From The Nation Online’s John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism (emphasis added):

Nancy Pelosi may have tried to take impeachment off the table, but the AfterDowningStreet.org crew, led by the indomitable David Swanson, kept forcing it back on. Their coalition’s website remains the “go-to” place for the latest on investigations, inquiries, subpoenas, legal actions and every other move to hold this president and vice president to account. And their passion for empowering citizens to promote “impeachment from below” and other accountability initiatives has forged a loose-knit but very real national movement. Watch for this movement to get a lot more attention in March, when a drive organized by Newfane, Vermont, town selectman and impeachment impresario Dan DeWalt and others will see dozens of town meetings endorse articles of impeachment.

Well deserved kudos, Dan. Congatulations and thanks.

It’s 2007, and I’ve asked current and former front pagers about renewing their involvement with GMD, as well as brought on a couple new/old faces. The “official” GMD front pagers going into the New Year are:

Brattlerouser – he of the linkdumps, and occasional other unexpected goodies
Ed Garcia (kestrel9000)
Jack McCullough
Kagro X
NanuqFC
odum
Vermonter

I’m adding a menu down a ways on the left that will link directly to their work, if you’re so inclined. I feel like we’ve got a good spread of viewpoints, geography, priorities, approaches and styles.

Generally front pagers will write 1-3 posts a week, with the inevitable long mysterious absences. With this number, though, we should be able to consistently guarantee between 1 and 3 new diaries a day to keep things interesting.

There may also be some upcoming special projects here at GMD, so we may be diversifying a bit and likely bringing in some more folks into front pager status. Stay tuned. Things are getting complicated enough that I’m finally getting off my butt to formally get this operation incorporated.

Anyway, thanks for reading and participating. As always, the occasional diary that seems to fill a hole in our coverage or be particularly well-timed (as in, all the front pagers are on vacation) will be front paged.

iCasualties is reporting the 3000th American casualty from Iraq. The latest casaualty is among 11 not yet officially confirmed by the Pentagon, so expect to hear this reported tomorrow, rather than today.

Happy New Year, indeed – and get ready for the escalation (“surge”). I think we all know at some level that, one way or the other, Bush will leave Congressional Democrats with no choice but to face their two ultimate Constitutional options; cutting off the federal purse strings and/or impeachment.

Okay, so it may not officially start until this upcoming week, but in many ways that matter, the ’07 Legislative session has been underway for a while now. It doesn’t take a genius to see that in recent legislative cycles, the more a Party holds control of the public debate, the more they control the actual agenda. In ’05 after a lot of good work by the Dems on health care, Governor Douglas stepped into the limelight and took complete control of the discussion before lawmakers had even left the Statehouse to return to their districts. That control was certainly on display in the final product, as well as in the accolades from the likes of the AARP.

The Republicans (naturally) are the only Party who seems to be tackling this in an organized, head-on way. Despite the fact that both the Ds and the Rs are in transition – moving into a new legislature as well as new Party leadership – you wouldn’t guess it on the R’s part from the recent papers. Message testing and propogating is very much in play, seemingly already pushing the GOP framing of property taxes and a new twist on civil confinement into the media forefront. Take a look at this AP piece on the upcoming agenda which leads on property tax:

(House Minority Leader Steve) Adams and his colleagues called for creation of a special House committee dedicated to property tax reform, much as Symington created for health care when she was elected speaker two years ago.

But she has rejected that approach, arguing that a much broader debate has to take place about why education costs what it does as well as about how it’s funded.

Not only is the issue front and center on the GOP’s terms, but Symington is already being placed on the defensive.

This isn’t a good early sign for House Democrats. Adams (unlike his predecessor) will likely be interested in getting something passed as opposed to simply playing partisan contrarian, which in the big picture bodes well for the chances of actual legislation emerging from the House. Nevertheless, that doesn’t alter the fact that – once again – House Dems are starting in the hole against a GOP noise machine that is clearly working in unison with the Governor (of course, Adams may also find himself in an awkward position if, as reported by PoliticsVT, recently defeated Senator Wendy Wilton successfully takes the reins of the GOP, as she would likely be interested in a slash-and-burn combative approach).

