Burnt Orange Report

Toys, Mines, Iraq and America

If this doesn't make you proud to be an American and optimistic about our mission in Iraq, nothing will.

It makes me proud to have a loved one overseas.

Update: And before you start decrying me for linking to a blog that supports President Bush, realize that just because you disagree with a blogger's personal positions doesn't mean you oppose everything he or she says.

British Courts Take Out The Trash...

A British court overturned the country’s main anti terrorism law today. The NY Times reports that:

Britain's highest court ruled today that the British government cannot indefinitely detain foreigners suspected of terrorism without charging or trying them, and called the process a violation of European human rights laws.

A specially convened panel of judges in the Law Lords ruled 8 to 1 in favor of nine foreign, Muslim men who have been in detention, most of them in Belmarsh Prison in London, for as long as three years. The prison has been called "Britain's Guantanamo" by human rights groups.
In its powerfully worded decision, the court said that the government's "draconian" measures unjustly discriminate against foreigners since they do not apply to British citizens and constitute a lopsided response to the threat of a terrorist attack.

The judges deemed it a clear violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, a declaration that complicates the British government's strategy on combating terrorism.

The ruling by the Law Lords, a panel of senior judges who sit in the House of Lords and act as the country's highest court, parallels a June decision by the United States Supreme Court that said "a state of war is not a blank check for the president."

Using the sharpest language of the nine judges, Lord Leonard Hoffman, said today the case was one of the most important decided by the court in recent years.

"It calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention," he wrote.

He went on to say that the government's actions posed a greater threat to the nation than terrorism. "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these," Lord Hoffman wrote.

"That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve," he added. "It is for parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

The ground-breaking decision removes one of the government's crucial anti-terrorism tools and muddles its ability to deal with suspected foreign terrorists. It also forces Prime Minister Tony Blair, his cabinet and the Parliament to either modify the law, or release the men and do away with the law altogether. The law must be renewed next year and is scheduled to expire in 2006. Until the government makes that decision, the detainees will remain in prison.

This is interesting. With opposition to restrictive anti-terror laws growing on both sides of the pond, it seems something is going to have to change. Hurray for the common law, I guess. Any thoughts?

Islamists in Texas

This is scary.

A group of respected "moderate" Muslim leaders, including one from the mosque a block away from where my mom used to live, gathered in Irving this weekend for a "Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary." Who might this visionary be? Some moderate/progressive Muslim leader who will bring peace and development to the Muslim world?

Nope. They honored the Ayatollah Khomeini. The flier lauds the Ayatollah's "Islamic revolution in a world of hunger and oppression and outlines the true policy of non-alliance for the Islamic countries and countries in the near future, with the help of Allah SWT, will accept Islam as the only school for liberating humanity and will not recede nor sway from the policy even one step."

So let's parse this one. They are 1. celebrating the Islamic revolution in Iran, which has led to 2 and a half decades of support for terror against the United States and our allies, 2. urging other Muslim countries to refrain from working with the United States and other Western powers, 3. saying that Islamic governance is not only good, but is the only legitimate form of government and 4. stridency in the matter is needed. Terror, Islamic extremism and anti-Westernism all in one place- in Irving, Texas. Scary.

For those of you who don't think the War on Terror is a serious deal, its getting ever closer to home.

Update: I should have mentioned that I don't think that they should be shut down for saying these things- that is their constitutional right. But at the same time, one has to wonder if the "moderate" clerics are celebrating the Ayatollah, what are the "radicals" thinking? We should be keeping our eyes open to subversion and radicalism here at home.

And Christian fundamentalists are pretty scary too, but they use legitimate political channels to promote their beliefs. Islamic fundamentalists don't. That may be a function of their nations tending to be undemocratic, but at their core there is a huge difference between the two.

That just proves my point

Guest Contributor Nate Nance

I probably didn't help my case by misspelling Musharraf in my last post, so I decided to bring out the big guns: The Pentagon's Defense Science Board.

While I was reading the Sunday Herald, I came across this article about the mistakes we've made in our foreign policy. To quote:

THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.

...

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

“American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies.”

The rest of the article is very shocking, if only for how much it criticizes the Bushies rather than reveal anything most of us did not already know. And I think it is paradoxical, since this report was pepared for Rumsfeld, who seems to be the only top-tier Cabinet official to have enthusiastic welcome in the White House.

I think they more than back up my earlier claim that Iraq is quicksand and that Bush led us there.

Nate Nance is a 21 year-old news/sports clerk at the Waco Tribune-Herald. He is also writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log.

Hindsight's always 20/20

Guest Contributor Nathan Nance

I doubt many of you are regular readers of my blog, so you have no idea how I feel about the war in Iraq or the war on terror in gerneral. You have no idea if I'm a liberal or if I'm off the scale socialist or conservative.

I think, in maybe getting to know me, we should talk about the war in Iraq, since it is the most pressing issue on our agenda. But, I'm going to do something a little different. Instead of telling you in my own words, how I feel, I'm going to let someone who was praised just this morning by Bush himself for his leadership in the war on terror, tell you. President Musharaf of Pakistan:

"I think it's less safe," Gen. Pervez Musharraf said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." Asked whether he considered the invasion a mistake, the Pakistani leader said, "With hindsight, yes. We have landed ourselves in more trouble, yes."

...

However, Musharraf said he does not believe U.S. and coalition troops should pull out immediately. Only after elections are held and the situation stabilized should the United States consider a withdrawal from Iraq, he said.

"[An early withdrawal] would create more problems in the region," he said. "Now that we are there, we need to stabilize the situation."

Now, I have my bones to pick with Pakistan and the fact that he is a military dictator plays very much against him in my estimation. But he's right.

As an aside, Musharaf also admitted in this morning's Washington Post that they have no idea where Osama bin Laden is, they just know he is alive.

No matter how you felt before the invasion, I can't see how you can agree that this was a good idea now. The closest to sane rationale I've heard from my Republican friends so far is "We were going to fight him eventually anyway." I'm not sure why war was inevitable with him, especially with the sanctions working. So I can't see this as anything more than a mistake.

