(UPDATE, 1/18/2009: This is a diary on its 4th appearance- first at dKos, then crossed over here after a time, and then re-posted again last year. It’s not that I think its so great, but its a message I’m determined to get out into the world, and every now and then something brings it up.

But the whole thing reminded me again of how Christian “traditionalists” have no understanding of their own tradition, and of how the church hierarchy has dishonestly overwritten it an almost Orwellian, the-enemy-has-always-been-Eurasia, manner.   – promoted by odum)

From a diary of mine at Daily Kos from the pre-GMD days (hopefully the links are still good):

Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 10:59:16 AM PDT

It’s a day after the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and we may be about to see an anti-Roe majority on the Supreme Court.

The media has had very little to say on this 33rd anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, but what more do they need to say? We know the narrative. Slowly but surely, the “liberal” states – as part of a process of public secularization, expanded access to abortion. Finally, in an archetypal liberal decision – Roe v Wade – this secularization and the process moving away from tradition into a more “enlightened” public sphere was federalized uniformly nationwide, whether or not the more traditional states wanted it. What we’ve seen unfold is a steady backlash that has been returning this issue (and others) into a more traditionally Christian context — basically, “Christian traditionalists vs. liberals” – advantage them…. right?

What do you think? This is the media’s narrative, and has been for some time. So naturally, this is wrong, wrong, wrong, and the longer we’ve let them get away with it, the more tenuous our position has become.

As with any history, its complicated – but suffice to say there has rarely – if ever – been consensus on the issue. Still, this history informs the debate, and the false history that’s now been fully riveted into the brains of the American public is one of the anti-choice movement’s most powerful weapons, even if they’re ignorant of it themselves (which – in most cases – I’m willing to bet they are).

Here’s a nutshell version with some links to follow for more details.

Few influenced the perspective of the early church more than Aristotle, and the Aristotelean view of the soul in the unborn was the “delayed ensoulment” – that is, the fetus isn’t animated with a human soul until 40 days after conception for males, 90 days for females – both having a vegetable soul before then. In fact, there are early Greek texts and advice on how to perform abortion, so this is the history that Aristotle’s views emerged from and which informed early Christian thinking.

When the Church became more organized, opinions started changing. As a theological narrative took shape in th mid 2nd Century into the 4th, more Christian thinkers began to equate abortion with infanticide. St. John Chrysostom called it “murder before the birth” (Homily 24 on Romans).  Worth noting here is that thinkers like St. Jerome (infamous for, among other things, blaming women for the fall from grace) and St John Chrysostom (women are “a necessary evil”) are also responsible for hardwiring some of the most disturbingly anti-woman theology into early Christianity – presenting women as something other than human, and sexuality as evil, or at least the pathway to evil. It’s no coincidence that, even at this early date, anti-choice extremism goes hand-in-hand with misogyny.  Still even Jerome – while saying some of the most awful garbage about women in recorded history, was not as hardcore about abortion as today’s Religious Right, writing “The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs (“Epistle” (121, 4))”

Neither were early church organizational meetings unanimous. The Synods of Elvira and Ancyra (306 ACE, 314 ACE) explicitly called abortion a sin, while the Apostolic Constitutions (380 ACE) disallowed it only after the fetus took on a “human shape.”

Although eastern Christianity vectored toward an absolutist stand, the western church did not. St. Augustine refocused the church on the Aristotelan delayed ensoulment model (“On Exodus”, (21, 80)), and by this time the church was a much more defined hierarchy, leaving less room for disagreement.

In the early 7th Century, the Church began codifying what it considered sexual sins and abortion made the list, but was well behind the “sins” of birth control, oral sex, and anal sex. In fact, the punishment for oral sex was at least 7 years of penance, while the punishment for abortion was a mere 120 days.

In the centuries that followed, Popes came on the scene with widely varying viewpoints – changing and re-changing the rules as the mitre passed on. Significantly, Pope Innocent III in the early 1200s ruled that the fetus had no soul until it was “animated” (the “quickening” – when the mother can feel the fetus’ movements, usually around the 24th week). In his ruling – and this is significant — a monk was found not guilty of homicide for aborting his lover’s unborn child under this argument. Pope Sixtus V in 1588 made all abortions illegal, but was reversed again by Pope Gregory XIV, codifying abortions at up to 16 ½ weeks as not equivalent to the killing of a human being, as no soul was present.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas himself – arguably the most influential theologian in Roman Catholic Christianity, did not consider a fetus human until the quickening.

