Telling Stories

Post Racial? Not so Fast

To those of you naive enough to believe that Obama's election had moved us past racial discrimination, here's a little reminder that we've still got a long way to go:

After spending eleven days in a federal custody following their arrests for allegedly a torching a predominately black church Nov. 5, three Springfield men were released Monday on $100,000 bail each.

That's Springfield, Massachusetts.  I know that Springfield is kind of dumpy, but it's still one of the bluest of the blue States.  If this can happen here, it can still happen anywhere.

The Pentecostal church was burned down a few hours after Barack H. Obama was elected as the nation's first black president.

Quick aside: notice how, all of a sudden it's OK to use Obama's middle initial and middle name?

In documents unsealed after the trio's arrest, an FBI agent said two of the defendants expressed racial motives for setting fire to the 18,000 square-foot building. . .

The three men face a 10-year minimum mandatory prison sentence if convicted on civil rights arson charge.

You can cure racist.  But in the case of this threesome, you can't cure stupid.

We Is Dumb!

Via Political Wire:

Newsweek poll: "Even today, more than four years into the war in Iraq, as many as four in ten Americans (41 percent) still believe Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11, even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection. A majority of Americans were similarly unable to pick Saudi Arabia in a multiple-choice question about the country where most of the 9/11 hijackers were born. Just 43 percent got it right -- and a full 20 percent thought most came from Iraq."

Not only is there no evidence, most of the evidence points somewhere else.  There's more from the Newsweek poll itself:

Closer to home, more Americans are able to name Jordin Sparks as the winner of the most recent season of American Idol (18 percent) than can identify John Roberts as the Supreme Court’s chief justice (11 percent). . . Roughly half (53 percent) are aware that Judaism is an older religion than both Christianity and Islam (41 percent aren’t sure). . .  Americans could only answer one of our three science and medicine questions correctly: 54 percent seemed to know that the human brain does not stop producing new neurons until after the age of 65. Only 15 percent, however, are aware that childbirth kills one woman a minute each day around the world. A quarter (28 percent) mistakenly thinks the top killer of women is AIDS and more than half (54 percent) thought it was heart attacks. Furthermore, only a small minority (17 percent) correctly chose “greater output from the sun” from a list of items as the lone factor that does not contribute to global warming (with 65 percent mistakenly believing that rice patties are not a contributing factor). . .  Less than half of the poll’s respondents (45 percent) know that South Korea is closer to Japan than Vietnam, the Philippines and Australia. Close to twothirds (64 percent) do know that the Amazon River is in South America. And despite Iraq’s ongoing relevance to current events, just half (50 percent) could select Libya as the only country out of a list of four that doesn't border it.

President Arbusto posed the question "is our children learning?"  I guess the answer is "No.  We is dumb indeed!"

Tags: Current Affairs

A Coup? Really? Why Don't I Believe It?

UPDATE 4:35PM EDT - Yeah, like this is the kind of shot-in-the-arm that Mahmud Abbas is looking for or needs:

US President George W. Bush was "profoundly concerned" and called for a halt to the clashes, his spokesman told reporters in Washington, while US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Abbas to express support.

He might have well said "you're doing a heckuva job, Abbie!"

 

Via CNN.com:

"Gaza is now officially out of our control as the Palestinian Authority," said [Palestinian legislator Saeb] Erakat, who is aligned with the Fatah party. He blamed a "renegade force" in Gaza for staging a "major coup d'etat."

Emphasis added.

There's just one minor problem with that characterization.  Hamas actually won the elections back in January, remember?

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan. 26 -- The radical Islamic movement Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament, according to official election results announced Thursday, trouncing the governing Fatah party in a contest that could dramatically reshape the Palestinians' relations with Israel and the rest of the world.

In Wednesday's voting, Hamas claimed 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats, giving the party at war with Israel the right to form the next cabinet under the Palestinian Authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah.

How badly beaten was Fatah?

Here in Ramallah, a Fatah stronghold where Hamas won every parliamentary seat except the one reserved for a Christian, dozens of activists from both parties clashed in front of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as the parliament is formally known.

Emphasis added.