But I also don't see how one can just pull up stakes and leave. If all of a sudden there were no troops to keep what little order there is in place, that country would be worse than Beirut in less than a day. But as long as we are there, there will still be an insurgency killing U.S. troops and still focused hatred on us in the Muslim world.

That is the very definiton of a quagmire. It's like quicksand. Once you step in, you're stuck. No matter what you do, you're still going to sink. Bush walked us straight into this quicksand, and even if John Kerry had been elected, we would still be stuck. That is the scary, painful truth of it. Wiser men than I don't know how to get us out, and that's probably because there is no way out. The really scary, scary thing I find, is that if the oppurtunity did arise to leave without consequence, I don't think Bush would take it.

Nate Nance is a 21 year-old sports/news clerk (glorified intern) at the Waco Tribune-Herald newspaper. He is also writer/editor of Common Sense a Texas-based Democratic Web log.

Navy SEALS

The Navy SEALs have launched a criminal investigation into photographs that appear to show commandos in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees, and photos of what appear to be bloodied prisoners, one with a gun to his head.

Some of the photos have date stamps suggesting that they were taken in May 2003, which could make them the earliest evidence of possible abuse of prisoners in Iraq. The far more brutal practices photographed in Abu Ghraib prison occurred months later.

Was a culture of abuse put in place over time? Did it start with our supposed elite?

Also, Rumsfeld to stay as Defense Secretary as Tommy Tompson for HHS goes by the wayside.

Why Fallujah Matters

I saw this article by Max Boot from the LA Times and I'd reccomend it to everyone- supporters of the war (such as this blogger, who has come to realize the justness of our cause) can use it to bolster their confidence in our mission and reflexive opponents should read it to understand that we ARE winning.

Nothing except a battle lost can be half as melancholy as a battle won.

-The Duke of Wellington (...)

It is right and proper to mourn the death of 71 Americans and the wounding of hundreds more. As Wellington realized, martial glory rings hollow when weighed against the cost in blood. But it is wrong to rush to the opposite extreme by assuming, as so much of the current commentary implicitly does, that war solves nothing and that all casualties are meaningless. In fact, many of the turning points of history have been battles, such as Wellington's victory at Waterloo, which ended for all time the threat of French expansionism in Europe. (...)

Coalition troops killed 1,200 to 1,600 guerrillas and captured more than 1,000. They uncovered 26 bomb factories, 350 arms caches (containing thousands of weapons), several chemical weapons laboratories and eight houses where hostages were held and probably tortured and killed. And they accomplished all this with less than half the number of casualties suffered in Hue, Vietnam, in 1968, the last major urban assault mounted by the Marine Corps. (...)

This is not meant to suggest that everything went perfectly. Many terrorists were able to escape Fallouja before the assault and create mayhem in Mosul, where the local police folded with dismaying speed. But U.S. and Iraqi forces quickly shifted their focus to the north and snuffed out the uprising in Mosul. Now they are pressing their offensive in the "triangle of death" south of Baghdad.

The best news of recent days is the growing competence of Iraqi security forces. Two thousand Iraqis fought alongside 10,000 Americans in Fallouja and, by all reports, they performed reasonably well. In the operations south of Baghdad, Iraqis are said to outnumber British and American troops.

Skeptics are right to point out that no insurgency can be defeated by force alone, but it's also true that effective military action is usually a prerequisite for a political settlement. Only if the insurgents are convinced they cannot shoot their way to power will they give up their guns. (...)

Even in a best-case scenario, however, the bombings and beheadings won't end the day after the vote. It can take a decade or more to defeat an insurgency (Colombia has been fighting Marxist guerrillas since 1966), and even a small number of determined fighters can wreak mayhem. In the 1970s, fewer than 100 members of the Baader-Meinhof gang terrorized West Germany, a country that is considerably more populous and more stable than Iraq, which is estimated to have at least 10,000 insurgents.

Thus, for all their success in Fallouja, we should not expect U.S. troops to completely pacify Iraq anytime soon. What they can do — what they are doing — is to keep the insurgents from derailing a political process that, one hopes, will soon result in the creation of a legitimate government that can field indigenous security forces and defend itself.

To paraphrase the words of John Stuart Mill, war is an ugly thing, but not quite as ugly as believing that there is nothing worth fighting and dying for. I wasn't aware of how many insurgents we had killed and captured- somewhere between 2200 and 2600- perhaps a quarter of their force- while we lost 71 soldiers- about 1/20 of 1% of our entire force. And though I wish that we didn't have to lose even one soldier, that sounds like a victory to me.

We also dramatically reduced their ability to strike out against Americans and innocent Iraqis by capturing a significant ammount of their materiel. And no insurgency can succeed without a stable base of operations. Castro succeeded because he had the mountains and Mexican bases, the mujahedeen succeeded because they had Pakistan, etc. Now that their main base of operations has been shut down and their plan B and plan C (Mosul and the "triangle of death") are not serious options, they are scattered. There will still be a large contingent of bad guys, but if they aren't coordinated, they have limited munitions and are constantly on the run, their effect will be small (relative to what exists now).

In another part of the column that I decided not to quote, Boot points out that when we struck against Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia, they learned quickly that the ballot box is a more viable option than violence. Sunni insurgents seem to be learning that lesson now, leaving only a small, uncoordinated insurgency that a nascent Iraqi military can handle on its own. In essence, the insurgency is on the run and our military is ready for the fight. The elections offer an opportunity for more peaceful redress of grievances, and we must keep them on schedule. If we continue shutting down insurgent bases, developing the Iraqi military and hold free and fair elections, we will have accomplished a great deal.

Fallujah was the turning point in this effort and we should be proud of our soldiers' performance there. Things are looking up, and if we succeed, it will mean a better world for billions of people- not the least of which will be our own countrymen.

World AIDS Day

What can I say that hasn't been said? HIV/AIDS is one of the biggest tragedies of our time. It's a tragedy that we didn't do much about it in the 1980s when we really had a chance to do something about it. It's a tragedy that pharmaceutical companies are often more concerned about profits than getting life-saving medications to victims of AIDS, especially in Africa. It's a tragedy that the gay community isn't as proactive as it should be in addressing issues like bareback sex and crystal meth, that as much as we'd like to deny it, are major problems in the gay community.

