Mudville Gazette

Timeline:

If any of you are interested in getting the order of events at Abu Ghraib straight, the Mudville Gazette has undertaken to construct a timeline.

The Cool Blue Blog

Killings:

Jason Steenwk at Iraq Now confirms that the US military has demonstrated two criminal homicides of Iraqi prisoners--but contented itself with "less-than-honorable" discharges instead of prison time.

It has been said that the only good thing that can possibly come out of this is for the world to learn that 'we don't tolerate this kind of thing, and punish our own.' If even that lesson is going to be learned, we need to get along with that punishment. If the military justice system is going to insist on administrative punishments for criminal homicides, the President needs to get involved personally.

Secrecy News 05/05/04

Torture & Secrecy:

The government has begun the process of shaking out the lawbreakers who were involved in the torture in Iraq. The general in charge was suspended in January; today it is reported that there have been a host of suspensions of soldiers who were not involved with torture, but who should have been involved in oversight. There are also legal charges being filed against the MPs who engaged in torture.

One set of people who may be facing charges probably did not expect to be: the people who classified the reports of torture, to give the government time to investigate before the story broke. That proves to be illegal:

But the classification may have been more than simply unnecessary. It might have been a violation of official policy, which forbids the use of secrecy to cover up crimes:

"In no case shall information be classified in order to ... conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error [or to] prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency...," according to Section 1.7 of Executive Order 12958, as amended by President Bush (EO 13292).

That section of the order states in full:

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:


(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) restrain competition; or

(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.


(b) Basic scientific research information not clearly related to the national security shall not be classified.
(c) Information may be reclassified after declassification and release to the public under proper authority only in accordance with the following conditions:


(1) the reclassification action is taken under the personal authority of the agency head or deputy agency head, who determines in writing that the reclassification of the information is necessary in the interest of the national security;
(2) the information may be reasonably recovered; and

(3) the reclassification action is reported promptly to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.


(d) Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or the mandatory review provisions of section 3.5 of this order only if such classification meets the requirements of this order and is accomplished on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation or under the direction of the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4 of this order.
(e) Compilations of items of information that are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that: (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and (2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information. As used in this order, "compilation" means an aggregation of pre-existing unclassified items of information.

Some rethinking of this law is probably in order due to the nature of the current war. This is a tricky situation. On the one hand, we need to be able to keep these kinds of problems "in-house" long enough to develop a response. The explosive nature of these charges would have been heightened if we could not point to the fact that we've been working since January to try to correct the problems. On the other, we need to prevent the government from covering up illegal activity by classifying it. It would probably be wise to alter the law to permit a short "waiting period" before an automatic declassification. That would not only prevent abuses of the secrecy system, but also light a fire under the people whose job it is to handle these investigations.

UPDATE: The ISOO has opened an investigation into this matter. Developing (slowly, as with any gov't bureaucracy).

Report (html format)

"Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003"

The annual report by the State Department is now available in HTML.

Marine Corps News> Gearing up isn't easy

Kitted Out, II:

If you thought poor Kaplan had it tough, take a look at what the Marines do. Thanks to JHD for the link.

DARPA TIDES Iraq Reconstruction Report No. 185

DARPA on Torture:

The DARPA TIDES project ("Translingual Information Detection, Extraction and Summarization" according to the homepage--I hate it when people go to that length to be clever with their acronymns) has assembled and posted comprehensive coverage of the torture allegations.

BLACKFIVE

No One Gets Left Behind:

No one:

Luci was left without a family when an Army unit departed Baghdad, said Maj. Gen. Amos. This presented the general with the perfect opportunity to assume responsibility for the courageous dog and her sole surviving puppy from a litter of five.

"Luci was working with Army Special Forces on the streets of Baghdad and over a period of time, she kept following them around whenever they went on patrols," the general said. "Luci was credited with saving their lives a couple of times because of her ability to sniff out an ambush and bark to alert them."

When 3rd MAW went into Baghdad about a month and a half ago to drop off some wounded Marines, Luci and the pup were brought out to the airplane and were taken back to Al Asad, the general said.

