Do you think President Bush will listen to one of his greatest hits today?

Remember what we were told before the war:

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

What will the man who said those words do today in the Oval Office?

Why It Works

A day after the House hearing, you can clearly see why the GOP was so eager to get Petraeus up on the Hill. Take our Minnesota delegation for example:

Minnesota Democrat Tim Walz, elected as an anti-war veteran, said nothing in the general's report made him change his position on a troop withdrawal, which he said will happen inevitably with a military so over-extended.

"Our forces, quite frankly, are stretched to the breaking point," Walz said. "The general can say all he wants, but he knows, we know and any single person that looks at the classified documents or knows military readiness knows that we can't maintain this."

Vs.

Minnesota Republican John Kline stuck to his position that it would be a mistake to withdraw prematurely.

But Kline said it is a testament to the success of the troop surge that Petraeus was able to forecast a drawdown of as many as 30,000 troops. "It's very good news that he's able to say that," Kline said.

By failing to act on their rhetoric, Democrats have effectively surrendered the draw down debate to the Republicans. Democrats, having failed to act, having failed to pass legislation to end the war, now have failed to recognize that they have walked right into a situation where they freely admit that what Petraeus says doesn't really matter and where Republicans can now point to data presented by the leading commander in Iraq that says we will begin to withdrawal our troops in the near future.

Moving forward, what do you think the legislative payoff will be after Petraeus has come and gone? Being a cynic, I think the Administration's only goal here is to push the inevitable withdrawal vote directly into the middle of the 2008 presidential race.

Why wait? Why wait? Why wait? Why wait?

Do You Think Bill Kristol Will Go Shopping Today?

How Will the Moustache Remember Today?

Lighten the Mood

Enjoy:

A Few Petraeus Inspired Thoughts

1- I've finally figured out why I hate the 2008 political season more than any other year I can remember. Our two major political parties both stand to gain (electorally) by the loss of American life. The GOP would likely benefit from a major terrorist attack and the Democrats would likely benefit from an increasingly unstable and hectic Iraq. I'm not saying anyone is rooting for these things to happen but I never like it when politicians stand to gain from continued/new misery. I'm reminded of something about cannibals and constituencies.

2- It is that complicated. General Petraeus claims that his calculation of "ethno-sectarian" violence is easy to understand.

Gen. Petraeus offered his definition of sectarian violence for his tabulations: "acts taken by individual by one ethno-sectarian grouping against another." He added that "it's not that complicated": if "al-Qaeda bombs a Shiite area," it's sectarian violence.

Two questions: How do you know that al-Qaeda is behind a bombing and doesn't it follow that if al-Qaeda bombs a Sunni area it doesn't count as sectarian violence? (Eric Black notices the same thing here.) Imagine that you're a non-religious Swiss in Iraq. Would you be bothered by a Sunni on Sunni bomb on your block less than a Sunni on Shiite one?

3- Is the US capping violence in Iraq or systematically reducing it? I suppose we'll have to wait at least another 6 months to even start asking this one.

4- What two intel agencies is Petraeus talking about? I thought this would have been an obvious follow-up.

5- Where is the data and how is it counted? Still waiting on this one.

That's it for now.

UPDATE: Mr. Black also has good posts on Petraeus' answer about his 2004 editorial in the middle of a presidential campaign, Brad Sherman's interesting questioning, and an informative post on Ambassador Ryan Crocker. For reasons almost too easy to explain (cough...no editors...), Mr. Black's blog is a good example of a good reporter working on his own in the blogosphere.

Piling on

Thanks to Gump for taking up the slack while Spotty is out rolling in dead fish on the banks of a far-off river. I've a busy week myself, so his help is particularly appreciated.

I am compelled to add a wee bit to his take on Katie this morning. Today, we are introduced to one of those few lawyers Katherine Kersten seems to like, and little wonder when he's praised by Mr. Powerline himself. Meet Peter Swanson, one of the driving forces doggedly opposing mandatory "Elimination of Bias" continuing legal education for Minnesota lawyers:

Attorneys must complete two hours of training every three years to learn to "identify and eliminate" bias in the legal profession based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation and other factors.

