Obsidian Wings

My Last Word On Sheehan

Smearing the mother of a killed soldier is not only awful, it is also counterproductive.  You can look at what she says--it discredits her without anything else needed:

MATTHEWS:  All right.  If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN:  I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing.  We're fighting terrorism.  Or terrorists, we're saying.  But they're not contained in a country.  This is an ideology and not an enemy.  And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism.  They were no threat to the United States of America.

MATTHEWS:  But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN:  Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS:  But that's where they were being harbored.  That's where they were headquartered.  Shouldn't we go after their headquarters?  Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN:  Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too.  ...  But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem.  Especially Iraq.  Iraq was no problem.  And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

Well, that is rather easy to answer.  Because we asked for Afghanistan to turn bin Laden over, and they refused (because he was very tight with the Taliban government).   And if you don't think dying in Afghanistan is dying for a noble cause it is rather obvious that no chat with Bush is going to make you think that dying in Iraq was.  No need to bring in extraneous junk in criticizing Sheehan.  She is part of the "we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan left" and merely needs to be identified as such.  And if then she continues to serve as a rallying point for the left, the agenda becomes clearer. 

Hat tip Balloon-Juice

Turn the Worm

by von

I'VE BEEN QUITE pessimistic on our chances in Iraq of late.  There are things that we've done which cannot be undone; there are errors of execution and judgment that can never be taken back.  But we needn't lose Iraq. Or, better put, we need not continue to do the things that make losing more likely.  We can do new things.  Maybe even better things.  Be true, unbeliever; you need not fail.

Of course, trying something new does not inevitably result in improvement; sometimes, it results in spectacular new forms of failure.  We live in a world of relative odds, not certainties.  Everything might succeed and anything might fail.  Yet, any fool can see that some things are better than others. 

Here are some better things for Iraq:

1.  President Bush must make clear that success in Iraq is not measured by adherence to any particular timeline.  A timeline is useful to the extent that it sets goals and impels a sense of urgency.  But Iraq is not like ordering a pizza; it doesn't have to be done in thirty minutes or less.  Whether the Constitution takes a few more days or our troops must be committed a few more months or years, we will stand by the Iraqis. 

2.  President Bush should also commit an act of political bravery:  He should stand up, face the nation, and state that troops will remain in Iraq at (or above) current levels so long as they're needed to combat the insurgency.  And that may be a long, long time.

3.  Indeed, the insurgency will not be over the moment that Iraq has a Constitution, a democratically-elected government, and a couple more police on the street.  All these things are means to defeating the insurgency, but they are not the defeat of the insurgency.  We define success against the insurgency as, well, success against the insurgency.  As Senator McCain has remarked, "[t]he day that I can land at the airport in Baghdad and ride in an unarmed car down the highway to the green zone is the day that I'll start considering withdrawals from Iraq."  We should all have this view.

4.  Thus, the President should reiterate, yet again, that there is no timetable for withdrawal.  If asked, the President should rebuke Donald Rumsfeld to the extent that he has suggested otherwise.  There can only be one Commander in Chief, and it is important that the President stop the intramural war between the "withdraw now" and "stay the course" folks in his Administration.

5.  Steps should have been taken three years ago to "grow" the army to meet our current needs; the hour is late, but we need to take that long-overdue action now.  Josh Trevino has suggested a draft.  If a draft is what it takes to win in Iraq, I'm in favor of a draft.  I fear, however, that a draft will erode what support remains for the war, and ultimately turn America against the war -- forcing a withdrawal before we're ready.  Thus, to the extent that "more money" (in incentives, pay, etc.) can help to expand a volunteer force, we should pursue that option first.

Iraq has been, and will continue to be, a long hard slog.  But we must do our utmost to succeed in Iraq -- and not only because it is good and right to fight terrorism and tyrrany, and to finish what we started.  If Iraq fails as a state, the terrorists will have a launching pad against the US and its allies for years to come.  That cannot be permitted to happen.

UPDATE:  I managed to triple post the above, and then erase all three.  My apologies for inadvertantly erasing your comments as well.

It's The Energy Anti-Plan!

by hilzoy

Check out this story from the NYT:

"The Bush administration is expected to abandon a proposal to extend fuel economy regulations to include Hummer H2's and other huge sport utility vehicles, auto industry and other officials say. The proposal was among a number of potential strategies outlined by the administration in 2003 to overhaul mileage requirements for light trucks - sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans. It had been seen by industry officials as likely to be adopted."

Actually, it's even worse than it sounds:

"Roughly speaking, corporate average fuel economy regulations - known as C.A.F.E. standards in the industry - divide each automaker's annual new vehicle production into two categories: passenger cars and light-duty trucks. New cars must average 27.5 miles a gallon and light trucks 21.2 miles a gallon in 2005 models and 22.2 miles by 2007. The figures represent lab-generated mileage and overstate the numbers that can be achieved on the road. Rules for cars are not being changed.

