Should we stay or should we go?
Topic: General News.

Dick Polman, the Philadelphia Inquirer's political analyst, has a new blog.

In a recent entry he interviewed Gary Hart who wonders "Are we or are we not building permanent military bases [In Iraq]? I keep trying to get anybody [in the press] to ask about this....I'll tell you what I mean by permanent: pouring concrete and wielding steel. Yes or no?" Polman writes that this is an issue that has "gotten little public attention so far." Well, if either of them had come to this blog they wouldn't have to ask. Yes, we are building permanent bases; you can go to any number of press outlets to find this out, like I did. (Or just go to globalsecurity.org, which has a map of all the bases.) Our plans for the post draw down period seems to be based on the British occupation model. Pull back into bases with a limited number of troops, keep the Iraqis under-armed, but trained just well enough to aim their weapons and not shoot each other and we'll provide air cover in case they get into real trouble. [See this blog]

We've got no intentions whatsoever of leaving those oil wells in the hands of the Iranians. Hell, we'll put the Sunnis back in power if that's what it takes. Why does there always seem to be this major disconnect in the mainstream media about what is actually going on over there? I saw a promo for an ABC nightly news "Exclusive" last night (I never waste my time with the network's nightly news) and Elizabeth Vargos was warning darkly that Iran might be supplying new, more sophisticated and deadly IEDs to the insurgents. That story is about six months old at this point. (I remember writing about this story like, back in August or something.)

Maybe if they spent less time at ABC on hairdos and puppy rescue stories and more time on reading the news wires, they would have picked up on this before. It’s amazing that as little information the average American gets from the media about anything, but they still know that things are not going well in Iraq. If they really knew what was going on over there, though, W. & Co. would be spending less time on helping their foreign friends buy up the country and more time working on their legal defense.

The baby is going out with the bath water in Russia:

C.J. Chivers in the NYT reports that Vlad "the Impaler" Putin has signed a law "allowing security forces to shoot down hijacked aircraft or destroy hijacked ships if they risk endangering important facilities or populated areas." (The German high court just struck down a similar law in Germany.) Why is this story even news? Based on the "rescue" of theater goers in Moscow in 2001 and the Beslan siege in 2004, I don't see why they even bothered to codify what is already SOP for these bubblers. It's pretty clear that the Russians either don't care about saving the lives of hostages, or are just too congenitally incompetent to ever mount a successful rescue operation.

If you're a terrorist in Russia and you want to inflict mass casualties, all you have to do is send a dozen or so people into a building full of civilians with some explosives and the Russian security forces will do the rest. And most likely, you're people will wind up escaping! Win, win.

Speaking of Russia: The WaPo reports that the Council on Foreign Relations says Russian democracy is in retreat. A bi-partisan task force concludes, according to the Post article, that "the Bush administration should stop pretending that Russia is a genuine strategic partner and adopt a policy of ‘selective cooperation' and 'selective opposition' to the authoritarian government of Vladimir Putin." John Edwards, who was on the panel, says of W. and Co., "What they've done is focused on the positive things Russia is doing and been soft on the problems. We need the world to see what's happening inside, and at a minimum Putin needs to feel pressure from that."

But W. saw into Putins's soul, what happened? Well, Condi is the big Russia specialist, right? I'm sure she's got a much better idea of how to handle Russian than those panty-waisted, egg heads at some talking academy. And besides, democracy is on the march in other places. You know, you win some and you lose some.

Russia and the Iranians:

Of course, right now, we're selectively cooperating with Russia, because that's basically our only option. Putin could start sending political dissidents to Siberia and starving Ukrainians to death and we wouldn't care, because we need them to help us out with our little problem with Iran and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. (Except when it comes to Israel, they're different.) In particular we need the Russians because they've got a lot of money in Iran and they could be a useful wedge between the pragmatists and the religious nuts in the Iranian government, the latter appearing to want a confrontation.

Cheney our Ahmadinejad?

