The execution by hanging of Saddam Hussein caused jubilation among those who suffered during his rule. They have reason to rejoice. What does it mean for Iraq and the Iraqis, the the rest of us, the world ? There is no sign that the sectarian violence raging in Iraq is going to end any time soon. We were in bed with Saddam Hussein when he served our needs, just as we have over the years supported other corrupt, murderous dictators and juntas in different parts of the world. That has not changed; we still have some goons as our friends.Iraq Coalition Casualties report that as of today 109 American soldiers have died this month in Iraq; the total todate 2998. What has their sacrifices achieved ?Editorial in the Palm Beach Post (circulation 716,500) says it well. I selected it over items in the giants of the print media.Dangerous in DeathSaturday, December 30, 2006By the spring of 2003, the Bush Team had drilled into Americans that it was Saddam Hussein who made Iraq dangerous.And not just Iraq. President Bush, along with Vice President Dick Cheney, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and others in the Bush administration insisted that Saddam Hussein and his stockpiled weapons of mass destruction made the entire Persian Gulf region - in fact, the entire world - a terribly dangerous place.The solution was simple. Remove Hussein, remove the danger. It was so obvious and so necessary to America's safety that deposing Hussein was, President Bush indicated, not just his constitutional duty but a moral obligation.But long before Iraq hanged Hussein, it had become clear that U.S. misconceptions about Hussein and Iraq would prove to be much more dangerous than the man himself.The idea that Hussein's brutality was all that stood between Iraqis and freedom was naive. Nearly 3,000 U.S. military deaths later, we understand that Hussein's brutality restrained others with intentions and capabilities just as brutal.Removing Hussein freed innocent, oppressed Iraqis. But it freed other forces as well. And President Bush had no plan to protect innocent Iraqis from sectarian factions who now are violently determined to take Hussein's place.President Bush also failed to understand that, far from striking a blow in the war on terror, removing Hussein would hand international terrorists a new platform from which to attack Americans and a recruiting tool for their cause.Philosophers can debate whether Saddam Hussein's execution provides a measure of justice in a country he ruled so unjustly. But the grim, practical question is whether Saddam Hussein's execution will create yet another surge in the bloodbath his removal unleashed.When President Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, most Americans would not have believed that Saddam Hussein's death would be cause for anything other than celebration. Now, we know that, for Iraq, it will take much more than Hussein's execution to justify a celebration. Today, Americans know a great deal more about what makes Iraq dangerous. It will be time to celebrate when our leaders show that they know what to do about it.

Expect More Lies When it comes to the Middle-East, Senator Joseph Lieberman's position is a no brainer. His argument for more troops in Iraq is just like the one President Bush makes and, for good measure, the Senator threw in 9/11 as the president does. It is their cash cow and they are not ready to stop milking it although "the extremists who attacked us on 9/11" had no connection with Iraq. The president is reported to be huddling in Crawford,TX, with his security advisers "to hone a new Iraq strategy". Lieberman gives the clear impression of being part of the orechestration.Why We Need More Troops In IraqI've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

Another Critic of Bush's WarBob Woodward's piece in the Washington Post reveals surprisingly strong anti-war position held by the late President Ford. He had stipulated that the interview not be published until after his death. Publication in 2004 would have perhaps helped to turn public sentiments against the war earlier. It is doubtful,however, that Bush and his team would have paid any attention to what President Ford said. The signs are clear that President Bush has no intention of ending the war until "victory". What that victory means is to be seen. The overwhelming feeling is that for the Bush Administration it has become a matter of saving face.Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy."Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

