From IMCT - January 20, 2005

Here's the kind of magazine us red-state Southerners like to read:

It's "Y'all," The Magazine of Southern People. Yes, that's Bush on the cover with Barney. Available at (where else?) Wal-Mart, right next to "Guns and Ammo" and "Armchair General."  

From IMCT - January 18, 2005

Unfortunately, I told you so.

The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, who was responsible for early stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, tells us how the White House is preparing to charge into Iran as its next battle in the war on terror.

Hersh's article details the administration's gutting of the CIA in order to make the military more able to operate in a clandestine manner, which is much more to the liking of Rumsfield, Cheney, et al.

What they are doing is conducting "reconassaince" missions into Iran in order to find nuclear-related targets for a planned bombing, which could happen as early as this summer.

Emboldened by his election victory -- which Bush thinks was an approving referendum on his handling of Iraq -- the President wants to fight more "pre-emptive" wars. Even today, he warned Iran for trying to obtain longer-range weapons -- might we be in the early stages of a run-up to an Iranian conflict, much like we were prior to Iraq?

Proving once again that you can't teach a dumb dog new tricks, those in the administration are convinced that an attack on Iran would embolden dissidents who would overthrow the hardline government. The Bushies just don't understand what us weak-kneed liberals seem to understand: they just don't like us, period. If they have the choice between a Muslin hardliner they don't like and an invading American force, they'll stick with the status quo. Did we learn anything from Iraq?

It shouldn't have to be said, but since us progressives are accused of loving terrorists, here it is: I have no love for those in charge of Iran, just like I had no love for Saddam Hussein.

When this war on terror first began in the days after 9/11, we were told it would be a long battle that would not always produce clear objectives and results. Even as they were saying that, those in power were ignoring their own words and going after tangible enemies. But who is more dangerous: those who have a country, or those who have no geographically identifiable target for retaliation (a la Osama bin Laden)? Which would you rather your neighbor have: an ill-tempered doberman pinscher in his yard surrounded by a 10-foot fence, or an ill-tempered doberman pinscher running free?

The war in Iraq is a quagmire with no identifiable end. A war in Iran could make that one look like our invasion of Haiti in the 1990s. If Iran has any nuclear capabilities, it will likely lob whatever it's got at Israel (since it certainly doesn't have the ability to reach us). From there, the dominoes could fall fast; Israel would launch an all-out war with Iran, one which we would no doubt fight alongside (or even for) them. Such an occurrence could cause other Islamic nations to rise up to fight against Israel (any Israeli-Iranian war would require Israel to at least use the air space of other Middle Eastern nations). But it gets worse. None other than Cold War foe Russia is a staunch Iranian defender, as the Russians are building a $1 billions nuclear reactor there -- an investment they might be willing to protect militarily.

What you've got there is a recipe for World War III.

Had we used this same theory of pre-emption with Cuba in the 1960s, instead of the chosen path of containment, would any of us be alive today to debate this?

That the Bushies would be doing this is really no surprise -- they've proven there is no end to their hubris/stupidity. But at some point, surely to goodness the American people will have had enough.

But will it be too late?

From IMCT - January 9, 2005

Talking about wasting government money -- conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education in order to promote the Bush administration's "No Child Left Behind" policy.

Now, referring to Williams as a "journalist" is iffy at best, as any of the commentators with an obvious political slant -- be it right or left -- should not be taken all that seriously. But the fact that Williams was writing opinion pieces and appearing on CNN while getting paid to promote an idea is downright scandalous. Of course, many Republicans who promote their party line are indeed going to benefit their own bottom line, but this is too much.

However, a greater uproar should be made over the fact that the government is spending money to promote such things. It's a law -- why do you need to try to persuade people it's good? If it were just about getting out information, it would be one thing, but the use of a commentator -- who shares an opinion in the hopes of swaying others -- shows that that is truly not the bottom line.

What this is all about is trying to sway a block of voters (African-Americans, as Williams is black) who are extremely suspicious of any Bush policy. It's about personal political gain, pure and simple.

From IMCT - January 9, 2005

Newt Gingrich -- remember him?

Ol' Newt, to whom the Republicans owe their current control of government, is contemplating a Presidential run in 2008. That could be quite interesting.

Newt oversaw the 1994 Republican revolution with his Contract on America, and was the Speaker of the House from 1994-1998. In 1997, he was reprimanded by the Republican-controlled House (how quickly they forget/eat their own young) then in 1998 left Congress entirely despite winning re-election after the GOP had a poor showing in mid-term elections.

It's interesting that Newt was reprimanded and fined for much the same thing that Tom DeLay is going through -- but the GOP House members came close to changing the rules so DeLay could remain Majority leader.

While Newt should be a poster boy for the current administration, you don't hear him mentioned by the current neo-conservatives in power. For one thing, Newt was critical of the handling of the Iraq war -- but not of the starting of said war. He has also criticized other elements of Bush policies. However, he has many of the same conservative pet projects as the administration. Still, it feels like those now in charge have something against their role model -- was he the victim of a political fragging?

With all this, it would seem that Gingrich, despite his enormous name recognition, would be a bit of an outsider in a 2008 GOP primary. He just doesn't have that feel of the chosen one, like a Jeb Bush or Rudy Guliani. And that could be good.

A bloody primary for the Repugs could help the Dems, as theirs is liable to be a bit of a mess, also. It's hard to figure just who the Dems should hope to face in the general election (although I still feel a Northeastern conservative such as Guliani would be more beatable), but if John McCain, Gingrich, Jeb Bush and Guliani all toss in their hats, it could be a polarizing primary that exposes the differences inside the party.

Of course, if Karl Rove or a like protege gets control, the Republicans may line up as they are wont to do behind one candidate who is annointed by whoever controls such things. Still, the more names in the hat in 2008 (and you've got to figure there will be several willing), the merrier for the Dems.

From IMCT - January 2, 2005

A recent article in our local paper had the Daughters of the Confederacy extolling the virtues of their organization -- which is in no way racist, of course. They discussed how the Northeners had shaped history in regards to the Civil War, etc., all the usual lines used by such groups. They presented Confederate battle flags to African-American women who had ancestors who fought for the South, and invited the women to apply for membership. I'm sure they're rushing to do so.