Pretty the much the mirror image of what's going on in our foreign policy circles within the government. On the one hand, you've got Condi meeting with the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, trying to talk things out over dinner; and on the other, you've got Dick Cheney shooting the whole diplomacy thing to pieces. Yesterday at the Aipac meeting in Washington he pulled out his big gauge shot gun and let loose with the war talk: "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said to the delight of the Israeli activists in attendance. What might that mean, they wondered...could they dare to hope...yes!... The U.S., he said, was "keeping all options on the table..." and before he could even get the words out, they were drowned out by thunderous applause. This is just what they wanted to hear. All week long there's been a steady stream of spokesmen for the Cheney/Rummy cabal paying homage to Aipac and Israel and, more importantly, saying the right things about Iran.

Fareed Zakaria on Cheney's speech:

Fareed Zakaria was interviewed on The World yesterday and was very adamant that Cheney's belligerent speech was very "unhelpful." He made a lot of good points that hopefully someone in the administration is conveying to W. on this issue. In the first place, Zarkaria pointed out that Cheney's upping the ante on the threat meter could backfire badly if the Iranians called his bluff.

What are we going to do if the Iranians ultimately ignore everyone and go ahead with their bomb making plans? Attack them? Not likely, based on our very tenuous hold on Iraq right now. And if we did actually make good on Cheney's threat and, for instance, attack their nuclear infrastructure, Zarkaria points out that Iran has a $30 billion budget surplus. How long would it take them to rebuild it and get back to doing what they're doing now? Two years maybe? And the worst part about Cheney's speech is that it will reverberate around the capitals of the world as yet another example of U.S. unilateralism. The talk this week won't be about Iran's intransigence, but about our threat to attack them.

Condi might be on to something (gag!)

It's better to do what Condi is doing and work on building international pressure with Russia and China applying financial distress. This appears to be the only way to get Iran to come around, but, alas, the Secretary of State isn't in control, our very own homegrown version of Ahmadinjad is: Dick Cheney. Or so it would appear. I can't help but see the whole 'who's going to deal with the shooting thing' happening all over again. Cheney has got his own thing going on and the rest of the administration has theirs. No one seems to be courageous enough to rein in the wild man in the executive office building. The Cheney/Rummy cabal has the pentagon with their $450 billion budget versus Condi's State Department with its $40 billion budget, who would you expect to come out on top?

And when you consider W. has a propensity to go for harebrained schemes that offer simplistic solutions, I don't see this turning out well. Common sense doesn't have a role in this equation, on either side.

Just a little note on W.s big adventure in South Asia.

Besides making a deal with the Indians to forgive their lying to us in the past and violating their agreements not to take plutonium from a civilian reactor and make bombs with it, what did he accomplish?

He did a heck of a job making Pervez Musharraf look even more like an American puppet in the eyes of his own people than he did before (And delivered a stern lecture to boot), that was something I guess. He left four people dead in demonstrations throughout India that drew hundreds of thousands out into the streets. (The media, naturally, pulled out the standard "10,000" number and stuck with it the whole time he was over there.)[real numbers]

In the wake of this major foreign policy success story, Musharraf and Karzai are at each others throats, hurling accusations about who is really harboring OBL and Mullah Omar, and Musharraf's fake attempt to show W. he was serious about routing out terrorists on his own territory has turned into a major battle in Miran Shah a town in North Wazirstan. Pakistani forces just can't seem to extract themselves from these "mopping up operations."

The AP reports Pakistani authorities say "at least 100 al-Qaeda and Taliban supporters may have been killed." Or maybe they just killed a bunch of villagers with their helicopter gun ships and artillery barrages. This is reminiscent of the Pakistani crack down on opium growers in the BBC mini-series Traffik that come to an end as soon as the foreigners leave, but in this case it seems things haven't gone according to plan.

I'll be Bahhhk!
Mood:  don't ask

In case my one reader out there is wondering what has happened to me and my seemingly endless flow of BS, I want to assure you I'll be back by hook or crook tomorrow, guaranteed. I'm just having a little problem with the Free Library of Philadelphia and their stone age computers.

