Tea leaf reading is clearly not an exacting science…but if I were asked to interpret the announced resignation of longtime Bush crony Karen Hughes, I would conclude that it signals the likelihood that stealth president Dick Cheney has succeeded in convincing his presidential placeholder, George W. Bush, to launch a strike on Iran prior to packing up the U-Hauls in January of 2009. I’ll explain my rationale following some excerpts from the Associated Press article.

WASHINGTON - Karen Hughes, who led efforts to improve the U.S. image abroad and was one of President Bush’s last remaining advisers from the close circle of Texas aides, will leave the government at the end of the year.

Hughes told The Associated Press that she plans to quit her job as undersecretary of state and return to Texas, although improving the world’s view of the United States is a “long-term challenge” that will outlast her.

“This will take a number of years,” Hughes said in an interview Tuesday.

Bush and Rice had picked Hughes two years ago to retool the way the United States sells its policies, ideals and views overseas. A former television reporter and media adviser, Hughes’ focus has been to change the way the United States engages and responds to criticism or misinformation in the Muslim world.

“Negative events never help,” Hughes said when asked how events like last month’s shooting of Iraqi civilians by private U.S. security guards in Iraq affects the way the world sees the United States.

Polls show no improvement in the world’s view of the U.S. since Hughes took over. A Pew Research Center survey earlier said the unpopular Iraq war is a persistent drag on the U.S. image and has helped push favorable opinion of the United States in Muslim Indonesia, for instance, from 75 percent in 2000 to 30 percent last year.

Hughes said the Iraq war was usually the second issue that Muslims and Arabs raised with her, after the long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Hughes said she advised Bush and Rice two years ago that U.S. help in ending the six-decade old fight over Israel would probably do more than anything else to improve the U.S. standing worldwide.

Hughes is serving her second stint in the Bush administration…this time assigned a task that she concedes will not be achieved in short order and that will undoubtedly remain a challenge for the President’s successor.

More telling is Hughes assessment of the prevailing obstacle to improving the U.S. image…especially in the Middle East region and the Muslim world. As noted in the above excerpt, Hughes has told the administration that the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as the primary impediment to reversing the slipping view of America.

I took note of the fact that Hughes made this remark to the President and his current Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, two years ago. I interpret the statement to suggest there was a meeting of the minds at the time she offered this assessment and agreed to take the job.

Today, I believe her resignation may well indicate a shift in the thinking of the President…one that would make Hughes’ task virtually impossible and therefore lead her to conclude it better to leave now rather than later. I suspect the event which would lead Hughes to an abrupt departure is knowledge of the administration’s plan to strike Iran.

Let me explain my reasoning. Given the anti-Israeli rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a strike upon Iran would be seen as a defense of Israel and a affirmation of the assertions that Israel and the United States have no real intentions of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Such a strike would further fuel the anger at Israel and the United States and make it virtually impossible for Hughes to maintain the credibility necessary to pursue the mending of the American image.

As such, rather than wait for the terse and inevitable repudiations, Hughes has chosen to jump ship prior to a strike which would almost certainly unravel any progress she has been able to achieve. I also don’t believe Hughes would have returned to the Bush administration with any intention of leaving prior to the end of the President’s second term.

Adding support to my speculation is the fact that Josh Bolton advised White House senior aides that if they were to stay past Labor Day they would be obliged to serve till the end of the President’s second term. The fact that Hughes is leaving regardless of that directive must indicate changing circumstances have created an untenable situation. Lastly, the fact that Hughes has long been regarded as one the George Bush’s most loyal supporters makes the resignation all the more suspect.

Obviously my hypothesis is little more than anecdotal. Notwithstanding, this resignation raises a red flag which cannot be ignored. I hope I’m wrong but I’ve learned not to bet against the Bush administration when it comes to cowboy diplomacy. The fact that Hughes is walking away from her hospitality assignment leads me to believe George Bush is once again running around the White House sporting a half-cocked handgun in his spanking new holster…you know…the one Dick Cheney told him to strap on.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

We all know she fears the gay. That’s not news. But here Michaell Malkin has decided to write negatively about a high school in the Boston Suburbs that is employing yoga to help calm students. WTF? Why in the hell should this woman be complaining, unless, as we all know, that this woman is truly deranged. From the NRO:

According to the piece, “Less Homework, More Yoga, From a Principal Who Hates Stress,” the head of Needham High School in the Boston suburbs is pushing “stress reduction” through better stretching and breathing. Principal Paul Richards, who last earned nationwide mockery when he ditched publishing the honor roll, is part-Oprah, part-Deepak Chopra, part-Richard Simmons, and all edu-babble.