The mandate's mistaken premise, Swanson said, is that attorneys are biased against women and select minority groups. Its goal is to ensure that rank-and-file attorneys -- instructed by an enlightened few -- embrace politically correct attitudes on issues such as affirmative action.

"It's ironic that white liberals want to educate me about discrimination," quips Swanson, who is black.

While many classes are offered, Swanson points out, all reflect the same narrow ideology. "The Supreme Court has found all lawyers guilty of the crime of bias," he says. "We have to serve our sentence in these classes two hours at a time."

For more than a decade, Swanson has waged a full-fledged campaign against the "elimination of bias" requirement. In 2004, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the mandate's constitutionality.

Hmmm... It's almost as ironic as him presuming as a man to educate me about gender-based bias in the legal profession, but that's for another day. Rather, let's talk about that campaign of Mr. Swanson's, specifically what the Minnesota Supreme Court actually said regarding the arguments Mr. Swanson and others have made about mandatory elimination of bias continuing legal education.

An examination of the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court, In re Petition of Rothenberg, 676 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. 2004), that upheld the elimination of bias requirement reveals the core of the dispute when people like Mr. Swanson protest that the requirement has an "ideological" component.

"In the context of Rothenberg's [and, by implication, Swanson's - ed.] argument, 'ideological' appears to be shorthand for something with which he disagrees. Merely asserting that the elimination of bias requirement has ideological origins or is applied ideologically does not create a cognizable claim."

676 N.W.2d at 291. Wow! Surely the United States Supreme Court would come to the rescue of Mr. Swanson and his friends after they'd been so misunderstood at the state Supreme Court level.

Well, no. The petition for certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on the very first day of its 2004-2005 term, leaving the requirement intact.

But I'm sure Gump would agree that Mr. Swanson might be on to something when he noted:

No surprise, said Swanson. "The court was ruling on its own action."

Where might we have heard that before?

Shorter Republican Talking Points During the Petraeus Hearing:

1- Look at his shiny medals.
2- Apologize for MoveOn.
3- Reagan, Reagan, Reagan
4- You can't possibly attack this man's credibility.

It's really stunning that the Republican pro-war argument has fallen this far. I'm not really sure what they're arguing for outside of the fact that General Petraeus has had a successful and distinguished military career and that MoveOn thinks he's a political hack. This guy is being treated like a household cleaning product. Just spray it on and the dirt washes right off!!! Remember, this is the party that was supposed to be "grown up" and reliable in its handling of the war. They've been reduced to a chorus of "But he's a good guy!"

I Don't Know How Spotty Does It

In honor of the vacationing pooch, I will, for one day, brave the Strib and read the unreadable: Katherine Kersten. Since I do not normally read this screeching nag, I cannot relay to you a sense of relative quality vis a vis her previous scribblings. However, after reading her most recent column, this doesn't seem to be much of an issue; her writing does great violence to standards of decency, logic, and professionalism that even a five year old can (and should) understand as being inherently desirable.

Here is a summary of her article:

1- Some soldiers don't respect/understand/value freedom until they deploy to a country that doesn't have it.

2- One exception to this rule is some guy who told me a personal anecdote about how he got really upset in high school when one of his teachers brought in a series of speakers who disagreed with him.

3- He later got upset in college when he couldn't tell some jokes. I assure you that this incident was reported on but I will not give you any further details. What I will tell you is that Powerline sued his school.

4- He has since fought against the "elimination of bias" requirement because lawyers are not biased and because he is black (Ed note: Ms. Kersten's argument, not mine.)

5- Now he's in Iraq.

6- The end.

It is almost pointless to continue to point out just how inept and worthless Ms Kersten is as a columnist. Her column contains no argument or meaning. It is a series of lazy ideological talking points strung together in a weak attempt to elicit an emotional response from her target audience. Please understand that I'm not making any sort of political or ideological argument here. I'm making no judgments about Major Swanson or his beliefs. Ms. Kersten should not be writing at the Strib because she is a terrible writer and her columns make no sense. You really don't need to crack open her beliefs to understand this simple point. (Her column makes about as much sense as a Michael Moore movie [and for the same appeal-to-ideological-emotion reasons]).