Let me be clear on one thing: I don't support terrorists or terrorism no matter how much I may agree with the underlying political statement they make.  In Hamas' case, they can either engage in an all-out, life-or-death struggle against Israel or they can accept that Israel is there, exists, and whatever future Palestine is to have will have to incorporate that reality.

That said, how stupid was Israel and the U.S. by demanding free elections in Palestine and not be prepared to deal with this outcome.  That's what freedom is: you choose what you want.  And whatever the reasons behind Hamas' success - which have more to do with Fatah's corruption than with any greater animosity towards Israel - you can't tell them "your choices are Fatah or Hamas, but you can't support Hamas."  That was just plain idiotic.

This is not a "coup."  This is what happens when you give people "bull****" Democracy instead of the real thing.  Now, everyone will have to deal with a polarized, militarized,and extremist Palestinian territory in an already shaky region.

Tags: Current Affairs

Apologists

I don't care for Ruben Navarrete's columns.  They are not bad, but they are not much good either.  They are like may other op-ed columns out there.  Like a bad B-movie.  You know who the good guys are, you know who the bad guys are, and you know how things are going to turn out.  And, usually, I just skim through his op-ed pieces, roll my eyes, shrug my shoulders, and move on, mildly resenting the waste of time.  But, as a Latino, I have to call him out on his latest column because I really don't care for apologists.

You see, Ruben is having a cow about the fact that, as he puts it,

In the flap over the ousted U.S. attorneys, Alberto Gonzales has been hoisted up as a political piñata.

And why?  Because Gonzo doesn't deserve it.  But how do you know he's about to draw the "ethnic" card (since we Latinos come in all colors, saying the "race" card wouldn't make much sense here).

The nation's first Hispanic attorney general is being pressured to resign by -- pick 'em -- Democrats trying to make hay, an elite media that long opposed him, civil libertarians who condemn administration policy on detainees and wiretaps, conservatives who think Gonzales is too liberal, and liberals who think he's too conservative.

And just for good measure he throws in the one term certain to frame the whole thing in racial/ethnic terms.

Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy.

Remember when now-Associate Supreme Court Justice Thomas was all up in arms in the Senate, describing the one extra day of hearings as "high-tech lynching"?  Well, here you have it again.  They want Gonzo's head because he's Latino.

I've interviewed Gonzales twice since he became attorney general. During the last interview, which took place three weeks ago in San Diego -- that is, before the controversy erupted -- I asked about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He told me what he has told others: It was about performance. . . As a political columnist, I cover liars for a living. And yet, I'd say Gonzales is pretty much as advertised by his old friend, President Bush: an honorable public servant.

Now I feel much better!  I mean, if Ruben says he's a great guy, then he must be, right?  Well, Ruben may not remember this since it happened about two years ago - some people in the media have a problem looking that far back - but, wasn't President Bush also saying that Mike Brown was doing " a heckuva job" right after Katrina?  And, didn't Mike Brown get fired because, well, because somebody had to be fired and he was as responsible as anyone else?

And it was this "honorable public servant" who drafted those infamous memos saying that unless you're about to kill or permanently maim someone, it's not torture.  And the same "honorable public servant" who said that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to prisoner combatants and need not be accorded any due process, a conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court partially reversed in  Hamdan.  And he's now rightfully raked over the coals because, as the White House and some Republicans in the House and Senate wanted these eight U.S. Attorneys to set aside their professional judgment and independence and prosecute politically motivated cases before the 2006 mid-term elections, he - at a minimum - failed to protect his people and possibly facilitated their job termination.

But, you see, Ruben doesn't even discuss the reason Alberto Gonzalez is on the brink of being fired or quitting from his job.  No, for Ruben it's all about how all these forces - the media, the liberals, the conservatives, and the whites - are trying to get rid of this earnest, honest, son of Mexican immigrants.

It may be that he made a whopper [of a mistake] here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.

Sure, Ruben.  Don't let the facts get in the way of a good racist conspiracy theory.  But what's really annoying is his conclusion:

Well, if they succeed in running him off without a fair hearing, many Hispanics won't forget the shoddy treatment afforded this grandson of Mexican immigrants. You watch. Democrats will have to intensify their efforts to win Hispanic votes in the 2008 elections. And there's not that much chips and salsa on the planet.

