Iraq
Yesterday on Randi Rhodes she had Scott Ritter on. Before he was on live she was playing clips from his previous appearance on her show over 2 years ago. He was right on before the war and yesterday he reminded me and those listening that Iraq is just the beginning of the neocon world conquering agenda that they call "democracy". It must be kept in my especially in light of this, Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces. Check out the signatories of this document. Here is another thing to keep in mind when listening to the Iraqi election cheerleading,The Vietnam turnout was good as well:

On September 4 1967 the New York Times published an upbeat story on presidential elections held by the South Vietnamese puppet regime at the height of the Vietnam war. Under the heading "US encouraged by Vietnam vote: Officials cite 83% turnout despite Vietcong terror", the paper reported that the Americans had been "surprised and heartened" by the size of the turnout "despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting". A successful election, it went on, "has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam". The echoes of this weekend's propaganda about Iraq's elections are so close as to be uncanny.

Yesterday I linked an article that talked about unintended consequences of the election in Iraq. In my opinion one of the biggest of these will be the perception of the American people that it's over and will start wondering why we are still there. Especially in light of all the cheerleading the SCLM has been doing about what a monumental and successful event this was. That's one of my opinions but in reality no one knows what the consequences of this election will be. Only time will tell.

Now as Dahr Jamail is pointing out on his blog that Some Just Voted for Food and also What They?re Not Telling You About the ?Election?:

What they also didn?t tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35% or even 60% of registered voters, were not voting in support of an ongoing US occupation of their country.

In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation.

And they expect the call for a withdrawing of foreign forces in their country to come sooner rather than later.

This causes one to view the footage of cheering, jubilant Iraqis in a different light now, doesn?t it?

Why yes it does. But you won't hear anyone in the SCLM talking about that. With that in my how do you think the Iraqis will feel about this, Iraq president: U.S. troops must stay for now?

The two WMD partners in crime appear to be back in business, Together, Again -- Judith Miller and Ahmad Chalabi. So the embezzeling Iranian spy now is going to be setup in an Iraqi cabinet post by the our government. Once again my thoughts from last May on Chalabi:

"Mr. Chalabi is fighting for his political life in Iraq. But for him stay in power he needs the Iraqis to think he is one of them and not with the Americans"

Filibuster
This is a very good column about how we got to this point regarding judicial nominees, Resist the Filibuster Fiat. Kevin Drum points out in this article how when the GOP assumed power in the Senate in 2002 they changed the committee rules. The rules changes left the minority no other recourse against an appointment they didn't favor other than using the filibuster. He sympathizes with the idea that maybe some of the rules that were changed weren't good rules to begin with but finishes with what I believe to be the main point of all this:

Given this history, fair-minded Republicans would be better advised to restore some of the rules they themselves once defended so fervently than to attempt to tear down the last one remaining.

I think he's is saying that the Republicans are acting like that kid who would take his ball and go home.

The above column is in contrast to this incant:

The media tolerate or even encourage Democratic rage. But the White House can't afford to. Senate Democrats have enough votes to block major Bush initiatives like Social Security reform and to reject Bush appointees, including Supreme Court nominees. They may be suicidal, but they could undermine the president's entire second term agenda. At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved. Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq. Too much is at stake to wait for another Democratic defeat in 2006.

- posted by Mom/Dad @ 11:04 AM