Bush told reporters. "It's just simply been counterproductive."

The United States, which has accused the Syrian government of providing militants with safe passage into Iraq and of meddling in Lebanon's politics after its army was forced to leave there in 2005, has sought to isolate Syria economically and politically. Damascus denies the charges...^[2]

Once again Mr. Bush demonstrates that diplomacy is a weapon of last resort. It takes all of two seconds to see that if Israel enters into peace talks with Syria, and gives Syria back the land taken from it during the war, then Syria loses an important excuse for aggression against Israel. If Israel returns the Chebaa Farms to Lebanon, Syria loses another important excuse. With each excuse lost the hardliners become more isolated.

Bush wants to isolate Syria as long as it is meddling in Lebanon's affairs and letting militants into Iraq. In order to do this he needs to provide evidence, like we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis... photos George, not cartoon trucks. Unfortunately for our foreign policy, the world doesn't assume we know what we are talking about anymore, wonder why that is?

Imagine if Syria entered into a peace agreement which Israel met fully, and then proceeded to engage in some aggressive action? Wouldn't that isolate Syria? When someone has decided to do an evil thing, usually it involves making excuses. One effective way to make it more difficult for them is to take away those excuses.

I'm not naive enough to believe that this one visit by Pelosi is likely to amount to anything substantial, but I'm also not naive enough to believe that you can solve problems with others by not talking to them. In the meantime, the Syrians are happy to see Pelosi.

..."Ms. Pelosi is going to be very happy in Syria," said Izzat Abdoulkarim, who runs an optical shop in downtown Damascus. "George Bush says we are bad, but she will see this is not true."

He added, emphatically: "She views the world through a different perspective than Bush. She's more open-minded."^[2]

There's your message to the average Syrian civilian, George. You are bad people. Way to go. Counting down seconds before some wingnut compares Pelosi to "Hanoi Jane". 5, 4, 3, ...

References:

Reuters: Pelosi says gave Syria Israeli peace message

New York Times: Pelosi, Warmly Greeted in Syria, Is Criticized by White House

Wikipedia: Jane Fonda, "Hanoi Jane" subsection

British Sailors and Marines Seized by Iran

Abacquer — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:48:00 -0400

Well this will be good for the stability of the Middle East. With U.N. approval, British Navy personnel have been stopping and boarding ships in Iraqi waters to search for supplies being smuggled from Iran to the Iraqi insurgents. Earlier today, shortly after stopping and searching a merchant ship, the British suddenly found themselves surrounded by Iranian naval vessels. The British were detained and escorted into Iranian territorial waters.

Navy personnel captured at gunpoint (The Scotsman Evening News):
...A journalist on board the ship, Ian Pannell, said that they had just boarded a dhow, a traditional Arabian sailing vessel.

Mr Pannell said: “While they were on board, a number of Iranian boats approached the waters in which they were operating – the Royal Navy are insistent that they were operating in Iraqi waters and not Iranian waters – and essentially captured the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel at gunpoint."...

Basically a large British naval vessel (in this case the HMS Cornwall) stops a passing ship, and then sends over teams of inspectors, in this case two small inflatable boats with a total of 15 British sailors and marines. It's not clear but it sounds like the British may have completed the inspection when the Iranian vessels surrounded the two small inflatable boats and forced the sailors and marines to return with them to Iranian waters. Details are sketchy at this point, and I haven't heard any news reports explaining why the Iranians captured the British, but presumably the claim will be that the British were in Iranian territorial waters.

Iran has been promising to respond to the capture of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, which has happened more than once. The Iranian President has not been mincing words in his rhetoric--the holocaust was a myth, Israel should be wiped off the map, the US and Britain are enemies of Iran, etc. Not surprising I suppose, our President hasn't had sunny things to say about them either... "axis of evil" and all that.

The last time Iran seized British Navy personnel the British men were held for 3 days, blindfolded, and displayed on Iranian television. Considering how much more tense things are right now with the Iranians enriching uranium (and likely supporting the Iraqi insurgency), this was not exactly a bright move on their part. All it does is strengthen the position of American and British hardliners who think a war with Iran is inevitable and necessary.

It looks like today is not going to be a good day.

A Few Random Items

Abacquer — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:35:00 -0400

Continuing in the vein of yesterday's post, I have a few more random thoughts to share...

