Fun headlines to juxtapose

Headline #1:

Military feels fuel-cost gouge in Iraq

Headline #2:

Iraq looking at oil surplus, big profits

The first article notes that

Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. costs.
...
Baghdad subsidies let Iraqis pay only about $1.36 a gallon.

The U.S. military, through its Defense Energy Support Center, buys fuel on the open market, paying from $1.99 a gallon to as much as $5.30 a gallon under contracts with private and government-owned oil companies.

What's wrong with this picture?

I guess if you've got a Harvard MBA - like our MBA-President - it makes perfect sense. The free market at work, and all that.

The second article notes

Iraq is looking at a potential boon in oil revenue this year, as the U.S. spends some $153 million a month in the country on fuel alone. But U.S. officials say it will take some time before Baghdad builds the capacity to manage the revenue.
...
The senators [Levin, D-MI; Warner, R-VA] estimated that Iraq will realize "at least $100 billion in oil revenues in 2007 and 2008."

But administration and military officials say it's not that easy to distribute the money. They contend that Iraq's lack of spending isn't due to laziness or corruption, but rather Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed most and how to allocate it efficiently.

We're in the sixth year of the war. The first 1+ years we were in charge, and focused on establishing Iraqi governmental institutions, particularly the Oil Ministry. [Recall, the Oil Ministry was one of the few buildings protected by U.S. troops against looting during the early chaos!] Iraq still doesn't have the needed capability to spend its own money???

On the other hand, an "inability to determine where [the] money is needed most and how to allocate if efficiently" never stopped the U.S. from wasting OUR tax dollars in Iraq! How much have we given to Parsons, KBR, and all the other contractors to restore Iraq's electrical grid? to build schools & hospitals? to provide basic services - water & sewer?... With no results to show for OUR $$$?
Why do we hold the Iraqis to a higher standard???

Oh, yeah - our MBA-President is in charge. I keep forgetting.

For what it's worth, here's a very simple decision procedure: What are the top ten civilian reconstruction projects now being funded by the U.S.? Let Iraq pay for 'em! If they've got more $$$, go for the next 10. ... and so on!

I note that the only plausible objection to this very simple rule is that our top ten projects shouldn't be funded! I don't deny that this objection might have merit - if it does, I have a follow-up recommendation: The U.S. should stop funding these projects! NOW!

Stop the madness!

Uh, guys? You sure you want to do this? (redux)

Iraq army flexes muscles in Basra
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
2 Apr 2008
BAGHDAD - Iraqi soldiers rolled through a Shiite militia stronghold in Basra on Wednesday, drawing scattered bombs and bullets that wounded a camera operator for a U.S.-funded TV station and narrowly missed the commander of government troops in the city.

Why?

Didn't al Sadr just rescue these guys from truly ignominious defeat in the streets of Basra?

Why are they now deliberately provoking the Sadrists?... again.

The response?

Followers of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr accused the army of violating an Iranian-brokered agreement that ended last week's fighting, which erupted in Basra and quickly engulfed Baghdad and major cities of the Shiite south.
...
A Mahdi Army spokesman in Basra, known as Abu Liqa al-Basri, said Wednesday that the militiamen were keeping a low profile on al-Sadr's orders. He accused Iraqi security forces of creating a "crisis of trust" by mounting "provocative raids" and arresting al-Sadr supporters.

Duh!

Stop the madness!

Text of Yoo memo posted online

No big surprise: the recently-released DoJ memo asserting unlimited Executive wartime power (to paraphrase) has been discussed extensively on liberal/progressive blogs. All make the same observation: that Yoo basically argues that the U.S. Constitution is a "quaint, historical" document which places no limitation on Executive power in time of war.

ACLU has posted the memo in .pdf format:
DoJ Memo

Enjoy!

Stop the madness!

Reflections on U.S. Army Basic Training

I entered active duty in the U.S. Army exactly 33 years ago today: 1 April 1975.
(I chose the date to be memorable!)

Among the classroom lessons taught to U.S. Army basic trainees at the time - among the first of the "all volunteer Army" - was the obligation of a soldier to refuse to obey an unlawful order.

The Viet Nam experience - the My Lai massacre, in particular - was still a recent memory.

For young Army recruits, this was a very difficult lesson. We were, after all, being drilled - being taught to respond quickly and without doubt or hesitation to commands issued by Drill Sergeants. Were we now being asked to hesitate, to consider whether or not the command constituted a "lawful order", before obeying?

I doubt that most of us were able to reconcile our duty to disobey an unlawful order with our operationally more immediate challenge to act without hesitation. Nevertheless, this particular lesson - the duty of the soldier to refuse an unlawful order - consumed many classroom hours, over several days.

Can the President - as commander in chief of the armed forces - issue an unlawful order? John Yoo's answer is clearly, "No!"

Is this opinion binding? Might some poor Private E-1 find himself court-martialed for obeying the President's command?

We've lost our moral compass in the Global War on Terror. We are putting ourselves - and our souls - in jeopardy by following the legal advice of John Yoo and his masters - Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey... and W!

If we are not a nation of laws, what are we?
If the U.S. Constitution is not the supreme law of land, what is?

Stop the madness!

Ted Rall's good idea! (deja vu all over again)

[Originally posted 7 Dec 2007]

Trim Bush from American History
"... Let's begin America's long slog toward moral and political redemption by demanding that our next president's first act be to declare the Bush Administration null and void. Every law and act carried out between 12 noon on January 20, 2001 and January 20, 2009 should just...go...poof. ..."

A simple beginning:

All opinions issued by W's Department of Justice to be declared null and void.

All opinions!

We've read the opinions justifying torture, but who knows what else Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey have authorized without our knowledge. Just to be on the safe side: ALL DoJ opinions under W ought be voided. Immediately.

Stop the madness!

The rule of law? Our shame!

Pentagon releases memo on harsh tactics
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
1 April 2008
[but sadly, I do not think this is as April Fool's joke!]
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying that President Bush's wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.

The Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees overseas — so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captors.

Even so, the memo noted, the president's wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture.

"Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion," said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

Ah, yes: the memo written by John Yoo!

I've re-read Article II of the U.S. Constitution repeatedly. I cannot for the life of me discern any extraordinary wartime powers granted the President by this Article! Am I missing something? [Note: section 2 seems the most relevant, but if you can find these extraordinary presidential wartime powers anywhere in Article II - or anywhere else in the U.S. Constitution - again, please point me to the text!]

In fact, the President's authority as "Commander-in-Chief" is limited! The President is NOT "Commander-in-Chief" of the United States, but only

... commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...

The intent is to establish civilian control of the armed forces, with a chain-of-command terminating at the President, NOT to grant the President extraordinary "wartime powers"!

Read Article II for yourself! If you can find in it anything even vaguely suggesting that the President in time of war possesses "special" power, I'd love to hear from you.

And, for what it's worth:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
[U.S. Constitution, Article VI]

"... and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

For example: The Geneva Conventions! - Yes, the U.S. Constitution explicitly recognizes treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory as the binding supreme law of the land, no matter what John Yoo might opine!

... and again, just for grins:

... he [the President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed
[U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 3]

And let's not forget...

Before he [the President] enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
[U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1]

Stop the madness!

Today's headlines

Bush admits defeat, will withdraw all U.S. troops by June

Boehner calls for stringent regulation of financial institutions

John Yoo: "4th and 5th Amendments prohibit torture"

SecDef Gates: "Pentagon spending is out of control"
Recommends killing 150 major weapons programs

McCain embraces universal, single-payer HealthCare

Bernanke & Paulson agree: "Mark-to-Market Accounting caused Financial Crisis"