Our new dirty war in Iraq.
Topic: Iraq

Progress is progressing in Iraq and the "competent, capable Iraqi government [are] using their capable Iraqi security force to calm the storm that was inflamed by a horrendous, horrific terrorist attack yesterday," this according to U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch last Thursday. Lynch, doing his best Naji Sabr impression, went on to say, "We're not seeing civil war igniting in Iraq...We're not seeing death in the streets." The day he said this, safely behind the blast walls of the Green Zone, 129 Iraqis were killed.

The spin coming from the government and the corporate media then was that religious leaders were calming the situation and urging their followers to show restraint. Of course, now it turns out that while Muktada al-Sadr was preaching peace he was sending his Medhi army out to seize or burn down Sunni mosques and generally create bloody mayhem. The Badr brigade did their part along with the Iraqi Interior Ministry forces, which are pretty much indistinguishable nowadays, the evidence of this appearing in the form of dozens of bodies with their hands tied behind their backs and bullets in the back of their heads popping up everywhere. In fact, the religious leaders are doing such a great job keeping the peace that the government has very hastily imposed another car less curfew in Baghdad to prevent even more violence after today's Friday payers.

Even before the mosque bombing last week, insurgent attacks and Shiite counter-attacks around the country were topping over 500 every week. Things are decidedly worse now. The nature of the fighting is switching from the mundane car bombings and fire fights with U.S. forces of the past into organized, large scale ethnic cleansings. Last Saturday a group of gunmen stormed a Shiite house in northeast Baghdad and killed 11 men of the family. On the same day, 14 members of an Interior Ministry Shiite commando unit was killed in southwest Baghdad. Tom Lasseter of the Inquirer writes that, "An Interior Ministry official, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of his life, said that American troops had to collect the bodies: 'We couldn't enter the area today, it's too dangerous."

In another incident last night, a few dozen heavily armed militants set fire to a power plant in Narawhan, just outside of Baghdad, and then moved on to destroy a brick factory where they also killed several Shiite workers. Within the last hour I've heard reports that Iraqi security forces were asking for U.S. military help to go into the area because they felt the situation was too dangerous for them to go in alone.

Despite all the happy talk about Iraqi army brigades almost being capable of operating without U.S. help, the fact is we're stuck with not only dodging IEDs and fighting insurgents, but now our troops are having to protect Iraqi police and soldiers from sectarian attacks. We're being sucked into an Iraqi dirty war here. We stood very little chance of ever winning an indigenous insurgency in the first place and now we're asking our military to try and separate two religious factions bent on wiping each other out. Staying the course is no longer an option; it's just a matter of how many more troops we have to lose before this dawns on Rummy & Co. Or until someone has the courage to stand up and tell W., who has no patience for people who tell him the truth.

W.s big adventure in India.
Topic: Bush Administraiton

Potus hits the ground running in New Delhi and signs on the dotted line in record time. Now the only problem is getting India's parliament and the U.S. Congress on board. For the Indians, as I understand it, many in the majority and the opposition parties hew to the Nehru policy of nonalignment and knuckling under to international or American interference in their nuclear sphere is a nonstarter. In the U.S., there's much opposition to this new plan based on the idea of not letting every Tom, Dick and Harry have nukes. But don't worry, W. says, this deal will reduce the price of gas. "It's in our economic interests that India have a civilian nuclear power industry to help take the pressure off of the global demand for energy. ... To the extent that we can reduce demand for fossil fuels, it will help the American consumer." (It always comes back to oil, doesn't it.)

That's great, but the next time W. drones on about Iranian and North Korean nukes and what a danger to the civilized world they are, he's going to get India thrown right back in his face. W. says, "times change" and those against this plan have to get over it and move on. Hey, I would be the first one to agree that change is a good thing, but in the realm of international politics and law, I don't think you can just unilaterally bend the rules on the NPT like this and not have it backfire when it comes to trying to convince the rest of the world to go along with you on keeping Iran from having their own civilian nuclear program.

The Pakistan angle:

And what are the Pakistanis going to think about this? W. has just signed off on a deal that says we'll sell their arch rival modern reactor technology, and on top of that, they can hold on to the reactors they've already got, which are busily making plutonium for bombs aimed at Islamabad. And they don't have to comply with any IAEA inspections or anything; such a deal! Whereas we're still punishing Pakistan for their nuclear program, India is getting rewarded for theirs. Pervez Musharraf staged a raid on an al-Qaeda base in Waziristan yesterday, just in time for the big presidential visit; he must be wondering what a tin pot dictator has to do to get little respect.

