…is give war a chance.

A new group of prominent conservatives plans to begin a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign Wednesday to urge members of Congress who may be wavering in their support for the war in Iraq not to “cut and run.”

The group, Freedom’s Watch, is rolling out television, radio and Internet advertisements in more than 20 states and 60 Congressional districts.

Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, the spokesperson for the group, offers their message: “the war in Iraq can be won and Congress must not surrender.”

It is amazing how Fleischer can, in one simple sentence, offer two concepts that are entirely inappropriate for the “war in Iraq.” I won’t even quibble with the fact that Iraq is not truly a war at this point. But Fleischer mentions “winning” and “surrendering.”

When the Bush administration was lying the country into war, they painted an image for us. The U.S. would be welcomed as liberators, the oil money would pay for reconstruction, Iraq would blossom economically following the lifting of the U.N. sanctions, and democracy would take the country (indeed, the entire region) by storm following the toppling of a brutal dictator. And democracy would bring peace to the region.

Instead we see a post-invasion Iraq with unquelled violence both against the occupiers and among numerous ethnic, political, and criminal groups within Iraq. We see broken infrastructure and a dysfunctional Iraqi government that is on the verge of collapse. That original vision of “winning” has been abandoned.

So after a couple years of downgrading expectations in the face of repeated failures, what is a concrete vision for “winning” in Iraq now? Really…what concrete set of goals will define a “win” now?

Secondly, Fleischer mentions the world “surrender.” What the hell does that mean?

Traditionally, “surrendering” implies giving up to another, presumably superior, power. But there is no “superior power” in Iraq. There is no al Qaeda group, Shia or Sunni militia, or ethnic army that we could go and say, “we surrender…you won. What do you want from us?” Because right now, everyone is a loser in Iraq (except for some U.S. contractors and a handful of Iraqis that made off with billions in our cash).

Surrender? Hogwash! We couldn’t surrender if American lives depended on it.

When Republicans say “we cannot surrender,” you know they really mean? They mean that they cannot be humiliated by admitting that the pre-invasion vision was naive and the post-invasion management has been disastrously incompetent.

And so protecting their pride means that a thousand or two additional young Americans have to die in Iraq.

The State of Washington needs some pot advice. Specifically, how much marijuana constitutes a 60 day stash for medical use?

Washington’s current law, passed as a voter initiative in 1998, says folks with certain medical conditions may use marijuana to relieve pain and other problems, if their physicians approve.

A problem is that the law says patients may have a 60-day supply of marijuana, but it doesn’t define how much that would be, according to a bulletin from the Washington State Department of Health.
[…]

To define the 60-day supply and create the report, health officials are to consider research, the advice of experts, the best practices of other states and input from the public.

Here is how you can contribute:

• Come to one of our four public workshops to be held around the state in mid-September (watch the website for more details).
• E-mail us at MedicalMarijuana@doh.wa.gov
• Post your comment…. [on the web site]
• Send your comments to:
  Department of Health
  PO Box 47866
  Olympia, WA 98504-7866
• Fax your comments to (360) 236-4768

But if you do offer your expert opinion, exercise a little discretion in what you reveal about yourself. After all, the federal government still considers it a heinous crime to possess or use pot…even for medical use. It is not clear that the Washington law provides any protection from federal prosecution whatsoever.

Do I sound paranoid? If so, it isn’t for the reason you think (not a user—never have been). The feds have not backed down on prosecution for production or use of marijuana for medical use. Most recently, concerns about federal prosecution of New Mexico state employees is slowing down implementation of that state’s medical marijuana laws:

Gov. Bill Richardson ordered the state Health Department on Friday to resume planning of a medical marijuana program despite the agency’s worries about possible federal prosecution.

However, the governor stopped short of committing to implement a state-licensed production and distribution system for the drug if the potential for federal prosecution remains unchanged.

The department announced earlier this week that it would not implement the law’s provisions for the agency to oversee the production and distribution of marijuana to eligible patients. That decision came after Attorney General Gary King warned that the department and its employees could face federal prosecution for implementing the law, which took effect in July.