The other interesting thing about her article is that when I googled "Peter Swanson University Minnesota" I got this:

I came to admire Peter at the time and my admiration has only grown over the years. After law school Peter entered the Army JAG Corps, where he served five years overseas in Bosnia, I think, and at home as a part-time JAG recruiter. At work he is a model colleague. Within the legal profession he is a tireless opponent of the reigning orthodoxies.

Peter's Army service came between the two Iraq wars. He has now answered the call for a return to duty. He will be serving in Iraq for an additional hitch of a year or so. At the moment he is stationed in Texas preparing for his duty in Baghdad. We offer him our respectful salute.

UPDATE: Peter writes: "Thanks for the post. The reaction has been very touching and encouraging. I will post some photos when I get my blog approved. I am trying to encourage my buddies to put their thoughts in 250-500 word blog posts. So far no luck. There are many interesting stories here." He also reminds me: "I spent five years on active duty, stationed in Kansas and Washington State. Six months of that time, I was in Hungary and Bosnia."

Which reminded me of this:

[Conservative Reverb] Here in the blogosphere, Spotty means. Why yes, there is. Katherine Kersten’s Thursday column in the Star Tribune, titled Gratitude, not anger, comes from Astrodome, sounded suspiciously familiar to Spotty. He decided to sniff it out.

What Spot found is evidence of the right wing echo chamber at work, and echoes that percolated up from the winger blogs almost directly into Katie’s column. Before we get into that though, let Spotty describe the column.

In that interesting post, Spotty finds that one of Ms. Kersten's columns is pretty much a cheap rewrite of an earlier post on Peter Swanson's blog, SwanBlog (I think this is the same Peter Swanson; even if it isn't, it doesn't diminish my following point.) The woman seems to be rehashing blog posts as Metro columns. (It should be noted that the original posts are much more interesting and heartfelt.) Powerline admits as much in one of their recent posts (italics are mine):

Kathy's profile follows up on our own "Salute to Major Swanson" last month.

It's nice to know that a major daily newspaper can help supplement a blog that hates it. What do Katie's editors think about her moonlighting effforts? (We know how Powerline feels: Surprise!!! They luv the "excellent profile.")

Finally, the humor of Ms. Kersten's writings should always be recognized. In her current opus she honestly (and seriously) advocates a quasi-argument that, at the very least, says that fighting the "assembled armies of political correctness" and/or Islamic fundamentalists is a desirable and proper way to appreciate the value of American freedom.

That's all I can handle for now. Hopefully, she won't have another column during Spotty's absence and I will be spared from having to read both the Strib and Ms. Kersten twice during the same week.

Petraeus Handbook

He is who we thought he was.

Today's the day. It's the day where we, once again, turn the 4th corner at the Iraqi National Speedway and get ready to start all over again: It's Petraeus time.

For months and months and months, Republicans have been telling the country that we just need to wait until General Petraeus comes up to the Hill before we make any rash decisions on Iraq. This is a brilliant strategy by the GOP. The good General will sit before the House and Senate--his shirt overflowing with shiny medals and his lips trickling with wicked-sounding acronyms--and congressional Democrats will immediately loose their nerve and fail to ask what needs to be asked and do what needs to be done.

(BTW: There is still time to place your bets.)

So, in the interest of helping the only people that have a hope of a chance of a prayer of really getting things back on the right track, here is your official Democratic Petraeus Cliff Notes.

1- General Petraeus is issuing a report on his own performance. If you can't figure out what is wrong with this situation, go home. Immediately. Give yourself the day off.

2- The Petraeus report has gone from a Petraeus written report to Congress to a White House written report to Congress to a no-it-really-will-be-Petraeus written report before Congress to a report behind closed doors with a SecDef report to Congress to a non-written Petraeus report. What are the standards? What are the measurements? What statements/rationale used by Republicans to justify another couple of months/lives/dollars spent in Iraq does not match up with the changes that the 'Petraeus report' has undergone during since he arrived on the scene?

3- Why is Petraeus a White House PR flack? Why is there a Petraeus media room at the White House? Why did Petraeus only meet with Republicans earlier in the year? What about his rosy (and incorrect) editorial right before the 2004 election? How and why is this guy not viewed as a White House political operative before he is an Army General?