“It’s not that I’m trying to turn the culture upside down,” he’s quoted telling the Times. “It’s very important to protect the part of the culture that leads to all the achievement,” he said. “It’s more about bringing the culture to a healthier place.”

And here I thought high-school principals should make schooling, not “bringing the culture to a healthier place,” their top priority. Silly me. Welcome to your new nanny-state nightmare.

Yoga classes are now a requirement for Needham high -school seniors. To further ease the supposed burden on overworked students, Richards has “asked teachers to schedule homework-free weekends and holidays.” Just what we need to turn around those one in ten schools that are now considered “dropout factories,” huh? Can’t cut it in the classroom? Bend like a bridge, take five deep, slow breaths, and all will be dandy.

I’m thinking Michaelle Malkin needs to stick to things she knows something about. Gosh, that would mean stifling her on every subject, wouldn’t it? Heck, that’s OK by me.

Earlier, our own Steven Reynolds wrote about the Halloween costume of choice for the elite Washington trick-or-treating that will be happening tonight inside the I-495 beltway. However, if you don’t have a paper bag handy, and you need a last minute costume, try one of the kits offered by People for the American Way:

Simply download, print, cut out, and go scare some people at your favorite liberal watering hole! (Please, use responsibly, and don’t go frightening the little children. You could traumatize an unsuspecting young’un for life.) Note: downloads and accessorizing suggestions are available at the PFAW website.

Boo!

No, this isn’t about Terrell Owens and how he will impact this weekend’s football game where the hated Dallas Cowboys come to Philadelphia to take on my beloved Philadelphia Eagles. Sure, that topic is on my mind, but the title here is so that I can put out the punch lines to the bad jokes before any of the rest of you do. It’s sort of a Karnak punch line. Maybe you can think of the first part of the joke as it relates to this story from Pink News (sorry, Pnknews, but I’m going to quote a lot of your story):

A new study to be published in the Journal of Sex Roles suggests that one third of former American high school football players have had sexual relations with other men.

Sociologist Dr. Eric Anderson, who is credited with being the first openly gay high school coach during his tenure at Huntington Breach High in the early nineties, conducted research questionnaires with a small sample of ex-high school football players who said that they have had some sexual contact with other men.

The men interviewed were aged 18-23 and all had retired from football before college.

Anderson’s study suggests that “society’s increasing open-mindedness about homosexuality and decreasing stigma concerning sexual activity with other men had allowed sportsmen to speak more openly about these sexual activities.”

The article “Heterosexual athletes contesting masculinity and the one-time rule of homosexuality” will appear in the January issue of the journal.

It found showed that over one third of the men interviewed admitted to having contact with other men whether with women present or alone.

The study also stated that most did not identify themselves as homosexual, but also did not feel shame or resentment for their relations with other males.

Anderson told Science Daily he believes that the “positive portrayal of homosexuality on television, the ease with which homosexuals could gradually ‘come out’ by using the internet, and the decline of religious fundamentalism has made homosexuality and homosexual acts considerably less controversial for university-aged men.”

I think it is important to note that we don’t have a definition of what is deemed as “homosexual contact” here. Are we talking full-on sex? Are we talking something as benign as towell snapping in the locker toom? I suspect they’ve drawn the line somewhere in the middle of those extremes. I suppose that could include such acts as mutual wanking or bodily contact while sharing a threesome. Still, those are murky waters that will be delved by those critiquing this studfy, due out in March. The article here states what the real meat (sorry, couldn’t help it) of the subject is, that homosexual contact carries not near the stigma that it once did, so much so that the most macho members of our society are able to admit to themselves that they have partaken of it.

Wow! One third of those men admit to such contact back when they were high school football players? Heck, I’m betting this isn’t just a “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” sort of thing. I imagine that involves younger boys than those studied here. I suppose we’d all be able to admit to “show me” games. What’s important here is that we’re talking about bodily contact, I assume, and that former football players are admitting to it.