The Dems seem to have no such counter effort. What they do have is Peter Shumlin who was first out of the gate beating the drums on his legislative priority the day after his re-ascendence to Senate leadership. The issues related to global warming are just starting to become less of an abstraction to the average Vermonter, and depending on how he plays them (and how much support he gets from other Dems). he could find resonance. From conservation to hydro to wind, the topic could be expansive. There could even be an opportunity to enter the taxation debate if he broaches the matter of a potential offsetting revenue capture from a BTU or carbon tax. The topic is obviously near and dear to his base, and his vocal championing of the issue will help keep his base in line in the event of disappointments on other issues (such as health care). Translating it to an “everyman” appeal will have to be finessed. The issue does create opportunities for stark lines of distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans going into the ’08 elections, though, so expect to see Shumlin stay on it relentlessly.

If this early jockeying for position is any indication, Shumlin will be likely to frequently eclipse Symington as the voice of the Democrats in Montpelier and be a greater force in driving the agenda. Even in today’s Allen-Porter piece, which (for a change) puts the D’s front-and-center on the agenda list, Symington again seems on the defensive – this time from the aggressive rhetoric of Shumlin rather than the GOP:

Symington doesn’t mind (Shumlin’s) emphasis on the topic (climate change) early in the session. But she has cautioned that the General Assembly has concrete issues to grapple with, particularly as the state’s education tab approaches $1.2 billion and the taxpayers’ ability to sustain it grows more tenuous.

“What I would ask us to think about is what are we doing now to make this state all it can be for our children and grandchildren,” Symington said last month to her fellow 92 Democrats in a report from The Associated Press. “That is the question that really needs to guide us.”

That corrective, almost scolding tone that so often accompanies the Speaker’s rhetoric does her no favors, as it always comes off as defensive – and being on the defensive is always seen as a sign of weakness. Hopefully Communications Pro Bill Lofy will be working with her on this sort of thing.

Whether the new Statehouse dynamic will push Symington, repotedly (by Dwinell) considering a gubernatorial run, closer to such a move is an interesting question. In either event, she would be well served to quickly find ways to be less reactive to the seemingly more media-savvy GOP and Shumlin and get her own agenda out front proactively. To do that, Symington will have to break from form as a political technician and find a little of that vision-thing. Besides health care, the only issue last session that seemed to evoke an impassioned response from the Speaker was the raising of the gas tax to close a budget hole. Hardly inspiring stuff (although it will get you headlines – just the wrong kind…)

Once again I see the Republican-controlled media going overboard with the “mourning of Gerald Ford.”
Excuse me for my impudent attitude, but the man was 93 years old.  Why are we mourning his death?  He lived a good long life.  Did we expect him to live forever?

As far as the quality of his leadership, it was a mixed bag in my opinion.  He had some good qualities.  He seemed to be an honest, decent man who wanted to do the right things.  But he did one gigantic thing which was wrong … he pardoned Richard Nixon.  It wasn’t that I thought Nixon shouldn’t be pardoned … which was my opinion at the time … but that the WAY he did it prevented any honest investigation of WHAT Nixon had done.

If we had that investigation back in the 1970’s we might not have a criminal in the White House today.  Gerald Ford prevented the TRUTH from being revealed to the American people.  That was his big WRONG action.

Consequently, we are now in a state of mind where many people feel impeachment procedings against another Republican President who has asserted to be “above the law” by his actions and words is unnecessary, resulting in a continuing threat to our liberty and Constitutional democracy.

This is the dangerous and wrong-headed legacy of President Gerald Ford: “Investigation should be stopped.”

Democratic Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has done a similar wrong by proclaiming “There will be no impeachment.”  Excuse me?  The purpose of impeachment is to “hear the evidence” in the open investigation and debate to be held in the House of Representatives.  That’s EXACTLY what this nation needs to UNIFY itself …. around the truth.  If we don’t hear it, we can’t unify around it.  Investigation is necessary.

Why do our leaders so often fail to get the point that leadership comes FROM the truth, not from a person or a party?

Whatever good things Gerald Ford did as President will forever be overshadowed by the single gigantic evil act he did … preventing honest investigation of the crimes of Richard Nixon … with his pardon.