This was the way it was for the most part until – and are you sitting down for this? – 1869. That’s when Pope Pius IX declared all abortion to be homicide. That’s right, for nearly the entire history of Christianity, the Catholic Church was officially tolerant of first trimester abortion. The change was well after the Enlightenment, after the Civil War, and into the modern scientific era. In fact, it was only as recently as 1983 that all vestiges of the distinction between the “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus” were quietly purged from Canon Law. (Yes, that was 1983… only 23 years ago)

So much for the traditional Christians versus those pesky godless, postmodern liberals, eh?

And its not just the Catholics, but Protestants as well. English Common Law did not recognize abortion as a crime before quickening, and was only a misdemeanor afterwards. This began changing in 1803 with a series of changes to the written Law, but it is largely this fact that has lead many legal scholars  to suggest that Roe v Wade should have been argued based on English Common Law rather than a debatable, “inferred” right of privacy.

Of course these scholars make the argument based on legality, but I’d argue such a common-law based decision would have, perhaps more importantly, gone a long way to framing the debate. After all, it would be far more difficult to perpetuate the notion that a right to an abortion is based on the whims of “liberal activist judges” if it was based on arguments that rise from the very foundations of our American legal system.

So anyway, the point is that WE are the “traditionalists” here, and the supposedly monolithic, unchanging, “old-fashioned” party line from the Catholic Church and other protestant institutions are anything but traditional and unchanging.

The next time you hear a politically conservative Catholic saying that anyone suggesting that abortion may be permissible publicly should be denied Communion, ask them if that would include Saints Jerome, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

FYI: There are a lot of links on the web for more detailed back ground information. I drew a lot of my information from the nice tidy roundup at this site, But this one, this one, and this one are fantastic, as well as this site on the Common Law issue.

So what’s up with Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Bush’s orchestgrated new reference point linking their war to 1939 and WW2 against the Nazis. (Interesting that this rhetoric seems to be a replacement for analogies to the Cold War against godless communism.) There are a lot of semiotics in that language:
1. The Nazis were evil people, therefore, our opponents are evil people.
2. The Nazis were the aggressors that started WW2, therefore our opponents are the aggressors in this war.
3. The Nazis were anti-Semitic racists who persecuted the Jews, therefore opposition to Israel’s policies in Labanon and the occupied territories is anti-Semitic and racist.
4. The world was united (except for Italy, Japan and for a while the Soviet Union) against the bad guys and won, therefore, if the world – especially US voters – would unite in support of the Bushies against the bad guys, we will “win.”
5. Appeasement in 1939 encouraged the Nazis to invade Poland and begin WW2, therefore  “appeasement” (i.e. US withdrawal from Iraq) will encourage more attacks on us.
6. The legal climate of a Congressionally formally declared war against sovereign nations allowed FDR to do things that would never have been allowed otherwise – e.g. interning Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps, holding military tribunals, instituting a draft…, therefore Bush should have the same authorities in the war against terrorism.

None of these associations are made explicit in the speeches, and they are so wrong at so many levels, they fall apart under even the most superficial historical scrutiny, but the unspoken associations have power that shapes attitudes.  And these guys know how to shape the debate using this kind of rhetoric.

On the day of Barbara Bush’s visit to Vermont, we get to see a hint of why this morning’s Times Argus reported that the DCCC may be scaling down their plans for a media buy in Vermont on behalf of Congressional candidate Peter Welch (scary that Washington may be relaxing a bit on this one!), and why beltway elections guru Stuart Rothenberg has reclassified the VT-AL race from “toss-up” to “leans Democratic.” Here’s part of the graphic layout of Constituent Dynamics’ latest poll on the race (go check out their site, it’s pretty nifty):

Now clearly this poll is welcome news, but it should be approached cautiously. For one thing, the poll based on approximately 1000 voters has a good geographic spread, and the subjects were all registered voters, but they were not identified as likely voters. Also – the poll did not specifically name Martha Rainville, but rather the Republican candidate, given that there’s a primary. This makes the whole poll sketchier.