When the current two-category system was created in the 1970's, cars ruled the American road. Since then, automakers have developed new classes of vehicles that qualify as trucks, including S.U.V.'s, minivans and family-oriented pickup trucks with two rows of seats. As a result, not only is the number of vehicles on the road increasing, but the average new vehicle is getting lower mileage than it did two decades ago because so many more new vehicles are trucks. An increasing emphasis on horsepower is also a major factor.

Larger sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks weighing more than 8,500 pounds when loaded, like many Hummers and Ford Excursions, have been exempt from the regulations. When the system was created, vehicles of that weight were generally used for commercial purposes, but now hundreds of thousands sold each year are intended for family use. Automakers have had powerful incentives to produce such vehicles because they are exempt from fuel regulations, have had rich profit margins, and many consumers can claim tax breaks for them. The administration had suggested including larger S.U.V.'s in fuel economy regulations in a first wave of proposals in December 2003, but domestic automakers objected that such a move would harm their fragile bottom lines.

The decision not to include larger S.U.V.'s was a recent development, said people briefed on the deliberations, who declined to be identified before the plan is made public. There could still be revisions, and the plan's release will be followed by a public comment period and then a revised final rule, which must be published by next April to have an effect on 2008 models. Gasoline prices have become a powerful counterweight to regulatory benefits given the biggest gas guzzlers. Many automakers, seeing the weakness in sales of large S.U.V.'s this year - they have recovered only after heavy discounting - are re-emphasizing plans for smaller, lighter S.U.V.'s in the future.

Under the Bush administration plan, about half a dozen size classes will be determined by the vehicle's length and width. Instead of an overall mileage requirement for the total fleet of light trucks a manufacturer sells in a model year, makers will have to meet some kind of target or average within each size class. As a result of the proliferating categories, it will probably become more difficult to predict fuel economy trends. "It's an invitation to game the system and increase our oil dependence and the pollution that results," said Dan Becker, a global warming strategist at the Sierra Club. "The Bush administration is failing to use the most powerful weapon in its arsenal to save people money at the pump.""

So let's see if I have this straight. Our fuel economy standards now separate vehicles into two classes, sorted by weight, and require that the fuel efficiency of a manufacturer's vehicles within each class average to a given amount. The good news: that provides an incentive to build smaller vehicles within each class. The bad news: it doesn't cover the hugest gas-guzzlers of them all. We now propose to change to a system that separates vehicles into about six classes, not two. That does away with the good news: auto makers will have no incentive to build small as opposed to non-monstrously-large SUVs. But we do not take the opportunity to do away with the bad news by covering gas-guzzling monsters that no one needs anyway.

This would make no sense at any time. It makes anti-sense at a time when we badly need to reduce our reliance on oil for both economic and national security reasons. If this anti-sensical anti-plan ever came into contact with a coherent and reasonable proposal of any sort, there would be an explosion and a huge flash of light, and the entire universe would be destroyed. Which, no doubt, is why it has been carefully sequestered within the Bush administration.

Unconvincing Monologue

by hilzoy

Honestly, I did not set out to write a series of vagina posts today. But I was looking at the kittens post and saw a trackback with this intriguing text: "Can you're mind withstand the cuteness of Left-Wing Kittens? Can you resist the pull to the dark side?!?" Obviously, I had to check it out, and while prowling around the site it tracked back to, I found this link. All I have to say is that while standards of labial perfection derived from porn magazines have no hold on me, if my vagina started to speak and came out with this sort of banal and unimaginative drivel, then I would be well and truly ashamed.

"Greetings,

Let me begin with saying how pleased I am to be here. But I do feel it necessary to go over a few things with you before we head too much further into our life together.

First you should know that I am a perfect gift to you from God. I have a purpose and should not be used for anything else other than my intended use. You have received me as a gift to be given as a gift. So valuable am I, that a man will do just about anything to get me. You must be cautious, you must be vigilant.

I was given to you in order for you to give to one and only one man. Please know that the blessings you receive from this are greater than one can imagine. I am not to be shared among many, I am not to be taken foregranted. If you adhere to God's plan for me, I will in return bring you great joy. Great joy that comes with much honor and respect. Joy that comes with no burden of guilt. Joy that cannot be explained to anyone who has never experienced it.

If you respect me, you will not be subjected to sexually transmitted diseases. If you respect me, I will usher in an even greater gift from God. I am the gateway to your children. I will deliver them to you and your loving, needing arms. I will be there as you kiss the forehead of your child for the very first time. I will bring joy to your household as I fill it with the children you and your husband create.