Survivorman
Perhaps you've never seen this show, it's on The Science Channel (not to be confused with Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel). I really enjoy it. The premise is simple. In each episode they take Les Stroud and dump him in the middle of nowhere with meagre supplies and about 50 pounds of camera equipment. His only mission is to survive for seven days before the crew returns to pick him up. He's not allowed to break down the camera equipment and use it for survival, and he does all the filming himself. I can only imagine what an incredible amount of effort is involved in shooting himself walking past the camera or trudging off into the distance, only to have to return and get the camera. This show strikes me as one James would enjoy. I've seen this poor guy dumped in the arctic tundra, the swamps of Georgia, some desert out west somewhere, even one episode where he had to survive in a life raft at sea for seven days. You can order season 1 of the show on DVD if you are interested. I discovered this show during my many days of bedrest over the last month or so.

North and West of the City...
I'm sick of this phrase. I hear it all the time during weather reports, as in "2 to 5 inches of snow are expected in the Boston area, while areas North and West of the city could receive as much as a foot." It's snowing today. Unlike those in and south of the city, there's no rain following the storm here... it's just piling up. Day before St. Patrick's day and the snow is just dumping down. *sigh*

Cosmos and Carl
I miss Carl Sagan, and I loved Cosmos when I was a kid. One of my best memories of childhood is sitting in the living room with my Dad watching Carl explain history, other dimensions, outer space, the doppler effect, and various other intriguing things. Pat and I both talked recently of trying to find the Cosmos series on DVD to watch with Lynnea (though it might be too slow paced for her.) Amazon has it, if you are interested. One of my favorite segments of that series was when Carl explained what it would be like for two dimensional creatures to encounter a three dimensional one, as a way of explaining what a fourth dimension might be like, as a mechanism for explaining the concept of a curved universe as it relates to the big bang. The two dimensional creatures were called "flatlanders" because they lived (appropriately enough) in Flatland. I finally found that segment on YouTube, but it is included in a larger 10 minute video. You can watch it here, the part about Flatland starts about 3 minutes in, after a discussion of Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding. In the next segment, Carl ties in the curved universe and questions about the existence of God. It's slow paced but wonderfully done. I really should pick that series up and watch it again as an adult--I've no doubt I'd learn more this time.

Destroying a Career
As you probably know, Valerie Plame testified today before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and finally had a chance to speak out on her cover being blown by an administration with hopelessly misplaced priorities. One of the saddest things about this, as far as I can see, is that her CIA career as a covert agent is basically over at this point. That's got to be infuriating for her. I can't imagine what that must be like. From her testimony today:

..."My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior officials in the White House and State Department. [...] I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained." [...] Under questioning, Plame recounted feeling "like I had been hit in the gut" on the July 2003 morning when she saw a newspaper story by syndicated columnist Robert Novak identifying her...

Pace and the Unbagged Cat
Smooth one General, really smooth. For those of you who haven't heard, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, stepped in it on Tuesday by saying he supported the Pentagon's ban on gays serving openly in the military because homosexual acts are "immoral". Way to go, dickhead. There are thousands upon thousands of gay people serving in our great nation's military right now, many of them putting themselves in harm's way. Thanks for telling them that they're a bunch of immoral perverts. General Pace, for his part, has refused to apologize for the remarks, and has only gone as far as to say that he regrets making them. I'll bet he does, but only because it is inconvenient for him now that the cat is out of the bag. As far as offending the gay troops who've been valiantly serving over the last four years of this misguided war? It's clear what Pace thinks of them. I never understood the ban on gays in the military, and I understood don't-ask-don't-tell even less, except that it allows good soldiers to serve a country that needs them, regardless of their sexual orientation. And the same people that screeched in 1993 that we couldn't let gays in are screeching today that we can't let gays serve openly, for the same stupid reasons--because it would cause a breakdown in unit cohesion on the battlefield. What a bunch of bullshit. I'm sorry but a guy brave enough to crawl across a battlefield under fire while trying to avoid landmines isn't going to be worrying if the guy behind him is checking out his ass. Give me a goddamned break, PLEASE. Here's a thought, I won't ask then next time something as stupid as that enters your mind, and you don't tell, okay? (As a sad but not unexpected sidenote, conservatives are leaping to the General's defense.)

Getting Ugly

Abacquer — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:56:00 -0500

No this isn't about the decline in my looks over the last 20 years (Yes, I know, how it could it get worse? Shut up Tom.), it's about our political situation and Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq, it is definitely getting ugly. The generally accepted wisdom is that (significantly) more troops were necessary in the beginning of the war, and that adding more troops now won't make much difference.

And so Congress is considering doing more than just voicing opposition to Bush on sending another 21,500 Americans into harm's way--they want to make him not send the troops. Which as far as I can tell, they cannot do. So instead, some are threatening to cut off the funding for the new troops. Which in my opinion, would be a Grade-A Top-of-the-Line Fucking Stupid Idea™.