The Right Coast

USSC:

The Right Coast has correctly analyzed the current status of the Supreme Court:

it struck me once again that what the Supreme Court is doing is not really law, and that they are not really a court. They make policy decisions about what should be done. They are in truth a legislature composed of unelected worthies, a kind of house of lords. But if this is true, we should call them not "Justice," but something more indicative of their true function....

He has suggestions. Hat tip: Southern Appeal.

The Atlantic | May 2004 | How Do I Look? | Kaplan

Kitted Out:

Robert Kaplan has an article in the Atlantic on the subject:

I was attracted to one Web site, BotachTactical.com, which advertised "Clearance: Great Products at Blowout Prices." It offered machine-washable Point Blank Concealable Armor with removable panels. Another Web site, BulletProofME.com, offered similar vests to "put the odds back in YOUR favor."

But I didn't want concealable armor that fit under a shirt--I am not a Secret Service agent, a police detective, a convenience-store clerk in a high-crime area, a drug lord, or a Mafioso. I wanted tactical body armor that fits over a shirt or a jacket. And the array of tactical body armor offered on the Internet seemed endless.

Friends in the Marines and the Army Special Forces recommended that I buy a vest and plates that gave Level III or IV protection. With that in mind I found a Military Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) I liked for $790 at Bullet ProofME.com, and an even nicer Paraclete Modular Armor Vest--a "hybrid composite [of] Goldflex and Spectra-flex"--sold by Lightfighter.com for $1,990, with soft-armor panels and Velcro pockets for hard-armor trauma plates....

I also had to choose a color. The vests that interested me came in black, plain tan, smoke green, woodland camouflage, and desert or tricolor camouflage.... My decision was further complicated by the Marines. They wear digital cammies in a pattern different from the woodland and tricolor designs of the other services. Would they be offended if I wore woodland?

Offended? Probably not. It would only confirm what they already know, which is that you're not one of them. Go for the "smoke green."

GIs, Shiite militiamen in Najaf trade fire

AP: Iraqis Commit Suicide

In another lesson on press bias, if one were needed, we have this introductory sentence to an AP article on today's attacks:

U.S. forces in Najaf came under their most intense attack yet by Shiite militiamen in a clash Monday that may have killed up to 20 Iraqis.

You got that, right? Shi'ite militiamen led an intense attack that killed twenty of themselves.

I really miss the days of the old Army war correspondants, who would have written, "They attacked us heavily, but we killed about twenty of them." Failing that, could we at least have "In spite of their most intense effort yet to engage US forces directly, the Shi'ite militias were handily repulsed, with up to twenty fruitlessly throwing their lives away in a battle against US soldiers."

The Liberal Conspiracy - Satire, Informed Commentary and 9-11 Research

Prisoner Torture:

Sovay has a collection of headlines from the Arab and Iranian press on the torture story. There is, of course, no surprise that the headlines in the state-run papers are exceptionally outraged. It is indeed ironic to see Iranian papers trumpeting "Their True Face!", or Egyptian ones calling it "The Scandal!" Saudi papers likewise, right? These guys are among the worst torturers in the world. Their outrage must be wholly manufactured, musn't it?

Certainly the physical torture revealed is rather less strenuous than what is practiced by Arab states. If you'd like some details on what kind of tortures that would be, consider pages nine and ten of the Qaeda manual warning "brothers" what sort of tortures they should expect if captured. All of what was done and far worse is on offer, both physical, psychological and sexual.

All of it, that is, except one thing. The photos of the grinning servicewoman pointing to a masturbating man must be genuinely horrifying to Middle Eastern society. Out of all the rest of it, only two bad conclusions can come: first, that America is hypocritical, which most already believe; and second, that American democracy is no better than their own forms of government, which many already believe. Both points can be largely undone by a public and severe punishment of the offenders. I favor capital punishment, as I always do in cases of rape by uniformed servicemen overseas, which are treason as much as they are rapes. A swift and harsh punishment--even if it is "only" Leavenworth--will undo a great deal of the damage.