I'm not sure if anyone has told you any of this. Many adults no longer respect me and indoctrinate you young people with lies. I felt that I needed to portray these things to you so that we might have a happy life together. You see, you only get one of me. I cannot be replaced, I cannot be upgraded. So I beg of you, take care of me. In doing so I will take of you.

Thank you,

Your Vagina"

("I cannot be upgraded"? Think again.)

There's no earthly reason why Christianity has to make people stupid. Some of the smartest people ever were extremely serious Christians. Thomas Aquinas. St. Augustine. Dante. Abelard. They were not idiots; they were drop-dead brilliant. Moreover, there's nothing about Christianity that automatically excises your sense of humor. Speaking from experience, it's impossible to regard the universe as God's creation without concluding that He has a sense of humor, and a very dry and mordant one at that. So why oh why does contemporary Christianity seem to have these horrible, deadening effects on so many of its contemporary adherents? (See also: Slacktivist, here.)

Would anyone who had any sense of the glorious rejoicing, in deadly earnest, that Christianity can be imagine that her vagina's very first words would be "Let me begin with saying how pleased I am to be here"? I don't think so.

The Second Time As Farce

by von

MAKE NO MISTAKE; we are losing Iraq.  In this, I echo William Kristol, Greg Djerejian, and our own Charles Bird:  The blame lies squarely at the feet of Rumsfeld.  Rumsfeld famously remarked that we go to war with the army that we have rather than the army that we want and then -- to his eternal discredit -- carefully avoided doing anything to create the army that we need.  More troops would not have been a panacea to Iraq, but they would've been a damn good start.

So, no surprise that Rumsfeld now dumbs-down victory:  we won by giving the Iraqis a chance for democracy; if they blow it, eh, not our problem. Yet, Rumsfeld's new "metric" never was the true criteria for success.  It has never been President Bush's position.   Victory in Iraq has always meant, at a minimum, an Iraq that does not threaten its neighbors or us, and that will not be used as a staging ground for future terrorism.  A shot at democracy may have been necessary for victory, but it has never been sufficient for victory.

Indeed, Rumsfeld no longer wants to win in Iraq; he doesn't even know what winning is.  Rather than fight the terrorists side by side with the Iraqis, Rumsfeld wants to take half the team home with the ball still in play.  President Bush should do now what he should have done long ago:  Give Rumsfeld his Medal of Honor Freedom, and send him packing.

********

And what are the stakes if Rumsfeld does not go, or if his view prevails?  Some would say, not much, and point that there's plenty of hopeful news from Iraq (see InstaPundit for links to the round-up).  Small victories every day, all mostly unreported and ignored.  It will turn around, it is turning around, we need but wait.  These folks are well-meaning, but their cheerleading is misguided. 

The time has come to see clearly what is forest and what is tree.  President Bush, on October 7, 2002, outlined the first, best cause for war against Iraq:

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Read those words carefully; and now read the following from Sunday's Boston Globe:

BAGHDAD -- US troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on US and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said yesterday. ....

[Pentagon Spokesperson] Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from sometime after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

We invaded Iraq in part to ensure that Saddam's regime would never be able to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.  It turned out, ultimately, that although Saddam had evil intent aplenty, he did not have an active WMD program -- and thus no WMDs to share.  Yet, because we invaded, the terrorists are now manufacturing their own weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Call it failing to meet a metric, or call it for what it is:  evidence that we are losing Iraq. 

UPDATE:  The able readership points out that Rumsfeld, a civilian, is only eligible for the Medal of Freedom -- so that will have to suffice as his parting gift.

Bill Kristol is Right

by Charles

I'm not the biggest fan of Bill Kristol but you have to give him his due.  As it is right now, Bush can't be fired for the poor job of rebuilding Iraq, but one of the chief architects can, especially when the messages from Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department conflict with the president's.  Forgive me quoting at length, but Bill Kristol writes:

And Iraq is, as the president said Wednesday, "the latest battlefield in the war on terror." It is also the central battlefield in that war. And so, the president added, "I hear all the time, 'Well, when are you bringing the troops home?' And my answer to you: 'As soon as possible, but not before the mission is complete.'" As the president said Thursday, "We will stay the course. We will complete the job in Iraq."

Or will we? The president seems determined to complete the job. Is his defense secretary? In addition to trying to abandon the term "war on terror," Rumsfeld and some of his subordinates have spent an awful lot of time in recent weeks talking about withdrawing troops from Iraq--and before the job is complete.

Until a few months ago, Bush administration officials refused to speculate on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. They criticized those who did talk about withdrawing, arguing that such talk would encourage the terrorists, discourage our friends, and make it harder to win over waverers who wanted to be assured that we would be there to help. The administration's line was simply that we were going to stay the course in Iraq, do what it takes, and win.