So just keep in mind…your emails, faxes and such sent to the State will likely be available as public records….

More information about Washington’s medical marijuana law is available at here.

Update: Lee points out: It’s important to note that the only Democratic candidate who has not publicly stated that he/she will stop using the federal government to interfere with the state medical marijuana laws is Obama. He’s allegedly said it privately to people, but is not on the public record yet.

The bottom line is that if you want to stop the federal government from interfering with our laws, vote for the Democrats (or Ron Paul).

University of Colorado—Boulder law Professor Paul Campos wrote another interesting and provocative opinion piece a few days ago. He begins by pointing out the creepy obsession that many right-wingers still have with the attacks of 11 Sept 2001:

When Stu Bykofsky, a columnist for The Philadelphia Daily News, wrote a column last week in which he openly hoped that America suffers “another 9/11,” he merely had the poor judgment to say what many a right-wing politician and pundit is thinking.

Evidence for this is everywhere: in the fact that Bykofsky was invited to appear on the GOP’s unofficial network, Fox News, to “explain” his comments; in the keen disappointment that ripples throughout the right-wing blogosphere every time the collapse of a bridge or a steam pipe explosion turns out not to have been the work of Scary Brown People Who Hate Our Freedoms; and in predictions such as that made by former Sen. Rick Santorum, that the GOP’s electoral fortunes will improve as soon as there’s another terrorist attack.

Indeed, at this point one can practically see these people wringing their hands in frustration at the apparent inability of “the terrorists” to kill a few Americans somewhere (preferably in a solidly red state, although New York or California would do in a pinch), so as to once again give war a chance.

On a local scale, we saw this same right-wing virtual adrenaline rush with salivation a little over a year ago when an American of Pakistani descent, Naveed Afzal Haq, forced his way into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle and killed one woman and wounded five others.

Matt Rosenberg was quick to label the act one of “terrorism.” He suggested this might be the outcome of…

growing advocacy of “individual terrorism” by jihadist opinion leaders….

Whether he drew inspiration from online jihadist preachers is of interest, but not necessarily crucial to the definition of individual terrorism.

This definition of “individual terrorism” is a right-wing substitute for the left-wing term “hate crime.” But right-wingers feel they get more political mileage out of it by including the term “terrorism.” Why? Because it brings back fond memories of an immediate post-9-11 period when Americans came together and didn’t ask critical questions of their political leaders. George Bush’s approval took a 35% point jump upward to 85%. Congress handed Bush almost everything he wanted, and Americans, in their collective post-9-11 foggy daze, offered no dissent.

The Haq incident initially offered right-wingers an opportunity to sell “give war a chance,” re-establish a fear of brown-skin peoples who practice that funny religion, and renew their offer to protect Americans in exchange for political power (and a few civil rights here and there).

The truth about Haq was a little more complex. The day after the shooting, it was revealed that Haq had recently converted to Christianity, going so far as to being baptized. Furthermore, Haq’s serious mental illness problems were revealed. (I couldn’t resist rewriting the hyperbolic “Islamic terrorist” script into an equally outrageous “Christian terrorist” satire.)

As an aside, the Haq incident resurfaced in the news this week, when Patrick Syring, a 20-year career Foreign Service officer was indicted for harassing and threatening employees of the Arab American Institute with phone messages and emails. Page 4 of the indictment attributes this email to Syring:

From: Pat1425@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006, 12:13 AM
To: James Zogby Helen Samhan, Nidal Ibrahim, Valerie Smith, Rebecca Abou-Chedid
Subject: AAI murders in Seattle on July 28

I condemn James Zogby and the AAI for perpetuating the murder and shootings at the Jewish Federation in Seattle on Friday July 28 (as well as the killings in Israel).

You wicked evil Hezbollah-supporting Arabs should burn in the fires of hell for eternity and beyond. The United States would be safer without you.