The reversal of sexual roles, though, can't be fixed. The damage done by that photograph will outstrip all the others, because in a very real way it points to a truth about America. It isn't true that we engage in routine torture, or that we tolerate it; it isn't true that our government is no better than Iran's or Egypt's. It is true, however, that we intend to totally destroy the sexual order of Islam in the Middle East. The servicewoman, dressed in a military uniform instead of a veil, placed in power over men, abusing them sexually--that violation will haunt our campaign forever.

International News Article | Reuters.com

German Leader Gives Finger to US, Kerry:

In a jab-cross combination, the German Defense Minister, Peter Struck, has managed to slug both American interests generally and John Kerry in particular. This combination was the result of German military plans for the future announced today:

German Defense Minister Peter Struck said Germany will stop protecting U.S. military bases in the country at the end of 2004 and would not send troops to help a NATO force police Iraq, a newspaper reported Sunday....

Some 2,500 German soldiers have protected U.S. barracks and other installations from attack since the start of 2003 because many U.S. troops stationed in Germany -- who would normally have performed the task themselves -- are now in Iraq.

Struck also said Germany would not take part in any prospective NATO security force in Iraq once the U.S.-led coalition transfers sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government at the end of June.

"It seems highly uncertain if and when NATO will be asked for support," said Struck. "Whatever the case, Germany will not take part in it. The army will only provide special aircraft to transport wounded if this proves necessary."

This announcement follows a week in which Kerry made NATO involvement the centerpiece of his speech on Iraq. Kerry said that "the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role." Germany's response is already on the table: "Don't bother."

May Day

May Day:

May and October are the finest of months.

One morning in May by chance I did rove,
I sat myself down by the side of a grove,
And there did I hear the sweet nightingale sing,
I never heard so sweet as the birds in the Spring.

All on the green grass I sat myself down
Where the voice of the nightingale echoed around;
Don't you hear how she quivers the notes? I declare
No music, no songster with her can compare.

Come all you young men, I'll have you draw near,
I pray you now heed me these words for to hear,
That when you're grown old you may have it to sing,
That you never heard so sweet as the birds in the Spring.

-Traditional English ballad

Robin Hood is said to have died on May Day. That is a tragedy considering how much all the old tales suggest he enjoyed the month.

But how many months be in the year?
There are thirteen, I say;
The midsummer moon is the merryest of all
Next to the merry month of May.

IN summer time, when leaves grow green,
And flowers are fresh and gay,
Robin Hood and his merry men
Were [all] disposed to play.

Then some would leap, and some would run,
And some use artillery:
'Which of you can a good bow draw,
A good archer to be?

'Which of you can kill a buck?
Or who can kill a doe?
Or who can kill a hart of grease,
Five hundred foot him fro?

In honor of the old greenwood, and the beginning of summer, let me encourage you all to follow a piece of advice. Get some good beer or some sweet wine. Get away to the forest as much as you can before the heat of summer.

The birds still sing for us, after all. Grim's Hall is devoted, in part, to the heroic life. It used to be that learning to understand the speech of birds was the mark of a hero. Sigurd gained the ability after tasting the blood of a dragon slain. Fionn Mac Cumhaill had the same ability from tasting a magic fish. Rigsthula tells us that the Norse god Heimdall fathered a son destined to give rise to the lords of the North, who had this ability from youth. J.R.R. Tolkien invoked these old legends in The Hobbit, where Bard the Bowman, unknowingly the son of kings, finds a thrush whispering in his ear.

Many believe that these old stories arise from a woods-lore that was taught among the Northmen, which allowed them to anticipate ambushes. It may also be related to the interpretation of bird-flight that plays so strong a role in the other Indo-European epics, especially the Odyssey.

In any event, it is a skill that is worth cultivating. It is no small thing, these days, to be able to identify a bird by her song. There is a great deal to learn, and we have in May a few fine days to spend. Such days are too rare, and such joys, too few.