We’ve come a long way in our attitudes, huh? I sometimes look to what goes on in schools and worry that the fear of such contact is so prevalent that it has changed the school experience. In my day, starting from 7th grade, boys and girls coming from gym class had to shower afterwards. Oh, yeah, we were all embnarrassed at the time, but we got over it. Heck, I was most embarrassed, being the youngest in my class and also a late entrant into puberty. (TMI?) The point here is that we were forced, in my day, the late sixties and early seventies, to divorce sexuality from nudity. By the time we reached 9th grade even the most shy of us (except Randy Whistler, the biggest geek in my school) thought nothing of stripping, showering, changing, chatting amiably the whole time. Kids today? They hear me talk about this sort of behavior in school and it’s totally foreign. Their jaws drop. They can’t imagine communal showers, and even when they are required to shower after swimming they do so with their suits on.

Hmm. Maybe the fact that kids aren’t forced, as I was, to divorce, at least somewhat, the notion of nudity and sexuality through those sometimes traumatic communal showers. Yeah, there was towell snapping, and Mr. Phipps the gym teacher watched to make sure we got wet, if not clean. Nowadays the kids end up smelling all day, and they don’t get that experience that strips them of everything, thus exposing them to the multiplicity of what all the other guys look like. Could it be that guys nowadays, who haven’t gone through that experience from a young age, have developed a curiosity that leads to these homosexual situations? I’m not saying that’s bad. After all, whether one is 12 or 17, one is curious. Hmm.

Still, I am stunned. Football players admitting to homosexual contact? I’d love to see that broken down by position. Safeties? Tight ends? Hmm.

There are a lot of scary things in the world.

There’s the “fun-scary”—kids who dress up as clowns, monsters, or fairy princesses once a year to get a month’s supply of candy, which they’ll finish off by morning.

There’s scary movies, from “Jaws” to “Friday the 13th“ to—well—“Scary Movie.”

The murder mystery genre—in books, TV, and film—can scare even the least gullible. What’s even scarier is that there were about 1.4 million violent crimes last year; about 17,000 of them were murders, about 89 percent from firearms, according to the FBI.

Poverty, the deterioration of the environment, and Dick Cheney are all scary. But the scariest of all is ignorance, hatred, and bigotry, wrapped within the cloak of fear.

This past week, along with a mini-mail list of about 60, I received an e-mail from a friend. She’s a nice lady, relatively bright, and active in community affairs. The e-mail has been around for several years, but is refreshed every year between Halloween and Christmas. As is custom, thousands who receive it forward it to thousands of others who are asked to boycott stamps that honor Muslim holidays. The first lines of the e-mail are bold. “How ironic is this??!!” it screams at us. “They don’t even believe in Christ and they’re getting their own Christmas stamp . . .” The graphics-laden e-mail displays a 37-cent postage stamp. The rest of the e-mail, all in bold type and colors, tells us that we are supposed to remember the “MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103,” the “MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993,” and the “MUSLIM” bombings of the military barracks in Saudi Arabia and American embassies in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole, and 9/11.

We are told not only to “remember to adamantly and vocally boycott this stamp,” but that buying this stamp “would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors.” We are urged to forward the e-mail to “every patriotic American you know.”

The stamp, according to the U.S. Postal Service, was issued to commemorate Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, considered by Muslims as the two most important festivals in their calendar year. The calligraphy in the center of the stamp translates literally as “blessed festival,” or more loosely as, “May your religious holiday be blessed.” The stamp was first issued on Sept. 1, 2001, and then reissued in 2002, 2006, and in September this year to reflect postage increases.

Although the Post Office each year issues a stamp to honor Christmas, it also issues a non-denominational holiday stamp. It also issues stamps to honor Chanukah and Kwanzaa.

Those who write and forward the e-mails of intolerance don’t understand, and probably never will, that while some Muslim extremists were at the heart of some terrorist plots, they don’t represent Islam or any other religion. If we believe that the few Muslim terrorists represent the entire religion, we must then go to the absurdity of believing that we should boycott all Christmas stamps because some Christian extremists destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City and murdered 178 and wounded more than 800. We would have to boycott the Christmas stamp because God-fearing Christians lynched as many as 10,000 Americans—most of them Black but many of whom were Jews, Italians, and Irish—in the century after the Civil War. We would condemn Christianity because of the Inquisitions of the 15th and 16th centuries. We would blame the Protestants and the Catholics for a religious civil war in Northern Ireland that led to the deaths of more than 3,700 in a four decade period. We would never speak favorably of any German or millions of other Europeans because the Nazis and their collaborators, good Christians all, launched the holocaust that led to the murders of 12 million and a war that claimed more than 50 million lives, most of them civilian.