Still, it’s good news for sure – and some of the above concerns are at least partly offset by the “voter motivation index” (based on a “how likely are you to vote” on a scale of 1-9 poll question) which shows Democrats and Independents both more motivated than Republicans to vote in November (and looking at that 25 point approval rating for Bush, is it any wonder?)

Nevertheless, as others have pointed out, the GOP always seems to “close the deal” better than Dems on Election Day – and anyone who remembers the Freeps poll three days out giving Doug Racine a 10 point lead over Jim Douglas in 2002 understands that no poll should ever give us cause to think we can take anything for granted.

Still, good news is always welcome…

A quick note on VPR’s Switchboard tonight (audio link – takes some time to load): Bob Kinzel hosted a debate between GOP Congressional Candidates Martha Rainville and Mark Shepard. Rainville (obviously the overwhelming favorite) had her campaign’s centerpiece – the “clean campaign pledge” – made out to be the nonsense that it truly is thanks to persistent questioning from Kinzel.

Kinzel pushed Rainville as to whether she would characterize Rich Tarrant’s now legendary TV ads – you know, the ones casting Bernie Sanders as in favor of drug dealers and child molesters and against national security – as ads that would not be acceptable under her pledge. Instead of responding directly, she replied that it was up to “the judgement of the voters” as to whether or not they crossed the line laid out in her pledge. To his credit, Kinzel was somewhat insistent, pointing out that by calling for a campaign pledge, she was making her judgement of what is or isn’t “too negative” very much the point. Still, after three attempts from Kinzel, she refused to answer.

So let’s be clear: Rainville refused to indicate whether the most brazenly nasty campaign ads this state has ever seen would constitute a violation of her “clean campaign pledge.” Under these circumstances, the integrity and credibility of her pledge now equal precisely zero.

[On an unrelated note – Baruth’s evisceration of a Republican front group‘s (Vermont Business Coalition) poorly disguised attack on targeted Democrats is fantastic… the must read of the week so far…]

Well, it looks like the war in Iraq may not be going so well, at least according to those “in the know” about the forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). It’s a report comprising input from all the intelligence and military organizations in the US. Alas, they think that things could go from bad to worse:

The Pentagon’s intelligence arm painted a scenario in which Iraq could dissolve into civil war if Iraqi security forces don’t soon get their act together. One official familiar with the briefing, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive subject matter, said that the picture it painted was dire, although another official–who requested anonymity for the same reason–insisted it was not entirely despairing, since Iraqi security forces were beginning to improve.

More after the jump…

Did anyone catch the not-even-remotely subtle framing:

…if Iraqi security forces don’t soon get their act together

But, wait! The Iraqi security forces have their act together, according to our very own President, way back in Nov. 2005:

To strengthen security, the Coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive – clearing out areas controlled by the enemy, holding that territory using Iraqi forces, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.

And again in Mar., 2006:

We saw the leadership of Sunni and Shia clerics, the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces, and the determination of many of Iraq’s leaders to come together and act decisively to diffuse the crisis.

The Aftermath Of The Samarra Mosque Attack Shows The Progress Made By The Iraqi Security Forces. After the Samarra bombing, Iraqi Security Forces – not Coalition forces – restored order. Iraqi leaders put the Iraqi Security Forces on alert – canceling leaves and heightening security around mosques and critical sites. In Baghdad and other trouble spots, Iraqi police manned checkpoints, increased patrols, ensured peaceful demonstrators were protected, and arrested those who turned to violence. Public Order Brigades deployed rapidly to areas where violence was reported. During the past two weeks, Iraqi Security Forces have conducted more than 200 independent operations.