Slouching Toward the Fourth Year of War in IraqReading Emily Miller's "The Freedoms My Brother Is Defending" I thought of the world of difference between the freedoms that she so eloquently wrote about and our president's view of freedoms. He is said to be a deeply religious man. Maybe so; his actions are that of a cynical, soul-less person.Here is what my brother, a member of the Army National Guard, told me as he prepared to serve in Iraq this year:The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is who controls the armed forces. Civilian command of the Army is a cornerstone of our democratic system.My brother told me that he takes his oath to defend the Constitution seriously and that he will fight and die if necessary to honor his commitment. When I asked him if he would be offended if I participated in activities opposing the war, he replied that it was not only my right but my obligation, and the obligation of all civilians opposing this war, to try to change bad policy. "Give us good wars to fight," he said.While acknowledging that another possible moral option is to refuse to participate in a bad war, my brother chooses to place his oath to the Constitution and his belief in our democratic system at the pinnacle of his moral convictions. That some of us might differ with him is basically irrelevant -- we (most of us) are not faced with his decision.For the record, he believes that the war on terrorism is necessary to deal with real threats facing the United States. He is not convinced of what Iraq has to do with the matter, which puts him fairly well in the mainstream of American opinion.So it is terribly upsetting to me to hear that some people despair that there is "no point" to their soldier's death or wounding in the Iraq war. America does not have to be right in order for our soldiers' service to have meaning.What I find offensive is the idea that we have to "follow through" in order to give their deaths meaning post hoc. It is dreadfully apparent from the Iraq Study Group report that Iraq isn't going to have a democracy in any meaningful time frame. Even if this administration does everything perfectly, the best-case scenario is that we might maintain the barest outlines of order.Victory being out of the question at this point, the only democracy my brother is fighting for in Iraq is our democracy. The only constitution he is in Iraq fighting to defend is our Constitution. If my brother dies, it will not be for a mistake but rather because of his deeply held belief that the time it takes us as a people to figure out through democratic processes that we are wrong is more important than his own life.This places upon us an obligation. My brother and other service members living and dead have given us the sacred responsibility to use the democratic means we have at hand to bring judgment to bear on whether any given war is worth our soldiers' lives.Despite the clear results in last month's elections and the grim conclusions of the Iraq Study Group, we are still hearing intransigent rhetoric and seeing unrealistic posturing from some of our leaders. This is unacceptable.It's not too late for us to honor the almost 3,000 U.S. service members who have died defending the principles of our democracy. It is morally imperative for us to honor our living service members and to do what is demanded of us by our democracy and by common decency. We have taken a small step by changing some of our leadership in Washington, but now it is upon us to follow through at home and demand accountability from our leaders.What are you, fellow citizens, willing to do to defend our Constitution? Will you dignify the sacrifices of our soldiers? Will you honor my brother's faith in our system? Will you let my brother or others die to eke out a slightly smaller disaster in Iraq? These are the questions we face in the wake of the Baker-Hamilton report.My brother is betting his life that you are not going to ask this of him. He has placed his trust in the idea that we will not ask him to die for anything less than the necessary defense of our democracy. Reasonable people may at one time have disagreed about the necessity of the Iraq war, but now that it has become abundantly clear from every quarter that we cannot win, will you be responsible for asking my brother to stay?My family begs of you: Do not ask this of him. Do not ask this of us. My brother is doing his constitutional duty. Now it is time for us to do ours.The writer is a member of Military Families Speak Out, an organization of more than 3,100 military families opposed to the war in Iraq.According to latest report from Iraq Coalition Casualties, we have lost 91 soldiers this month. The figure could reach or exceed 100 in the remaining five days. Take the time to visit Glenn Kutler's narration (25,000 Dead or Wounded) and the accompanying images in Newsweek.