On Halloween, we see pre-teen girls cutely dressed as witches, happily going door to door for candy, and we readily help them get the sugar-kick they expect every Oct. 31. We don’t condemn these pretend-witches, unlike Christians of the 17th century America who burned and drowned women because they were “witches.”

Every religion has its militant extremists who violate laws and commandments against murder, but every religion has people of peace who believe in love and tolerance. Indeed, by condemning all Muslims, we also condemn ourselves to ignorance, hatred, bigotry, and fear.

[Dr. Brasch is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University, an occasional contributor to ASZ, a former newspaper reporter and editor, and author of 17 books. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through Amazon. You may contact Brasch through www.walterbrasch.com.]

The Not So Thrilla in Phila.

The Democrats held a debate last night in Philadelphia, yet another in the seemingly endless pre-pre-season horse race. For some live blogging of the main event check in with native Philadelphian Will Bunch, with more observations at Josh’s and Kevin’s.

Pretty much all day yesterday, the inside the Beltway media was breathless with speculation about whether Barack Obama would begin to poke some sharpened elbows at his front runner rival Hillary Clinton. But aside from a few jabs at her wishy washy record and a dated Rocky reference, the Thrilla from Illa(nois) failed to land any knock out blows.

That is not to say that Clinton wasn’t the proverbial punching bag in the debate. She took a bruising for her waffling on driver licenses for illegal immigrants. Was pelted for her votes on Iraq and Iran. But despite the barrage, I have a feeling that Hilla will come through this, especially considering that the GOPers seem to have already singled her out as the opponent to beat. And really, as harsh as some of the things said about Clinton were last night, they are nothing compared to what has been and no doubt will be said about her by the Repubs.

Some other notable moments: Joe Biden got the biggest applause for a dig at Rescue Rudy for his limited vocabulary. Dennis Kucinich once again made calls for impeachment but because he also claims to have seen a UFO, that means no one should take him seriously. At least MSNBC had the good sense to forgo any overly long cutaway shots of Mrs. Kucinich.

Hunter lists reasons to be freaking sick of pre-primary season.

Michael Roston says that some of the digs at Hillary seemed more befitting of a Three Stooges routine.

Booman tells us some of the new things he learned.

And Walter Shapiro says that some of the dueling Dems appear to have sharpened their rapiers and are looking to draw some primary colors out of Hillary.

(X-posted at The Xsociate Files)

I’m opposed to outright gay assimilation as I view it to be a form of capitulation…an ill-advised effort to fit in if you will. In so stating, I am not suggesting that gays embrace cultural isolationism; rather I favor preserving our homosexual identity while engaging the heterosexual community in a dialogue that seeks to find common ground…ground that doesn’t require us to adapt our lives to fit the heterosexual template…or visa versa.

A new article in The New York Times sheds some light on the results of gay assimilation. I believe the piece illuminates the emerging erosion of our cultural significance and how that can begin to limit our ability to not only share in society as fully equal partners, but to potentially diminish our opportunities to influence and shape its future.

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 24 — This Halloween, the Glindas, gladiators and harem boys of the Castro — along with untold numbers who plan to dress up as Senator Larry E. Craig, this year’s camp celebrity — will be celebrating behind closed doors. The city’s most popular Halloween party, in America’s largest gay neighborhood, is canceled.

or many in the Castro District, the cancellation is a blow that strikes at the heart of neighborhood identity, and it has brought soul-searching that goes beyond concerns about crime.

These are wrenching times for San Francisco’s historic gay village, with population shifts, booming development, and a waning sense of belonging that is also being felt in gay enclaves across the nation, from Key West, Fla., to West Hollywood, as they struggle to maintain cultural relevance in the face of gentrification.

In the Castro, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Historical Society held public meetings earlier this year to grapple with such questions as “Are Gay Neighborhoods Worth Saving?”

While the Castro has been the center of a movement, it is also home to “an important political constituency,” said Elizabeth A. Armstrong, an associate sociology professor at Indiana University and the author of “Forging Gay Identities: Organizing Sexuality in San Francisco 1950-1994”

“When people were angry about Dan White they were able to assemble quickly, spilling out of the bars,” Professor Armstrong said. “Physical location mattered.”