Belmont Club

Belmont Club:

Once again, the Belmont Club has a strong analysis of the situation in Fallujah. (Hat tip: Black Five). Of particular importance is this CENTCOM statement on the new Fallujah brigades.

The creation of native forces, and their integration into operations, is characteristic of Marine counterinsurgency. I would like to believe that is what is happening here. However, as yet I am not certain where the orders for this "Fallujah brigade" arose. If it's a component part of Marine strategy, it will probably work out well. If it's an imposition from civilian authorities, it will almost certainly work out badly.

Still, there is reason to hope. The presence of a popular local commander can be a solvent to dissolve the existing opposition groups. They will then reform under him. If he is indeed allied to the Coalition, this could be just the trick. If he is not, however, you will have a unified enemy force with better leadership and popular legitimacy. When the time comes to break it, breaking it will be that much harder. For better or for worse, the general of this force is now a popular hero in Fallujah, and a man we'll be dealing with at high levels from now on.

NATO may not have enough troops for Iraq: Powell

Powell, CFR: NATO Doesn't Have the Troops

Also from Secretary of State Powell, we have a statement on NATO involvement in Iraq:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell called Thursday for increased NATO involvement in Iraq but said he doubted that the Atlantic alliance had many troops available to contribute.

"Some 16 of the 26 nations of NATO are in Iraq in some capacity and I'm not sure there is a great reservoir of troops left in NATO," Powell said during a visit to Denmark where he met with Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller.

Powell suggested however that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which currently has only a small logistical support operation in Iraq to back Polish-led multinational coalition forces, could contribute by increasing its logistical support.

The ones not in Iraq are, as mentioned below, involved in operations elsewhere. NATO is tapped out. This is not only my reading, but that of the Council on Foreign Relations:

Does NATO have enough resources to take on all these new missions [in Afghanistan]?

Not without difficulty, many experts say. Most NATO nations have small military budgets--and in many cases military spending is declining, says Michael Peters, an expert on NATO affairs and executive vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Only a handful of NATO nations--France, Germany, Britain, Turkey, and Poland--have the capacity to field significant numbers of troops, and cash-strapped Poland and Turkey require financial assistance to do so, Peters says. Ongoing Balkans deployments involving some 40,000 personnel already strain the capacity of some NATO members. NATO's focus for now is getting Afghanistan "absolutely right... because it's somewhere we cannot possibly fail before we start looking at other elements," Robertson said October 9.

There are the bald facts.

Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source for the Middle East

SPENGLER:

This piece on PSYOPS by the man known only as "SPENGLER" was suggested to me. It's from the Asia Times. I'm not sure what I think of it yet, but it's an interesting argument.

U.S. Newswire - Remarks of Senator John Kerry at Westminster College

John Kerry: The Problem of Platitudes:

Today the Honorable Senator Kerry spoke at Westminster, giving a policy address on Iraq. It was rich in political platitudes, almost religious in its veneration for international institutions, but demonstrated a failure of understanding.

Earlier this month the Hall held discussions on the options in Iraq. Essentially, I suggested, there were three--"big war," "small war," or failure. Senator Kerry has three options as well:

One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it's not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn't happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world's major powers invested with us in building Iraq's future.

The Senator's preference is rhetorically obvious. He therefore suggests we proceed:

[W]e must do the hard work to get the world's major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.

Does he really mean that he wants to invite China to share the military responsibilities in Iraq? No, of course not. Neither China nor Russia will be invited to do any such thing. Both of them are involved in their own counterinsurgency fighting against Muslim guerrillas, Russia in Chechnya and China in Xinjiang province (also known as East Turkmenistan). Their counterinsurgency doctrines are brutal on an order that no Western government could support, nor would we.

They are also wasteful of lives. In the campaign for the city of Grozny, the Russians lost thousands of soldiers. This demonstrates a second problem with this line of thought: the degree to which "internationalizing" the military problems in Iraq is possible is limited by technology and training. Neither Russia nor China is capable of joint force operations with the United States. Their training is not compatible with ours; their technology is not either. None of the MOUT techniques that the US Marines use is available to them. Indeed, their communications systems are so incompatible with our own that we would have a serious technical problem communicating at all.