"Wosing" The War, A Steve Bell CartoonThe war in Iraq goes on. Those who began it are loath to end it. The scenario -- their scenario -- has changed many times. The original reason (Saddam's WMD) for the invasion is no longer mentioned. It was mostly smoke and mirrors to justify their action. Death toll keeps mounting and the costs are going out of sight.Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]That was 4 days after the invasion began. Mr. Wolfowitz is now running the World Bank, happy to escape questions about what he had said.Excerpts from "End of the neocon dream" by Paul Reynold, World Affairs Correspondent of the BBC, Dec.21, 2006.The neo-conservative dream faded in 2006.Iraq was meant to be the showcase for a New American CenturyThe ambitions proclaimed when the neo-cons' mission statement "The Project for the New American Century" was declared in 1997 have turned into disappointment and recriminations as the crisis in Iraq has grown."The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up.The idea of the "Project" was to project American power and influence around the world.The 1997 statement (written during the administration of President Bill Clinton) said:"We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities."Among the signatories were many of the senior officials who would later determine policy under President George W Bush - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and Lewis Libby - as well as thinkers including Francis Fukuyama, Norman Podheretz and Frank Gaffney.The neo-conservatives were called that because they sought to re-establish what they felt were true conservative values in the Republican Party and the United States.They wanted to stop what they felt were the isolationist tendencies that had developed under President Clinton, and even under the pragmatic President George Bush senior.They saw the war in Iraq as their big chance of showing how the "New American Century" might work.They predicted the development of democratic values in a region lacking in them and, in that way, the removal of any threat to the United States just as the democratisation of Germany and Japan after World War II had transformed Europe and the Pacific.AttackSince so much was pinned on Iraq, it is inevitable that the problems there should have undermined the whole idea."Neo-conservatism has gone for a generation, if in fact it ever returns," says one of the movement's critics, David Rothkopf, currently at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, and a former official in the Clinton administration."Their signal enterprise was the invasion of Iraq and their failure to produce results is clear. Precisely the opposite has happened," he says."The US use of force has been seen as doing wrong and as inflaming a region that has been less than susceptible to democracy."Their plan has fallen on hard times. There were flaws in the conception and horrendously bad execution. The neo-cons have been undone by their own ideas and the incompetence of the Bush administration."George Bush is about the last neo-conservative standing, Cheney as well maybe. Bush is not an analytical person so he just adopted the neo-cons' philosophy."It fitted into his Manichean, his black and white view of the world. After all, he gave up his dissolute youth and was born again as a new man, so it appealed to his character."In-fightingThe fading of the dream has led to a falling-out among the neo-conservatives themselves.In particular, two leading neo-conservatives, Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, attacked the Bush team in Vanity Fair magazine. Both had been on a Pentagon advisory board. Both had argued for war in Iraq.In an article called "Neo Culpa", Richard Perle declared that had he known how it would turn out, he would have been against it: "I think now I probably would have said: 'No, let's consider other strategies'."Kenneth Adelman said: "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era."Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."Donald Rumsfeld "fooled me", he said.He declared of neo-conservatism after Iraq: "It's not going to sell."Defence and counter-attackOther neo-conservatives defend their record, arguing strongly that the original idea had an effect, and pressing the point raised by Perle and Adelman that it was the execution of the idea not the idea itself that was wrong.Gary Schmitt used to be a senior figure at the "New American Century" project. Now he is director of strategic studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and he says the project has come to a natural end."When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is why we are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising money for it and it has already done its job."We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy, that it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy."Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we had an effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that the United States was 'the indispensable nation'."But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are implemented. Obviously it makes life difficult with the specific failure in Iraq, but I do not agree with Richard Perle that we should never have gone in."I do argue that the execution should have been better. In fact, I argued in late 2003 that we needed more troops and a proper counter-insurgency policy."Indeed, not all neo-conservatives have given up all hope in Iraq.The AEI, which has become the natural home for refugees from the American Project, is promoting an article entitled: "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq".The article calls not for a withdrawal of US troops but for an increase. President Bush's decision is expected in early January.Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk© Steve Bell 2006steve.bell@guardian.co.uk