I contend that efforts to mimic heterosexuality lay the groundwork for our irrelevance and begin to marginalize our ability to favorably influence the political, social, and cultural climate…one which has been primarily defined by heterosexuals. Inherent in the gay rights movement is a tacit acceptance that all the rights granted to heterosexuals are appealing and therefore sought after. Unfortunately, I don’t entirely accept that premise with regards to marriage and I fear that our message fosters a belief that our way of life is incomplete and can be punished by withholding the granting of those rights currently reserved for our heterosexual counterparts.

While I’m not opposed to gay marriage, I fear that making it the focal point of our agenda serves to validate the assumed superiority of the heterosexual relationship model…one that I find to be lacking and one that is likely premised upon a number of false constructs. The fact that gays appear determined to replicate heterosexual marriage seems to suggest that we believe it to be a functional institution. On the contrary, marriage statistics suggest otherwise and that fact ought to be an integral part of our strategy.

In fact, the resiliency of gays to establish functional relationships absent the accoutrements of conventional marriage may actually warrant a rethinking of heterosexual marriage in its current iteration. Let me be clear…I wholeheartedly believe our relationships should be granted the same recognition, protections, and benefits afforded to heterosexual marriages. However, the push for gay marriage seems to send the message that gays have nothing to bring to the relationship table…a conclusion I reject and a point I think merits discussion. Additionally, those who oppose gay marriage view their ability to deny it to us as giving them an added authority and a distinguishing legitimacy. I believe they needn’t be granted such dominion nor should such thoughts be allowed to persist.

Frankly, gays should not only be seeking the same rights offered to heterosexual marriages but they ought to be pointing to the many flaws that accompany the institution of marriage. In doing so, the debate can begin to expand beyond the “we have it and you’re not going to get it” tug of war. The prevailing argument offered by critics of gay marriage is that it will undermine heterosexual marriage and destroy the current family structure. So long as the debate remains framed this way, gays will struggle to gain traction in their push for inclusion.

The argument for gay marriage ought to be expanded beyond inclusion and into a dialogue that seeks to define what actually makes for a functional relationship and an environment that nurtures children. Clearly, the belief that one qualifies for marriage and child rearing by simply being a heterosexual is laughable and it ought to be aggressively questioned and challenged.

An ideal home environment isn’t predicated upon the presence of a man and a woman; it’s predicated upon an adult or two adults possessing enough maturity to understand the responsibility that comes with having children and the willingness to set aside one’s own self-interests out of an unyielding love for the innocents in our midst.

Further, that love must include more than the ability to slip a child twenty dollars and send them out the door and out of our way. Far too many parents have replaced the hard work of real parenting with the ease of financial placation. Truth be told, the results of that deficient notion are coming home to roost in a never ending string of tragic events involving alienated and troubled children.

The following excerpt from The New York Times, while attempting to understand the shift in gay culture evidenced by a newly emerging generation of gays, actually hits upon the larger societal issue of isolation and lack of interpersonal involvement that results from the current heterosexual family paradigm.

An annual survey by the San Francisco Gay Men’s Community Initiative indicated that in 2007 only 36 percent of men under 29 said there was a gay community in the city with which they could identify.

Doug Sebesta, the group’s executive director and a medical sociologist at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, said, “I’ve had therapists who have told me they are asking their clients to go back to bars as a way of social interaction.”

The Internet is not a replacement for a neighborhood where people are involved in issues beyond themselves, said John Newsome, an African-American who co-founded the group And Castro For All after the Badlands incident. “There are a lot of really lonely gay people sitting in front of a computer,” he said.

Which is why the cancellation of the Halloween party by the city has provoked such a sense of loss. Many residents say that their night has been taken away. “It’s proof that whatever sense of safety we have is incredibly tenuous, “ Mr. Newsome said.

I would argue that the phenomenon of isolation described above is not unique to just those gays who are under the age of 29. It is indicative of society’s growing disregard for the personal contact which is actually the essence of loving parenting. Those children who are now entering the world as adults are doing so absent the fundamentals which must originate in the home as a result of meaningful parent-child relationships…relationships which aren’t measured by the material wherewithal of a parent to equip their children with the properly labeled clothing or the latest gadgets. While parents have found it is possible to occupy a child’s time with television and computer games; they do so at the peril of their child’s future ability to form functional relationships.