Pardon should not be granted BEFORE a conviction is reached, only afterwards.  If President Ford had waited until after the conviction of Richard Nixon I would have another opinion.  But so as it is he has failed the nation and the Constitution and shall forever live in disgrace in my mind.

There is no substitute for the truth.  In order to know it we must seek it.  That means investigation.

Are the Democrats paying attention?  I hope so.

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

John Edwards proved Friday that he remains a popular politician in the state of New Hampshire.

More than 1,000 people showed up yesterday to see the former South Carolina Senator at a “Town Hall” meeting at the Little Harbor School in Portsmouth. So many people showed up that hundreds were turned away.

Not a bad Granite State turn-out considering that Edwards just declared his intention to make a second run for the White House on Thursday. Not bad at all.

The New Hampshire Union Leader has the traditional print media story on the Edwards visit here:http://www.unionlead…

The Edwards campaign has a robust and aggressive new media strategy (thank you Dr. Dean), which is why Edwards met privately with twelve local Bloggers to chat about his candidacy.

Smart.

I was invited to participate in the discussion.

Very smart.

Two things I noticed about the other Bloggers invited to the Edwards chat – 1. they were capable, 2. they were friendly.

I helped crack the ice a bit by telling the Massachusetts folks, belowboston.com, that my nickname for Governor Mitt Romney was “Governor Big Love”. They responded by telling me that Mitt Romney’s real first name isn’t Mitt, it’s Willard.

Daily Kos rocks stars this bunch.

One Blogger I met was active in Ned Lamont’s upset victory over Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, another worked with Deval Patrick’s campaign in Massachusetts during the 06′ cycle.

It’s new media politics baby. It’s here to stay. Rock on early primary states.

John Edwards knows this (so does McCain on the other side of the aisle), which is why Edwards was so agreeable to meeting with us for 20 minutes to answer every single last one of our questions.

The Edwards campaign even streamed the Q&A (“Pod Tech” and “Rocket Boom”) for their website and YouTube.

Which makes good sense. Senator Edwards is a gifted talker. He looks good on film. The Internet is a content delivery system limited only by a campaign’s imagination. It is bargain basement cheap.

And, most importantly for our dear Republic, Senator Edwards seems to have a depth of knowledge about what afflicts our country and what he intends to do about it – “Tomorrow begins today”.

One of the Bloggers asked what he (Edwards) would do to end poverty in America. Edwards answered that he would raise the minimum wage, make it easier for unions to organize, modify housing policies and increase access to higher education.

He stated that the growing wealth gap in this country is a disgrace.

I agree with that. By anyone’s standard, what we pay our so called “top CEOs” is disgusting and dangerous to the common good. I don’t care how many times you’ve read Adam Smith.

Speaking of his goal to get the public excited about public service Edwards said, “I want Americans to feel patriotic about something other than the war.”

God bless you. I agree.

Too bad for us that at the beginning of 2007 all the oxygen in the public square is being consumed by the War in Iraq. Not even John Edward’s baby smooth demeanor can escape that fact.

Tomorrow, it seems, still begins after we fix what Bush started yesterday.

To confess, my own question to Edwards was on the Iraq War. So was my follow-up question. I couldn’t resist. I’m merely a simple columnist. I opine on the reality of the present in the reality of the present.

What the Democratic Party – the MAJORITY PARTY of the U.S. Congress – is going to do about Iraq is the political question of the moment.

The Democrats have nothing resembling a unified front on what to do. They’ve got bad, worse and “blown up” options for Iraq. And, their ponies are already heading into the 08′ ring.

Yikes.

To be fair, what the Republican Party has for political options with the Iraq War is almost as bad. But hey, we’re the wimpy minority party and when that crazy bastard George Bush “surges”(which I actually support) we still have that crazy bastard George Bush.

Get it?

But the Democrats asked for majority control in the last elections and the American public gave it to them. All that was asked in return was that Democrats “take the War in Iraq in a new direction.”

Not that easy.

Three options. They are all terrible.

1.You can stay the course.

2.You can go along with Bush and “surge”.

