Friday, February 28, 2003

HULK SMASH! That’s the punch-line below, and a pretty succinct one (as well as funny as all get out).   Should we go to war in Iraq?   Josh Marshall, who is normally sane, has been arguing we should for quite a while now, but he hates the way the Bushies have gone about and would rather have scrapped the last two years of “diplomatic” effort and started over. That’s not an option however – but what he proposes is not a viable solution either, as Atrios at Eschaton points out: The Worst Argument Ever (Almost)   Josh Marshall is making it, but he's left open the possibility for redemption: Unfortunately, we don't have that choice. The administration has already done massive damage to our standing in the world. And they've managed to create facts on the ground -- intentionally and unintentionally -- which make pulling back arguably more dangerous than pushing ahead. The question is no longer what the ideal thing to do is. It's more aptly described as which of the really bad alternatives is best to choose given the jam the administration has backed us into. First of all - if our standing in the world sucks because we've pissed people off and we're about to go invade a country without their support is it going to get better if we go ahead and invade? This is playground level diplomacy and it is silly. We bully. Bully must follow through on threat or bully can't be bully anymore. Hulk smash!   3:58:40 PM    comment []

Want to See… …George Will exposed as the unprincipled meat-puppet for the GOP that he is?   Click here 3:50:03 PM    comment []

Another Former Bush-Backer for Peace “I do know that the only leader threatening the world with nuclear weapons and pre-emptive attack is George W. Bush. It gives me no pleasure to point that out. But it is not the role of an American citizen to be a sheep. It has become apparent that those of us who supported Bush made a mistake.”   We’ll give Charlie a pass on his Clinton obsession – this time – because past political vendettas should be put aside in a time of national emergency.   Now is the time we need to ALL rally ‘round the flag – not around the Resident – to prevent a potential WWIII.     Charlie Reese The "Don't Know" Crowd The Bush administration adamantly insists that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but despite 12 years of inspections, bombings and spying, it doesn't have a clue as to where they are.   It frequently warns us of terror attacks, but always says it doesn't know where, when or how. Nor have there been any terror attacks in the United States in the past 18 months.   Is it any wonder that millions of people around the world and in the United States don't support President George Bush's personal crusade to topple Saddam Hussein? Keep in mind that after the Sept. 11 attack, which Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with, virtually the entire world united in sympathy with us. Never has one president destroyed so much support by so many people in so short a time.   The fact is, the people in the Bush administration who want to go to war with Iraq wanted to go to war with Iraq before Sept. 11. As a matter of fact, they wanted to go to war with Iraq before George Bush was even elected president. That's a matter of record. This war against Iraq has nothing to do with disarming Iraq and nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with the United States creating a situation in which it and Israel will dominate the Middle East and its oil resources.   The thing to remember about these alleged weapons of mass destruction is that nobody in the Bush administration or with the United Nations has ever laid eyes on them. What exists is a discrepancy between two numbers in reports — both supplied by the Iraqi government. One report stated that so many chemical bombs were used; another report had a different number. And the Iraqis are certainly right in that nobody can prove a negative; you can't produce for inspection what you don't have.   I personally don't know if these weapons exist in Iraq or not. I do know they exist in many other countries. I do know that in the Gulf War, Iraq did not use any chemical or biological weapons, even when it was being routed from Kuwait and "bombed back into the preindustrial age," to use an American phrase. I do know that in the 12 years since, Iraq has not used any chemical or biological weapons, even though it has been subjected to the harshest economic sanctions in modern history and to practically regular bombing. I do know that in the past 12 years, Iraq has not threatened, much less attacked, any of its neighbors, while during that the same period of time we have attacked Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia. I do know that every one of the "neighbors" George Bush claims Iraq is a threat to has said repeatedly that it does not feel threatened by Iraq.   I do know that the only leader threatening the world with nuclear weapons and pre-emptive attack is George W. Bush. It gives me no pleasure to point that out. But it is not the role of an American citizen to be a sheep. It has become apparent that those of us who supported Bush made a mistake. I'm beginning to believe that a philanderer and a liar is less dangerous than an upright but ignorant man who thinks God has appointed him to rule the world.   The best way to support our troops is to try to prevent the Bush administration from sacrificing their lives for the hidden agenda of the crazy neoconservatives in his administration. Young Americans should not die because a bunch of chicken hawks have a cockamamie idea that they can bring liberal democracy to the Middle East by making war. That's like trying to sell pork barbecue in Mecca. What the president is intent on doing is committing a crime against humanity. If he goes through with it, he'll have to change his ritualistic "God bless America" to "God forgive us."   Thanks to the Horse for the link 3:27:36 PM    comment []