After all the bad press Bush and his flunkies have gotten for troops not having body armor and other equipment, denying funding for these troops would be a singularly bad move. Because funded or not, Bush will send them anyway, and lots of luck pinning that on him when the next presidential elections come. All cutting off funding will do is endanger the troops further, and ruin the party's chances of winning the big seat in '08. Definitely voice opposition, pass resolutions to censure the president, but don't leave the troops unfunded, please. These are men and women going into a dangerous place, even if we don't like the fact that they are going and don't want them to go, it would be immoral to send them without providing for their safety as much as we can.

There's a lot of good our Democractically controlled House and Senate can do, and domestically, Bush is going to have a tough time getting stupid policy decisions passed. But in Iraq, for the troops' sake, let's not be cutting funding.

Any More Bright Ideas, Mr. President?

Abacquer — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:56:00 -0500

So as part of Bush's new direction in Iraq, American forces attacked the Iranian consulate in Kurdish Northern Iraq yesterday, taking five employees prisoner.

Less than a day later, unknown assailants launch a rocket attack on an American embassy in Athens.

Feel safer yet, America? 'Cause you know, another war is just what we need right now. So glad the Bushies are taking the Baker report seriously.

Y'know George, when Baker said "engage with Iran", I'm pretty sure he didn't mean "engage in war with Iran".

Is it 2008 yet?

Saddam Hussein Executed

Abacquer — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:44:00 -0500

CNN World has the story.

Telling the Truth Irritates Bush

Abacquer — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:52:00 -0500

From Blair tries to bridge the gap between Bush and 'realists' on Iraq strategy (Times Online)
...Asked if he was still in denial about the way the war was going, Mr Bush snapped back, saying: “It’s bad in Iraq — does that help?”...

It sure does, bunkie. Because half of America doubts you even have the ability to tell the truth, since you've been spinning your disastrous Iraq policy for almost 4 years now. Must be really annoying to have to just come out and admit that it isn't going well.

Good.

The above quote came from a joint press conference yesterday where Bush appeared with Tony Blair to discuss the ISG report. As predicted Bush continues to insist that there will be no engagement with Iran and Syria.

...Mr. Bush ruled out direct engagement with Iran — a key recommendation of the Iraq Study Group’s report — until the Tehran regime had halted its uranium enrichment programme. He also emphasised that he was waiting for other reviews, including one he has commissioned from the Pentagon, before deciding on a fresh approach on Iraq and the Middle East...

Note that previously when asked about the "new strategy for Iraq", Mr. Bush said he was waiting for the ISG report. Now that he has it, he's waiting for the previously unheard of Pentagon report.

It's worth noting, that while American soldiers die, and Bush waits, the ISG conclusions on the current situation in Iraq ended with these two sentences:

...The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out...

Waiting too long, Mr. President, has been a recurring theme in your administration. Waiting too long to take seriously the outgoing administration's warnings about Al Qaeda, waiting too long to respond to Katrina, waiting too long to dismiss Donald Rumsfeld... etc. (About the only thing you aren't willing to wait for is weapons inspections.)

Hope you get your report from the Pentagon soon.

Iraq Study Group Report Released

Abacquer — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:01:00 -0500

Yesterday, the highly anticipated report, in the making for the last nine months by a bipartisan team of 5 republicans and 5 democrats, was finally released. (You can download a copy of the report and read it yourself if you like.) Over the last few weeks I'd been hearing that there would be "no surprises" in the report, and I'd heard people make the assumption that because it was bipartisan, the report would be watered-down and otherwise impotent. Well it's out now, and perhaps the biggest surprise of the report is its tone. It is pretty much a complete repudiation of Bush's failed policy in Iraq, as well it should be. Gone are the goals of a democratic Iraq, gone even is the assurance that we will definitely succeed.

From Bush rebuked for spread of chaos in Iraq (theglobeandmail.com):
...The long-anticipated report, a sweeping rejection of current U.S. policy, includes 79 specific recommendations with which the Iraq Study Group paints a picture of an invasion gone terribly wrong that has so far cost more than 2,900 U.S. lives (and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives), as well as $400-billion (U.S.).

It also suggests that U.S. officials have been involved in "significant underreporting of the violence" in the country.

"The situation is grave and deteriorating," co-chairman Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, said yesterday in releasing the report. "Violence is increasing in scope and lethality... the current approach is not working. And the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing."

The report says: "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighbouring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al-Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized."...