Having Iraqi Forces In The Lead Has Been Critical Because They Can Do Things That Coalition Forces Could Not. For example, on the day of the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi National Police responded to an armed demonstration where an angry Shia crowd had surrounded the Sunni Al Quds Mosque. The Iraqi Brigade Commander placed his troops – who were largely Shia – between the crowd and the mosque, and called for calm and urged the crowd to disperse. After a two-hour standoff, the crowd eventually left without incident, and the National Police remained in position overnight to guard the Mosque until the threat was over. The fact that Iraqis were in the lead and negotiating with their own countrymen helped diffuse a potential confrontation and prevented an escalation of violence.

Iraqi Security Forces Are Making Progress Against the Enemy, And They Are Gaining The Confidence Of The Iraqi People. Last fall, there were over 120 Iraqi Army and Police combat battalions fighting against the terrorists – and 40 of these were taking the lead in the fight. Today, there are more than 130 battalions in the fight – and more than 60 are taking the lead. As more Iraqi battalions come online, these forces are assuming responsibility for more territory. Iraqi forces now conduct more independent operations throughout the country than do Coalition forces.

[emphasis in the original White House document]

But wait! There’s more! Apparently, the administration was given carte-blanche to spend whatever was needed in order to accelerate Iraqi troop training back in June, 2005.

House Passes Inslee Amendment to Lift Funding Limit on Iraqi Troop Training

Accelerates Replacement of American Troops with Iraqi Security Forces

20 June 2005

In an effort to bring American troops home sooner, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee offered and successfully passed an amendment today to help fully fund the training and equipping of Iraqi and Afghan troops. Inslee’s amendment removes the $500 million cap that had been placed in the Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act to train, equip and provide assistance to security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The DOD bill includes $45.3 billion for military operations in Iraq, yet placed limitations on the amount of money that could be spent on training a viable Iraqi security force. The House passed Inslee’s amendment by a voice vote, without any objections.

Said Inslee, “This amendment is a significant step forward in accelerating our efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces to replace American troops. The Administration should be called upon to hasten this process so we can bring our troops home earlier and with dignity. Despite Secretary Rumsfeld and the Vice President’s rose-colored optimism, we have a long ways to go to establish a viable Iraqi security force that will allow Iraqis to control their own destiny. My amendment keeps us focused on an exit strategy by removing the handcuffs that have been placed on the funding our military can spend on training Iraqi security forces and interpreters.” Inslee continued, “We hope that the Administration listens to the voices in Congress that have said, ‘If we can train and equip Iraqis one day earlier we should do so. If this training brings Americans home one day earlier we should make this a priority.’”

If sufficient troops still aren’t trained after all that time, where did all the training money go?

Did the responsibility for training Iraqi troops really shift from the US to the Iraqis themselves? If so, when? And if so, why weren’t the unused training funds returned to the budget?

Gosh, where’s a real journalist when you need one? Apparently not on MSNBC…

[thsi post has been edited: fixed a typo in the 1st paragraph]

I admit to having been a bit trepidacious about walking the eight miles from Shelburne Farm to Battery Park for today’s finale of the five day march on global climate change put together by author Bill McKibben. As anyone who’s seen me recently can attest, I’ve really (ahem), shall we say let myself go over the past few years.

But what a great scene it was. This final day of the event started with around 450 walkers. By the time we reached Battery Park in Burlington, we were around 800 strong, and with the additional folks joining us in the park, the afternoon boasted at least 1000 people of all ages. It was very encouraging and a roaring success.

The heart of this final day were the addresses by the candidates for office. As each one approached the microphone, they were handed a sharpie and asked to sign onto a Global Warming Pledge committing them to the goals outlined in the legislation put forward in Washington by retiring Senator Jim Jeffords. To their credit, everyone who attended signed the pledge. It’s a testament to the depth of the feelings and evidence on the matter that not only did Rich Tarrant sign the thing, but Martha Rainville reversed herself – having suggested only weeks ago that global warming may not even be real – and added her own signature to the pledge (Note: the glaring no-show was incumbent Republican Governor Jim Douglas, whose absence Democratic opponent Scudder Parker drew pointed attention to).

At this point, I couldn’t care less about anyone’s motivations for showing up, speaking, and signing the pledge. The very fact that they did only adds to the force and the volume of the movement to address this most critical of problems before we pass that tipping point that scientists like NASA maverick James Hansen have warned us may be less than a decade away. Thanks to everyone who was there in body or spirit. There is a lot starting to happen on this issue, so keep watching (and voting).