Is Catholicism Merely a Cafeteria? That is the rhetorical question often voiced by conservative Catholics trying to browbeat fellow communicants on the issues of abortion or contraception.   I wonder now: does that argument cut the other way since the pope has explicitly condemned Bush’s war aims?   Might conservative Catholics now be the ones succumbing to the lure of cafeteria style-Catholicism?   If not, then where are their voices on this issue?   VATICAN CITY, Jan. 13 — Pope John Paul II today expressed his strongest opposition yet to a potential war in Iraq, describing it as a "defeat for humanity" and urging world leaders to try to resolve disputes with Iraq through diplomatic means.   "No to war!" the pope said during his annual address to scores of diplomatic emissaries to the Vatican, an exhortation that referred in part to Iraq, a country he mentioned twice.   "War is not always inevitable," he said. "It is always a defeat for humanity." Wondering aloud what to say "of the threat of a war which could strike the people of Iraq," he added: "War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option, and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations."   The pope had previously articulated concerns about an American-led attack on Iraq, most notably on Christmas Day, when he beseeched people "to extinguish the ominous smoldering of a conflict which, with the joint efforts of all, can be avoided." But in those instances, his message was largely implicit. He did not refer to Iraq by name, and his words were not as blunt.   Today's remarks came as the United States continued a buildup of military forces in the Middle East, and they exemplified international leaders' apprehensions and attempts at political and moral suasion.   The pope's comments, delivered in French with the Vatican providing a translation into English, also recalled his opposition to the Persian Gulf war in 1991. His refusal to support that effort strained diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the United States at the time.   What the pope said today was not surprising; he has consistently decried a range of wars throughout his 24-year-long papacy, often without immediate or discernible effect on events.   But after the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, he said nations had a moral and legal right to defend themselves against terrorism. He did not condemn the bombing of Afghanistan, although he did say that such military actions must be aimed solely at people with "criminal culpability" and not whole groups of innocent civilians.   In speaking out about Iraq today, he echoed concerns raised around the world about the wisdom of a potential war with Iraq.   Wilfrid-Guy Licari, the Canadian ambassador to the Holy See, said the pope's voice would stand out as an especially resonant one. "It is putting extra pressure, because he's one of the only moral voices left in the world with credibility," he said.   He added that the pope's comments reflected the Vatican's growing worry about, and preoccupation with, the situation in Iraq. In the last month, an increasing number of Vatican officials have raised questions about the morality, necessity and consequences of a war in Iraq.   R. James Nicholson, the American ambassador to the Holy See, also noted that the pope "speaks with a great deal of credibility and moral authority," adding, "The United States listens."   But he said he did not interpret the pope's remarks as an indication that the Vatican and the United States stood apart on Iraq.   "If you examine carefully what the pope said, he said that war is not always inevitable, and we agree," Mr. Nicholson said, adding that Saddam Hussein can prevent an attack on Iraq if he complies fully with weapons inspections and eliminates any weapons of mass destruction.   The present and future question before the Vatican, he said, was whether there was "sufficient provocation" for the United States to take military action against Iraq.   "The answer to that," Mr. Nicholson acknowledged, "may remain something that we don't agree on."   The pope's comments on Iraq were contained in a wide-ranging speech that traversed the globe, reflecting on signs of desperation and hope on various continents, and also touched on social issues.   John Paul made special note of a series of expulsions from Russia of Catholic priests, a point of keen discord between the Vatican and Moscow. He called the expulsions "a cause of great suffering for me," adding, "The Holy See expects from the government authorities concrete decisions which will put an end to this crisis."   He nodded to a series of recent scientific claims by mentioning human cloning, saying it, along with abortion and euthanasia, "risk reducing the human person to a mere object."   2:40:40 PM    comment []