Wait a minute, wasn't Ruben saying that conservatives were also out to get Gonzo?  Yup.  It's right up there on the very first quote.  Right after the civil libertarians.  So, if conservatives AND liberals want him out, what are we, oh poor uneducated Hispanics to do?

For one thing, not pay attention to a word this jerk says or has to say or will say on this or anything else.  Second, though the facts are somewhat inconvenient, we Latinos have already shown how much we can contribute to America.  I wonder if these names ring a bell with Ruben: labor leaders?  Cesar Chavez.  Politics?  Illeana Ros-Lehtien, Nydia Velazquez, Jose Serrano, etc.  Surgeon General?  Antonia Novello.  Novelists?  Oscar Hijuelos, Esperanza Santiago.  Religious leaders?  Sor Isolina Ferre, The Most Reverend Patrick F. Flores.  Astronaut?  Ellen Ochoa (without diapers, either).  Prominent attorneys?  Check.  Prominent judges? Check.

You see, Ruben, we Latinos harbor any illusions that everyone accepts us everywhere all the time.  The beauty of this Country is that we can succeed and be productive in spite of it.  We don't need you or anyone else to make apologies for us.

And you don't need to make apologies for Gonzo.  What he did was unacceptable, even without taking into consideration all the other questionable stuff he has done before.  And it would have been just as unacceptable had he been White.  Or African-American.  Or Asian-American.  Or purple with white polka dots.

Tags: Politics, Latino Matters, Current Affairs, Bad Media

"I Won't Grow Up . . .I Won't Grow Up . . ."

Peter Pan is most appropriate, since we seem to have a President who believes that if he repeats the same lie long enough, not only will people believe him, it may even come true!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Four years after President Bush ordered U.S.-led forces to attack Iraq, the president said Monday it would be a mistake to withdraw American troops before the nation's capital is secure.

First it was "before we defeat the terrorists," then "before we leave a stable government," and now "before the nation's capital is secure."  That's  rel="tag" href="http://technorati.com/tag/Curthe new measure of success?  Forget what's going on in the rest of Iraq.  If Baghdad is secure, this BUFU will be over!

"There's been good progress," Bush said during brief remarks at the White House. "There's a lot more work to be done and Iraq's leaders must continue to work to reach the benchmarks they have set forward."

"Good progress."  Another Bushism.  I don't know of any "bad progress," do you?  Unless this is what he has in mind as "bad progress."

The latest reports of Iraq violence Monday included six explosions in oil-rich Kirkuk which killed at least 10 people and wounded 37, police said, and a bomb blast at a Baghdad mosque that left six dead.

The Kirkuk blasts included four car bombs and two roadside bombs, police said. The car bombs targeted an Iraqi police patrol, an education directorate building, a mobile phone company, and an empty building once used by a political party, according to police.

About 150 miles (240 kilometers) to the south of Kirkuk in Baghdad, a bomb exploded at a Shiite mosque killing six people and wounding 32 others, a city police official said.

Attackers hid the bomb near an entrance to the mosque, the official said, which is called al-Hussein Bin Rooh. The blast hollowed out a crater in the floor of the mosque, smashed windows, and damaged a wall, according to The Associated Press.

Or this.

In Dujaila, about 115 miles (185 kilometers) southeast of the capital, abductors kidnapped and killed the town's mayor, Khalaf Ghargan, according to an official for the province of Wasit.

Or this.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Bombers detonated three chlorine-filled trucks in Anbar province, the U.S. military said Saturday.

The attacks killed two police officers and sickened about 350 Iraqis and six coalition force members, the military said.

The bombs went off within three hours Friday afternoon and evening in three different locations: a checkpoint north of Ramadi, Anbar's capital; Amiriya, about 10 miles (16 kilometers) south of Falluja; and the Albu Issa region just south of Falluja.

About 250 Iraqis were sickened by chlorine in Albu Issa and 100 in Amiriya. A coalition service member and an Iraqi were injured at the checkpoint near Ramadi, and two police officers were killed in Amiriya.

"Good progress."  "Mission accomplished."  "Bring it on."  "Axis of evil."  "If you're not with us you're against us."  They all remind me of Matthew 15:10-11:

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into your mouth does not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, that is what defiles you."