The China angle:

But don't get the idea that India has all their nukes pointed at Pakistan; China is in the cross-hairs, too. With the help of Israel and all the high tech weaponry we've given them, which they naturally turned around and resold to the rest of the world, India is well on its way to having its Triad of land, sea and air delivery systems. In order to arm this Triad, you've got to figure they've got more than just a few H-bombs to play with. If I were Chinese, I'd be defiantly looking at this new friendship between India and the U.S. with some trepidation and would continue to help Pakistan build even more bombs. Remember, they've got their own issues with India over Kashmir. Gosh, I wonder why the Chinese are so hell bent on building up their military? Are they feeling a bit surrounded these days?

With all the pitfalls of opening the nuclear floodgates in South Asia one wonders what the hell this administration is thinking about. All you have to do is flash a little money in front of this bunch and they'll sell their grandmother. Yes, India is a big and growing market, but couldn't we sell them something other than nuclear power plants? Don't we have anything other than that to sell them? Judging by our trade deficit with them, I guess we really don't. What about those Domino's pizzas W. was talking about?

DP World is just the tip of the iceberg?

Even as W. has got a hard sell in front of him on this India deal, he's got another big problem in Congress, and that's the DP World take over of our ports. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse for the administration, now it turns out that the Anti-Defamation League has a problem with it based on the DP World's parent company, Ports, Customs & Free Trade Zone Corp., enforcement of the Arab League's boycott on Israel.

But don't worry, as W. said the other day while he was feting Silvio Berlusconi (aka Jesus), "If there was any doubt in my mind...that our ports would be less secure and the American people endangered, this deal wouldn't go forward." Just because the 9/11 Commission report found the UAE to be "A persistent counterterrorism problem," I wouldn't take their word over W.'s. If he says there's no doubt in his mind, you can take that to the bank, his judgment up this point has been pretty solid, right?

The WaPo reports the administration is now reviewing whether, "Another Dubai-owned company set to take over plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make precision components used in engines for military aircraft and tanks...[the] secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is investigating the security implications of Dubai International Capital's $1.2 billion acquisition of London-based Doncasters Group Ltd.."

Well, if we're going to turn over our ports to rich Arabs with connections to OBL why not turn over our aerospace industry, too? But to counter the Arabs we'll sell our defense sofware buisness to the Israelis. That ought to play in Peoria, especially in an election year.

An Israeli company, "Check Point's proposed $225 million purchase of Laurel-based Sourcefire raised red flags with government cybersecurity officials...Check Point was built by Gil Shwed, whom Forbes magazine has described as an Israeli billionaire who served in the electronic intelligence arm of the Israeli Defense Forces.

Sourcefire makes network defense and intrusion detection software for an array of customers, including the Defense Department. The company has deep roots in the National Security Agency. Its founder and chief technology officer, Martin Roesch, has served as an NSA contractor. Its vice president of engineering, Tom Ashoff, developed software for the secretive spy agency."

Great now the Isrealis can spy on us too!

W.'s trippin' on India.
Topic: Bush Administraiton

Today, W. is off on his big trip to India and Pakistan. He's bringing a suitcase full of deals that will benefit the U.S. nuclear industry---as if they needed anymore government handouts---but whether he'll be able to get Congress to go along the whole thing is another matter. See, the only little spot of bother with the plan to help India build more nuclear power plants is that W. would be giving them a pass on their bombs in return for buying reactors made in the USA. There is perception of double standards. While we're busy threatening the Iranians on their bomb-making plans, we're signing off on India's. Whereas Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has been playing by the rules, the Indians are a nuclear pariah. Rep. Edward Markey (D.Mass.) spells out what many in Congress feel about this boneheaded policy, "American cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a barstool." I thought the whole idea of non-proliferation was...well, non-proliferation. Singling out countries for different treatment based on what kind of money a special interest can make is not a good way to go about reducing our chances of being vaporized. (1)

Of course, I understand our new interest in getting cozy with India, they've got a booming economy and their a potential ally against the Chinese, but enabling their appetite for more nukes doesn't seem like the best strategy in that part of the world. If anything, we should be trying to disarm South Asia. Right now, the Indian government is making kissy faces at Pakistan, but that could change in an instant. As W. said himself, "The world changes. It's never static." Thinking ahead isn't exactly W. & Co.'s strong suit, though, so I shouldn't expect miracles.

