There is something I want to focus on here; the merry-go-round that is the Iraqi Sectarian Violence from the Iraqi Security Forces and Iraqi militia's.  

Why is it a "merry-go-round"?  The answer is simple; because the <span class="caps">U.S. </span&gtgovernment has made it one.

BTD put up a post with that heading.  I started to comment on it, but went so long I figured another diary would be a better idea.  So, here it is:

If I were President:

TL recently posted on the deaths in Iraq of two of the sergeants who wrote an op-ed recently published in the NY Times, critical of current policy and trends.  I was writing this diary at the same time.

Kevin Drum at `The Washington Monthly` blog asks a very important question in his article, `REVOLT AT THE PENTAGON?`:

Second, even if the generals do stand their ground, can someone explain how this makes sense? We're not fixing things now even with 168,000 troops, and if we draw down we're supposedly going to unleash a massive civil war. So what are 50,000 troops in scattered outposts going to do while that's going on? Hunker down? Head out and get slaughtered? Evacuate? I just don't see how this makes any sense at all.

As Mr. Drum asks, what are 50,000 American troops scattered around Iraq at various Forward Operating Bases going to do?  

There has been an outcry from the GOP about Moveon.org's ad.  The GOP quickly pounced on the ad calling for the Democrats to denounce the ad.  The progressive blogosphere has, by and large, followed suit condemning the ad.

What is lost in this discourse from both sides, Left and Right, is one thing; how do the active-duty and veterans feel?

There is probably no greater need for humankind to survive than regular access to clean water. Whenever one hears of a major disaster such as a tsunami or a hurricane in the developing world, with good reason there are fears of cholera epidemics. There are any number of diseases that could be prevented with clean water or regular access to water that can be made clean.

I've mostly been watching this spectacle unfold, with some comments here and there.  I have come around to think this is a case where an unbiased judge will almost certainly grant the defendant's application to withdraw the guilty plea.  It doesn't happen all that often that defendants seek to withdraw their pleas and succeed in the attempt.  This is one of the cases.

The plea withdrawal motion is here.    You can read along, if you want.

Cross-posted in Orange

Last week I implored Barack Obama to step up on Iraq.

On Wednesday of this week, he will be doing just that.

Context and what to look for below the fold.

This op-ed piece by Everett Ellis Briggs, former US ambassador to Panama about the machinations behind the US relationship with Manuel Noriega in Sunday's New York Times makes for interesting reading.

In September 12, 2002 Bush addressed the UN General Assembly.  He was laying out his case for the UN taking action against Iraq.  In one of the little noticed parts of Bush's speech he made the following claim "In 1991, the U.N. Security Council . . . demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. . .. One American pilot is among them."  The pilot that Bush was referring to was Lt Cmdr (Michael) Scott Speicher who was shot down in Iraq during the first Gulf War.  By making this claim Bush was using Speicher to help push our country into going to war with Iraq.  

Cross-posted in orange

An open letter to Senator Barack Obama from a supporter.  

Senator Obama, in your short time in the public eye you have shown great wisdom, judgment, and vision.  Your greatest strength is the ability to fuse pragmatism with idealism.  This often means eschewing traditional showboating and playing for the cameras in order to build consensus that builds towards progressive goals.

However, no single approach works for every problem, and building consensus is not working on the problem of Iraq.  There was a time for Congress to be the steering wheel of our Iraq policy.  Now, someone needs to slam on the brakes.

There are several myths used by powerful groups, such as our government and corporations, to limit our rights to effect changes in unjust laws by protest and to deter us from protesting. We are told that protest is not an effective means of political action, but Al Gore knows this is not true. Just this month, Gore stated that young people should be encouraged to "engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources:"

"I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."

Right-wingers jumped on Gore, claiming he wanted young people to be killed or harmed by bulldozers when Gore was simply making the point that peaceful protest is effective. In fact, a study released this summer showed that protest by social movements is one of the most effective ways to get Congress to pass laws favorable to that movement (pdf file).