Tags: Politics, Iraq, Current Affairs, BUFU

"The Big, Ugly Fuck-Up"

You know, sometimes people waste their time on the most stupid, idiotic, and useless things.

(StoryTeller's Note: It seems like I'm having one of those "little tolerance" kind of days).

Take this for example

Pentagon: 'Civil war' inadequate term for Iraq war

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Pentagon report said some elements of the war in Iraq fit the definition of civil war, but the term "does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict."

The report cites Shiite-on-Shiite violence; al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and "widespread criminally motivated violence" as features that complicate the designation of civil war.

Well, I looked here for a definition of "civil war" and this is what I found.

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side. . .  Ultimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or any other name may be arbitrary, and is determined by usage.

So there's no consensus as to what is a civil war but if you follow the 1,000/100 rule, you might have a civil war in Iraq.  Of course, we'd need to make sure that 100 Kurds get killed to have all of our bases covered.  However, since there's no consensus on what is a "civil war" and the Pentagon seems to have some reservations about using this term, I suggest we start referring to the fighting in Iraq as . . . . (drum roll, please . . .)

The Big, Ugly Fuck-Up

or the BUFU (and this is not a veiled reference to or slight of FUBU merchandise.  The acronym just turned out that way).  So, from now on, I'll start referring to the war in Iraq as the BUFU.

Now that we've settled on a name and a military acronym to go with it, can we start talking about what to do about it?

Tags: Politics, Iraq, Current Affairs, BUFU

Protecting People From Their Own Stupidity

I have a tough time with people who should know better.  And with people who obviously don't know enough.  Or don't have enough common sense.  Or both.  I can suffer fools because I'm a nice guy, generally.  But that doesn't mean I don't want to cut their skulls open to see if there's a brain in there or just a hamster on an exercise wheel.

Which brings me to one of today's New York Times' op-ed pieces titled "Homeowners at Risk."  It's all about the danger of subprime lending in housing.  I suspected what subprime lending was but I wasn't quite aware how it impacted the housing market.  So I did a search and found this article from the Boston Globe, which summarizes it nicely.

The [Mass.] administration said it wants to step up regulation of so-called subprime lenders, who are responsible for much of the increase in foreclosure filings, by requiring lending officers working in a loan broker's office to obtain a state license. A $250 licensing fee applied to more than 30,000 lending officers statewide would generate more than $7 million to hire more state loan-company examiners and create a rescue fund for homeowners struggling to save their property.

Emphasis added.  Er, lenders responsible for foreclosure?  Isn't it the borrower's responsibility to make the payments?

Subprime loans carry higher interest rates than traditional loans to offset the risk of lending to customers with poor credit or big debts. The most common subprime loan has a "teaser" rate that rises sharply two years into the loan, causing payments to increase and pushing many borrowers into foreclosure.

Emphasis added.  See, this is why I'm flipping out over this: you know you have debts, or poor credit, or both.  You know how much you make.  You know how much disposable income you have.  You know you're getting a low initial rate that will be much higher in two years.  Can you figure out how much you'll be paying monthly two years from now?  Yes, pretty much.  You may not know about property taxes but they usually don't go up by much - unless you have your property reassessed.  Then, who knows?  But as far as the mortgage goes, yes you can figure out how much you'll be making.  You would also have a pretty good idea of what your other expenses are going to be, e.g., water, electric & gas, cable, telephone, etc. 

With all this information available to you as a prospective homeowner, you will be in a position to know whether you can afford this house or not, if you only bother to do the math.

But this is what the Times had to say about it:

The personal tragedy is only the start. Borrowers presently faced with losing their homes stand to lose $164 billion of wealth in the process. Whole communities pay the price. Foreclosures tend to cluster in neighborhoods, leading to sharp declines in property values, business investment and tax revenues.

Responding to the mortgage bankers’ grim report, Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Banking Committee and a presidential hopeful, broached the possibility of federal help for struggling homeowners. The most plausible relief measures — detailed in a new report by the Center for American Progress, a liberal research and advocacy group — involve federal boosts to existing state and local programs. Those include counseling to help strapped families plan for rising monthly payments and renegotiate their loans, legal aid and short-term loans for eligible borrowers. One study shows that a federal grant of $25 million could replicate proven local programs in other areas now experiencing spikes in foreclosures.