3. You pull the troops out starting tomorrow, which means that you vote against funding the war.

Doing anything other than 2 or 3 is 1. (And this is your war too Mr. Binden – Mr. CHAIRMAN – it’s not just the President’s anymore)

I wrote about the Democrats Iraq problem several weeks ago here:http://greenmountain…

and here:http://greenmountain…

So, I can’t say I was surprised to see the following story in my local paper on Friday.
It seems that soon-to-be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, Patrick Leahy, is exploring ways to cut off funding for the President’s expected troop surge proposal and the Democratic leadership, and their candidates for President, aren’t exactly pumped: http://www.reformer….

Wait, troop surge? But isn’t just stopping the surge simply maintaining the status quo? That’s not a new direction! Oh well, I guess Senator Pat had to start somewhere.

Which brings me all the way back to John Edwards and the fact that on Friday I was sitting less than 2 feet from him when it was my turn to ask him a question.

No problem. Enquiring minds want to know. I even have the audio tapes to preserve my moment in the sun.

Here is a imperfect transcript of my question to Edwards:

Clacker: “Senator Edwards, soon-to-be Chairman Leahy is currently exploring ways to cut off funding for the Iraq War. Do you support Senator Leahy’s efforts?

Edwards: (2 minutes of verbal dodging and weaving) “No, I’m running for President, how can I agree with that? All 3 options on the Iraq War are terrible and if I choose any one of the three definitively, I’m screwed. If I don’t act definitively I’m screwed. What a mess.”

Clacker’s follow-up: Senator Edwards, do you think that disagreement on the Iraq War within your Party will be a problem in 08′?

Edwards: (Another minute of verbal dodging and weaving) “No.”

Edwards and I didn’t disagree on much over the course of our 20 minutes together, but we disagree on his answer to that question.

The Iraq War question is going to tear the Democratic Party apart in 2008. It will take smarts and political skill to avoid the wreckage.

Edwards has both. In bunches.

Stay tuned.

http://news.independ…
Robert Fisk: A dictator created then destroyed by America
Published: 30 December 2006

Saddam to the gallows. It was an easy equation. Who could be more deserving of that last walk to the scaffold – that crack of the neck at the end of a rope – than the Beast of Baghdad, the Hitler of the Tigris, the man who murdered untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis while spraying chemical weapons over his enemies? Our masters will tell us in a few hours that it is a “great day” for Iraqis and will hope that the Muslim world will forget that his death sentence was signed – by the Iraqi “government”, but on behalf of the Americans – on the very eve of the Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice, the moment of greatest forgiveness in the Arab world.

But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers – what about the other guilty men?

No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don’t gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn’t invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead – and thousands of Western troops are dead – because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality.

In the aftermath of the international crimes against humanity of 2001 we have tortured, we have murdered, we have brutalised and killed the innocent – we have even added our shame at Abu Ghraib to Saddam’s shame at Abu Ghraib – and yet we are supposed to forget these terrible crimes as we applaud the swinging corpse of the dictator we created.

Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam’s weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.

And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted uranium shells and our “bunker buster” bombs and our phosphorous, the murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of our “victory” – our “mission accomplished” – who will be found guilty of this? Such expiation as we might expect will come, no doubt, in the self-serving memoirs of Blair and Bush, written in comfortable and wealthy retirement.

Hours before Saddam’s death sentence, his family – his first wife, Sajida, and Saddam’s daughter and their other relatives – had given up hope.

“Whatever could be done has been done – we can only wait for time to take its course,” one of them said last night. But Saddam knew, and had already announced his own “martyrdom”: he was still the president of Iraq and he would die for Iraq. All condemned men face a decision: to die with a last, grovelling plea for mercy or to die with whatever dignity they can wrap around themselves in their last hours on earth. His last trial appearance – that wan smile that spread over the mass-murderer’s face – showed us which path Saddam intended to walk to the noose.

I have catalogued his monstrous crimes over the years. I have talked to the Kurdish survivors of Halabja and the Shia who rose up against the dictator at our request in 1991 and who were betrayed by us – and whose comrades, in their tens of thousands, along with their wives, were hanged like thrushes by Saddam’s executioners.

I have walked round the execution chamber of Abu Ghraib – only months, it later transpired, after we had been using the same prison for a few tortures and killings of our own – and I have watched Iraqis pull thousands of their dead relatives from the mass graves of Hilla. One of them has a newly-inserted artificial hip and a medical identification number on his arm. He had been taken directly from hospital to his place of execution. Like Donald Rumsfeld, I have even shaken the dictator’s soft, damp hand. Yet the old war criminal finished his days in power writing romantic novels.