4- We already have lots and lots of reports on Iraq--independent ones; not ones made by a guy who not only is critiquing himself, but whose very existence as Grand Poohbah in Iraq is partly the result of the failure of his past self to adequately accomplish his past self's mission and train the Iraqi security forces to do their damn job.

5- What on earth is up with this?

6- Where is the data and is it legitimate? (None of this 'lets not count Sunni on Sunni' crap.)

Paul Krugman summed most of this up last week. Here is a brief rundown of his column:

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

...

Second, Gen. Petraeus has a history of making wildly overoptimistic assessments of progress in Iraq that happen to be convenient for his political masters.

...

Third, any plan that depends on the White House recognizing reality is an idle fantasy. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, on Tuesday Mr. Bush told Australia’s deputy prime minister that “we’re kicking ass” in Iraq. Enough said.

Fourth, the lesson of the past six years is that Republicans will accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic no matter what the Democrats do. Democrats gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted in 2002; their reward was an ad attacking Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, that featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Finally, the public hates this war and wants to see it ended. Voters are exasperated with the Democrats, not because they think Congressional leaders are too liberal, but because they don’t see Congress doing anything to stop the war.

We know who he is. We know what he is going to say. We've all played this game for the last 4+ years. None of this should come as a surprise. Obey Denny and don't crown his ass.

PS: This isn't a big point, but it would be nice to have someone ask the General if the timing of this report had anything to do with it being presented on the day before the 9/11 anniversary.

PPS: Are we ever going to get that congressionally mandated Iraq report?

Hello

I'll be tending the crate (does Spot have the run of the house?) while the good dog is away on vacation. As you may have guessed, I am not a dog. That being said, I have a strong affinity for all of dogkind. I keep one of these in my own home:


His name is Rummy. He's a dirty son of a bitch and he will attack you unilaterally if you even think about looking at him sideways.

(Silent crickets.)

I also own one of these:


Her name is Condi. She doesn't know poop (although she does respond to Russian commands and she loves the piano.)

(More silent crickets.)

My own home is a relatively new blog called Suddenly South. I like to write about faith, atheism, bad politics, media, and Minnesota happenings. Here are a few of my favorite posts:

Joining the Faith Club

Romney Heckles Atheist

The Wrath of the Insured

I also like to post about Nick Punto and New Zealand's fourth most popular folk parody group



Hopefully, I won't screw things up too much over here at the Cucking Stool. I hope that I'll give you something to enjoy and think about. Until the next post...

PS: Bonus FOTC for the married folk in the audience:

Progress is our most important product

From MoveOn.org:

Technorati Tags: Iraq war, George Bush, progress

Many without cause

This letter was in the Strib yesterday:

Two separate articles in the Aug. 30 Star Tribune refer to the fact that more than 1,800 people were arrested by New York City police during the 2004 Republican National Convention. Yet both neglect to mention that almost 90 percent of the charges were dropped without convictions, that multiple cases were dismissed when video footage contradicted sworn police testimony and that New York City has paid substantial damages to hundreds of persons arrested without probable cause.

Relying on anecdotes and unidentified "published reports," Katherine Kersten raises the specter of violent anarchists in Seattle in 1999. In fact, a federal court jury recently awarded more than $1 million in damages to persons arrested in Seattle without probable cause -- on top of almost $800,000 in damages already paid by that city to victims of police abuse during the 1999 protests.

The real threat to our political system arises from the use of police power to suppress dissent and compliant media that heighten public fear by portraying protesters as deviants and disrupters. Minneapolis and St. Paul need to focus less on suppressing dissent through oppressive security measures and more on avoiding unlawful police surveillance, arrests and use of force.

BRUCE NESTOR, MINNEAPOLIS; SECRETARY, MINNESOTA CHAPTER, NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

Then today, Katie writes another screed about protest surrounding the upcoming Republican National Convention titled Last week was a preview of next year's street battles:

Last Friday, I inadvertently found myself in the midst of the opening salvo of a battle to turn the Twin Cities upside down next year.