Do what you can to make a difference. Here's some sites for more information.

World AIDS Campaign and the UN AIDS Campaign.

If you'd like to make a local donation in honor of World AIDS Day (although you wouldn't know if you just watch FOX News), here's a few organizations that I would recommend:

AIDS Services of Austin
AIDS Services of Dallas
AIDS Services of North Texas
Project Transitions

Hope, Ryan and the Stakeholder have more thoughts.

We've always been at war against Eurasia

Vladimir Putin is the next Saddam Hussein. That is, by the magic of popular amnesia, in five years Americans are absolutely gonna hate this guy, despite the fact that our conservative leaders were going gaa-gaa over him.

It was only a few months ago when righties were absolutely giddy about Putin being "tuff on terror" (just like our President!). Dubya looked into his soul. Putin returned the compliment with a nice endorsement. Meanwhile, liberals, such as myself, have always had a queasy feeling about Putin. I'll admit it - from the very begininng, I was hoping that a nice liberal or social democrat would win the Russian election so that we could be happy hippy comrades. But since, I've had serious concerns about efforts to crack down on the freedom of the press, the whole Chechnya mess, and the fact that Putin was KGB. And then of course last week's announcement about nukes.

Now that the Russians are looking like they're ready to party like it's 1979 as the Ukraine post-election drama unfolds, there appears to be a little bit of a falling out. My cybernemesis, Canadian blogger Adam Yoshida, (almost) goes as far as comparing Russia to Nazi Germany.

Arafat Dead

Good riddance. If his vicious anti-Semitism, his history of support for terrorism, his torpedoing of the best peace offer ever made in the history of this sad conflict, his bilking of his own people out of billions or his turning of a tragedy into massive political capital for his own self-aggrandizement aren't enough to make you hate him and welcome his recent arrival at the gates of hell, then perhaps learning more about his place in the genocide of 100,000 Lebanese might.

The left has conveniently forgotten this incident in order to propagandize against the self-defense of a democracy- Israel- but it sheds light onto the character of Yasser Arafat.

This excerpt from the Jewish Virtual Library offers a good starting pont.

For Arab residents of south Lebanon, PLO rule was a nightmare. After the PLO was expelled from Jordan by King Hussein in 1970, many of its cadres went to Lebanon. The PLO seized whole areas of the country, where it brutalized the population and usurped Lebanese government authority.

On October 14, 1976, Lebanese Ambassador Edward Ghorra told the UN General Assembly the PLO was bringing ruin upon his country: “Palestinian elements belonging to various splinter organizations resorted to kidnaping Lebanese, and sometimes foreigners, holding them prisoners, questioning them, and even sometimes killing them.”6a

Columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, not known for being sympathetic toward Israel, declared after touring south Lebanon and Beirut that the facts "tend to support Israel's claim that the PLO has become permeated by thugs and adventurers."6b

The columnists talked to a doctor whose farm had been taken over without compensation by the PLO, and turned into a military depot. "You ask how do we like the Israelis," he said. "Compared to the hell we have had in Lebanon, the Israelis are brothers." Other Lebanese — Christian and Muslim alike — gave similar accounts.

Countless Lebanese told harrowing tales of rape, mutilation and murders committed by PLO forces. The PLO "killed people and threw their corpses in the courtyards. Some of them were mutilated and their limbs were cut off. We did not go out for fear that we might end up like them," said two Arab women from Sidon. "We did not dare go to the beach, because they molested us, weapons in hand." The women spoke of an incident, which occurred shortly before the Israeli invasion, in which PLO men raped and murdered a woman, dumping her body near a famous statue. A picture of the victim's mangled corpse had been printed in a local newspaper.7

Dr. Khalil Torbey, a distinguished Lebanese surgeon, told an American journalist that he was "frequently called in the middle of the night to attend victims of PLO torture. I treated men whose testicles had been cut off in torture sessions. The victims, more often than not, were...Muslims. I saw men — live men — dragged through the streets by fast-moving cars to which they were tied by their feet."8

New York Times correspondent David Shipler visited Damour, a Christian village near Beirut, which had been occupied by the PLO since 1976, when Palestinians and Lebanese leftists sacked the city and massacred hundreds of its inhabitants. The PLO, Shipler wrote, had turned the town into a military base, "using its churches as strongholds and armories" (New York Times, June 21, 1982).

When the IDF drove the PLO out of Damour in June 1982, Prime Minister Menachem Begin announced that the town's Christian residents could come home and rebuild. Returning villagers found their former homes littered with spray-painted Palestinian nationalist slogans, Fatah literature and posters of Yasser Arafat. They told Shipler how happy they were that Israel had liberated them.9

So Arafat tortured these people and killed Christians specifically. A piece from Wikipedia notes thus:

In 1981, armed forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) occupied large areas of southern Lebanon. Attacks against Israeli territory increased, as the PLO's armed forces used Lebanon as a base to attack Israel with rockets and artillery. PLO soldiers fought with Lebanese forces; in 1996, the World Lebanese Organization, the World Maronite Union, and multiple human rights groups concerned with the Middle East issued a public declaration accusing the PLO of genocide in Lebanon and stating they were responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Lebanese civilians.

In a short time, Arafat led a brutal dictatorship in Lebanon responsible for the brutal deaths of 100,000 people and the torture of thousands more. The effort was a concerted one to wipe out Lebanese Christians. Arafat thus joins the ranks of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic as an architect of genocide. His passing in a comfortable bed in a Parisian hospital with his family by his side is a slap in the face to those he gunned down, bombed, tortured and otherwise brutally murdered.

In the end, despite the worries about the aftermath of his passing, the only thing that can be said is that he ought to have swung from the end of a rope many many years ago. Bury him with a pig. Burn him and spread his ashes in a distant desert that no one may ever honor him. Let the world remember him as he worked hard to be remembered- as a brutal murderer and betrayer of his own people.