Emphasis added.  It cracks me up.  If you're some dude who got a mortgage too big for your britches and now you stand to lose your house because you weren't careful enough to make sure you could afford it, then spending money on you to bail you out is a good idea.  But if you're some poor bastard who never had a chance in life, dropped out of school and generally don't have the tools to move forward, trying to help you get on your feet is called "welfare" if you're a woman, you're stigmatized and called a "welfare Queen" and if you're a guy everyone expects you to be unreliable and to fail because, well, you haven't succeeded at anything greater than tying your shoes and buttoning your shirt.

Listen, I do want to make a distinction between the family that buys a house and then something unexpected and unforeseeable happens - loss of job, illness and medical expenses - and people too stupid to realize they are biting more than they can chew.  The former deserve all the help in the world because, well, stuff happens and it's stuff beyond their control.

I have very little sympathy for the latter.  What the states and the feds need to do in this case is this:

NOTHING

Let the mortgages go in default.  Let the lenders foreclose on the property.  Painful?  Absolutely.  Will it wreck their credit?  Not more so than it already has.  Will all those lenders stuck with foreclosed properties go under?  Maybe most of them.  And that will be a good thing.

I get a laugh at all the brokerage websites when they say "contact us and within X minutes we'll tell you how much house you can afford!"  If you have your basic $5.00 calculator, you can have a good idea of how much house you can afford.  If you can pay for your bills, the mortgage, the taxes, utilities, and upkeep and still have a little bit of money left over to set aside for a rainy day, you can afford the house.  If you can't meet those obligations, you can't afford the house.  Period.

Sometimes the best way to keep these things from happening again is to let the shit hit the fan and let the chips fall where they may.

Tags: Current Affairs

"So This is the New Year . . ."

                "So this is the new year."

The unofficial video of [Saddam's] execution, filmed on the mobile cell phone of one of the officials present is sure to further inflame sectarianism, because it is clearly a Shia execution. Men are heard talking, one of them is called Ali. As the executioners argue over how to best position the rope on his neck Saddam calls out to god, saying, "ya Allah." Referring to Shias, one official says "those who pray for Muhamad and the family of Muhamad have won!" Others triumphantly respond in the Shia chant: "Our God prays for Muhamad and the family of Muhamad." Others then add the part chanted by supporters of Muqtada al Sadr: "And speed his (the Mahdi's) return! And damn his enemies! And make his son victorious! Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!"

                "And I don't feel any different."

Time to Reflect As Iraq Toll Hits 3,000

Perhaps no place illustrates the toll of the Iraq war more vividly than Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery. In this "garden of stone," in ruler-straight rows, rest one-tenth of the Iraq war's American dead, whose number has reached 3,000.

                "The clanking of crystal"

Russia and Belarus said on Monday they had signed a gas price deal after last-minute negotiations beat a midnight deadline, averting potential supply disruptions to Europe. "A mid-term agreement was reached on gas prices to Belarus and on transit shipments to Europe," Gazprom boss Alexei Miller told a press briefing at the Russian gas monopoly's headquarters.

       "Explosions off in the distance (in the distance)"

Iran vows to 'humiliate' U.S.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad scorned U.N Security Council sanctions imposed against Iran, telling a crowd Tuesday that Iran had humiliated the United States in the past and would do so again.

(Lyrics by "Death Cab for Cutie")

Well, so much for my New Year's optimism.  Not that I really expected it to change drastically, but when you manage to screw up Saddam's execution it doesn't look too good for the U.S.  Or Iraq.

Actually, the accounts I've read of the unauthorized video of his execution are starting to convince me that perhaps all is lost in Iraq.  If the people purportedly running the country are unable or unwilling to rise above their partisan, sectarian interests, what hope is there to create a politically viable state?

Which goes to show, while I'm quoting songs, that Sting had it right

            "Men go crazy in congregations
            But they only get better
            One by one."