I was driving home at rush hour from downtown Minneapolis, when several hundred bicyclists blocked the street leading to Interstate 394.

My fellow motorists and I sat obligingly for several minutes, missing green light after green light. Finally, folks began angrily honking their horns. If two police cars hadn't moved the riders along, people might have leaped from their cars to take on the bicyclists themselves. [italics are Spot's]

Several hundred? Katie, the article in your own newspaper said 200. And it's a good thing the cops came along and protected the bicyclists from all the enraged porkers headed for the 'burbs! That could have really been ugly!

The police have not had, as a general proposition, trouble with Critical Mass, the "sponsor" of the ride last Friday:

Police said they have had little trouble with recent rallies staged by Critical Mass, a loosely organized group that opposes society's heavy use of motor vehicles.

"We've never had a problem with Critical Mass, the rally," she said. "We agree with them that we need to lessen our dependence on the automobile. Apparently, they had some infiltrators or outsiders who joined the rally tonight. And these outsiders were trying to provoke the officers."

Spot wrote on Monday that people should be careful of the influence of agents provocateurs in the months leading up to the RNC, and to have a little empathy with the police. But Spot does not agree with Katie that last Friday's dust-up means we're being duped:

In such a situation [disorder surrounding a convention], our first impulse is Minnesota Nice. Twin Cities lawyers are signing up in droves to aid what they may naively view as old-fashioned protesters. St. Paul is reportedly exploring the possibility of helping protesters find campgrounds.

But as you can see from Bruce Nestor's letter, it is hardly naive to believe that some people are going to be wrongfully arrested.

Katie also quotes Annette Meeks, yes, that Annette Meeks, who sounds like the Chamber of Commerce:

"If we have mayhem, the good will that accompanies a well-presented convention will be instantly erased by acts of domestic terrorism," Meeks warned.

It may come as a surprise to you, Katie, although probably not, that many of us find the presence and inconvenience of the 2008 RNC to be more of an annoyance than those exercising their rights of speech and assembly. The convention will be one of the most important political events of next year, and it is ludicrous to think, as you apparently do, that it should be held without that pestiferous First Amendment.

Technorati Tags: Katherine Kersten, First Amendment, 2008 Republican convention, Critical Mass

May Spot have your attention, please!

Two announcements:

First, Spot is going away for about a week and a half, leaving Sunday. There are things to prepare before going, so expect light posting from Spot for a while. While Spotty is gone, MNObserver will be writing here from time to time.

Second, although he is not on the marquee yet, Gump from Suddenly South has also agreed to be a guest poster at the Cucking Stool. You will recall, boys and girls, that Gump won a Spotty™ not too long ago, and Spot also recently linked to Gump's post about Mitt Romney and the Mormons. The intersection of politics and religion is a particular focus of Gump's, one of Spot's interests, too. Spot and MNObserver are glad to have him.

Technorati Tags: guest blogger, Spotty award, Gump Worsley, Mitt Romney, Mormons

Throw al-Maliki under the bus

Spot said yesterday that Norm Coleman's words in the Strib were evidence that the US was preparing to give Prime Minister al-Maliki the President Diem treatment. Norm called al-Maliki a "slender reed." There are other conservative voices even more strident, including everybody's crazy uncle Charlie Krauthammer:

The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has had more than 15 months to try to pacify the Sunni insurgency by offering national accords on oil-sharing, provincial elections and de-Baathification. It has done none of these. Instead, Gen. David Petraeus has pacified a considerable number of Sunni tribes with grants of local autonomy, guns and U.S. support in jointly fighting Al-Qaida.

Petraeus' strategy is not very pretty. It carries risk. But it is has been effective.

[ . . . ]

The nature of the war is changing. In July, 73 percent of the attacks that caused U.S. casualties in Baghdad were from Shiite militants, not Sunnis. Al-Maliki is no fool. As more Sunni tribes are pacified, he can see the final military chapter of this war coming into focus: the considerable power of the American military machine slowly turning its face -- and its guns -- on Shiite extremists.

[ . . . ]

Maliki is not just weak but unreliable. Time is short. We should have long ago -- say, when Stephen Hadley wrote his leaked memo last November about Al-Maliki's failure -- begun working to have this dysfunctional government replaced.