In our rush to define and pursue success as a one-dimensional financial calculation, we have forgotten that a child’s evaluation of a successful parent is rarely dependent upon the size of mom and dad’s bank account or their titles at work. Having a woman and a man identified as a mom and a dad may fit some rigid religious definitions of proper parenting but if it fails to rear an adjusted and healthy child, it ought to be seen as it is…little more than an inane adherence to established dogma.

Allowing the anti-gay zealots to assail gays while fostering dysfunctional families must cease. Gays must approach the topic of marriage, gay adoption, and parenting as a matter of measuring outcome; not as an equation of entitlement. The ability to parent isn’t negated by one’s sexual orientation just as good parenting isn’t guaranteed by the presence of a man and a woman. For meaningful change to occur, these antiquated assumptions must be deconstructed.

America was built upon numerous cultural influences…cultures that brought differing values and perspectives to marriage and parenting. Those views enriched our society, provided a platform for dialogue, and created a curiosity which allowed us to embrace change. Instead of simply submitting to fear, many Americans found themselves enriched by exposure to the unfamiliar and it made us a better nation. The same can be true with regards to gay culture…so long as the gay community celebrates and maintains its cultural identity and isn’t afraid or ashamed to stand up and speak out.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I generally stay away from the pundit wars, and leave the eviscerating of dangerously stupid political commentary to those who more closely follow the day-to-day nuance of opinion making. Today, I’m making an exception.

The Washington Post has published an almost incoherent piece of writing from syndicated columnist Richard Cohen regarding George Bush, the U.S. Senate resolution declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and Iran itself. Cohen’s column starts out well enough:

When George W. Bush surveys his presidency, he will see two wars commenced and none concluded, Osama bin Laden still on the loose, American prestige at record lows throughout the world, a military both broken and abused, and a country that in large part thinks its government is a liar. Guinness World Records will need a chapter for Bush alone.

Fair enough. That’s pretty much my view of the Bush presidency, wrapped up in a single sentence. However, Cohen erroneously gives Commander Codpiece credit for actually having the capability of introspection. Is there anything that’s happened in the past seven years that would provide a glimmer of hope that George Bush has the ability to mentally review his missteps and personal foibles?

Mr. Cohen is a product of the old school of punditry - someone who actually fantasizes of a time in the glorious past of our republic when a majority of her citizens thought their government was being straight-up and forward with them. In my experience, that’s never been the case. A review of history would indicate the same thing - the rank and file rabble has never trusted their government - and (perhaps) rightfully so. Cohen continues:

It is, though, that bit about lack of trust in government that may be the most important and intractable. The others are correctable. For Iraq, there is a solution — or at least an ending.

No there isn’t. There is nothing in the portfolio of the Bush administration that would suggest for even a fleeting moment that either they, or for that matter any of the GOP or Dem candidates for president, have some magic “solution” for Iraq. No end has been scripted, nor does there seem to be the political will to do so.

For the military, there is the cure of more money and the fading of memories. For bin Laden, there is mortality itself. As for Afghanistan, who knows what will happen, since that country is where Western expectations go to die.

More money. From where? Want your taxes raised, Mr. Cohen? (No.) Which social programs do you want cut to fund the rebuilding of the military? bin-Laden’s not all that old, and mortality could be a long time coming. And Afghanistan? Where’s that? Oh, yeah, that’s the launching pad into nuclear rouge state Pakistan when things go to hell in a handbasket in Islamabad. Nothing more, nothing less.

But this business about the people’s trust in its government is destructive stuff. We see it played out now with the Senate resolution labeling the al-Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. The resolution itself is a pretty straightforward affair, stating a compelling case that the al-Quds Force has interfered in Iraq and caused the deaths of Americans.

“Compelling case”? Hardly. But then, this is the same Richard Cohen who wrote of Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N. on the eve of the Iraq war:

““The evidence he presented to the United Nations — some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail — had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool — or possibly a Frenchman — could conclude otherwise.”

In real time, Cohen continues:

Whatever you may feel about the war in Iraq, no one gets to kill Americans with impunity.

bin-Laden has. Completely. And then Cohen goes for the money shot:

These people, most of them on the Democratic left, not only do not believe the evidence, they see the resolution as the old Bush administration rope-a-dope: the first step on the road to war with Iran.