Goodbye Arafat, you won't be missed.

While you were in Iraq...

North Korea has still not come to the table to discuss their growing nuclear armaments program. The NY Times reports that:

A trip to East Asia by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell aimed at forging a united front on North Korea ended Tuesday on a discordant note, with Mr. Powell rebuffing a suggestion by China and South Korea that they all show greater flexibility in pressing for an end to the North's nuclear program.

The disagreement appeared to reinforce the diplomatic impasse over North Korea's nuclear activities and to make it unlikely that the North would end its boycott of regional talks on the issue anytime soon.

Standing by Mr. Powell at a news conference, the South Korean foreign minister, Ban Ki Moon, said in response to a question that the United States and other partners in talks on nuclear issues "must come up with a more creative and realistic proposal so that North Korea can come to the negotiating table as soon as possible."

Earlier, the official New Chinese News Agency released a similar comment from China's foreign minister, Li Zhaoxing.

"We wish the U.S. side would go further to adopt a flexible and practical attitude on the issue," the press agency quoted Mr. Li as telling Mr. Powell during a meeting in Beijing on Monday. "China will make efforts to push for a new round of six-party talks at the earliest date in a bid to carry on the hard-earned peaceful discussion process."

I find it ironic that President Bush talks big about disarming dictators but turns a blind eye to Kim-Jung Il’s unabashed pursuit of a nuclear arsenal. While North Korea has openly sought to improve payload and delivery capacities, Bush has responded by withdrawing a considerable number of troops from South Korea. It seems that the President only supports wars that get rid of weak dictators who pose no imminent threat to the United States.

Before I get ten angry comments calling me an idiot allow me to clarify… I’m not saying we should invade North Korea here, I’m saying the President is a hypocrite.

Sounds Like Liberte to Me

After a month of hemming and hawing the French Government has begun enforcing a recently passed law that prohibits students from displaying religious symbols in schools. According to the NY Times:

Nine female Muslim students who have refused to remove their Islamic head coverings have been thrown out of schools across France. After the All Saints break, dozens of cases that are pending will be reviewed.

The phase of dialogue and consultation is over," said an official at the ministry, who refused to allow her name to be used. "It was an unbearable situation for the teachers and the pupils. It was a crazy situation. The law has to be respected at some point."

Since school started a month ago, students who have refused to remove what school administrators define as conspicuous religious symbols have been quarantined in study halls or libraries and not allowed to attend class.

The banned symbols include anything that can be construed as an Islamic veil (head scarf, bandanna, beret), a Jewish skullcap, a large Christian cross and a Sikh turban.

Officially the law is aimed at enforcing France's republican ideal of secularism. Unofficially it is aimed at stopping female Muslim public school students from swathing themselves in scarves or even long veils.

What in hell are the French doing? I love the separation between church and state as much as the next guy, but this goes way too far. Not only is this new law a serious affront to the rights of students—it’s also going to drive a large portion of the Muslim population out of public schools.

Hey France, I’ve got an idea. Maybe if we make public school unbearable for the most conservative Muslims in the country we can get them to stop going. And then, (if we’re lucky) maybe they will go to religiously operated private schools controlled by other really conservative Muslims. And then because they have been excluded from public schools for their religious beliefs and spend all their time talking with radical Clerics they’ll contribute to significant social unrest!! Won’t that be awesome!?

France is setting itself up for some serious trouble. In addition to establishing a political precedent that seems to contravene basic notions of personal freedom and expression, the French are about to permanently isolate a large part of their population.

Vive La Liberte.

Genocide in Sudan a “Purely African Question."

The NY Times reported yesterday that:

Leaders from Sudan and four regional states concluded a meeting (Tripoli) early Monday with a statement rejecting any "foreign intervention" in the Darfur region of Sudan.

The African leaders also urged rebel groups in Darfur to sign an agreement with the Sudanese government, said the Nigerian foreign minister, Olu Adeniji.

The participants, from Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Nigeria and Chad, expressed strong support for the Sudanese government, which is under threat of United Nations penalties over the crisis in Darfur, where 1.4 million people have been displaced by pro-government Arab militias.

The statement emphasized the leaders' "rejection of all foreign intervention in this purely African question."

I find it very disturbing that Sudan and its neighbors think that genocide is a local issue. Thankfully, the rest of the world seems to disagree with them. With U.N. sanctions looming, maybe the Sudanese government will back down and allow black refugees to return to their (now destroyed) villages and begin rebuilding their lives.

It is ironic that the United States is willing to invade Iraq to (allegedly) promote freedom and democracy but stands idol when millions of people are being slaughtered in a xenophobic massacre. Too bad Sudan doesn’t have a lot of oil or a cocky dictator…

Iraq is safe for democracy, Right?

President Bush just can’t get away from that pesky little Iraq problem. The NY Times reported today that:

In a brazen attack that punctured any illusions of a safe haven in the capital, 10 people, including four Americans, were killed today when two separate explosions were set off inside the heavily controlled Green Zone in central Baghdad.

The four Americans were civilians working as security officials and the other six were Iraqis, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in Washington. Two Americans were also seriously wounded and several other embassy employees were also injured.

While it was not the first attack in the Green Zone, it was one of the worst, and raised questions about the military's ability to maintain the security necessary to carry out its work of bringing peace to Iraq.
Mr. Boucher said officials were still trying to sort out what happened while security officials sweep the compound for more explosives.

"We all know that the work of reconstruction in Iraq is dangerous, that there are some very nasty people who have no respect for human right — human life, no respect for the Iraqi people, no respect for the efforts that we're all making to help the Iraqi people, who are out to attack us and the Iraqis and others," Mr. Boucher said.

But, he added: "It's premature to start speculating about what kind of changes might be necessary, whether they're major or minor."

Even though Richard Boucher and the State Department think it’s too early to start “speculating” about whether we need to change our tactics in Iraq, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe (just maybe) there is a little room for some good-natured speculation…

Since President Bush declared and end to hostilities in Iraq last May (looking very strapping in a well fitted flight suit I might add) violence in Iraq has spiraled out of control. Not only have militants been able to inflict heavy casualties on American soldiers, they have also succeeded in bringing reconstruction efforts to a virtual standstill. Though democratic elections are scheduled for January, it is highly unlikely that they will occur.