A Long Way from Jamshedpur, India * Radio Days - Bob Fass, Jean Shepherd"I love my past, I love my present. I am not ashamed of what I have had, and I am not sad because I no longer have it."-- Sidonie Gabrielle ColetteI grew up in Jamshedpur, known as the Steel Town. Tata Iron & Steel Company's plant was said to be the largest in Asia. Now there are steel plants galore of different sizes, and some are much larger. Things have changed. From all accounts, Jamshedpur is no longer the clean city, with good schools, playgrounds and hospital established by the owners of the steel plant. Good schools are still there but nowadays they are not run by Tisco, and they charge high fees. The town has become a victim of burgeoning population and sprawl.There are days when the mind travels back to Jamshedpur. Regal Cinema, which used to screen British and American movies in the evening (the matinee and late night shows were for Bombay films -- now known as Bollywood films) and Fakira's famous chanachur stand outside the building. Tisco promoted sports and athletic events. We eagerly awaited Ranji Trophy cricket matches between visiting teams and Bihar which used to be the name of the home state. Later it became part of Jharkhand. Most of the players in the Bihar team were from Jamshedpur.For some reason, rainy weather makes me think of Jamsedpur....not because it rained a lot when I lived there; in fact, we got much less rain than the big city, Kolkata, 160 miles east. But memories of other things kick in -- making boats out of sheets of newspaper and launching them from the verandah. Didn't take long for them to get soaked and crumple; playing football (soccer) in wet, muddy fields, the soda fountain on Main Road, Sanyal Bros bookstore where I spent many happy hours browsing English language books and magazines. Insignificant but the memories remain alive.Hard to keep track of all the name changes in India. Among the notables: Bombay became Mumbai, Calcutta became Kolkata, and Madras is now known as Chennai. I remember laughing when I read that the city fathers of Kolkata renamed Harington Street as Ho Chi Minh Sarani. The U.S. Consulate was located there and that was at the height of the Vietnam war.Remembering Wanda Hickey and Other Sweet ThingsIt was Richard Avedon's photograph of "Bob Fass and other WBAT staffers" that grabbed my attention as I was leafing through December 4th issue of The New Yorker. I never lived on the east coast and Bob Fass was not a familiar name. The New Yorker continues to be source of pleasure.....often pleasant surprises. Great article "Voice of the Cabal - Bob Fass and the slow fade of countercultural radio" by Marc Fisher. The article is not available on line but there is a mp3 audio clip of Marc Fisher talking about Bob Fass. It can be accessed at The New Yorker: online. Not only that, it mentions another radio personality -- Jean Shepherd.Now, Shepherd I knew of. Not through radio but the TV series Jean Shepherd's America which ran on PBS. And I read his books. Who can forget the delightful Wanda Hickey's Night of Golden Memories. We all have our nights of memories, if not golden certainly silvery.Then I thought of the late Scott Beach. He did a stint as dj for the now defunct classical music station KKHI. For a while he manned the graveyard shift and the nights when I had problem sleeping I'd dial KKHI on FM tadio. The selection of music was always good and his deep voice soothing. * Joy and Good Health to all visitors: regulars, occasional, and the accidental Comments Anonymous — 2006-12-24 Thanks very much for your kind mention of the piece in The New Yorker. If you're interested in Jean Shepherd, please have a look at my site, www.marcfisher.com, where you'll find material on Shepherd as well as excerpts from my book, "Something in the Air," in which Shepherd is probably the most important figure. The book will be published in early January by Random House. Thanks for reading the Fass piece. Anonymous — 2006-12-28 This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

With the solstice came rain. I am looking out at wet streets and leafless trees. It is winter. Our winter here in the San Francisco Bay area is not harsh -- no snow storms; blizzards are unheard of; daytime termperature rarely falls below 40° F, and even the rains are not very disruptive for those who like outdoor activities. However, three business days before Christmas, the rains could make things difficult for shoppers, and they lengthen commuting time for people going to and returning from work. Traffic reports on the AM radio channel often mention accidents and congestion. Drive with caution. Rainy afternoon © Musafir, Canon Powershot S3Fallen Leaves © Musafir, Canon Powershot S3Winter solitude-in a world of one colorthe sound of wind.--Basho (translated by Robert Haas)

Many atrocities have taken place during the past three and a half years in Iraq, atrocities committed by all sides. They cannot be justified but deaths of civilians -- so called "collateral damage" during military operations are one thing, deliberate killing of civilians by soldiers is another matter. That is what happened at Haditha on November 19, 2005. The rape and murder of 15-year old Abeer Hamza at Mahmudiyah was another shameful incident.The Washington PostBy Josh White and Sonya GeisFriday, December 22, 2006; Page A01Four U.S. Marines were charged with multiple counts of murder yesterday for their alleged roles in the deaths of two dozen civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha last year. The accusations set up what could be the highest-profile atrocity prosecution to arise from the Iraq war.In an unusual move, the Marine Corps also charged four officers with crimes related to their alleged failure to investigate and report the Nov. 19, 2005, slayings, which occurred when the Marines conducted a house-to-house sweep and attacked a vehicle after a member of their unit was killed in an ambush.The separate investigation into how the incident was reported led to dereliction charges against a lieutenant colonel, two captains and a first lieutenant. They are accused of failing to thoroughly investigate and accurately report the slayings to superiors. The lieutenant also faces charges of making a false official statement and obstructing justice, according to the Marine Corps.See: Sarah Meyer's "The Haditha Doctor and the Media Dissemblers"Also Civilian Victims in IraqHaditha-Hamandiya-IshaquiHaditha, Iraq, Truth it is UglyHaditha - Few Marines and Slaughter of Civilians