And what about the Pakistan leg of the trip, anyway? They've got illicit nukes too, how is W. going to circle that square? (My bet that little inconsistency in our schizophrenic foreign policy won't come up.) Besides showing up for a few minutes to have pictures taken and giving our bastard in Islamabad a 'that-a-boy' for sort of helping out in the 'war on terror,' what advantage do we gain by this visit? You'd think any administration that claimed it was bent on spreading democracy around the world and preventing nuclear proliferation would snob a dictator like Musharraf. At the very least, you would think he would tell Musharraf to stop looking the other way while al-Qaeda and the Taliban conduct their war in Afghanistan right under his nose, but he probably won't. (2) Gosh, that doesn't leave a lot to for W. and Musharraf to discuss over their state dinner, does it? There's always the earthquake relief thing, I guess.

(1) Mohamed ElBaradei warned that 30 countries could have nukes within the next 10 to 20 years if we don't get serious about disarmament and non-proliferation. A world full of nukes, "is the beginning of the end for us," he said back in December. But, of course, he wouldn’t roll over and play dead when Cheney was trying to get everyone to believe Saddam had restarted his nuclear program, so what does he know?

(2) Hamid Karzai visited Pakistan two weeks ago and it was reported that he gave Musharraf evidence that Mullah Omar, among others, was in Pakistan and gave locations of terrorist training camps operating along the border. The AP reported that Pakistani Interior Minister, Aftab Khan Sherpao, said he would capture these Afghani fugitives "if they are here." [Inquirer]

Operation Enduring Waste of Time.
Topic: War on Terror

While things in Iraq spin out of control, more so than usual, in Afghanistan a prison revolt at Kabul's main prison has turned into a stand off between government troops and about 2,000 inmates. The AP reports that, "The area now under the inmates' control includes a wing that houses 70 women prisoners and about 70 children who live with them."

My first question would be, why the hell are there children in one of Afghanistan's most notorious prisons, known for torture and summary executions in the Soviet occupation days? Well, we kept children prisoners at Gitmo, so I guess it's not that much of a biggie, right?

AP: "A man claiming to be a spokesman for the Block One inmates called The Associated Press and demanded retrials for all the prisoners, saying many were innocent while others were serving unfairly harsh sentences. The man, who identified himself only as Maqsodi, said the riot would continue until the government met prisoners' demands. 'Two-thirds of the prisoners here are innocent. The courts were unfair,' he said."

Meanwhile, the U.S. has its own gulag at Bagram airbase where prisoners are served cherries and cream every morning. The NYT reports:

"The U.S. military on Sunday defended its detention of about 500 inmates at its main base in Afghanistan, saying they are treated humanely and provided the 'best possible living conditions.' The New York Times on Sunday reported that inmates are held by the dozen in wire cages at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul -- some for as long as two or three years without access to lawyers or the chance to hear the allegations against them. The report, citing unnamed military officials and former detainees, said that inmate numbers had grown sharply, partly because 'enemy combatants' caught during the hunt for al-Qaida and Taliban militants in Afghanistan were no longer being transferred to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

Gosh, I wonder why? Could it be there's too much of a spotlight on that particular gulag right now? No one pays any attention to Bagram, so it's an ideal locale.

The military assures everyone that these are all bad people who mean us harm, all the way over in Afghanistan, but a 2004 Human Rights Watch report about Bargram says:

"U.S. forces sometimes take into custody all men of military age found within the vicinity of an operation. Other times, it seems persons are targeted for arrest because U.S. officials have determined they are a security risk or are useful for intelligence purposes—for instance, clerics or local tribal leaders who might be politically involved with the Taliban, or civilians spotted near the site of a recent attack. Human Rights Watch has interviewed many Afghans who were arrested for simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time."