I do not see how the President can claim that Iraq is free and safe when insurgents are able to make devastating attacks on targets in the heart of Baghdad. Though Bush can talk a good game when it comes to defense, it seems like he’s having a hard time acting on it.

Note to Zach

Here's a foreign policy story if Zach wants to take a dive at a good one that's in the international headlines today:

Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change, Peter Struck, the German defence minister, indicated on Tuesday in a gesture that appears to provide backing for John Kerry, the US Democratic presidential challenger.

Via Political Wire.

Iraq: Objectively Worse Than Houston

About a year ago I suggested that Iraq was (contrary to a blurb in the Houston Press) much, much worse than Houston.

According to Reuters, Iraq is worse than everywhere else on the planet, up to and including Houston.

I wonder how much longer it'll be before the advertising geniuses start putting up billboards that say "Iraq: It's Not Worth It!"

Fahrenheit 9/11 Reaches the Axis of Evil

From Andrew's post a few weeks ago, you might think that Michael Moore is trying to undermine America internationally by fanning the flames of anti-Americanism by showing his movie in the axis of evil. Well, here's a shocker. Take a look at the reaction to F 9/11 in Iran.

"It sure is a great country, where someone like Moore trashes the president and gets away with it -- and makes so much money!" he laughed.

Another woman said she was impressed with the scene where Moore chases US congressmen to ask them if they would send their children to Iraq.

"How many top officials here sent their offspring to fight in the Iran-Iraq war?" asked the woman, one of several who directed their frustrations at Iranian authorities -- and not President Bush.

So what was the conclusion of those interviewed in Iran who saw the film? That George W. Bush is the great white satan? Nah. If anything, the reaction of the viewers was one of envy for the American values of democracy and capitalism, and an understanding of the parallels between the unwillingness of those in power in Iran, and America to send their children to war. That doesn't sound like promoting terrorism or communism to me...

Germans

One in Five Germans Wants the Berlin Wall Back

Germans would vote 74-10 Kerry v. Bush, World Would Vote Kerry

It's quite interesting in my opinion. And true.

We were at war with Eurasia? When?

:: Bangs head violently ::

Juan Cole on Iraq's new vice-presidents, the axis of used-to-be-evil:

Ash-Sharq al-Awsat says that the council first voted by a strong majority to alter the original plan of having two vice-chairs, increasing the number to four. 92 of the 100 members were present, and 12 persons put themselves forward for the offices. The winners (with vote tallies) were:

Jawad al-Maliki, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Shiite) - 56
Hamid Majid Moussa, Communist Party, - 55
Rasim al-Awadi, Iraqi National Accord (Allawi's Party) - 53
Nasir A`if al-Ani, Iraqi Islamic Party (Sunni) - 48

Al-Maliki at least used to be a Khomeinist radical. The Iraqi Islamic Party is a Sunni fundamentalist outfit, the leader of which has denied that there is a Shiite majority in Iraq. The INA groups mainly ex-Baath officers and officials.

So, this list is further evidence that the US invaded Iraq to install in power a coalition of Communists, Islamists and ex-Baathist nationalists. If you had said such a thing 3 years ago you would have been laughed at.

Every day that goes by, I become more and more convinced that we are living either in an George Orwell novel or in a Woody Allen movie.

On the Road Again...

The "Invade Iran" boomlet coming from the usual uber-hawk suspects and their supporters -- "look ma, no credibility!" -- is starting to rub me the wrong way.

Apparently Mr. Drum is of the same opinion.

Of course, many Iraq skeptics, myself included, were of the opinion that if we were forced (at gun point) to pick a country to invade, it'd have been Iran. But luckily, we're not threatened with that choice.

News Combination

First, the Coalition of the Willing Death Toll passes 1000.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- In a grim milestone, the number of deaths in the American-led coalition in Iraq surpassed 1,000 this week.

The latest reported deaths include a U.S. soldier who died from wounds in fighting Thursday in Baghdad, an American soldier killed in a Samarra attack Wednesday and another who died in a nonbattle-related incident Thursday.

The deaths bring multinational fatalities -- both in combat and "nonhostile" situations -- to 1,002 since the start of the war in March 2003. U.S. military deaths now total 881.

And then the Senate Report on the Crappy "Intelligence" from the CIA. I'm sure the families of the above would have appreciated a little more truth.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a highly critical report issued Friday, the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA's prewar estimates of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were overstated and unsupported by intelligence.

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, told reporters that intelligence used to support the invasion of Iraq was based on assessments that were "unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available intelligence."

...

"Before the war, the U.S. intelligence community told the president as well as the Congress and the public that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and if left unchecked would probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade," Roberts said.

"Today we know these assessments were wrong."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the leading Democrat on the 18-member panel, said that "bad information" was used to bolster the case for war.

...

"Leading up to September 11, our government didn't connect the dots. In Iraq, we are even more culpable because the dots themselves never existed."

How do you say "Judge Ito" in Iraqi?

Uhh... it's stories like this and this and this that give me the unpleasant sensation of believing that, if Saddam is half as smart as he thinks he is, he might end up walking free.

That would be anywhere from embarassing to catastrophic.

State Department Karaoke Night

Having been given the elbow by the Pentagon, the State Department resorts to drastic measures in order to get attention.

Hat tip to The Note.

Slightly less crazy than the crazies

Brad DeLong links to Tyler Cowen's ripping of the Bush administration's god-awful Cuba policy. The White House is focusing on tightening the embargo and travel restrictions on Cuba, which will have the primary effect of eliminating American competition to European investment in Cuba, and just generally pissing people off. This is neither a hawkish position, nor a dovish position, nor a realistic position. It just basically defies explanation. And unfortunately, it's probably going to be the consensus opinion in Washington. Here's DeLong:

I should, however, point out that there is fine print: this kind of absurd, punitive, counterproductive, and stupid policy toward Cuba is not the exclusive province of this particular administration or this particular congress, but is the reflection of the structural strength of the anti-Castro lobby. Don't hope for things to become less stupid for a while, no matter who wins elections.