Piergeorgio WelbyA courageous physician named Mario Riccio made the decision to turn off the life support system and made it possible for Piergeorgio Welby to die as he expressly wanted. Mr. Welby's case received a lot of publicity because of his appeal to disconnect the life support system was rejected last week by an Italian Court.The action by Dr. Riccio was not an unusual one. There are physicians who make such decisions every day but they do so quietly and not all terminally ill patients who do not wish to live hooked up to respirators and being force-fed are fortunate to be under care of such doctors.Full report from the BBC:An Italian doctor has said he has switched off the life support system of a terminally ill man, who lost a legal battle for the right to die.Dr Mario Riccio, who disconnected the respirator, said he had fulfilled the patient's legal right to refuse treatment. He denied it was euthanasia.Piergiorgio Welby, 60, was paralysed by muscular dystrophy.His plea for euthanasia - illegal in mainly Roman Catholic Italy - sparked a landmark court case and fierce debate.Doctor's argument"In Italian hospitals therapies are suspended all the time, and this does not lead to any intervention from magistrates or to problems of conscience," Dr Riccio told reporters, following Mr Welby's death late on Wednesday."This must not be mistaken for euthanasia. It is a suspension of therapies," he told a news conference in Rome. "Refusing treatment is a right."Mr Welby had been attached to a respirator for the last six months and a feeding tube to keep him alive.He had communicated through a computer that read his eye movements.He had asked his family, his doctors and the courts to be allowed to die as he had suffered for many years from muscular dystrophy and his condition had worsened.A judge ruled on Saturday that while Mr Welby had the constitutional right to have his life support machine switched off, doctors would be legally obliged to resuscitate him.Euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide have been legalised in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, but remain illegal in much of the rest of the world.In September, Mr Welby had written to the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano pleading to be allowed to die.Italy's Health Minister, Livia Turco, has called for new legislation to clarify the legal position on exactly which aggressive measures are licit in order to sustain life in cases like that of Mr Welby, the BBC's David Willey reports from Rome.The Vatican teaches that life must be safeguarded from its beginning to its natural end.

It has become obvious that G.W. Bush is not going to deviate from his position on Iraq. It is up to the newly elected Democratic Congress to act and stop him. Measures to cut off funding for the war would be a good beginning. Are the Democrats up to it? So far, few voices have been heard about meaningful measures. All we hear is blather about bipartisanship and cooperation. Face the fact: The President will not take steps toward an early withdrawl. He will have to be forced, kicking and screaming, to do so. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) talked the good talk. As the saying goes "put your money where your mouth is". Do something. Stop the blood loss. Every day our soldiers ( most of them in their twenties) are dying for the hubris of a few megalomaniacs.The Washington Post"There hasn't been a change from the president," observed Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), the incoming House majority leader. "The president may be trapped in his own policy, sensing, 'If I don't succeed, it will be a huge blot on my record, and so therefore I have no choice but to try to succeed.' "Hoyer pointedly added: "I don't think the Democratic Congress is going to say, 'Well, that's okay.' "In another report, Peter Baker of the Washington Post wrote:"President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists."But in a wide-ranging session in the Oval Office, the president said he interpreted the Democratic election victories six weeks ago not as a mandate to bring the U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end but as a call to find new ways to make the mission there succeed. He confirmed that he is considering a short-term surge in troops in Iraq, an option that top generals have resisted out of concern that it would not help.