MWO 1 Bushies 0 Media  whores online hits one out of the park with this trifecta of articles documenting the irresponsibility of the Bush regime. They will say anything if it sounds good at the time – but heaven help those folks who depend on their promises, because the Bushies certainly won’t (unless they are also big campaign contributors).   CREDIBILITY GAP Bush's Dismal FAILURE in Nation Building/Liberating "Under the Taliban regime, educating women was a criminal act.  Under the new government of a liberated Afghanistan, educating all children is a national priority. And America, along with its coalition partners, is actively helping in that effort." - George W. Bush, March 2002 "The Taliban regime is now in retreat across much of the country, and the people of Afghanistan, especially women, are rejoicing" - Laura Bush, November, 2001 The Washington Post on Bush's "liberated Afghanistan": Wash Post: Remember Afghanistan There are disturbing reports that an extreme and strict interpretation of Islamic law, or sharia, is being nurtured in the post-Taliban era. Moreover, attempts are being made to include some of the harshest and most discriminatory elements of sharia in the new constitution and judicial system. The notorious Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, which enforced religious conformity and meted out harsh punishments under the Taliban, has reemerged in a supposedly gentler guise. Abuses against women and girls continue, apparently with the support of police and the courts. Women and girls finally have the opportunity to go to school, but recent attacks and threats against schools for girls are keeping many away. Major concerns regarding human rights in Afghanistan include: ·                   Misguided judicial activism by Afghanistan's chief justice, including the endorsement of amputations and other abusive corporal punishments and public death threats to recalcitrant non-Muslims.   ·                   Coercive measures (including on-the-spot beatings) by official agencies, including religious police organizations, that require Afghans to follow specific religious practices and require women to conform to stringent codes of dress, movement and behavior.   ·                   Blasphemy charges against reformers.   ·                   Torture and other maltreatment of prisoners, including reports of incidents resulting in mass deaths (of which there have been no thorough, credible investigations).   ·                   Mistreatment of returning refugees and internally displaced persons, including reports of forced repatriation. Religious freedom and other international human rights protections, particularly for Afghan women and girls, must be guaranteed in Afghanistan's new constitution. A draft of the constitution is expected early next month in preparation for Afghanistan's national assembly, or loya jirga, this year. Women's rights reportedly are being ignored, as are equal rights for religious minorities. The new constitution may lessen the human rights protections of the 1964 constitution, which declared: "The people of Afghanistan, without any discrimination or preference, have equal rights and obligations before the law." If efforts to impose a strict reading of sharia are left unchecked and unopposed, a woman's testimony in court will be counted as only half that of a man. Several key cabinet posts have gone to leaders or members of extremist groups or ruthless warlord factions. Some of these appointments were made on the advice of the U.S. government. Will George "Credibility Gap" Bush's "liberated Iraq" be anything like his "liberated Afghanistan"?  Just how trustworthy are the Bush regime's promises to "build a free and democratic Iraq"? Bush Joins Forces with Islamic Fundamentalists The Washington Post, June 17, 2002 UNITED NATIONS — Conservative U.S. Christian organizations have joined forces with Islamic governments to halt the expansion of sexual and political protections and rights for gays, women and children at United Nations conferences. The new alliance, which coalesced in the past year, has received a major boost from the Bush administration, which appointed anti-abortion activists to several key positions on U.S. delegations to U.N. conferences on global economic and social policy. The alliance of conservative Islamic states and Christian organizations has placed the Bush administration in the awkward position of siding with some of its most reviled adversaries — including Iraq and Iran — in a cultural skirmish against its closest European allies, which broadly support expanding sexual and political rights. Bush Plays Politics While Afghan Women Suffer Toronto Star It's an old Republican trick, dating back to Ronald Reagan, to keep the extremist wing of the party under control by toying with the fates of women around the world. Bush made good on his promises to fundamentalist groups on his very first day in office, when he reinstated the Reagan-era "global gag rule", which denies all U.S. foreign aid to any women's health agency in the world that dares to speak out on abortion-related issues, even if it does so with its own, non-American funds. Now, to placate the only militant anti-choice crusader who campaigned against the UNFPA funding bill — one Chris Smith of New Jersey — President Bush defies the majority will of Congress, and the desperate need of Afghan women. Makes one wonder... With "liberators" like the brutal, theocratic fanatic Bush/Ashcroft regime - joined in fundie brotherhood with extremist Islamic regimes against freedom - who needs oppressors?   2:06:21 PM    comment []