Click below for a summary of the Jeffords bill.

From Senator Jeffords’ website:

Summary of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006 is based on the increasing scientific evidence that global warming poses a significant threat to the national security and economy of the United States, to public health and welfare, and to the global environment, and that actions can and must be taken soon tobegin the process of reducing emissions substantially over the next fifty years. The bill sets out a roadmap of targets, requirements and incentives that EPA will use to reduce U.S emissions and help stabilize global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Global concentrations of greenhouse gases are higher than ever and during the past years global temperatures have risen by almost 1 degree Fahrenheit. Nine out of the past 10 years are among thewarmest 10 years on record.

In order to avoid some of the most dangerous consequences of global warming, the United States, which is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, must take action soon to reduce its emissions substantially.

There exists an array of technological options for use in reducing greenhouse gas emissions andsignificant reductions can be attained using a portfolio of technologies that will not adversely affect the economy.

The bill sets a goal of achieving a reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute to stabilizing global concentrations of carbon dioxide below 450 parts per million.

To achieve this goal, the United States must reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and its equivalentsto 1990 levels by 2020 and make additional reductions between 2020 and 2050. The bill includes a combination of economy wide reduction targets, mandatory measures, and incentives for the development and diffusion of cleaner technologies to achieve these goals.

Targets: The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006 requires that the U.S. reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases between 2010 and 2020 to 1990 levels. By 2030, the U.S. must reduce its emissions byan amount equal to 1/3 of 80% percent below 1990 levels, by 2040 by 2/3 of 80% percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, to a level that is 80 percent below 1990 levels.In the event that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide exceed 450 parts per million or that average global temperatures increase above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average temperature, EPA can require additional reductions. The National Academy of Sciences will report to EPA and the Congress regarding whether such events have occurred.

Specific Provisions: Section 701 contains findings related to climate change and announces the goal of reducing U.S.emissions to facilitate stabilization of global atmospheric concentrations below 450 parts per million.

Section 702 announces the purposes of the bill, which are to achieve a reduction in U.S. emissionconsistent with stabilization of atmospheric concentrations below 450 parts per million and to preventglobal temperature increases by 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average, by reducing emissions by 80 percent by 2050. In doing so, the United States will be positionedas the world leader in reducing the risk of potentially devastating and wide ranging impacts associatedwith climate change and in developing and implementing low carbon energy technologies and strategies.

Section 704 contains mandatory emission reduction milestones leading to an 80 percent reduction by 2050. The bill does not require a cap and trade program, but in the event that EPA uses a cap and tradesystem, it is directed to consider a declining cap with a technology based stop price. Such a mechanism isdesigned to provide a smooth glide path for reductions that is keyed to the price of available technologies.

Section 705 sets conditions for accelerated reductions, including if greenhouse gas concentrations exceed 450 parts per million or there is an increase in global average temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The NAS will report to EPA and the Congress regarding the occurrence of suchevents.

Section 706 provides for allocation of allowances in any cap and trade program to be allocated fortransition assistance for industries and to consumers disproportionately affected by the transition to a lowcarbon economy, as well as to other low carbon or carbon sequestration technologies.

Section 707 contains vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light-duty vehicles as well as medium and heavy-duty vehicles and directs EPA to consider reductions available from non-roadvehicles.Section 708 contains mandatory greenhouse gas emissions standards for all power plants built after 2012 with a compliance date of 2016. By 2030, final standards will apply to all power plants regardless ofwhen they came online.Section 709 contains an increasing low carbon generation requirement for electricity generation fromcoal, petroleum coke, lignite, biomass or any combination. By 2015, 0.5 percent of electricity generationbased on the above resources would need to be low carbon, with an increasing percentage of 1 percenteach year until reaching 5 percent by 2020.

Section 710 contains standards for geological disposal of greenhouse gases.

Section 711 provides for a research and development program on global climate change.

Section 712 contains an energy efficiency standard requiring reductions in end use electricity consumption.

Section 713 contains a renewable portfolio standard requiring a minimum annual percentage of 20 percent renewable electricity by 2020.

