The media will report on Bush's posture, tone of voice, tie color, and attitude. The trivial will be made into the gargantuan.

The important will be slipped in sideways, quietly, in the form of an unstated assumption that the "surge" is already underway and out of Congress's hands to stop--an action that would be indecent anyway.

The media will not ask or try to answer what Bush means when he says "victory." The media will not raise the question of what this war is being fought for.

The media will depict the anti-war movement as striving ultimately only for a rejection of the "surge."

No mention will be made of efforts to de-escalate and end the war. And the media will continue to call the "surge" a surge, gradually dropping the quotation marks.   more »

In the last quarter century the value of the U.S. corporations has risen 12-fold, according to the Wall Street Journal. C.E.O. pay has skyrocketed similarly. But workers today, on average, are still making less, in inflation adjusted dollars, than workers made in 1973 -- the high point of worker wages!

Citing data from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, New York Times' columnist, Bob Herbert, reports that between 2000 and 2006 the combined real annual earnings of 93 million American workers rose by $15.4 billion.

That rise is "less than half of the combined bonuses awarded by the five Wall Street firms for just one year."

Class warfare in reverse is what's going on. The super rich and their corporations against the workers, redistributing the workers' wealth into their own pockets and coffers.   more »

>What is striking about the current debate in Washington - whether to "surge" troops to Iraq and increase the size of the U.S. Army - is that roughly 100,000 bodies are missing from the equation: The number of American forces in Iraq is not 140,000, but more like 240,000.

What makes up the difference is the huge army of mercenaries - known these days as "private contractors." After the U.S. Army itself, they are easily the second-largest military force in the country.

Yet no one seems sure of how many there are since they answer to no single authority. Indeed, the U.S. Central Command has only recently started taking a census of these battlefield civilians in an attempt to get a handle on the issue...

The private contractors are Americans, South Africans, Brits, Iraqis and a hodgepodge of other nationalities.   more »

But back to what I was saying: quelle semaine! The P. spoke in the library. It was so cute, him standing against the background of the books and stuff.

Then, the very next day, I got to defend him. And it was hard, it was sooooo hard, but I did it! I saw myself on television later, and I was all hunched over like I expected everyone to hit me. And they did hit me.

But I didn't care because I was defending the P. and his new policy, which I forgot to mention we finally decided on - the More option, not the Less option.

When my testimony was over, all I could think was, I hope the P. was watching me. I hope he knows I'd do anything for him, absolutely anything, and that includes you know what. (I know he's never going to leave her, but a girl can't help hoping!)   more »

>Charles Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, reintroduced a bill on Thursday that would institute a military draft for all legal residents of the United States between the ages of 18 and 42.

In his press release announcing the move, Rangel—a liberal Democrat who claims to oppose the war in Iraq—made clear that the central motivation for the bill is to alleviate the strains on the military, which will be further overextended as Bush moves to increase the number of troops in Iraq.

A draft would also provide sufficient cannon fodder to use in Iran, Somalia, North Korea or any other country the United States decides to invade.

“The military is at the breaking point with more than 50 percent of our combat troops already deployed in Iraq,” Rangel said.   more »

Blair clearly backed the Baker-Hamilton proposals for a diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria as part of a package to resolve the Iraq crisis.

Bush has turned his back on it, him and reason by making it clear that the only engagement he is interested in with either country is strictly military.

Again, one consequence of this has already been a political crisis for the occupation. The lawless US assault on the Iranian consulate in Irbil was opposed by the Kurdish regional government, hitherto the most (indeed, only) stalwart supporters of the occupation on the grounds that a US domination of Iraq prevents an Iraqi domination of Kurdistan.

But even the Kurdish leadership understand that Iran will still be next door long after the US has departed and that diplomacy is therefore essential.

But double was always more likely than quits for this US administration, dominated as it is by Dick Cheney, not so much neocon as ultracon and a man who gives every impression of being determined to go out with a bang.   more »