They sure rope-a-doped Richard Cohen back in 2002 and 2003, huh? But this time, he doesn’t think he’s being rope-a-doped? If not, why not? What in George Bush’s special circle of hell would give Cohen any more reason to believe the fabrications that the Bush administration is spinning now about Iran than they did about Iraq? Convenient memory loss on Cohen’s part? Early onset Alzheimer’s? So many questions…

And, what’s this “most of them on the Democratic left“? Does Mr. Cohen not read the polls, where over 70% of Americans feel that Iraq was and is a mistake? And that the U.S. military should be pulled out with all haste? Yeah, I guess those tricky pollsters are just surveying the “Democratic left”.

And then, Cohen goes for the stake in the heart:

Even back in the Clinton administration…

THE CLENIS! THE CLENIS!! (Yes, after all, it is almost Halloween…)

More than a senseless war with Iran — certainly premature at the moment — I fear the sort of malaise that came over America after the Vietnam War or, more to the point, the defeatism-turned-cynicism that crippled Britain and France following World War I. Both nations had been mauled and were exhausted. Britain’s intellectual elite celebrated their pacifism; they would fight for neither king nor country. France had effectively been defeated in World War I. It was a nation of amputees and widows.

The situation today is hardly as dramatic or desperate. Yet years of Bush exaggerations, of Cheney lies, of dots that somehow failed to connect and intelligence that was false or misleading, of wars that go nowhere, of overblown and juvenile rhetoric — “Bring ‘em on” — have made cynics of us all. That is the new realism.

And a realism that Cohen apparently fails to grasp, because…

But the true realism is that Iran is a menace — potentially a great one — and that its Revolutionary Guard is engaged in the dirty business of killing Americans and others. The fact that the Bush administration says so does not make it otherwise.

And the fact that Colin Powell went before the United Nations and declared before the world that Saddam was a clear and present danger and possessed WMDs and rape rooms and ate Shiite babies for dinner made that little fiasco true? I think that history would disagree with Mr. Cohen. In fact, I would posit that Powell flat out lied, or “extended the truth” of the (as he now refers to it) evidence. When Colin Powell gave his inflammatory speech before the U.N., I opined that a 2nd year law student could have picked apart every single one of his arguments. Cohen (and almost all of America’s elite punditocracy, both right and left) eagerly lapped up the river of falsehood that Powell spewed.

We know what followed next.

This is the lamentable legacy of George W. Bush — an abuse of trust that has weakened the country he swore to protect.

Yet, Richard Cohen continues to willingly dip his beak in the trough of propaganda and lies that the “lamentable” (his own word) Bush administration has catapulted such that (again, in Cohen’s own words) “the Guinness World Records will need a chapter for Bush alone”.

I don’t get it. This guy is someone who passes as a “liberal pundit”?

Update: From the comments, Brendan reports that Booman has a similar takedown on Cohen. Brendan also advises that we ignore the op-ed pages at the Washington Post. While I agree (at least from the standpoint of maintaining one’s sanity), beltway pundits such as Mr. Cohen carry much weight in DC political circles, and as such, need to be answered when engaging in such utterly transparent wankery.

Let’s begin by noting that there’s nothing against the law in Republican State Representative Richard Curtis’ behavior, nor in his alleged behavior. Consensual sex, even if it is gay sex, is OK by me, and it’s OK by the law in Washington State. I think it also important to note that Richard Curtis’ alleged sex partner, who has evidently threatened to expose their tryst unless he is paid off, is committing the crime of extortion, if the facts end up as stated here. I don’t think those are the important focal points for this story, though. You see, Richard Curtis is not gay, and the only reason he got into this mess is because he wanted to help someone. First, a synopsis of the case from KXLY:

State Representative Richard Curtis (R-La Center) was in Spokane last week and reportedly had consensual sex with another man at a downtown hotel that later led to blackmail. However Curtis says there was no sex and he isn’t gay. Now Spokane police are trying to determine if Rep. Curtis did in fact have a sexual encounter here that made him a target for extortion.

While most of the legislators attending the Spokane retreat stayed at the Red Lion Hotel it appears Richard Curtis ended up in a room here at the Davenport Tower. The new hotel has the latest in video surveillance equipment in its lobby and major crimes detectives executed two search warrants there hoping to review Curtis’ activities in public areas of the building.

