A couple of my favorite bloggers took issue with this quote from Paul Richter's article in the Los Angeles Times

"Bush could end up looking like the worst president since Jimmy Carter because of Iraq, and people are going to say, 'You got us into this mess,' " said one Washington source who considered himself a neoconservative and spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It's going to be nasty and bitter and brutal."

Jesse Taylor at Pandagon only hopes that it were true.  However, one of the commentators makes the astute point: "Because God knows that he can't actually be worse than a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize."

Juan Cole, on the other hand, tears into the quote as ridiculous, and elaborates in full, taking a swing at Reagan and Shrub along the way.

Jimmy Carter was a far better president than W. can ever hope to be. Carter made peace between Israel and Egypt. He resolved the Panama Canal issue to everyone's satisfaction, and we've never heard any more about it because there haven't been subsequent problems. He avoided a potentially disastrous US attempt to prevent or roll back the Islamic Revolution in Iran. He used the foreign aid carrot to begin the process of pushing the Latin American military regimes to democratize (a process that has been wildly successful). He raised human rights as a foreign policy issue. Carter is a quick study and a bright engineer. He was president at a time of post-Vietnam and post-Watergate doldrums, at a time when Iran and Afghanistan spun out of control, at a time of high petroleum prices, continued stagflation, and high inflation. I am not entirely sure what he could have done about any of these problems, most of which were beyond his control (and most of which remained beyond the control of his successors).

Reagan did not overturn Khomeini, rather he sold him arms. Although Reagan got the Soviets out of Afghanistan, he did it at the cost of creating a radical Islamist international and destabilizing Pakistan and Afghanistan--i.e. Afghanistan continued to spin out of control, with fateful consequences. The price of petroleum declined from $40 a barrel in 1980 to less than $10 a barrel in 1986, helping Reagan quite a lot, but it had nothing to do with any policy pursued by Reagan. (Europe cut its energy consumption by a third after the 1970s oil shock, and OPEC has a tendency to overproduce over time). After Carter retired, he spent his time building houses for disadvantaged people. He also was key to the elimination of a painful and debilitating parasite in Africa, improving the lives of millions. The vilification of Carter and the hero worship of W. is a sign of how morally warped the American Right really is. Carter's political and economic environment made it impossible for him to be a great president, but he was a damn sight better than W. any day of the week.

Chris Gruber at Open Source Politics posted a quote from John Dingell which sums up what was wrong with the Reagan years in one long, all-encompassing nutshell:

The Reagan Truth "As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling." -- Rep. John Dingell, 29 October 2003

Did he miss anything?

Ah, isn't that nice, the UN has unanimously given the USA 18 months to get the hell out of Iraq according to the Resolution adopted yesterday.  Fortunately for the glad-handing delegates at the Security Council, neither the Kurds nor the Shiites have a vote on the sovereignty situation.

This is the third plan for a return to normalcy in Iraq (as if anything there has been normal since Hamurabi) and to Colin Powell and Ambassador Negroponte's credit they got France to sign off on the deal.  For those that only read headlines (like POTUS and most of the world's population) this seems like a welcome development.  What veteran Sandinista fighter Negroponte won't be bragging about is the implicit rejection of the "fully sovereign" Government and the Interim Constitution by the Shiites which, upon the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was not mentioned in the UN Resolution. 

Nor will Negroponte be mentioning that in one day, he and Ambassador Bremer managed to alienate half the Shiites and all the Kurds in the country.  The minority Kurds desparately wanted international legitimacy for the Interim Constitution which is the only thing which secures their hard fought existence.  They were screwed once again by the UN and the USA.  The text of the Kurd leader's letter to President Bush is posted by Juan Cole juxtaposed against Sistani's rant against the entire godless, US-appointed system. 

According to the Guardian the mostly young and unemployed followers of Moqtada al-Sadr have been effectively eliminated from any legitimate participation in the government. At first blush, getting nine Iraq militia groups to lay down their arm seems an amazing accomplishment.  Co-opting them and giving them jobs in the "official" security system seems more than reasonable.  It would be if the militias you were talking about were the ones giving us all the trouble. 

The largest and most violent militia was al-Sadr's and they will not be allowed to participate in the government in an official capacity for at least three years.  What choice will these outlaw have but to continue to be outlaws?  Nice plan. 

For the Kurds, who certainly deserve some consideration for their steadfast resistence to Saddam for so many years, and for the fact that they lost more soldiers than any other US ally in the war, the deal is a disaster waiting to happen.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Kurds walk away. 

We cave to Sistani at every opportunity, bowing to the fact that he could call for a popular uprising that could completely shut them down and us out.  That's realpolitik in action.  If you ask me, failing to gain the blessing of very people the this supposedly sovereign government is to serve is a bigger deal than getting recognition by China or Germany.  There isn't too much internal support for the current plan.

This deal has only the blessing of the walking targets who were just appointed to the Interim Government and presumably the Sunnis, the newly repatriated Ba'athist in the Government, as well as the still expatriated Ba'athist terrorist in consort with al Queada operatives flocking to the country who are enjoying the circus and have gone unchecked in their continued destruction and indiscriminate bombings.