Tags: Personal, Current Affairs

From the Department of Obvious Observations

Via today's WaPo:

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

In sports, you can get away with that when a game is tied.  In real life, if you compare Iraq right after the fall of Baghdad and Iraq today, I don't see how you can conclude that "the game is tied."

In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. "We need to reset our military," said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer.

Emphasis added.  I have no idea why this is a "turnaround."  As I said here, El Presidente had already made up his mind that he wasn't going to follow the ISG recommendations, which include a major withdrawal of U.S. troops.  That leaves two options: you keep the number of troops at its current levels or you increase it.  Since the former has not worked, the only "new" option is the latter.

And if Bush wants to reset our military, I hope Rummy told Gates where the Ctrl-Alt-Delete buttons are in the Pentagon.

Tags: War, Politics, Current Affairs, Iraq

Unnecessary Delusions

"Those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them."

I'm still trying to find out who actually said that.  Was it Churchill?  Anyhow, that is what comes to mind today as I read this article from CNN.com:

Pentagon: Militia more dangerous than al Qaeda in Iraq

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army has replaced al Qaeda in Iraq as "the most dangerous accelerant" of the sectarian violence plaguing Iraq for nearly a year, according to a Pentagon report.

Seems to me that the powers-that-be are going through the same process all the time.  First it was Osama Bin Laden.  Remember him?  He's closing in on 2,000 days of freedom after 9/11.  He was supposed to be the source of everything that was evil.  We invaded Afghanistan to deny him of a safe haven and to capture him.  We had him cornered on Tora Bora and if we had sent American troops, we might have caught him then.  But we sent Afghan militias and he escaped, and he's now roaming the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Then it was Saddam Hussein.  He was working on WMDs - shouldn't that be WsMD? - and posed a clear and present danger to the U.S. at home and abroad.  He was even trying to develop nuclear weapons and his people had met with and cooperated with al-Qaeda.  And he was developing chemical and biological weapons in trailer-sized trucks.  Remember Colin Powell making an ass of himself at the U.N.?  Spewing nonsense he didn't even believe?  Now there's a profile in courage if there ever was one.  That man should be ashamed of himself for the rest of his life, and I hope every single American death in Iraq weighs on him.

So, we invaded Iraq and found . . . nothing.  Unless you're Rick Santorum, who found old, harmless, useless, canisters and called it WMDs.  And in the process we dismantled the entire social and political structure in Iraq and replaced it with . . . well, nothing.  Five years and I've-lost-count-of-how-many-billion dollars later, Iraq is a bigger mess than it ever was under Saddam Hussein, who, by the way, has been sentenced to death after, what, three different judges tried his case?  So we don't have him to kick around anymore.

Then we had to deal with Abu Musab al Zarqawi.  Remember him?  The leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq?  It turns out that Zarqawi never meant to join al Qaeda.  Their affiliation turned out to be a marriage of convenience.  He was the leader of the insurgency in Iraq and everyone (i.e., the pundits who think they know s**t) said that we needed to get rid of him and the insurgency would end.  Well, we killed him in June 7, 2006.  And guess what?  The insurgency just kept on going like the Energizer Bunny.  As CNN notes today:

Attacks by Iraqi insurgents and sectarian militias jumped 22 percent from mid-August to mid-November, and Iraqi civilians suffered the bulk of casualties, according to the quarterly report released on Monday.

Emphasis added.  Now it's Muqtada al-Sadr's turn to be the demon du jour.  He's "more dangerous than al-Qaeda" even though he hasn't sent a single terrorist to the U.S.  Even though he hasn't attacked American interests outside Iraq, where we're perceived as an occupying force. 

Eventually, if we're still in Iraq, we'll get him.  Either arrested or killed.  Unless we decide to "redeploy" before we get him.  And if we do get him, someone else will become the demon du jour.  This is the pattern, as you've noticed by now.

The powers-that-be are doing the same thing over and over again.  They are assuming that "this guy" holds the key to success.  He's what's getting in the way.  There is no "guy."  What's going on in Iraq goes beyond a single person or a single political or religious movement.  It's far more complex than that.  And until the powers-that-be realize that, well, we'll continue engaging in the unnecessary delusion that "this time it'll be different."

Tags: War, Iraq, Current Affairs, Foreign Policy, Terrorism