Investigators are also looking for a still unnamed man who was with the representative. The pair reportedly had consensual sex inside the hotel and later Curtis was threatened the liaison would not remain a secret unless he submitted to the extortion.

The alleged late night encounter is in sharp contrast to Curtis’ political persona. While in Olympia Curtis has voted against domestic partnerships for gay couples and opposed a bill that would have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation.

There’s an interesting little tidbit, huh? It is not clear who reported the alleged extortion, and thus launched poor, poor NOT GAY Richard Curtis into the news. Still, Curtis is going to be the center of the case, and he’s sticking to his story, this time found in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“I committed no crime,” Curtis told The Columbian newspaper of Vancouver on Monday. “I did not solicit sex. I was trying to help somebody out.”

And he declared, “I am not gay. I have not had sex with a guy.”

There’s the big headline, I think. Richard Curtis was just trying to help somebody out. It isn’t his fault if the guy created some kind of fantasy afterwards. He’s actually a good samaritan, and who are we to judge if that if during his attempt to “help somebody out” they ended up. . . naked and highly aroused.

Jesus’ General has not as yet written about this issue. I’m willing to bet he will do so soon.

This is going to go over well with the Iraqi government. Not surprisingly, the U.S. State Department and perhaps the FBI have botched (intentionally? You decide.) the investigation of the September 16th massacre in Baghdad by Blackwater. In doing so, they’ve apparently provided immunity to all of the Blackwater employees involved:

WASHINGTON - The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month’s deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, The Associated Press has learned.

As a result, it will likely be months before the United States can — if ever — bring criminal charges in the case that has infuriated the Iraqi government.

“Once you give immunity, you can’t take it away,” said a senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation…

…Three senior law enforcement officials said all the Blackwater bodyguards involved — both in the vehicle convoy and in at least two helicopters above — were given the legal protections as investigators from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security sought to find out what happened. The bureau is an arm of the State Department…

Apparently, the immunity was provided to all Blackwater personnel involved in the September 16th massacre so that the FBI and State Department could get to the bottom of the incident.

Let me ask any of the lawyers in our readership:

Why would investigators give EVERYONE involved in the incident immunity? Are Las Vegas investigators giving O.J. Simpson immunity if he spills about his kidnapping and heist of sports memorabilia? Of course not! They’re giving lower rung thugs immunity in exchange for testimony against Simpson, not O.J. himself.

Here’s what’s more maddening:

Prosecutors will have to prove that any evidence they use in bringing charges against Blackwater employees was uncovered without using the guards’ statements to State Department investigators. They “have to show we got the information independently,” one official said.

Garrity protections generally are given to police or other public law enforcement officers, and were extended to the Blackwater guards because they were working on behalf of the U.S. government, one official said. Experts said it’s rare for them to be given to all or even most witnesses — particularly before a suspect is identified.

Ay, carumba:

It’s not clear why the Diplomatic Security investigators agreed to give immunity to the bodyguards, or who authorized doing so.

These thugs covered their tracks pretty well, huh? And I’m not just talking about the Blackwater thugs.

There was a reason why Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s investigators preceded the FBI into Iraq. It’s now pretty obvious why. Blackwater has a U.S. government-issued license to kill.

Beyond the obvious implications of this story, we now have an obstruction of justice angle, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and a coverup of a war crime. Secretary Rice should be hauled before congress tomorrow, and impeachment proceedings against her should begin immediately. This goes well past incompetence, into the realm of the criminal.

If Blackwater can get away with a massacre in Iraq, be afraid. Be very damn afraid. Because if they can get away with it there, they can get away with it here.

More as this story develops…

Update, 10/30: CNN is now reporting that the State Department is denying offering full immunity to all Blackwater employees involved in the 9/16 Nissor Square massacre. Actually, what appears to be happening is that the State Department is throwing up an extremely thick smokescreen. Read the report and see what you think.

Update 2, 10/30: The smokescreen gets thicker. Now we find that the Department of State did, in fact, offer immunity to interviewed Blackwater employees. And according to the AP, State is claiming that offering immunity in these situations is routine. AP obtained the boilerplate wording for such investigations:

The waiver given to Blackwater guards reads, in part: “I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action.”

The statement sounds legally bulletproof to me. None of the Blackwater employees that signed this form will ever be subjected to prosecution in a U.S. court.