I do find a bit of either injustice or simple irony in that former Ba'athist are enjoying prominent positions in the Iraqi military and have been welcomed into various ministries, but the very people so long oppressed by Saddam's regime, angry young Shiites, have been disenfranchised.

Get this lady a plane ticket to Boston!

BUDAPEST (Reuters) - "Boys, if you vote for the liberals, I'll strip," a girl in jeans and a revealing shirt teases Hungarian voters in a mock advert for the European elections.
It was filmed for a joke during the shooting of the liberal Free Democrats official broadcast, in which the girl features, campaign coordinator Gabor Horn told Hungarian news portal index.hu.
The Web site has posted the seven-second clip at www.index.hu/cikkepek/0406/szdsz.mpa.
The short ad is a lighter moment in an increasingly bitter campaign for the June 13 elections in which the ruling party Socialists and opposition Fidesz sling mud at each other.

Oddly Enough News Article | Reuters.com

Any chance there might be some reciprocity by some of our conservative sisters?

Of course I am expected to chafe when the words "Greatest" and "Reagan" are used in the same sentence.  I don't because I've been hearing it for nearly two decades.  There is no disuading the faithful in their belief, whether it be the sancity of Jesus, Mohammed, or Reagan.  I do believe I understand the phenomena, however.  For those of us who were born after 1960, Reagan had, perhaps, the "greatest" influence on our world and political beliefs.

Ronald Reagan was the first President I got the chance to vote against, twice, at least where it counted.  I remember in first grade waving a Humphry sign and being absolutely appalled that my classmates, when polled, chose Wallace over him or Nixon.  And no, I didn't move to Ohio from south of the Mason-Dixon line.  Reagan was President while I studied political science and law, and was the influential center of all topical discussions I had in or out of class during those years.

While there seems to be general agreement that as a person, Reagan the man and Reagan the communicator was extraordinary, and his place in history at the very least as a better than average if not one of the top dozen chief executives is secure.

There is a list of things Reagan did wrong, where he just outright blew it.  A longer list of things he neglected or never got around to addressing.  But his optimism, love of country, faith in the better nature of mankind and infectious humor made me hate him.  As a young man devoted to standing against his policies, I hated him not because he was bad, but because he was so damn good.

He truly was amazing, the sine qua non of True Hollywood Stories.

President Reagan had an effect on us all.  Not all of us hold him in the god-like esteem that he seems to have obtained over the years, but of course if you cannot say anything nice, and being respectful, now is certainly not the time to dredge up old grievances or rehash ancient debates.  Reagan, above all, loved his country, and never hesitated to act for what he believed was the betterment of us all, here and throughout the world.

I am positive that George W. Bush (43) sees himself as a continuation of the Reagan legacy.  As much as I disagreed with so many of Reagan's policy decisions, I had a grudging respect for old Ronnie, the way he could turn a phrase, his presence and the dedication of his followers. I was equally uncomfortable with George H. W. Bush's (41) policies at times, but I had even more respect for him in his mastery of foreign affairs, life-long service to this country, and just plain competence.

Our current President is not qualified to shine Reagan's cowboy boots in his ability to lead or to speak, let alone come up with an original idea and following through in a way that was designed to benefit us all as opposed to merely looking good for reelection.  As for a comparison to his father, it stops at the name. 

D-Day and Reagan's passing remind us of the greatest struggles of the twentieth century.  In one 24 hour period we can celebrate our victories against the Nazis and Commies, while commemorating those who sacrificed so much to bring us a world that is safer with those threats eliminated.

Or is it?

POTUS has been invoking memories of WWII and comparing them to our conflict against terror.  The analogy is forced and seems as contrived as claims of Nigerian yellow-cake uranium hidden in Saddam's spider hole.  As Tom Regan said so well in the Christian Science Monitor, the War on Terror isn't a replay of the struggle against the Nazi's any more than than it is another Vietnam, although the lessons of each can in some ways be applied to Iraq.   

His analysis of the failure of current events to equal the WWII is not exhaustive, nor is it meant to be, any more than William Greider's comparison last April of Vietnam and the "little Tet" of the Iraqi insurrection of which he complains.  However, Greider's latest article, paints with a broader brush and judging by Tom Regan's meek glance at the subject of not just Iraq, but the whole War on Terror being akin to the Cold War, tells me that  Greider just might be on to something. 

Tom Regan mentions it, but fails to connect the dots like Greider.  POTUS wants to be just like Dad and Uncle Ronnie, but he didn't have an enemy.  What is as tragic as his failure to even be a quarter of the president his two republican predecessors were, who tried to put an end to conflict.  POTUS, in his quest for a strong image and heroic legacy, went out of his way to create an ideological conflict on a grand scale where only a minor irritant grew before. 

Where we were reluctant warriors in WWII, only engaging after a prolonged debate and then having been attacked, and like WWII and George H.W.Bush's (41) Iraq war, the cold war was won in consort with a plethora of allies, we have behaved exactly in the opposite manner that Reagan or Bush Sr. or even Roosevelt and Churchill would have advised: alone and impetuously.