Charlie likes to play chess, the the Middle East is his chessboard!

Charlie and Norm both neglect to mention that al-Maliki was installed through a process that the US sanctioned. Apparently, democracy is fine unless it produces results contrary to those desired by the US. Just ask the Chileans, among others.

Technorati Tags: Iraq war, Prime Minister al-Maliki, President Diem, Chilie, Norm Coleman, Charles Krauthammer

Wisdom from Norm

In an interview with the Star Tribune editorial board before his most recent trip to Iraq, Norm Coleman was asked this question, to which he provided the following answer:

Q What's your sense of how the Iraqi government is performing?

A [During a previous trip to Baghdad, Iraqi premier Nouri al-Maliki] started lecturing to me about Sunni oppression, and that they [Shiites] are in the majority now, and that's democracy. I told him that in the U.S. Senate, we protect against one of the great enemies of democracy, the tyranny of the majority.

I see Maliki as a weak reed who does not have the fundamental capacity to get beyond the terrible history of that country. He's no Mandela. In Iraq, you need a de Klerk and a Mandela [South African's white and black leaders, respectively, of the 1980s and 1990s, who ended apartheid.]

Norm is apparently talking about the filibuster, which the Republicans are using quite a lot now. But here's what Norm said about the use of the filibuster in some circumstances, the nomination of judges, not all that long ago:

April 21st, 2005 - Washington, DC - “The history and the rules of the Senate never anticipated that a minority of the Senate would abuse the privilege of the filibuster to prevent an up or down vote on judicial nominees. I support the filibuster. I believe it is a necessary and vital tool in the Senate – and will resist any effort to undermine that tool for use in the legislative process. However, until last year, there has never before in the history of the Senate, been a filibuster of a judicial nominee who could have been confirmed – nor a precedent in which nominees were routinely filibustered in order to leverage the nomination process and prevent the Senate from voting. The President has a right to nominate judges. The Senate has the right to advise and consent. However, those who continue to obstruct both of those rights abuse the power of the filibuster to deprive Senators of their right to vote “yes” or “no” on judges. And that has to end. It must either end with compromise, or it must end with a constitutionally permissible change in Senate rules to prohibit the flagrant abuse of the filibuster.”

Norm's view of the filibuster varies quite a bit depending on whether he is in the majority or the minority!

But never mind that. What really matters in Norm's remarks is that the Bush administration is fixing to get rid of the current premier, Nouri al-Maliki. From CNN:

In Iraq, too, the U.S. has abandoned a democratically elected leader when it withdrew its support for Ibrahim al-Jafari, Iraq's former prime minister who also failed to bring reconciliation among Shiia, Sunni and Kurd factions in his government. The U.S. was involved in engineering al-Jafari's ouster in favor of al-Maliki.

Now, despite being democratically elected, al-Maliki risks being cast aside with the same kind of disregard for the democratic selection process the U.S. has criticized around the world.

Publicly no Bush administration official will call for his removal, but the messages emanating from Washington are being seen as signals to al-Maliki's critics that his days are numbered. Well, it wouldn't be the first time:

On orders from U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diệm. Upon hearing that a coup d'etat was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh, the United States gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. Dương Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on November 1, 1963.

The coup was very swift. On November 1, 1963, with only the palace guard remaining to defend President Diệm and his younger brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diệm safe exile out of the country if they surrendered. However, that evening, Diệm and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, November 2. The brothers were executed in the back of an armored personnel carrier by Captain Nguyen Van Nhung while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters. Diệm was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the US ambassador, Lodge.

One wonders who we are giving secret assurances to now.

Technorati Tags: Iraq war, Prime Minister al-Maliki, President Diem, secret assurances

Here's a lawyer Katie probably likes

You will recall, boys and girls, that Katie penned—or penciled or crayoned, as the case may be—a column criticizing lawyers who were preparing to represent protesters at the 2008 RNC, which Spot responded to with Pro bono publico. Yesterday, she wrote critically about lawyers who represented some of the victims of the bridge collapse and who wanted the opportunity to have their own experts examine the scene. It seems that lawyers everywhere are trying to do things that Katie finds objectionable!