The Coalition has been dealing with lesser versions of this problem all along. The reason that the Latin American armies have been combined into a single unit under Spanish command is not that they all speak Spanish. It is that the units from Latin America are largely unequipped for joint operations. As such, they have been stationed to do peacekeeping in the most secure parts of Iraq. Even Polish forces, after a decade of American efforts to bring them up to NATO standards, have had to operate largely separate from the joint command. When al-Sadr's armies attacked in several cities at once, the Poles were caught by surprise because their communications infrastructure is still not able to be completely tied in to our own. They don't get the full benefits of American C4I (command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence) techniques. This makes them vunerable, and unsuitable to support US units directly.

Inviting the Security Council to "share the military burden" is not an option. France, alone on the security council, both could send useful forces and has not already done so.

Senator Kerry:

The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.

Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others.

In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role. NATO is now a global security organization and Iraq must be one of its global missions.

To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to. He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission-a mission consistent with the principles of collective security that have formed the basis of the alliance's remarkable history in the pursuit of peace and security.

NATO is indeed a global security organization. The only problem with this suggestion is that NATO is stretched far thinner than US forces. NATO is already leading the International Security force in Kabul (ISAF), and devoting large numbers of forces--both land and naval--to the combined antiterror task forces operating around the Horn of Africa. The German government has taken the lead in both matters, but the French are also involved, particularly in Africa. It is not clear that NATO can devote units of the size necessary to take over combat operations in even a small part of Iraq without devolving their commitment elsewhere. That is to say, "internationalizing" Iraq by bringing in NATO means nationalizing efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Of course, that could be worthwhile, if we need them more in Iraq. But again, almost all the countries in NATO have already sent forces to Iraq. You can compare NATO membership with Combined Joint Task Force 7, which handles joint operations in Iraq. You will quickly realize two things: first, Kerry is simply mistaken to assert that we are acting 'largely by ourselves,' or that NATO members aren't already involved. Second, the number of countries in NATO which haven't sent forces to Iraq is very small--and they have sent forces, instead, to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I said earlier this month that Kerry seems to have no strategy for Iraq beyond "Call for Reinforcements!" That is, sadly, confirmed by today's policy address. There is a lot about the need for foreign troops (which, as I noted above, demonstrates a lack of understanding about the problems of using foreign troops). There is nothing at all about what would be done with those troops when they got to Iraq. Nothing. Would we adopt a policy of seeking terrorist havens abroad? Would we try to control the Iraqi cities, leaving the deserts to the enemy? Would we try to seal the borders? Kerry has nothing to say about it at all. He scorns the idea that we should trust in "more of the same," but he has no alternative.

This same failure of thought infects his speech on the topic of Iraqi forces:

We need a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed: it must be rethought and reformed. Training cannot be hurried. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. They cannot be rushed into battle before they are ready.

"It must be rethought and reformed," he says. Well, sir, are you not the opposition candidate? What have you been doing these last nine months? We know, if I may be excused the jab, that you have not been taken up with your sworn duties in the Senate.

Does Kerry wish to adopt re-Ba'athification? Does he wish to turn the process of training over from the current trainers to someone else? If so, who? Other than taking his time--a commodity not readily available--and having "international security" to stand over their shoulders, what exactly would he do differently? He does not say.

He has many generous things to say about the United Nations, and although I see little reason to share his high opinion of the organization, I'll assume he believes it all. I will let the Senator pass on his jab at the lack of armed hummers without bothering to look up whether or not he voted against funding them. I will give him credit for having grown in his office, for he now asserts his strong preference for Democracy, when once he seemed rather unsure that it was preferable.

Even granting that, this speech was sad. One is left to assume that Kerry believes that Bush's arrogance is solely responsible for the share of the burden American forces carry. One is left to assume he knows nothing whatever about the challenges of joint operations with international forces. One must assume that he does not have an opinion on what strategy we ought to adopt, or what the relative benefits and hazards of each might be.