The chairman of the team that authored the report is the Republican James Baker, former Secretary of State for the former President George H. W. Bush. He has been quoted by many news agencies as saying "We do not recommend a stay the course solution. In our opinion that approach is no longer viable."

The report calls for an increase in the troops training Iraqi soldiers, but for no additional troops on the ground. It calls for a serious commitment to supply the new Iraqi forces with the equipment they need. It calls for drawdowns of American forces by 2008, and for a major diplomatic effort to stabilize the region involving direct talks with all of Iraq's neighbors (including Iran and Syria.) It connects the dots between other US policy in the region and Iraq, and calls for renewed efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict including the return of the Golan Heights by Israel to Syria.

The formal release of the report included a meeting between Bush and the team who produced it wherein they gave the President a copy of the report to review. Bush, for his part, expressed gratitude and a promise to study the report. There's no onus (beyond a political one) on the President to follow any of the recommendations in it of course, and his press secretary, former FOX News anchor Tony Snow was quoted as saying the President had ruled out direct talks with Iran unless Iran agrees to halt its nuclear program--demonstrating once again that the Bush administration just doesn't get it.

If we were arguing from a position of strength, and Iran was coming to us for help, we'd be in a position to make demands. We aren't in that position, and they're not begging us for help. We'd be begging THEM for help. You don't frame a request for help with demands, that's just effing stupid. Iran would be perfectly happy to continue to funnel support to the insurgency and let America continue to stew in its own mess. This is why we must engage with them.

It's not an ideal situation, but we gave away much of our bargaining power when we got into this ill-thought enterprise in the first place. Think about it for two seconds. Who was Iran's most powerful enemy? Who was most successful in keeping Iran in check? Why that would be Iraq under Saddam Hussein. By first containing Hussein, and by later removing him, we removed a major military threat to Iran. We basically put them in the catbird seat and enabled them to dictate terms to us. You conservatives can thank your boy in the White House for that.

Anyway, I for one hope that the threat of political isolation will force the Bush administration to pull their heads out of their asses and start working constructively to fix this failed policy. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

Much Ado...

Abacquer — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:13:00 -0500

Today's pathetically misinformed offended person story comes from Pagosa Springs in Colorado, where a homeowners' association tried to force a local resident to take down a Christmas wreath shaped like a peace symbol (link).

The owner of the wreath was told that it was "divisive" and that "3 or 4" residents had complained that the wreath was an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan. The association stated it would impose a $25 fine every day until the wreath was taken down.

Forgetting the outrageously ridiculous premise that anyone should be able to tell you whether or not you can hang a wreath on your door... "symbol of Satan"???

Dear clueless religious wingnut in Colorado: the peace symbol was developed in Britian in 1958 as a symbol of nuclear disarmament and was adopted by peace movements everywhere. It has nothing to do with devil worship. The design of the symbol comes from the semaphore code -- a system of communication involving one person holding two flags in different positions to signify different letters and numbers. Before radio, it was often used by the military to communicate visually over long distances. The diagonal lines in the peace symbol match the semaphore for N, and the vertical line matches the semaphore for D. ND = Nuclear Disarmament.

The owner of the wreath says that it is a "spiritual thing" and not a war protest. That's not so hard to believe. For religious folks Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Christ who is sometimes referred to as "The Prince of..." Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? "The Prince of Peace".

Even if it was an anti-war statement, what difference does that make? People who want to live in a place where they will never have to see something that offends them should encase themselves in concrete and shoot themselves into space, for the benefit of us all. So someone is against the war, get over it.

You know what's really offensive? Homeowners' Associations.

At least in this case there is a happy ending. The association in question has changed its mind (link). One of those rare stories where reason prevails.

Democrats Take Montana / Rumsfeld Resigns

Abacquer — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:15:00 -0500

100% of precincts now reporting. Jon Tester leads with 198,304 votes to Conrad Burns' 195,456, giving him a spread of 2,848. It's unclear whether Burns has conceded or not. CNN and NPR have called Montana for Jon Tester. In fact everybody is reporting a victory for Jon Tester in Montana, but I don't see any mention of Burns conceding.

Here's what the LA Times had to say:

...A candidate in Montana can request a recount at his own expense if the margin is within half of a percent, which would be a margin of roughly 2,000 votes in the Senate race. If the margin is less than one-quarter of a percent, the state and counties pick up the tab.

"I think we've got this thing won, it's just a matter of getting it to play out," Tester said Wednesday morning.

Burns declined to comment on the race as he left the Billings hotel where his supports were gathered, saying only that he was headed home to be near family...

Sounds like if Burns wants a recount he's going to have to pay for it, because the spread (while razor thin) is still more than a quarter of a percent.