Wondering About Filibusters? Not what they are (attempts by a substantial minority in the Senate to derail legislation and/or nominations by talking about it ad nauseum) but whether the Democratic attempt to filibuster the stealth wing-nut Estrada is unprecedented?   DailyKos had the goods: click here and enjoy what he has dug up (and help his site hits at the same time). 12:46:56 PM    comment []

Vintage Paul Krugman He doesn’t mince words and doesn’t tailor his views to suit anyone else.   Heard him of Fresh Air (a radio interview program on NPR) last Tuesday and he was fantastic. Didn’t trim his sails or “prettify” what he thought for the national audience. Explained that the Bushies were not conservative but rather - IIRC - the most “irresponsible and deceitful” admin ever, basically running amok with a charge card that says “social security trustfund” on it. It’s long past time to take the charge card away from Junior.   One thing that did bother me was that the host Terry Gross kept referring to Krugman as “NY Times columnist and economist at Princeton” when in reality he is a fulltime economics prof (who is well-respected, recognized and an award winner in his field) who also happens to pen a column in the Times on the side.   Also heard Eric Alterman, author of What Liberal Media? on Fresh Air last night.   Must be some sort of record – two dissenting opinions in one week!   Anyway, can’t say that I was anything but a bit disappointed by Alterman’s appearance. It seemed like he was apologizing for the “social liberalism” of the media all night.   (“Social liberalism”? What qualifies you for that? That most members of the media don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible? That they don’t all go hunting as recreation?)   In other words Alterman swallowed one of the enduring myths of the “liberal” media: that since the professionals who staff the newsroom share the same broad range of tastes, hobbies and values of other educated professionals - and not the tastes, hobbies and values of some stereotype of the rural, unemployed and uneducated - that they must be liberal.   What is unique about the media is not that it is staffed by educated, urban-dwelling professionals but that as the media has become “professionalized” it has tended to attract and reward those that are extremely cynical and secondly - regardless of their sympathies – most media professionals simply don’t call the shots.   With regard to the first point, cynicism is the first ally of the kind of “conservatism” (if it can even be called that) that passes as conservatism in the GOP today. Why? because cynics tend to view people as contemptible sheep, think they deserve what they get, and don’t think that the world can be made a significantly better place. In other words, they are precisely the sort of people to look out for themselves by being sure they are on the side of the “winners” not the losers. The best way to do that is to preserve all career options and with the media increasingly becoming a game funded by the radical right (talk radio, Fox network, cable talk shows, Washington Times, Washington Post, think tanks like Heritage, Cato, etc. etc.) then the first duty of any ambitious media personality is to curry favor with potential sugar daddies. That is why MWO uses the word “whores” – to signal the degree that what passes for public discourse is already bought and paid for, if not literally (as it is in many cases) then “contingently” in terms of maintaining career “viability.” This observation leads one naturally to the second point above – who calls the shots: obviously, the people who pay the salaries for the expensive, witty and out-for-themselves punditeers.   That’s why it is self-defeating to focus on whether or not media professionals “favor” abortion-rights or not and whether or not such “preferences” influence the news. Like most cynics, what they prefer and what the masses receive are two different questions. And they know which side their bread is buttered on and those who can make an impact make sure that their “impact” is one that will favor current or potentially future employers. Hence the rightwing slant of even so-called “liberal” outlets (because they do provide a limited variety of views) like NPR or PBS – they don’t want their funding cut and they want to be able to pursue work in the “marketplace” if necessary.   Well, I could go on, but I’ve promised you some Krugman – so let’s just wrap this up by saying that unfortunately Alterman made it a bit too obvious that the ineffectual “cartoon liberal” caricature that Tom Tomorrow employs from time to time in his strip was modeled on him.   No Relief in Sight By PAUL KRUGMAN So Glenn Hubbard has resigned as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers — to spend more time with his family, of course. (Pay no attention to the knife handles protruding from his back.) Gregory Mankiw, his successor, is a very good economist, but never mind: When the political apparatchiks who make all decisions in this administration want Mr. Mankiw's opinion, they'll tell Mr. Mankiw what it is. Meanwhile consumer confidence is plunging, and almost two-thirds of voters rate the current state of the economy as "poor." Is there any relief in sight? No. The conventional wisdom among business forecasters now calls for growth of a bit more than 3 percent over the next year. Growth at that pace is barely enough to keep up with rising productivity and an expanding labor force, not enough to make a serious dent in