It was my colleague, Tom Friedman – now a messianic columnist for The New York Times – who perfectly caught Saddam’s character just before the 2003 invasion: Saddam was, he wrote, “part Don Corleone, part Donald Duck”. And, in this unique definition, Friedman caught the horror of all dictators; their sadistic attraction and the grotesque, unbelievable nature of their barbarity.

But that is not how the Arab world will see him. At first, those who suffered from Saddam’s cruelty will welcome his execution. Hundreds wanted to pull the hangman’s lever. So will many other Kurds and Shia outside Iraq welcome his end. But they – and millions of other Muslims – will remember how he was informed of his death sentence at the dawn of the Eid al-Adha feast, which recalls the would-be sacrifice by Abraham, of his son, a commemoration which even the ghastly Saddam cynically used to celebrate by releasing prisoners from his jails. “Handed over to the Iraqi authorities,” he may have been before his death. But his execution will go down – correctly – as an American affair and time will add its false but lasting gloss to all this – that the West destroyed an Arab leader who no longer obeyed his orders from Washington, that, for all his wrongdoing (and this will be the terrible get-out for Arab historians, this shaving away of his crimes) Saddam died a “martyr” to the will of the new “Crusaders”.

When he was captured in November of 2003, the insurgency against American troops increased in ferocity. After his death, it will redouble in intensity again. Freed from the remotest possibility of Saddam’s return by his execution, the West’s enemies in Iraq have no reason to fear the return of his Baathist regime. Osama bin Laden will certainly rejoice, along with Bush and Blair. And there’s a thought. So many crimes avenged.

But we will have got away with it.

 Loading ...

( – promoted by odum)

This is Riverbend, a young Iraqi woman living in Baghdad speaking about conditions in Iraq after almost four years of American/Coalition occupation. 
http://riverbendblog…

Baghdad Burning
… I’ll meet you ’round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend…

Friday, December 29, 2006

End of Another Year…

You know your country is in trouble when:
The UN has to open a special branch just to keep track of the chaos and bloodshed, UNAMI.
Abovementioned branch cannot be run from your country.
 

The politicians who worked to put your country in this sorry state can no longer be found inside of, or anywhere near, its borders.

The only thing the US and Iran can agree about is the deteriorating state of your nation.

An 8-year war and 13-year blockade are looking like the country’s ‘Golden Years’.

Your country is purportedly ‘selling’ 2 million barrels of oil a day, but you are standing in line for 4 hours for black market gasoline for the generator.

For every 5 hours of no electricity, you get one hour of public electricity and then the government announces it’s going to cut back on providing that hour.

Politicians who supported the war spend tv time debating whether it is ‘sectarian bloodshed’ or ‘civil war’.

People consider themselves lucky if they can actually identify the corpse of the relative that’s been missing for two weeks.

A day in the life of the average Iraqi has been reduced to identifying corpses, avoiding car bombs and attempting to keep track of which family members have been detained, which ones have been exiled and which ones have been abducted.

2006 has been, decidedly, the worst year yet. No- really. The magnitude of this war and occupation is only now hitting the country full force. It’s like having a big piece of hard, dry earth you are determined to break apart. You drive in the first stake in the form of an infrastructure damaged with missiles and the newest in arms technology, the first cracks begin to form. Several smaller stakes come in the form of politicians like Chalabi, Al Hakim, Talbani, Pachachi, Allawi and Maliki. The cracks slowly begin to multiply and stretch across the once solid piece of earth, reaching out towards its edges like so many skeletal hands. And you apply pressure. You surround it from all sides and push and pull. Slowly, but surely, it begins coming apart- a chip here, a chunk there.

That is Iraq right now. The Americans have done a fine job of working to break it apart. This last year has nearly everyone convinced that that was the plan right from the start. There were too many blunders for them to actually have been, simply, blunders. The ‘mistakes’ were too catastrophic. The people the Bush administration chose to support and promote were openly and publicly terrible- from the conman and embezzler Chalabi, to the terrorist Jaffari, to the militia man Maliki. The decisions, like disbanding the Iraqi army, abolishing the original constitution, and allowing militias to take over Iraqi security were too damaging to be anything but intentional.