In other news, a little over a week after saying Rumsfeld would be in for the duration, Bush announced today that Rumsfeld will be stepping down to be replaced by former CIA director Bob Gates.

Good riddance Don. Another one who can Lips My Donkey.

The IAVA Rates Your Elected Officials

Abacquer — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:26:00 -0500

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund (IAVA) has released a set of letter grades for all US Senators and Representatives. The letter grades reflect the percentage of times that the senator or congressman cast a vote on a military-related issue that the IAVA agreed with. It's pretty interesting. Rick Santorum gets a D-, John Kerry gets a B...

As Predicted...

Abacquer — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:31:00 -0500

The furore is out of control. This election is now about John Kerry...

Well, That Was Clever, John

Abacquer — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:38:00 -0500

So on Monday, John Kerry, who is still speaking for some reason, made a little jab at the President for not "doing his homework" during a speech. Here's what he said...

Olbermann -- Orator par Excellence

Abacquer — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:14:00 -0400

...Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats, now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?
Why have you chosen to go down in history as the President who made things up?...

Bush Discovers Truth, Olbermann is on Fire

Abacquer — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:05:00 -0400

Well I just listened to the President's address given last night and was shocked to hear him blithely stating (as if it were something he had been saying for a long time now) that Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Congratulations Mr. President, and good work catching up on that minor detail...

Rumsfeld Likens Dissenters to Nazi Appeasers

Abacquer — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 11:09:00 -0400

Donald Rumsfeld is an embarrasment to this nation, whether it be in his naive, pollyanna beliefs that post-Saddam Iraq would be all roses and candycanes, or his dangerous flouting of the Geneva Conventions, or any other of the abundant reasons why he should no longer be in our employ as Defense Secretary. Your boss works for us, Rummy, and so do you. In his recent speech at 88th Annual American Legion National Convention, Rumsfeld had the naked audacity to compare people who disagree with his policies to Nazi appeasers...

* snort *

Abacquer — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:05:00 -0400

Today Bush, remarking on the cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah, was quoted as saying: "The first reaction of course of Hezbollah and its supporters is to declare victory. I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them. Sometimes it takes people awhile to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and what don't..."

In other news, about 50% of Americans suffered a loss of consciousness this afternoon due to a massive overdose of irony.

Book Review -- FIASCO by Thomas E. Ricks

Abacquer — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:20:00 -0400

After a week of struggling I have finally managed to finish reading Thomas Ricks excellent account FIASCO -- The American Military Adventure in Iraq. I struggled, in part because I've been so sick, but mostly it would take an average of 10 pages for me to get so furious, or so disheartened, or otherwise upset that I would have to put the book down and pick it up later on. Ricks account of this war is not an easy read. Nor should it be. But having finished it I say that without a doubt all Americans have a civic duty to read this book and understand the nature of this war. Like it or not...

Terrorist Blooper Reel

Abacquer — Thu, 11 May 2006 08:23:00 -0400

Apparently during a raid on a house in Iraq, the US military forces discovered raw footage showing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi recording a "rally the troops" type message for his terrorist cohorts. Unfortunately for Zarqawi the footage included embarassing moments that were editted out of the final product. The US military has released these outtakes to undermine Zarqawi and demoralize his terrorist supporters...

Funny Political Humor (for Geeks)

Abacquer — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:26:00 -0500

Iraqi Invasion: A Text Misadventure

Oh the Hypocrisy

Abacquer — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:28:00 -0500

In response to the Pennsylvania democratic congressman John Murtha's call for a commencement of troop withdrawal from Iraq, the Ohio republican congresswoman Jean Schmidt admonished him on the house floor by saying "Cowards cut and run, marines never do." Hell of a thing to say to a guy who's 37-years service as a marine was exemplary...

Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites

Abacquer — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:18:00 -0400

I just read a great article on Slate which makes clear that what the mainstream press tells us about the factions in Iraq is either vastly oversimplified or incorrect.

Tribal Ignorance
What you think you know about Iraq's factions is all wrong.

The Pope

Abacquer — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:53:00 -0400

The Pope is dead. I know this because I heard something about it on the news. In fact I heard a lot of something about it, and not much about anything else...

Action Figure Held Hostage

Abacquer — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:40:00 -0500

(CNN) -- A photograph posted on an Islamist Web site appears to be that of an action figure and not a U.S. soldier being held hostage.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.hostage/index.html

And Then Magic Happens...

Abacquer — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:37:00 -0500

"Magic Happens" is something software developers say a lot. Usually when we are working through the steps of a problem and need to get past a point we haven't figured out yet we'll say it...