Hmmm...where have I heard that before? But, naturally, they're all lying because that's the way they're trained at Jihad University. Of course, it it were true that most of the people we've been holding on to for years on end weren't really that valuable as sources of Intel or anything else, one might wonder why were wasting our time and resources on them.

More blood on Badr's hands?
Topic: Iraq

Iraqi government has imposed a curfew on Iraq in an attempt to quell the secrarian fighting spiraling out of control over the past few days. Interior minister Bayan Jaber says anyone with a gun caught on the street will be arrested. Of course, what he really means is anyone caught on the street without a gun will be shot.

Not that the Iraqi Interior Ministry has had a bloody hand in any of the violence going on for the past year or so but, Another Day in the Empire relates this interesting story about the Mosque bombing in Samarra.

"According to reports appearing on the humanitarian Iraqi League organization’s Iraqi Rabita website and translated into English by the Iraqi blogger Baghdad Dweller, at least two witnesses saw 'unusual activities by the ING [Iraqi National Guard] in the area around the mosque.' Two mosque guards reported four men in ING uniforms had blindfolded them and planted explosives. A second witness, Muhammad al-Samarrai, the owner of an internet cafe in the area, was told to stay in his store and not leave the area. From 11 pm until 6:30 am, ten minutes before two bombs were detonated, the area surrounding the mosque was patrolled by “joint forces of Iraqi ING and Americans,” according to al-Samarrai."

Naturally, it would be wise to figure that Zarqawi's bunch probably blew up the Golden Dome mosque, but the Badr Brigade and the Madhi Army would benefit, too, by being given licence to really get after the Sunnis. It would have to be either of these militias because the Iraqi "army" isn't capable of loading its own guns, never mind launching such an operation. The BBC reports "The number of Iraqi battalions able to fight the insurgency with no US help falls from one to zero, the US military tells Congress..."

1001 Arabian nightmares.

Things are really running off the rails in Iraq. While Condi is running around the Middle East [NYT] trying to get Arab countries to help us overturn a free and fair election in Palestine, and not having any success, the democratic miracle in Mess-o-patomia is rapidly turning into a nightmare of monumental proportions. Yesterday, the Askariya Shrine in Samarra was leveled by, as yet unknown, attackers. Being one of the holiest sites for the Shiites, chaos quickly ensued, leading to a saturnalia of bloodshed and destruction that has cost more than 111 Iraqi deaths and the torching of maybe 100 Sunni mosques. Iraqi security forces are reported to be just standing around while Shiites kill Sunni clerics and generally wreck havoc. (They're supossed to be standing up so we can stand down, not just standing around!)

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani said ominously, "If the government security forces cannot provide the necessary protection, the believers will do it." I think what he means is the Badr brigade and other Shiite militias will do it. Of course, this blows the administration's plans for an early exit right out of the water. If this situation continues to spin out control, though, I would say our position in Iraq will become pretty much untenable PDQ. (Why do I have that picture of the Huey on top of the U.S. embassy in Saigon?) Zalmay Khalilzad's veiled threat to cut off US aid if Iraq's various sectarian groups couldn't form a national unity government seems just slightly irrelevant now. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of Sciri, as usual, blamed us for this whole mess. He said, "This declaration gave a green light for these groups to do their operation, so he is responsible for a part of that."

Of course, he's sort of right; we're supposedly there to provide stability so the Iraqis can rebuild, but it doesn't look like we're having much luck in that department, lately. Again, I have to ask, what are we doing there? Besides providing great targets for insurgents and every other whacko out there who hates America, I don't see why we're still spilling American blood for these medieval maniacs. Even if peace and love reigned in Baghdad, we still would have created a democratically elected Shiite theocracy whose leaders think Iran is too liberal.

Aelius Gallus is probably having a good laugh, but no one else is. But let’s not dwell on Iraq; let's talk about our addiction to oil and the wonders of switch grass.