Well, Spot has some good news for you, Katie! Here's a lawyer of whom you undoubtedly approve:

When I [Karl Bremer, the author of the post] filed a Federal Elections Commission (FEC) complaint against Michele Bachmann in September 2005, I never expected to be the subject of lies and character assassination by Tom DeLay’s leading attack-dog lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II.

My complaint alleged that a solicitation for support for Bachmann was sent out by the anti-public-education nonprofit group EdWatch in violation of FEC rules. A similar complaint was registered with the IRS.

The FEC determined the complaint merited a full investigation. However, following the FEC investigation, my complaint was not upheld. It wasn’t until recently, though, that I discovered the extent to which Bachmann and her hired gun went to smear me in their response to the FEC—including filing false statements.

But first a little background on the lawyer for the Bachmann for Congress campaign.

Donald F. McGahn II has made a name for himself as a campaign lawyer for former Texas Congressman Tom DeLay, who himself was indicted for his alleged role in a campaign finance scheme. He’s also served as campaign finance lawyer for DeLay’s scandal-ridden ARMPAC.

Yesiree! Nothing but the best for MIchele Bachmann. Chin up, Katie, they're not all bad.

Technorati Tags: Katherine Kersten, Michele Bachmann, FEC, pro bono publico, 35w bridge collapose

L. Ron Hubbard, eat your heart out

Scientology's got nuthin' on the Mormons. Read Joining the Faith Club by Gump Worsley at Suddenly South.

Earlier this year, while facing some rough and tumble questioning about his fidelity to Jesus Christ, Mitt Romney decided it was high time to express his support for a religious test for the presidency. Mr. Romney's response also included a statement that sought to brush aside any substantial theological differences while taking shelter under the wink-wink all-encompassing umbrella of 'persons of faith'.

And what a faith it is, boys and girls.

Technorati Tags: Joseph Smith, Mormons, religion and politidcs, religious tests

No relation; none whatsoever

This dog is not related to the undersigned.

Spot

Technorati Tags: White House, Spot the dog

Outside agitators!

On Friday night, a riot broke out:

Police arrested 19 bicyclists, including three juveniles, after a protest ride took an ugly turn in downtown Minneapolis Friday night.

Were the protesters lashing out against the war in Iraq, Spotty?

Well, grasshopper, it looks like they were more upset about the over-reliance of our society on automobiles, with maybe an anti-war patina, so to speak:

About 200 bicyclists were riding on La Salle Avenue, with two officers monitoring the protest that called for reduced reliance on automobile transportation. The ride was also linked with weekend protests of next year's Republican National Convention in the Twin Cities.

According to the Srib article, linked above, the police tried to arrest a bicyclist who the police said was "trying to provoke them."

Provoke? That could be anything from yelling, "Flatfoot get a bike!" to far more aggressive and dangerous things. Spot hopes that, in the fullness of time, we will find out. In any event, provoked or not, and whether justified or not, when the cops made the arrest, a crowd gathered around:

"When the officer went to arrest him, his buddy came up, and they started to struggle with the officer," Przynski said.

A group surrounded the officers, and begin to chant "Let them go!"Then several people tried to prevent the officers from arresting these individuals," she said, and a skirmish ensued.

Soon, the two officers were surrounded by about 30 people, and they issued the call "officer needs help."

That brought 48 officers from six different law enforcement agencies racing to the scene, where the situation escalated and the officers used chemical Mace in an attempt to control the crowd, Przynski said.

Police then called in medics to examine people who were sprayed. Some officers had minor injuries, such as scrapes, but nobody was seriously injured, said Przynski, the night watch commander.

Interfering with the police when they are arresting some one is a really bad idea, boys and girls. You see, the cops are the ones that we put out there to be in charge of the streets. When they make an arrest, they are already in a heightened emotional state. They are going to take anything that looks like inference very seriously. Especially if they are outnumbered, which in a crowd setting is always.

Spotty says keep your camera video phone at the ready and be suspicious of agents provocateurs who seem to want to be part of your group, but will not identify themselves. But please don't make a tense situation worse.

Technorati Tags: Republican National Convention, protesters, bicycle access