Statement from John Kerry on the Death of Ronald Reagan

"Ronald Reagan's love of country was infectious. Even when he was breaking Democrats' hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate. Despite the disagreements, he lived by that noble ideal that at 5pm we weren't Democrats or Republicans, we were Americans and friends. President Reagan and Tip O'Neill fought hard and honorably on many issues, and sat down together to happily swap jokes and the stories of their lives. The differences were real, but because of the way President Reagan led, he taught us that there is a big difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship."


Reference:
John Kerry for President Blog

Adam Smith's Progressive Capitalist has a couple of inciteful points on the forgotton war, the one on drugs, here and here.  Peter at Kick The Leftist has yet another absurd example of the futility of this obvious hypocricy and political grandstanding.  The "war" ebbs and flows, but the end is nowhere in sight.

A fight against a a social or cultural phenomenon is not something that can be "won" by government edict.  Gerald Ford shined up cute buttons with "WIN" for Whip Inflation Now in his ill fated war on high prices.  That went over well, didn't it?  Gas was about 87 cents then wasn't it?  Wasn't there a war on poverty even before that?  I can only hope that Bush's war on gays works out as well. 

I knew we were in trouble when I noticed the subtle transformation by the Ministry of Propaganda White House from a War on Terrorists became the War on Terror, a much more vague and broad term.  This allows the perpetual war to be perpetrated upon just about anyone with no possibility of a final "victory."

Ambiguity serves this administration well.  You cannot call someone a liar when the argument is over the definition of terms and not the consequences of actions.

These guys learn the lesson of Clinton's "is-speak" all too well. 

This story from Reuters, (Prime U.S. contractors wary about Iraq transition) reminded me that you just can't get away from lawyers, even when anarchy dominates like in present day Iraq. We are indeed a strange lot, lawyers. Only an attorney would even think about the liability of mercenaries "security contractors" under the "sovereign" Transitional Authority. Must be something they serve in the lunch rooms at law schools.

LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - Some prime U.S. contractors in Iraq are wary of the U.S. handover on June 30 and say there are still too many unanswered questions, from the status of private security guards to import tariffs. While their contractual obligations remain with the U.S. government, which funds their work, some big companies doing work in Iraq voiced apprehension over elements of the handover to an interim Iraqi government. Speaking on the sidelines of an Iraq rebuilding conference that ended late Thursday in Las Vegas, Perini procurement specialist John Chisholm said his main concern was the legal status of staff if there were any problems, and in particular private security workers who protect them.

This next is the real gem.

"For example, what is their (security guards') relationship with the Iraqi police? Do they have to register with anyone? That has not been answered yet," said Chisholm from the Massachusetts-based company.

Is it just me, or is this just downright absurd? In a country where there are 24 million weapons for 22 million people, and where the native security forces can count on brand new shiny AK-47 from the US of A when they sign up, the NRA loving members of Haliburton's private army want to know were they are supposed to register their guns. Too weird.

There are also legal questions such as whether a staff member who had an accident and hurt an Iraqi would be tried in an Iraqi court or handed over to U.S. authorities. "We need to know how the laws of the country apply to us," he said. "We need to be able to plan."

And you thought only Soldier of Fortune had a neat help wanted section dedicated to folks that wanted to go to Iraq to earn their kid's college tuition. Next month's American Bar Association Journal is bound to have some unique opportunities for ambulance chasers willing to travel light and don't mind desert heat.

On the issue of private security, British retired Brig. Tony Hunter-Choat, security director for the U.S.-led authority's procurement office in Iraq, said Iraq's Interior Ministry would probably issue weapons permits and register security companies. James Cartner, vice president of Iraqi operations for construction giant Fluor , which has three projects along with its British partner AMEC Plc worth $1.6 billion, said many issues were still unanswered but he was confident. "We think common-sense will prevail," said Cartner.

This guy's dreaming. If commonsense prevailed in Iraq nowadays, there would be no need for an occupation force, or even the war itself. In fact, if commonsense prevailed, why would there ever be a need for lawyers in the first place.

My Contracts professor once said that contracts were made to be broken.  This twisted piece of logic makes sense because if people were actually good for their word, why would a contract have to be written down, let alone prepared by a lawyer who is trained to think of all the possible ways to break the contract, and the consequences thereof. 

Lawyers, we prepare for the worse and hope that we thought of all the bad things possible.  Hoping for the best is for politicians.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark W. Adams, Esq.
Attorney and Counselor at Law

Please, please, please tell me that soon to be former CIA Director George Tenant will be opening his big mouth and blasting this administration loudly and clearly for trying to scapegoat him and his Agencies (As DCI and Director of CIA he IS the clearinghouse for what intelligence gets to POTUS, except for the stuff Cheney and Rumsfeld glean from MI).  I don't want to know the secrets, I just want the truth about what they can tell us.  I want Tenant to do the same thing he did at Georgetown and clear the CIA's name so it won't be the whipping boy for the neo-cons anymore.

It won't happen.  Tenant will become the latest to be smeared by the hit-squads directed by Rove & Co., so he might as well blast the bastards from the convention floor in Boston.