Exactly.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not a truly hawkish position. A hawkish position on Cuba would involve invading Cuba and carpet-bombing the Revolution.

Consider:

• Cuba's Castro has historically been hostile to the United States.

• The Dictator oppresses his own people!

• Cuba is developing chemical and biological weapons -- according to exiles, anyway. There will be leftists and clear-eyed realists who will dispute this fact, but they hate America anyway, so we can discount their analysis.

• Cuba is "with the terrorists," and while they weren't the masterminds behind 9/11, they certainly have been impeding our investigation.

It seems to me the argument for invading Cuba was always about as strong as the case for invading Iraq; indeed it ought to be stronger for the following reasons:

• We need to finish what Eisenhower started before we finish what Old Man Bush started. Priorities!
• Cuba is 90 miles away, not 9000 miles away. Basically, the state of Florida is a 500-mile long, aircraft carrier parked off-shore.
• It's a lot easier to find 100,000 Spanish-speaking MPs than 100,000 Arabic-speaking MPs.
• Because Cuba already has spiffy schools and hospitals, we won't have to worry about building brand new ones (of course, this might make it hard for us to use the "look at the beautiful new schools" line as proof of progress on the ground).
• Oh yeah, they're Communists. And we don't want to be perceived as soft on communism, since our struggle against the communists is a struggle for national survival, and ultimately, Civilization Itself!

Not that I would advocate this course of action, but 50 years of Cuba strategery reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil lectures on the proper use of force:

SCOTT EVIL But what if he escapes? Why don't you just shoot him? What are you waiting for?

DR. EVIL
I have a better idea. I'm going to
put him in an easily-escapable
situation involving an overly-
elaborate and exotic death.

SCOTT EVIL
Why don't you just shoot him now?
Here, I'll get a gun. We'll just
shoot him. Bang! Dead. Done.

DR. EVIL
One more peep out of you and you're
grounded. Let's begin.

The more I think about it, the more I can empathize with Curtis LeMay.

Yes, invading Cuba on the flimsiest of pretenses is an absolutely crazy plan, but it would be a slightly less crazy foreign policy than, you know, the foreign policy we're actually adhering to at the moment.

What we need, of course, is a non-crazy Cuba plan (that might involve finally normalizing relations), but it isn't in the interests of the politicians in Washington to get with the program.

War on Iraq and Howard Dean

Sometimes there is a little part of me that just wants to get up and say, "I told you so." It wouldn't be very grown-up or professional, but I'm 19 and a blogger so I'll say it.

I told you so, and so is Howard Dean.

Howard Dean sounded like he had been vindicated on Sunday when he noted that most Americans now agree that the United States should not have invaded Iraq. It was a position that fueled his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, and earned Dean much criticism in the process.

“After being castigated by both Democrats and Republicans for a while, now the majority of Americans agree with me this was a mistake,” the one-time Democratic front-runner said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

More than half, or 52 percent, of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, according to an ABC News-Washington Post poll taken June 17-20. That number is up from 50 percent in May.

Dean said most people also agree with him that the war hasn’t made America safer.

Iraq is Now "Sovereign"

So yeah, we went ahead and signed the letter transferring sovereignty to Iraq two days early. Good idea, since terrorists were surely planning on spoiling the photo op on Wednesday but still meaningless. Sovereignty is like virginity- you either have it or you don't. Having 150,000 US Troops stationed in your country charged with keeping the peace makes you a client state of ours. Iraq won't be truly sovereign until they kick us out, which is about the only new power they have gained. And they are unlikely to do that because since they have no military of their own and are facing a well-organized brutal resistance.

In other news, Bush really wants to sell this as some kind of victory for him but nobody is buying it. A CNN poll that they have been running all day reports that 60% of respondents believe that the handover of sovereignty is a sign that we have failed in Iraq. My boss put it the best way- for Bush the American public is starting to look like a critical father you just can't please. America is ready to get this kid out of the house and things are starting to look scary for the president.

The Next Saddam?

I have a friend who lives in Pakistan, who in the past has been able to provide first hand accounts of events in the country and in Europe which take longer to get to the American Media, if at all. He sent me a short note the other day with the following thoughts attached. Just some food for thought...

Anyway...as the European constitution goes. I think by having a section on religion, Europe faces a difficult choice. Preserving history and culture which have made it so powerful...at the risk of upsetting and promoting intolerance to its secular ideals which in the past century have made it possible for millions to migrate to Europe and help in its prosperity by bringing in new ideas and beliefs which have helped it immensly.

The best plan of action ould probably be one which recognizes a connection to a higher being but at the same time allowing for enough room for the minorities
and growing immigrants to practise their religion freely without any fear of being legally termed "unpatriotic".

Pakistani prime minister resigned yesterday after months of speculation. Apparently he disagreed with the American supported Military dictator General
Musharraf about the armys continued involvement in the affairs of the government. I think Musharraf is going to be a future Saddam Hussain. He's already imprisoning and making opposition leaders and critics dissappear. It'll be a short time before he starts persecuting his own people.

Anyways, thats my update from Karachi, Pakistan.

No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says

Wow, and this is big news?

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel found in the first of two reports issued today.

The findings come in the wake of statements Monday by Vice President Cheney that Iraq had "long-established ties" with al Qaeda, and comments by President Bush yesterday backing up that assertion.

Would this be an ok time for us to realize that we didn't have to freak out over Howard Dean's "the capture of Saddam does not neccisarily make America any safer comment?" Along with those Weapons of Mass Destruction, Imminent Threats, and Mobile Weapons Labs...this ranks right up there with the continued flow of lies from the White House. And to what end? Can anyone name one reason why we went to war that has turned out to be true?

In fact, give me 837 reasons. Or maybe you are a visual learner.

I went to Sea Island, Georgia once...

Does that count as insightful news analysis of the G-8 Summit?

Wonkette has more. I completely agree.