God Bless the State of Israel
God Bless America,

Sincerely,
Patrick in Arlington, VA.

Of course, the Arab American Institute had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting. Haq isn’t an Arab. In fact, his family isn’t even from the Middle East. And Haq had renounced Islam in his conversion to Christianity. But I digress.

Campos ends his piece with the controversial point that…

[9-11] didn’t “change everything,” and it didn’t (and doesn’t) justify the Iraq war, indiscriminate spying on Americans, extrajudicial renditions, torture, or any of the other immoral actions that continue to be done in its name.

It’s high time to stop wallowing in our obsession with what is becoming the most overblown and shamelessly exploited event in American history.

I am afraid it will be a long time before the political right can relinquish the “promise of terrorism” for achieving their political aims. But while we’re waiting, can we at least get over this nonsensical fear of carrying liquids onto planes?

Keith Olbermann analyzes Cheney’s change of heart. It seems Cheney was lying to look mainstream in 1994:

Also, the Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza is posted at Hominid Views.

Once again, Rudy stakes out a bold position on illegal immigrants. This time it is about sanctuary (but from 1996). Rudy, in his own words…:

Without question, Rudy Giuliani has a strong and solid position on immigration.

I mean, just look at what he said at a campaign speech in South Carolina two days ago: “We can end illegal immigration. I promise you, we can end illegal immigration.”

No problem. America’s favorite cross-dressing Mayor promises us he can end it…period.

He had a strong and solid position on immigration back in 1996, too….

(Via TPM Cafe.)

You mightn’t have noticed, but Goldy has been blogging from the road all this week. Tonight he called from the East Coast to report that his trusty old (ca. 2001) laptop finally bit the dust. It’s OS Nein (or OS #2) for Goldy until he returns.

A moment of silence for the character in the foreground of the photo, please.

What this means for you, loyal readers, is that your rants, raves, cease-and-desist orders, and complaints about the precious comments of yours that I’ve had the unmitigated effrontery to delete will all go unanswered by Goldy for a day or two.

It also means that if you have a great news tip, send it to Lee, Will, Geov, Carl or me until Goldy resurfaces.

Now…I offered to conduct a quick fund-raiser to help Goldy replace his mighty electronic pen. Goldy, demonstrating uncharacteristic modesty, declined my offer. (Still…he’ll need a lot of beer to mourn the loss of a trusty friend over the next few weeks, if you catch my drift….)

But here is an offer that someone just shouldn’t resist. Somewhere out there in the liberal Pacific Northwest there is a reader with a spare late-model, fully-functioning Mac that is mostly doing duty as an expensive night-light in the guest bedroom. If you are that reader, consider how much better it would be utilized fighting the good fight.

I mean, Just imagine the deep sense of pride you will feel each time Goldy posts (making use of your generous contribution) a ground-breaking piece that topples the incompetent head of a federal agency or leads to the defeat of a matricidal political candidate. And when you tune into the David Goldstein show on Saturday and Sunday nights, if you listen very closely, sometimes you will be able to hear the clickity-clack of your former laptop being broadcast into thousands of living rooms and cars….

Here is the offer part: if you do donate your Mac to Goldy and really need that night light, let me know and I’ll donate my spare to you. Really. Think about it.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for another fun-filled evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Tonight we’ll raise a toast to Republican family values—specifically, to even more Republicans realizing that they need to spend more time with their family.

Our Seattle hosts are Nick Beaudrot of Electoral Math and HorsesAss’ Lee (also at Blog Reload and EFFin’ Unsound).

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times for a chapter near you.

This video is from a 1994 interview with Dick Cheney in which he gives reasons why the U.S. did not invade Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War:

(Via Crooks and Liars.)

…because life is too short to hold it all in.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for another fun-filled evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Our Seattle hosts are Nick Beaudrot of Electoral Math and HorsesAss’ Lee (also at Blog Reload and EFFin’ Unsound).

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times for a chapter near you.