The question now is, but why? I really have been asking myself that these last few days. What does America possibly gain by damaging Iraq to this extent? I’m certain only raving idiots still believe this war and occupation were about WMD or an actual fear of Saddam.

Al Qaeda? That’s laughable. Bush has effectively created more terrorists in Iraq these last 4 years than Osama could have created in 10 different terrorist camps in the distant hills of Afghanistan. Our children now play games of ‘sniper’ and ‘jihadi’, pretending that one hit an American soldier between the eyes and this one overturned a Humvee.

This last year especially has been a turning point. Nearly every Iraqi has lost so much. So much. There’s no way to describe the loss we’ve experienced with this war and occupation. There are no words to relay the feelings that come with the knowledge that daily almost 40 corpses are found in different states of decay and mutilation. There is no compensation for the dense, black cloud of fear that hangs over the head of every Iraqi. Fear of things so out of ones hands, it borders on the ridiculous- like whether your name is ‘too Sunni’ or ‘too Shia’. Fear of the larger things- like the Americans in the tank, the police patrolling your area in black bandanas and green banners, and the Iraqi soldiers wearing black masks at the checkpoint.

Again, I can’t help but ask myself why this was all done? What was the point of breaking Iraq so that it was beyond repair? Iran seems to be the only gainer. Their presence in Iraq is so well-established, publicly criticizing a cleric or ayatollah verges on suicide. Has the situation gone so beyond America that it is now irretrievable? Or was this a part of the plan all along? My head aches just posing the questions.

What has me most puzzled right now is: why add fuel to the fire? Sunnis and moderate Shia are being chased out of the larger cities in the south and the capital. Baghdad is being torn apart with Shia leaving Sunni areas and Sunnis leaving Shia areas- some under threat and some in fear of attacks. People are being openly shot at check points or in drive by killings… Many colleges have stopped classes. Thousands of Iraqis no longer send their children to school- it’s just not safe.

Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam’s execution now? Who gains if they hang Saddam? Iran, naturally, but who else? There is a real fear that this execution will be the final blow that will shatter Iraq. Some Sunni and Shia tribes have threatened to arm their members against the Americans if Saddam is executed. Iraqis in general are watching closely to see what happens next, and quietly preparing for the worst.

This is because now, Saddam no longer represents himself or his regime. Through the constant insistence of American war propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs (never mind most of his government were Shia). The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically, with this execution, what the Americans are saying is “Look-Sunni Arabs- this is your man, we all know this. We’re hanging him- he symbolizes you.” And make no mistake about it, this trial and verdict and execution are 100% American. Some of the actors were Iraqi enough, but the production, direction and montage was pure Hollywood (though low-budget, if you ask me).

That is, of course, why Talbani doesn’t want to sign his death penalty- not because the mob man suddenly grew a conscience, but because he doesn’t want to be the one who does the hanging- he won’t be able to travel far away enough if he does that.

Maliki’s government couldn’t contain their glee. They announced the ratification of the execution order before the actual court did. A few nights ago, some American news program interviewed Maliki’s bureau chief, Basim Al-Hassani who was speaking in accented American English about the upcoming execution like it was a carnival he’d be attending. He sat, looking sleazy and not a little bit ridiculous, his dialogue interspersed with ‘gonna’, ‘gotta’ and ‘wanna’… Which happens, I suppose, when the only people you mix with are American soldiers.

My only conclusion is that the Americans want to withdraw from Iraq, but would like to leave behind a full-fledged civil war because it wouldn’t look good if they withdraw and things actually begin to improve, would it?

Here we come to the end of 2006 and I am sad. Not simply sad for the state of the country, but for the state of our humanity, as Iraqis. We’ve all lost some of the compassion and civility that I felt made us special four years ago. I take myself as an example. Nearly four years ago, I cringed every time I heard about the death of an American soldier. They were occupiers, but they were humans also and the knowledge that they were being killed in my country gave me sleepless nights. Never mind they crossed oceans to attack the country, I actually felt for them.

Had I not chronicled those feelings of agitation in this very blog, I wouldn’t believe them now. Today, they simply represent numbers. 3000 Americans dead over nearly four years? Really? That’s the number of dead Iraqis in less than a month. The Americans had families? Too bad. So do we. So do the corpses in the streets and the ones waiting for identification in the morgue.

