and the current plan is not working,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said today. “Asked who in particular should be held accountable — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps, or the generals leading the war — Graham said: ‘All of them. It’s their job to come up with a game plan’ to end the violence.”
Spencer determined to take things too far, is sitting around the house modeling his stylish Palestine High School windbreaker. In real life, though, I think he went to Bronx Science just like Marty Peretz.
In other news, our house is very cold since the heat is broken and the relevant repairpersons refused to come before tomorrow.
HOST: I’m curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?
BUSH: Occasionally. One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps. It’s very interesting to see — I’ve forgot the name of the program — but you get the satellite, and you can — like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes.
Where oh where will I find my Spencer Ackerman articles, you ask? Well, look no further than the new issue of The American Prospect where he has a big article about the construction of permanent bases in Iraq:
But unbeknownst to the press, the public, and most of the Army itself, the clues to an American military occupation of Iraq — that could last for years and even decades to come — can be found inside Fort Monmouth. What is happening within that facility suggests that the White House continues to mislead the world about its ultimate intentions.
Today on Fox News, Neil Cavuto had a segment asking whether Democrats will “crush the economy” if they win November’s elections. One of the guests, Jonathan Hoenig, said they would, because Democrats’ “overriding philosophy is socialism.”
Sara Mead notes UNICEF’s curiously tone-deaf press release touting such successes in Iraq as “universal salt iodization (to prevent iodine deficiency disorders), reduction of iron-deficiency anaemia and fortification of locally produced wheat flour with iron and folic acid.” Preschooling facilities, however, remain inadequate. That and the country is devolving into brutal ethnosectarian slaughter.
In the past week, top Bush administration officials have been suggesting that insurgents in Iraq are increasing attacks in order to influence the U.S. midterm elections. Some highlights —
Vice President Cheney, 10/17/06:
I was reading something today that a writer — I don’t remember who — was speculating on increased terrorist attacks in Iraq attempting to demoralize the American people as we get up to the election. And when I read that, it made sense to me. And I interpreted this as that the terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want a change.
President Bush, 10/18/06:
There’s certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election. … They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they’re trying to foment sectarian violence. They [Al Qaeda] believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, 10/19/06:
[I]t is possible, although we don’t have a clear pathway into the minds of terrorists, it is possible that they are trying to use violence right now as a way of influencing the elections.
But these claims are completely without any basis in reality. Yesterday on ABC This Week, President Bush admitted to host George Stephanopoulos, “I don’t have any intelligence that says that” insurgents in Iraq are trying to influence the election. Watch it:
Full transcript below: Read more
“For the first time since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, active-duty members of the military are asking Members of Congress to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and bring American soldiers home,” according to a press release. “Sixty-five active-duty members have sent Appeals for Redress to Members of Congress” under the Military Whistle-blower Protection Act.
The amount conservative pundit Armstrong Williams will have to repay of the $240,000 government contract he received for promoting President Bush’s agenda. Under a settlement reached with prosecutors, Williams also “admits no wrongdoing.”
Tragically, governing conservatives in Canada have put off serious action on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for decades. Not only are they walking away from their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to six percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
They have proposed a bill that would “apply intensity-based targets until 2020, allowing emissions to continue to rise until then” — copying the Bush administration strategy discussed earlier in a post that explains what intensity-based targets are and why they are meaningless.
Yes, that means they are taking a [maple]-leaf from our conservatives, to mix metaphors. (Too bad they have chosen not to emulate British Conservatives, who are for more aggressive action than Kyoto, not less).
No doubt Canadian conservatives would argue that they are far different from American conservatives, since “in the long term,” the government says it “would seek to cut emissions 45 to 65 percent by 2050.”
But how do you cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050 if you are already 30% higher than 1990 levels, and will be higher still by 2020? California has set itself on the right path — aiming to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which then sets the stage for the kind of deep cuts that the planet really needs — 50% to 80% reductions by 2050 from 1990 levels.
Canada’s conservatives make those goals virtually unattainable, joining American conservatives in dramatically increasing the prospects for catastrophic climate change. As the anthem goes, “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”