Nota Bene (or, Jim's worst blog joke ever)

I was a little worried when I saw the headline "CCR to sue Iraq mercenary outfits" from Daily KOS float by on KNewsTicker (one of the cool things in KDE 3.2 is this little applet, which pulls RSS/Atom news feeds from blogs and displays them on your toolbar). After all, would CCR really be up to the task? And would they be laughed out of court as "hippies"?

Then I read the story and breathed a sigh of relief.

Apparently,Creedence Clearwater Revival is not suing; the suit will be filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a competent and hard-working group of lawyers fighting for our rights.

Which is a good thing.

A Tough Road Ahead for US Olympians

I really feel bad for our Olympic athletes this year. The Olympics are supposed to be a celebration and a way for the diverse cultures and nations of the world to come together. Instead, beacause of the divisive leadership of George W. Bush, the Olympics look to be a political spectical. The Dallas Morning News reports:

The U.S. Olympic team will carry some extra baggage to the Summer Games in Athens, Greece.

Because of the war in Iraq, American athletes are being prepared for what may be the most hostile environment they have ever faced at the Olympics.

"We're not the favorite kid in the world as a country," said Bill Martin, president of the U.S. Olympic Committee.

The USOC wants to make sure its athletes, its 600 ambassadors, behave as "great guests" in the Athens Games, which will be Aug. 13 to 29.

They will be given the usual instruction on the culture of the host nation to try to prevent any social faux pas. But beyond that, they will be counseled to think twice about things they never gave a thought to in the past – such as how to celebrate a victory without going over the top and offending anyone.

"Being an American abroad is not like Gene Kelly in Singin' in the Rain," said Mike Moran, a consultant to the U.S. Olympic Committee. "It's a different world."

The USOC will caution its athletes about pregame gestures or acts that might have seemed innocent enough four years ago but today might be interpreted as arrogant, ungracious, taunting or jingoistic.

It's not just Europe where we are looked down upon. American athletes were taunted by our southern neighbor, Mexico in a qualifying soccer game which we lost:

In February, the U.S. men's soccer team played Mexico in Guadalajara in a game to determine which team would go to the Olympics. Mexican fans booed and whistled during the playing of the U.S. national anthem. And after Mexico won, 4-0, some celebrated by chanting, "Osama, Osama, Osama."

The actions of the Mexican fans are outrageous, but the fact that the citizens in our neighboring country feel so hostile towards America is highly disturbing. All we can do is hope and pray that this won't be Munich in 1972 all over again, and that in November we elect John Kerry so that we can regain the dignity and respect around the world that America deserves.

Peace, Love, and Golf

Let's take a minute to recognize Iraqi and Afghan sports fans. In a time of war and want, the people of Baghdad and Kabul need something to keep them going.

The Iraqi national soccer team qualified for and will compete in the Olympic Games this year, which is quite a feat (the United States team did not make the cut). While this is a bit of old news, I don't think we've yet taken the opportunity at BOR to wish the Iraqi national team good luck in Athens.

Reuters is also reporting that a group of Afghan golfers are making plans to rebuild and re-open Kabul's 9-hole golf course. The course was trashed first by the Communists and then by the Taliban, who associated the noble game of golf with "the West."

We're not sure that liberal democracy will take hold in the Middle East, but we're pretty sure soccer and golf will.

Atrocious...

I have been deeply troubled by all the "prison abuse" scandal. Most pertinently I have been troubled by the media's inability to call a spade a spade- this was torture. And according to Talk Left not only are Pentagon officials calling this torture, at least 5 detainees were killed in the commission of the acts.

The Denver Post has examined Pentagon records and is reporting that :

five prisoners have died at four detention camps (including Abu Ghraib) while undergoing interrogation by the U.S.

at least one of the deaths was previously reported as being from natural causes

the soldiers got off light, mostly without criminal charges. Here's more:

Brutal interrogation techniques by U.S. military personnel are being investigated in connection with the deaths of at least five Iraqi prisoners in war-zone detention camps, Pentagon documents obtained by The Denver Post show.

The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general who was shoved into a sleeping bag and suffocated, according to the Pentagon report. The documents contradict an earlier Defense Department statement that said the general died "of natural causes" during an interrogation. Pentagon officials declined to comment on the new disclosure.

Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents.

(Back to Talk Left-AD) Here are some of the techniques used:

(Denver Post)....intelligence soldiers and other personnel have sometimes used lethal tactics to try to coax secrets from prisoners, including choking off detainees' airways. Other abusive strategies involve sitting on prisoners or bending them into uncomfortable positions, records show.

(Talk Left) Even a pentagon official calls this torture:

"Torture is the only thing you can call this," said a Pentagon source with knowledge of internal investigations into prisoner abuses. "There is a lot about our country's interrogation techniques that is very troubling. These are violations of military law."

This is horrific. I don't care what these Iraqis did, the reason America has any moral authority anywhere in the world is that we have always held ourselves to a much higher standard- we respect everyone's inherent rights. When we do this, we might as well cede our place as the "leader of the free world" and end this failed experiment of a Republic. We must end the reign of these horrible people that have done this- either by criminal and legislative action or at the ballot box. Rumsfeld belongs in the Hague, Rice belongs in Ft. Levenworth and Bush belongs in Crawford at best.

If nothing else makes you decide to turn out and vote for John Kerry- not Ralph Nader, not Fred Brown not any other vanity candidate- this ought to.

Spain Speaks Again

It seems so simple doesn't it?

Spain's prime minister said Sunday he hopes the deteriorating situation in Iraq (news - web sites) will serve as a warning to countries against using preemptive wars in the future.

"The mission in Iraq, which is showing itself every day to be a failure, should serve as a lesson to the international community: preemptive wars, never again; violations of international law, never again," Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said.

Speaking before some 20,000 supporters at a meeting celebrating the 125th anniversary of the Socialist party, Zapatero reiterated that he had ordered Spain's troops home from Iraq April 18, a day after he was sworn in, "because they should have never been sent there."

On Wednesday, the last 260 of the 1,300 Spanish troops who took part in the U.S.-led occupation returned home. Another 1,000 soldiers remain in Iraq to pack up military hardware and ship it back to Spain. The government says those soldiers will be in Spain by May 27.