Section 714 contains standards for biological sequestration of carbon including in forests and soils.

Section 715 provides for a waiver of the requirements of this bill in the event of a national security emergency as determined by the President.

Section 716 contains a standard for renewable fuels mandating 5,000,000,000 gallons annually beginning in 2015, through an amendment of the Clean Air Act; includes the sense of the Senate that the U.S. should reengage in international climate change discourse; requires annual trade reports to Congress from federal agencies; requires the consideration of climate change under NEPA; and directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate regulations requiring corporatedisclosure of climate change risks.

Click here for the full text of the bill.

The New York Times reports (3/4 of the way down the article):

Mr. Mehlman, whom Mr. Rove assigned to master get-out-the-vote techniques years ago, has handed custom compact discs with lists of voters, along with information on their voting and consumer habits, to every state Republican chairman.

http://www.nytimes.c…

What kind of insurance companies/organizations/stores are selling our ‘consumer habits’ to the Republicans?  I don’t know about you, but I’d like to know!  How many ways are there to invade our privacy, and how can we stop these violations?

Barbara

( – promoted by odum)

There is a huge battle going on about (Inter)Net Neutrality.  For those of you who don’t follow this, the fixed line telco phone companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc) are arguing that they should be able to give priority routing for Internet traffic over their networks to content owners that pay a premium for the better service.  It has been characterized as providing an “express lane” for information. 

Most of the opposition has been driven by content providers like Google, who argue that the historic neutrality of the information transportation network to what is sent over it should be maintained and the FCC should maintain “net neutrality.” 

But there is another element to this argument that is at least as serious if not more; this has to do with Plain Old Telephone Services.  This was the old telco monopoly, but now it is threatened by a technology known as VOIP (never mind) that uses the Internet.  This bypasses the interconnection charges that the telcos impose on their competitors when a call terminates onto the telco network.  The telcos are desperate to retain this revenue, but as more and more phone calls get carried by folks like Skype and Vonage, the telcos feel increasingly threatened.  Hence, the proposal for a “two-tiered” pricing system.

The impact of the telco tactic becomes clear in this report from the OECD:

“Typically all Internet traffic receives equal priority on a first-come-first-served basis with no guarantee of delivery. As a result, aplications need to use error checking and request any packets that may not have arrived. The architecture was designed, and works best
for less time-sensitive applications such as e-mail and file transfer protocol. This is because packets are not sent over a dedicated channel and may arrive out of sequence or with a slight delay. A delay of a few seconds makes little difference to e-mail users but can completely disrupt a phone conversation using VoIP
or a data stream of a live event.”

So the telco two-track approach would let them either degrade the service quality  of their competitors to where it is not usable, or load charges onto the telephone calls of their competitors, which would raise their costs, make them less competitive, probably require higher prices, maintain telco profits, and hurt the consumer; all  to protect a 19th century technology from 21st century competition.

At least the oil companies rip you off to your face!

The New York Times reports (3/4 of the way down the article):

Mr. Mehlman, whom Mr. Rove assigned to master get-out-the-vote techniques years ago, has handed custom compact discs with lists of voters, along with information on their voting and consumer habits, to every state Republican chairman.

http://www.nytimes.c…

What kind of insurance companies/organizations/stores are selling our ‘consumer habits’ to the Republicans?  I don’t know about you, but I’d like to know!  How many ways are there to invade our privacy, and how can we stop these violations? 

Barbara

(I know, if you’re a Republican reality is a bad thing, but sometimes it can’t be helped.)

The truth is in, even the Pentagon is now starting to look at Iraq the way it really is.

They have a new report on how things are going over there, three plus years after his little “Mission Accomplished” dance on the aircraft carrier, and they finally seem to be willing to look at reality. And it isn’t pretty.

Since the last report, the core conflict in Iraq changed into a struggle between Sunni and Shi’a extremists seeking to control key areas in Baghdad, create or protect sectarian enclaves, divert economic resources, and impose their own
respective political and religious agendas.

They still won’t call it what it is, but we know the answer: civil war. Sure, it’s a civil war that we started, but it’s a civil war. And we’re not winning.