unemployment. And a growing number of forecasters think the conventional wisdom is overoptimistic, that the pain is about to get even worse. One reason is the surge in oil prices, which acts like a big tax increase, siphoning off spending that might otherwise have helped create jobs. And forget about those cheerful predictions of cheap oil as soon as Saddam is gone. Yes, oil prices plunged after the 1991 gulf war; but as Philip Verleger of the Council on Foreign Relations points out, back then there were big inventories of oil that got dumped once the crisis was past; this time inventories are very low. And if the victory isn't as quick and easy as promised, or if the aftermath of war is as nasty as many fear, oil prices could easily go much higher. Then there's the effect of the worst fiscal crisis in the 50 states since World War II. Iris Lav of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests that tax increases and spending cuts at the state level could drain $100 billion from the national economy over the next year. Aid from Washington is an obvious answer — but the Bush administration refuses to provide a penny. Finally, the increasingly grim mood of consumers can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If disheartened families cut their spending, the job picture will worsen even further. So where's the upside? To be fair, there are some reasons for hope. Most notably, after two years of low business investment, there's presumably a pent-up demand for new equipment. As I understand it, the prevailing view at the Federal Reserve — which is considerably more optimistic than private forecasters — is that once war fears are behind us, business investment will surge, and all will be well with the economy. Sounds like wishful thinking to me, but let's hope they're right. Also, war itself can be an economic stimulus, as the Pentagon replenishes the munitions it uses up in Iraq. But you don't have to be a doomsayer to feel that the negatives greatly outweigh the positives — that an economy that is already hurting badly is all too likely to get even worse. So what will the administration do about it? Nothing, of course. Yes, I know, the Bush team is proposing about $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. But when pressed, administration officials admit that their plan will do little for the economy right now. Why? Because those are long-term cuts; only a tiny fraction of the total will flow into people's pockets this year. Furthermore, most of the tax cuts will — of course — go to affluent families, who will probably save most of the money. Why is the administration so uninterested in helping the economy? Here's my theory: The depressed state of the economy provides a convenient if bogus rationale for the huge, extremely irresponsible long-run tax cuts that, after Iraq, constitute this administration's principal obsession. To do anything else to help the economy would suggest that it's possible to create jobs now without putting the country's future solvency at risk — and that's not a message this administration wants to convey. I almost feel sorry for Mr. Mankiw, who I suspect has no idea what he's getting into; I'm sure he will soon feel frustrated over his inability to have any real influence on this disastrous policy. But on second thought I'll save my sympathy for the two million people who have lost their jobs over the past two years, and are not likely to find new ones any time soon.   12:19:39 PM    comment []

Perhaps You Can Tell Your Grandkids… …that you remember when the UN was undermined and destroyed by feckless, irresponsible US policies:   In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said.   "You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," [a diplomat from another member of the Security Council] said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."   Check out the rest of the article at a great site MyDD   11:22:07 AM    comment []

While the World Burns… Bush does what he does best – points fingers and shifts blame.   Ah if only there were some responsible adults in charge…   President Bush's campaign to enact his domestic agenda and win reelection next year is creating political problems for congressional Republicans.   Bush, accused by Democrats of shortchanging homeland security, is blaming the GOP-controlled Congress for underfunding programs to guard against terrorism. Mr. Bush told the National Governors Association this week that Congress "did not respond to the $3.5 billion we asked for -- they not only reduced the budget that we asked for, they earmarked a lot of the money" for other unrelated programs. "Tactically, that was a stupid thing for the [White House] to do," a senior House GOP aide said yesterday.   Democrats said the president's remarks likely will be fodder for political ads in 2004 accusing House and Senate Republicans of failing to protect the homeland. The president "is saying, in effect, Republicans shortchanged homeland security," said Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). After reading the president's remarks, Hoyer said he told his staff, "let's develop this" for a campaign.   The president also is deploying Cabinet officials to drum up support for his $695 billion tax cut plan on the home turf of GOP lawmakers who have expressed reservations about the proposal, a senior White House official said. Some Republicans privately worry the White House will undercut congressional allies if it puts too much pressure on them. Sens. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), possible targets of the White House campaign, face reelection in 2004….   Still, the euphoria of controlling the White House, Senate and House for only the second time since 1954 is slowing giving way to reality. It was not until this week that congressional Republicans saw the first evidence Bush would undercut them if it served his best political interest. In his speech to the governors, Bush said he was "disappointed" that Congress did not provide the $3.5 billion he requested a year ago for counterterrorism programs.   A top GOP House official said the Bush administration was intimately involved in negotiating the details of the $397 billion omnibus spending bill the president signed into law earlier this month. White House officials and many budget experts said the measure provides $1.3 billion specifically to local governments to combat terrorism -- considerably less than the $3.5 billion that Bush said he wanted.   "If the president wanted the money, he should have asked for it. He never did," said a senior House GOP leadership aide. "Bush will say what he needs to say, and we understand that."   Democrats took advantage of the dust-up yesterday to slam Republicans for spending too little on homeland defense.   "Incredibly, the president is now blaming others for the budget he himself insisted on," said Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.).   Democrats said they were introducing a bill to provide $5 billion more for emergency response preparedness -- the same package that Republicans, at White House insistence, refused to add to the omnibus spending bill enacted earlier this year. "No more blaming others, no more delay," Daschle said.   11:17:46 AM    comment []

The Worm Turns… Tom DeLay – de facto speaker of the house – has complained about former Vermont Governor Howard Dean’s criticism of the Bush war on Iraq. The article below helps provide the proper context for evaluating the principls that lie behind DeLay’s charges   Sunshine Patriot Tom DeLay and the party of appeasement. By William Saletan Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 2:22 PM PT   On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called Democratic opponents of war in Iraq "reckless." DeLay assailed last weekend's "outrageous" speech by former Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vt., to the Democratic National Committee. The applause that greeted Dean's speech "proves who the Democrat Party is," DeLay told reporters. "They are fast becoming the appeasement party."   It's easy to see why DeLay is angry. In his speech, Dean called the war a "quagmire" and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would "drag on," costing billions of dollars. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw them "before the body bags start coming home."   Maybe if Dean had stopped there, his remarks could have been shrugged off. But he went further. He accused the president of double standards and twisted priorities, implying ulterior motives. "North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead with their nuclear program with no consequences whatsoever," Dean charged. And despite the bombing of Afghanistan, he observed, "Osama Bin Laden still represents a threat to thousands of American lives."   That was bad enough, but Dean wasn't finished. He suggested that the United States should curb its warlike impulses to avoid offending other countries. "The White House has bombed its way around the globe," he sneered. "International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." As for the current war plan, Dean complained that "no one wants us to be there" and that the president's crusade "has made the Russians jittery and has harmed [our] standing in the world."   Then there was the creepy way Dean kept referring to the president. He called the showdown "Bush's undeclared war" and "Bush's bombing campaign." He described it as something "the president has put us into" and warned his audience, "We should think very, very seriously whether we are going to take ownership of the bombing"—as though the president weren't the nation's commander in chief. He urged Congress to de-fund the war and "pull out the forces we now have in the region."   Dean essentially called the United States the war's villain. Once a U.S.-led coalition "starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop?" he asked. He charged that we were "starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army" and portrayed our mission as an "occupation by foreigners."   Dean even defended the enemy's defiance of the international community. It was unfair and unrealistic of the United States, he suggested, to demand that a dictator "agree to allow foreign troops … to have free rein over the entire country." This was like asking him to "slit his throat with his own people," said Dean. "No wonder" the dictator refused.   Maybe DeLay is right. Maybe any politician who said these things is, in DeLay's words, unfit for national leadership. If so, DeLay has the power to remove that politician from office today. These things were never said about Bush's war in Iraq. They were said on the House floor four years ago—on March 11, April 28, and May 6, 1999—about President Clinton's war in Kosovo. And they were said not by Howard Dean, but by Tom DeLay.   Thanks again to Atrios at Eschaton – which is backing working order   10:16:37 AM    comment []