Zapatero's predecessor as premier, Jose Maria Aznar of the conservative Popular Party, had supported the war in Iraq despite massive opposition in Spain. Spain did not take part in the invasion but sent in troops afterward.

Zapatero vowed his government would never break, nor support the violation of, international law in order to fight terrorism.

"The real and most efficient fight against terrorism is through the cooperation of all democratic countries, all free countries, in the United Nations (news - web sites) with the cooperation of all and not via unilateral interventions, which only lead to failure," he told the meeting at a bullring on Madrid's outskirts.

So we royally fucked up. Are we seeing it now? Now we are stuck with a situation that is going nowhere, with the 2nd key supporter of the Coalition of the Willing pulling out (leaving England and Poland left, even though I think Poland has been thinking of leaving.) And now we are left with the choice of "staying the course" and increasing troops, changing nothing which means we sink deeper into this morass, or pulling out and leaving the mess to stew in its own juices.

What do we do? Besides not getting into things like this in the first place.

Ten Years of Democracy in South Africa

Today is a day to celebrate in South Africa. The BBC reports:

President Thabo Mbeki has been sworn in for a second term in office on a day of celebration in South Africa - marking 10 years of multi-racial democracy. Guests at the ceremony in Pretoria included key figures in the transition from apartheid, ex-presidents Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk.

Wild cheers and singing broke out as Mr Mandela arrived with his wife, Graca Machel, and made his way to his seat.

Choirs greeted some 40, mainly African, leaders and other dignitaries.

The 27 April is known as "Freedom Day", symbolising the end of white minority rule and the start of multi-racial democracy.

South Africa has a long way to go, but the nation has certainly taken many steps toward progress over the past decade.

Honduras to Pull Out of Iraq

A second country in two days has decided to pull their troops out of Iraq. Today it's Honduras. Reuters reports:

In a blow to President Bush and his coalition partners in Iraq, Honduras on Monday followed Spain in announcing it will pull its troops out of the country.

"I have told the coalition countries that the troops are going to return from Iraq," Maduro said in a speech on national television and radio.

"I have ordered... the carrying out of the decision taken in the shortest possible time and under safe conditions for our troops."

Soldiers from Honduras, a strong U.S. ally in Central America, were sent to Iraq last summer as peacekeepers only and have been clearing mines and providing medical care in central Iraq.

They had previously been set to leave when their mandate expires in July.

Honduras said earlier Monday it was considering the withdrawal due to spiraling violence and pressure created by Spain's decision to pull its forces out.

Some on the left will obviously be happy with these developments in Spain and Honduras. I'm not. Our troops are under fire. Our troops are dying. I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed that our country completely failed to put together a worldwide coalition to govern in Iraq. The Bush administration has proved that it is unable to reach out to the world community in a meaningful way. We need a president who can. We need John Kerry.

Speaking of Spain...

As Karl-Thomas mentions, Spain will be granting gay marriage soon. They're also pulling their troops out of Iraq within the next two weeks:

Spanish troops in Iraq are expected to come home within the next two weeks after an order to withdraw by Spain's new Prime Minister Jose Rodriguez Zapatero.

Mr Zapatero made it one of his first duties as prime minister, ordering Defence Minister Jose Bono to begin the process of pulling Spain's 1,300 troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible.

In a televised address to the nation, Mr Zapatero said he is fulfilling the wishes of the people and the election pledge he gave a year ago.

Spanish troops are currently engaged alongside US forces in the tense stand-off with supporters of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the holy city of Najaf.

Prime Minister Zapatero says Spain remains committed to supporting the democratisation and reconstruction of Iraq as part of any operation overseen by the United Nations.

Now, I stated previously that I was pleased with the Spanish election results for several reasons. First, the Aznar government lied to the Spanish people in regards to the March 11th terrorist atttacks, and the voters responded. Second, the turnout in Spain was the largest in recent history, and third, I believed that the new Spanish government has the ability to influence the Bush adminstration into accepting broader United Nations control in Iraq. Obviously, it's not good for our troops to have our allies pull out of Iraq and increase our burden at a time where our troops are under fire. However, I still hold out hope that the actions of the Zapatero government will lead to the Bush administration going to the United Nations to put a strong multilateral force in place in Iraq supported by the Iraqis and the world community. It may surprise some that I actually agreed with what Joe Lieberman on something today. What is the best thing that the Spanish can do now? Joe said on CNN's "Late Edition" to send the troops in Iraq to Afgahistan. I agree. It would provide cover for the Zapatero administration, but also show their desire to help fight the war on terrorism.

Iraq and Vietnam

I was not around for Vietnam so I am not one to casually say that Iraq is turning into a Vietnam simply because it is a good soundbyte. But I was VERY impressed with this New York Times article by Krugman that does a good job at drawing the parallels and correct lines on this issue.

Iraq isn't Vietnam. The most important difference is the death toll, which is only a small fraction of the carnage in Indochina. But there are also real parallels, and in some ways Iraq looks worse.

It's true that the current American force in Iraq is much smaller than the Army we sent to Vietnam. But the U.S. military as a whole, and the Army in particular, is also much smaller than it was in 1968. Measured by the share of our military strength it ties down, Iraq is a Vietnam-size conflict.

And the stress Iraq places on our military is, if anything, worse. In Vietnam, American forces consisted mainly of short-term draftees, who returned to civilian life after their tours of duty. Our Iraq force consists of long-term volunteers, including reservists who never expected to be called up for extended missions overseas. The training of these volunteers, their morale and their willingness to re-enlist will suffer severely if they are called upon to spend years fighting a guerrilla war.

...

This fiscal chicanery is part of a larger pattern. Vietnam shook the nation's confidence not just because we lost, but because our leaders didn't tell us the truth. Last September Gen. Anthony Zinni spoke of "Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies," and asked his audience of military officers, "Is it happening again?" Sure enough, the parallels are proliferating. Gulf of Tonkin attack, meet nonexistent W.M.D. and Al Qaeda links. "Hearts and minds," meet "welcome us as liberators." "Light at t