Hey, way to win hearts and minds on the sub-continent!
Topic: Bush Administraiton

Boy, Dubya is in for a real interesting trip...

The WaPo reports: "A decision two weeks ago by a U.S. consulate in India to refuse a visa to a prominent Indian scientist has triggered heated protests in that country and set off a major diplomatic flap on the eve of President Bush's first visit to India.

Goverdhan Mehta said in a written account obtained by The Washington Post that he was humiliated, accused of "hiding things" and being dishonest, and told that his work is dangerous because of its potential applications in chemical warfare. Mehta denied that his work has anything to do with weapons. He said that he would provide his passport if a visa were issued, but that he would do nothing further to obtain the document: 'If they don't want to give me a visa, so be it.'

In his written account, the scientist said that after traveling 200 miles, waiting three hours with his wife for an interview and being accused of deception, he was outraged when his accounts of his research were questioned and he was told he needed to fill out a detailed questionnaire. In his written account, the scientist said that after traveling 200 miles, waiting three hours with his wife for an interview and being accused of deception, he was outraged when his accounts of his research were questioned and he was told he needed to fill out a detailed questionnaire. 'I indicated that I have no desire to subject myself to any further humiliation and asked that our passports be returned forthwith," he wrote. The consular official, Mehta added, "stamped the passports to indicate visa refusal and returned them.'" The State Department says it "regrets" that Mehta was "upset by the visa interview process." That ought to mollify him, right?

Speaking more of W.'s trip to India:

In preparation for his big trip to South Asia W. was trumpeting the wonders of outsourcing yesterday at the Asia Society. [Inquirer] Dubya' said, "It's true that a number of Americans have lost jobs because companies have shifted operations to India. We must also recognize that India's growth is creating new opportunities for our businesses and farmers and workers." They have? Last year the U.S. had a $10.8 billion trade deficit with India. Not to worry, though, W. says, "Younger Indians are acquiring a taste for pizzas from Dominoes Pizza Hut." He probably should have added that they shouldn't expect their pizzas delivered in 30 minutes or less. What the hell is he talking about? Indians eating American junk food is going to restore all the good paying jobs that have evaporated here at home?

And eventhough India now has a middle class of 300,000 people; out numbering the total population of the U.S. they're not making anywhere as much as an American would make for the same work. No doubt, they're making a whole lot more than they could have made a few years ago, but their relatively low wages are dragging down our standard of living. This probably has something to do with why 25 million Americans, mainly working poor, had to go to soup kitchens last year. AP reports, "Those seeking food included nine million children and nearly three million senior citizens, a report from America's Second Harvest says. Ertharin Cousins, executive vice president of the group said, '36 percent of the people seeking food came from households in which at least one person had a job. About 35 percent came from households that received food stamps. 'The benefits they are receiving are not enough,' cousins said."

I can personally attest to that. When my girl friend and I were both suddenly laid off a few years back we had to live on our unemployment, which wasn't anywhere enough to pay the rent and eat too, so we tried to get food stamps but all we qualified for was $20 a month. I can't even imagine how people who are really SOL are supposed to live on what the government barely provides. And this "cost saving" bill Congress just passed that zeroed out a slew of assistance programs is going to make things a lot harder for people who are already down on their luck. Common' Congress, let's get to work on making those tax cuts for the rich permanent! That big windfall for the wealthiest 1% isn't going to trickle down all by itself!

Bad things coming in Iraq.

Gosh, just when everything was going so well in Iraq and al-Qaeda has to go ahead an blow up one of the Shiite's holiest mosques. Now, according to the media, there might be a chance of a civil war.

Not there's been one going for at least a year over there. Just like it took about a year for the media to notice there was this major insurgency going on even as the UN headquarters was headed to Pluto.

AP reports: "The president [Jafaari] warned that extremists were pushing the country toward civil war, as many Shiites lashed out at the United States as partly to blame." Of course, it wouldn't seem right if he didn't blame us. As I've written before, further down the page here, our insistance that the Iraqi security forces not kill and torture Sunnis they round up is being blamed this time for this attack in Samarra.

By the way, wasn't Samara the town the Marines went into almost at the same moment W. and Kerry started their first debate?