Is the American soldier that died today in Anbar more important than a cousin I have who was shot last month on the night of his engagement to a woman he’s wanted to marry for the last six years? I don’t think so.

Just because Americans die in smaller numbers, it doesn’t make them more significant, does it?

– posted by river @ 1:00 PM

What does America have to gain by damaging Iraq to this extent?  Check out the portion of the Iraq Study Group’s report on privitizing Iraqi oil.  The real question is: What do American oil companies have to gain, and who receives the proceeds of those ill-gotten gains?

Barbara

Knocking on doors in Vermont, you are bound to run across some folks that are smart, informed, concerned, reasonable… and then you find out that they are Republicans! Throws ya for a loop, it does.

It struck me over the past few days with the passing of Sen. Stafford, retirement of Sen. Jeffords and even Pres. Ford’s passing that this might also be a passing of an era for VT Republicans. Not the elected ones, but the regular folk.

They are grounded on economic matters, tolerant on social issues, and compassionate about helping neighbors genuinely in need. They want a government that is frugal and efficient in the best Yankee tradition. They don’t want to go butting into everyone’s personal business, and they especially don’t want anyone preaching to them about what they should and should not do with their lives.

What stuck with me was the realization that, more and more in the country and now even in VT, the elected Repubs speak for a party that does not represent these people. Stafford did. Jeffords did. For some of them, Bernie does on populist economic issues. I don’t think Douglas speaks for these folks though. Dubie… I do think that his down-home, plain-spoken thing connects with this block and was a big part of his success. But the governor and certainly the national party have disconnected with these VT “Stafford/Jeffords” R’s.

Got me thinking about if there were any potential Dems who could tap into this neglected constituency in the next Gubernatorial race. Going by the most prestegious source I could find, the GMD Governor’s Poll, here’s some quick thoughts on the top potential candidates, just in regards to this open voting block opportunity and their ability to tap into it.

Parker: I think he can connect with these folks. He’s got the quiet moral integrity, might be a little to wonkish on the issues though?

Dunne: It could be hard for Matt taking advantage of this angle because his personal style is just so darned polished, but he has to be making inroads with his community service approach.

Markowitz: I don’t really know her that well or her style so its hard for me to say, but I do think she has developed a reputation for competency and just plain getting the job done in the SOS office that would help.

Spaulding: He’s got a beard and his name is Jeb, that’s a good start. He’s a pretty down to earth guy. Have to see how his policies would take shape.

Symington: Another one I don’t know well. As Speaker, will VT’ers think she’s more suited to insider politics? That’s my first, uninformed thought.

Tracy: Strikes me as an sharp, effective pol who takes a stand for what he thinks, not a natural connection with this block but could possibly work into one.

Sorrell: Doesn’t seem like a guy who would be a good match here, seems more… sophisticated or something. Can he connect?

Shumlin: I don’t think so, always sounds to me like he’s lecturing folks.

Again, this commentary is only in relation to the observation I had about there being a potential block of neglected Stafford/Jeffords Rep’s out there, not on these folks’ overall strengths as Dem candidates. AND, that’s my view from way outside the Montpelier beltway, feel free to add your own thoughts of course.

Looking at it from this angle, I think Parker is best suited to expand the base into this Yankee bloc. Anyone else not mentioned yet that ties into this line of thinking for you?

Listen, I don’t know whether it’s kosher to comment on another blog here, but, really, the PoliticsVT entry (Part II) on why Tarrant and Rainville failed is nothing more than barely literate blame shifting from their own bad strategy (or lack of any strategy). And these folks are somehow related to the Capital Press Bureau? Oh please, say it ain’t so!

Whoever posted this stuff is just a Republican Party apologist who can’t spell and doesn’t know how to use a spellchecker.

And the awful thing is that I heard something not as blatant, but bad enough on Vermont Public Radio on one of their end-of-year news roundups. Essentially they said that Rainville lost because it was a bad year for Republicans. Nothing about Welch’s name recognition from a previous statewide race. Nothing about superior strategy run by Carolyn Dwyer …

Sheesh.

NanuqFC