UPDATE (–Goldy):
State House Speaker Frank Chopp will be stopping by tonight. Let’s see if we can get him so ripping drunk that he publicly comes out in support of a state income tax.

Rep. Jim McDermott speaks…and offers silence:

(Also: The Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza is up.)

What kind of craziness do you get when you combine a Reagan-appointed former commandant of the Marine Corps with a former lawyer in the Reagan White House and give them space in the Washington Post to commenting on George W. Bush’s recent Executive Order on detainee treatment?

Let’s begin with the title: War Crimes and the White House.

What the…?

And the subtitle: The Dishonor in a Tortured New ‘Interpretation’ of the Geneva Conventions.

Ouch!

It gets worse for Bush from there:

But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.
[…]

Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to “interpret” Common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program “fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3,” provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency.”

In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not “done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual” — even if that is an inevitable consequence — the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.”

It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in “good faith” in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America’s clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.

Clearly, the Bush administration is finding itself sitting off in its own isolated corner of Neoconlandia.

Bush’s Executive Order is worthless under two circumstances. First, it is meaningless in the Hague and 192 other countries. War crimes are war crimes, regardless of any “Executive Order” whether from George Bush or Adolph Hitler (about which, more later).

Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are “war crimes” for which everyone involved — potentially up to and including the president of the United States — may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.

Secondly, the Executive Order is meaningless if a U.S. court declares it unconstitutional. Torturers torture at their own risk. After all, there will eventually (most likely sooner rather than later) be a new administration that isn’t driving under the influence of Cheney. And some of us expect—and will demand—that war criminals be prosecuted whether at home or abroad.

But why must we even be debating the limits of torture in America? Why do we have a President who dishonors all Americans—who injures our national sense of honor, who trashes our moral standing with the rest of the world—by parsing the Geneva Conventions in order to justify inhumane treatment of prisoners?

We’ve seen this kind of thing before–dismissal of international law in the name of national security. On 6 June 1941, Adolph Hitler signed an “Executive Order” called Instructions on the Treatment of Political Commissars (my emphasis):

In the struggle against Bolshevism, we must not assume that the enemy’s conduct will be based on principles of humanity or of international law. In particular, hate-inspired, cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners can be expected on the part of all grades of political commissars, who are the real leaders of resistance…To show consideration to these elements during this struggle, or to act in accordance with international rules of war, is wrong and endangers both our own security and the rapid pacification of conquered territory…Political commissars have initiated barbaric, Asiatic methods of warfare. Consequently, they will be dealt with immediately and with maximum severity. As a matter of principle, they will be shot at once, whether captured during operations or otherwise showing resistance.

So, replace Bolshevism with “Islamofascism,” replace political commissars with “enemy combatants,” replace Asiatic methods of warfare with “terrorism,” and you pretty much have a Bush stump speech. Of course, sometimes we ship ’em to detention centers and torture them instead of immediately shooting them, but the parallels are stunning.

I find it disgusting that my President of my America is justifying the torture of prisoners using the same rationale that Hitler used to ignore international law.

Given today’s Washington Post commentary, it looks like there are some Righties with significant concerns, too.

There can be little disagreement that the Bush administration is badly tarnishing the Republican brand. But does this damage actually affect whether or not people identify themselves as a Republican?

That is the question I examined at Hominid Views using current and historical poll data that reports party affiliation of respondents. At the national level the fraction who claim to be Democrats has been relatively stable over the last 3.5 years. But the fraction claiming to be Republican has been declining with a corresponding increase in the number of independents.

In Washington state, however, a subtly different pattern emerges over the last two years. Democratic party identity has increased substantially while both Republican and independent identity have declined. The most recent SurveyUSA poll recorded a Democratic affiliation for 40% of the respondents and Republican affiliation for 21% of the respondents. If real, that is a remarkable 2:1 advantage for Democrats!

Is this just an outlier? Perhaps this is the consequence of damage brought on by BushCo? Or maybe the Washington State Republican’s antics are causing real damage to the party?

I report, you decide. The graphical tour begins here.