The president still tends to say this. But not Defense Department civilian officials, who have recently been willing to indicate a desire to get out, and sooner rather than later. After all, Rumsfeld has said, insurgencies allegedly take a decade or so to defeat. What's more, our presence gives those darned Iraqi allies of ours excuses not to step up to the plate. So let's get a government elected under the new Iraqi constitution, and accelerate our plans to get the troops home. As Rumsfeld said Thursday, "once Iraq is safely in the hands of the Iraqi people and a government that they elect under a new constitution that they are now fashioning, and which should be completed by August 15, our troops will be able to, as the capability of the Iraqi security forces evolve, pass over responsibility to them and then come home." The key "metric" is finding enough Iraqis to whom we can turn over the responsibility for fighting--not defeating the terrorists.

As Newsweek reported last week: "Now the conditions for U.S. withdrawal no longer include a defeated insurgency, Pentagon sources say. The new administration mantra is that the insurgency can be beaten only politically, by the success of Iraq's new government. Indeed, Washington is now less concerned about the insurgents than the unwillingness of Iraq's politicians to make compromises for the sake of national unity. Pentagon planners want to send a spine-stiffening message: the Americans won't be there forever."

Donald Rumsfeld appears to be caving in to defeatism, a trait that Secretaries of Defense should not have.  There is only one real measure for success in Iraq:  a free, peaceful, non-theocratic representative republic.  Delivery of this entity spells doom for the terrorists and the Sunni/Baathist paramilitary gangs.  If Rumsfeld is unwilling to achieve this goal, he should be gone, and in this I am in full agreement with Joe Biden.  More Kristol:

Bad Idea

Via Majikthise, something awful this way comes:

"Women from around the world flock to David Matlock's marble waiting room carrying purses stuffed with porn. The magazines are revealed only in the privacy of his office, where doctor and patient debate the finer points of each glossy photo. The enterprising gynecologist sees countless images of naked women, but none are more popular than Playboy's fresh-faced playmates. They represent, he says with a knowing smile, the perceived ideal.

"Some women will say, 'Hey, you take this picture and hang it up in the operating room and refer back to it when you're sculpturing me,'" he said in an interview in his clinic overlooking hazy Los Angeles. "I say, 'Okay, all right, fine.'" Dr. Matlock is a colourful pioneer in a controversial — and growing — frontier of plastic surgery: nipping and tucking vaginas." (...)

“There's a need for this,” he said."

The woman who had had an "extremely awful episiotomy" might have had a "need for this." Otherwise, I don't think so. Especially when the alleged need is due to statements like this:

"[Women] get a comment from their spouse or boyfriend or whoever that, 'Gee you don't look like whoever,' and a comment about a sensitive area like that, of course, is a huge emotional blow. So I think a lot of the women who pursue that are concerned about issues like, 'How am I going to be perceived?'"

Guys: I'm sure you've all heard that feminists are not, in fact, shrieking harpies who descend on unsuspecting men brandishing their claws, but perfectly nice people like, oh, me, who think that women should be treated with respect and dignity, just as men should. This is basically true, but what we crafty feminists usually don't tell you is that there are a few special secret code phrases that will abruptly transform us into the screaming monsters that are the stuff of mens' nightmares. And while I'm sure none of you will ever have occasion to find this out by direct personal experience, 'Gee you don't look like whoever,' when said about a lover's genitalia, is one of them. Say it, and I will personally fly out of your computer screen, claws first, and dismember you.

Just saying. This strikes me as a much better response than having a surgeon dismember your lover. And, for the record, I'd have the same response to women who made similar comments about their boyfriends.

To return to the subject at hand:

"If they repeatedly make the same request, the man who has been called the Picasso of vaginas will attempt to turn wish into reality. (...) He hones new techniques on animal parts — chicken thighs, turkey legs and pig's ears — until he is ready to work on women.

"It's basically all about art. I'm an artist." "

Picasso? Picasso??? Here is what Picasso made of a guitarist:

I suppose going to the El Greco of vaginas might be worse; but on the whole, I would have thought that it would be a lot better to stick to Raphael. And better still just to leave well enough alone.

There are two kinds of people:

Those who divide people into categories,

and those who do so obsessively.

Open thread, but feel free to discuss any and all upsides/downsides to obsessive categorization.  Frankly, there was far too much there to even begin considering, especially after a mere four hours of sleep.

Nickel And Dimed To Death

by hilzoy

From the NYTimes:

"For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents. The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system. The effort to replace the armor began in May 2004, just months after the Pentagon finished supplying troops with the original plates - a process also plagued by delays. The officials disclosed the new armor effort Wednesday after questioning by The New York Times, and acknowledged that it would take several more months or longer to complete. (...)"

I Still Know All About These Kittens

by hilzoy

Another homage to The Editors, below the fold, to spare people on dialup.

*** Now with updated, extra kittens!