A man who thinks in platitudes does not think. If the Senator wishes to be taken seriously on these great questions, he must take the questions seriously. Now the sole voice of the opposition, he has the obligation to offer a fully formed alternative. He has not yet begun.

IIS

A New Iraqi National Intelligence Service:

The Coalition Provisional Authority has issued permission to the Iraqi Governing Council for the formation of a new intelligence service. If you are curious, the INIS charter is available online. Certain items of interest:

* The INIS is empowered to collect intelligence "and conduct related intelligence activities" in cases of "threats to the national security," terrorism, insurgency, WMD, narcotics, organized crime, or counterintelligence. That is a much broader scope of power than is granted US intelligence agencies.
* Curiously, the charter states that any dissemination of intelligence outside of the Iraqi government will be "strictly limited to what is essential to the national security of Iraq." I suppose that means that we will not be seeing any INIS data unless we can convince the future government that their national security requires ponying up.
* In theory, the INIS will be banned from acting against established political parties, and will be required to observe human rights.
* The INIS will be subject to oversight by the legislature. (Chp. 7, passim).
* INIS members cannot hold legislative or other political office in the new Iraq. (Chp. 11, Ar. 39)
* Chp. 3, Art. 13 states plainly that there will be no "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement, but instead requires immediate notification of probable criminal offenses to the law enforcement branches for prosecution.

Taken together, this looks like the foundation for a very powerful secret police and intelligence service. Such is doubtless required by the circumstances in Iraq, but it will bear watching.

Senator Zell Miller - Printer Friendly Document

Repeal the 17th?

Senator Zell Miller has introduced legislation to the Senate that would fundamentally alter the way Senators are elected. It would, that is, restore the fashion in which they were chosen under the original Constitution:

[N]o matter who you send to Washington -- for the most part smart and decent people -- it is not going to change much.

The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic.

It is the system that stinks. And it's only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists.

Perhaps then the answer is a return to the original thinking of those wisest of all men, and how they intended for this government to function.

Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this generation of leaders some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, dead, dead. It isn't even on life support. That line on the monitor went flat sometime ago.

You see, the reformers of the early 1900's killed it dead and cremated the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. senators.

Up until then, U.S. senators were chosen by state legislatures, as Madison and Hamilton had so carefully crafted.

Direct elections of senators, as good as that sounds, allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it's filling judicial vacancies or issuing regulations.

The state governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along with the popular fad of the time.... As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other.

The election of U.S. senators by the state legislatures was the linchpin that guaranteed the interests of the states would be protected.

Today, state governments have to stand in line. They are just another one of many, many special interests that try to get senators to listen to them. And they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC.

Miller is under no illusions about this bill's chances:

So, having now jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality, before I hit the water and go 'splat,' I have introduced a bill that would repeal the 17th Amendment. I use the word 'would,' not 'will,' because I know it doesn't stand a chance of getting even a single co-sponsor, much less a single vote beyond my own.

Abraham Lincoln, as a young man, made a speech in Springfield, Illinois, in which he called our founding principles 'a fortress of strength,' but warned that they 'would grow more and more dim by the silent artillery of time.'

A wise man, that Lincoln, who understood and predicted all too well the fate of our republic and our form of government.

It is true, of course, that the bill will not even get a co-sponsor. It seems a bit odd, and a little sad, that there should be that little support for the founding principles of the Republic. You'd like to see at least a few Senators ready to stand up and fight for them, even if they're doomed to lose.

Maybe the plan even deserves to lose--this is the first time I've heard the suggestion, and would want time to consider it before choosing a side. Still, it's not a bad idea to formally reconsider the major changes to our Republic once in a while, and whether or not they've had effects baleful or healthful. There is no interest in doing so, not even in the Senate--that glorious debating society we learned about in school has no time for this debate, nor any similar one.

IRAQ NOW ...... Media Analysis With A Sense of Insurgency

SOA:

Congratulations to everyone involved with the Spirit of America blog war! As you have probably seen elsewhere, the combined efforts of the blogs raised more than $50,000 for the Marines. Outstanding work, all.