In my continuing quest to push the envelope of "Honest, I’m not concern trolling" into the wild blue yonder and perhaps even peer into the edges of deep space, hopefully without suffering the fiery friction of re-entry into the stuffier atmospheres of all-out Obama love, I would point out an excellent observation on the value of Obama criticism to the Obama campaign itself, how such criticism helps him, made by our own LithiumCola:

There is a lot of baggage projected on to Barack Obama, by both his supporters and detractors.  The projections of his right-wing detractors are transparently false and malicious.  However, the projections of his supporters can also be distorted, largely, I think, due to relational perception.

I'm supporting, but watching you.

We interrupt our awareness of all internet traditions; this is a national emergency. Important instructions will follow below the fold.

In his latest book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone, the former president of Ford and Chrysler exercises the ancient synapses from the value-laden constituencies of his highly fasciculated grey matter.

Sy Hersh’s New Yorker piece has been diaried.  Nothing new.  Yawn.  So what if the Gang of Eight is in bipartisan pursuit of further war crimes.  Should they ever find their way to the gallows, I will not object in the least.  My general objections to the death penalty would be puny standing next to their colossal crimes.  Money for covert terrorist operations against Iran was essentially appropriated last year by the following reprehensible, two-faced colossally stupid maggots on the Gang of Eight:

The stars are dead-set against George Bush (they always have been), and therefore against us.  Schade.  George Bush could actually salvage something from the burning wreckage of his legacy, if he did take this most excellent opportunity to begin troop withdrawals from Iraq.  He could then claim with greater credibility that he did, in fact, depose a dictator (however illegal) and allowed a newer, more representative form of government to take root in Iraq.  As one Iraqi businessman said:

http://www.usatoday.com/...

"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."

Apparently, Gitmo has a souvenir shop.  Why not?  Americans love to shop, right?  Probably helps to make the soldiers feel right at home.  Besides, wouldn’t it be nice to have little mementos of time spent in foreign lands, a fond remembrance or two to dust off in the attic in old age, maybe even proudly show the grandkids one day how you served mankind in your younger days?  If you wanted something permanently on display on the mantel you probably don’t want maudlin memories to make you weepy with nostalgia.  Nor would you necessarily want to be constantly reminded of the stoic discipline and grave dangers constantly endured.  Why not shoot for something a bit lighter, even insouciant, to memorialize one’s time at Gitmo.   Look no further: Nothing says insouciant befitting the military’s classic and robust sense of humor than the Guantanamo Bay Souvenir Shop!

Do you know why soldiers are shot for desertion?  It removes any incentive to desert their posts.  It is not so much punishment as strategic mind control, a way to control the expectations of people with whom you would appreciate a little bit of cooperation.  Let’s face it: Democrats and Barack Obama have deserted their posts on FISA (and a lot of other things).  Before suggesting a strategic remedy, let’s look at three critical goals in 2008 with a partial accounting of their associated utilities, presented in no particular order of value:

The Magna Carta Libertatum was established 793 years ago today.  It established that the King of England (King John at the time) was under and subject to laws enacted by Parliament, that Common Law was supreme.  It further codified trial by jury and the writ of Habeas Corpus, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention by the Executive.  It is the keystone building block of Anglo-Saxon constitutions upon which the entire edifice of law is built.

The purpose of the charter was to universalize basic civil rights to protect ordinary citizens from the arbitrary abuses by tyrants:

Charles I learnt this lesson when he was charged, tried and executed "for making war on his people" and attempting to abolish these fundamental rights and abolish Parliament in the name of "new" modern centralised Absolutism in his 1629-40 "Eleven Years Tyranny".

George Bush is a bad seed.  The war in Iraq is an illegal clusterfuck of radical militarism, to say the least, especially with respect to blood, treasure, reputations, alliances, capabilities, civil rights...it’s truly as if the very DNA of the United States has suffered a profound mutation ever since the Supreme Court inserted George Bush and Dick Cheney to flourish in the offices of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, like a genetically modified species of an aggressive alien vine run amok, invading, insinuating and propagating itself into and feeding on an otherwise well-balanced ecosystem, choking the life out of everything in its path for its own self-aggrandizement.  If anyone thinks this outcome is not what the Founders most feared when designing this well-balanced ecosystem of checks and balances, well, to put it bluntly, quit shitting yourself, and quit shitting me.  

Did the Founders never anticipate taking impeachment off the table for political reasons?  

Hamilton, in Federalist no. 65, speaks indirectly to this issue in addressing the role of the Senate in trying, as opposed to preferring charges of impeachment (by the House), but similar considerations hold in both houses:

Today’s editorial in the Arab News on the Security of Forces Agreement is unforgiving, to put it mildly.

http://www.arabnews.com/...

George W. Bush brought death and chaos to Iraq on the basis of lies. Now, as he staggers through the last months of his failed presidency, he is trying one more bit of trickery — forcing the Nuri Al-Maliki government to legitimize a long-term military occupation of Iraq in a treaty, which will make that sovereign country an American colony.

Dick.

Via Jon Schwarz, The Real News interviews two Iraqi parliamentarians currently visiting the United States on the Status of Forces Agreement proposed by the Bush maladministration to replace the current Security Council mandate that ends on Dec 31st, 2008.

I have this uncanny ability to look at something with a distorted perspective and see outside-in as completely inside-out, in other words, to look at something rightly and see it wrongly.  This often leads to a confusing state of affairs.  So it is with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.  You see, to my mind, Chapter VII should reinforce Iraq’s sovereignty, but it is used to precisely the opposite effect, insofar as it allows the "multi-national" forces to violently occupy and determine the fate of Iraq.  Even more confusing is the fact that, now, even the Iraqis may want to extend their weakened state of sovereignty.

Warning: Graphic "bedtime" pic below.

There are things that naturally don’t go together,

such as flowers and snow.

Update: Some have suggested Kunstler was merely emulating the realpolitik thinking of those who took us to war through much of the piece.  It is not always clear when he is doing that, and when he is speaking in the first person.  Beware.  

James Howard Kunstler, Defcon 4 doomsayer extraordinaire whom I normally enjoy reading immensely, takes on the "We were lied to" crowd over at Clusterfuck Nation, and speaks some truth, namely, that the American public is so deep in denial about our energy-rich and -wasteful lifestyles that we are as much to blame as anyone about our current "emergency" that includes war, inflation, suburban sprawl, and so on.  However, he makes some specific, and unsatisfactory assertions about what we had to do in response to 9/11 that are eerily reminiscent of Tom Friedman’s famous "suck on this" psychosis, and enters the realm of the monstrous.