Thursday, September 20, 2007

Thursday Open Thread



Dale Chihuly, born September 20, 1941

Haloscan comment thread

2 comments:

  1. Saw a major installation of his work in Kew Gardens, London, several years ago with numerous pieces scattered throughout both the greenhouses and grounds.

    The first day I went, his people were in the process of putting together many of the pieces which, of course, *forced* me to return on a later day to see how they looked completed.

    It was, quite literally, breathtaking!

    ReplyDelete
  2. When Senator Jim Webb arose on the Senate floor to introduce his
    amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act which would set limits on
    the amount of time troops could be separated from their families and
    guarantee sufficient respite for their recuperation, he included the
    following sentence:

    We're trying to find a formula, the right kind of a formula that can
    undo what I and many others believe was a grave strategic error in
    going into Iraq in the first place.
    The whole speech can be found on his web site [1] under the heading,
    Floor Remarks of Senator Jim Webb on Bipartisan, Pro-Troop Amendment,
    a document that has to be downloaded.The relevant paragraphs, IMHO,
    are as follows:

    That is about two-thirds of the time that we have been engaged since
    December 2001. This amendment is needed for another reason, and that
    is that it's become clear since the testimony of General Petreaus and
    Ambassador Crocker that the debate on our numbers in Iraq and our
    policy in Iraq is going to continue for sometime. We have divisions
    here in the Senate, we have divisions between the Administration and
    the Congress. We're trying to find a formula, the right kind of a
    formula that can undo what I and many others believe was a grave
    strategic error in going into Iraq in the first place. But we have to
    have this debate sensibly. In the meantime, because this debate is
    going to continue for sometime, we need to put a safety net under our
    troops who are being called upon to go to Iraq and Afghanistan.
    I noted with some irony on Monday, as I was presiding, when the
    Republican leader expressed his view that it would not be an unnatural
    occurrence for us to be in Iraq for the next 50 years. This comparison
    to Korea and Western Europe is being made again and again and again. I
    go back to five years ago this month when I wrote an editorial for
    "The Washington Post" six months before we invaded Iraq, and one of
    the comments that I made in this editorial, five years ago, was that
    there is no end point, there is no withdrawal plan from the people who
    have brought us to this war because they don't intend to withdraw. I
    said that five years ago. It's rather stunning to hear that ratified
    openly now by people in the Administration and by others who have
    supported this endeavor. We need to engage in that debate. We need to
    come to some sort of agreement about what our posture is going to be
    in the Middle East and as we have that debate, it's vitally important
    that we look after the well-being of the men and women who are being
    called upon again and again to serve.
    Well, I don't find it stunning, but I am glad the Senator brought it
    up. I was hoping it would be one of the Presidential candidates who
    would grab the bull by the horns and finally address that the real
    agenda behind the invasion and occupation (I appreciate that's what
    Webb calls it) of Iraq was to set up "enduring" bases for a
    semi-permanent U.S. military presence in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf
    region.
    Of course, since all the information having to do with the bases and
    the hundred thousand troops currently stationed there is classified,
    several of the presidential candidates are perhaps unaware of those
    deployments. Certainly, the press has been prevented from telling
    them, and us, what's going on there, as well as in the air war that's
    pulverizing the country just as surely as Dresden was pulverized
    during World War II.
    Not surprisingly, the Socialist Worker [2] takes a less forgiving
    stance:

    Bowing to Bush's endless war
    September 21, 2007 | Page 2
    GEORGE W. BUSH wants to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for decades--and none
    of the leading Democratic candidates for president disagree.
    And then provides a run-down of where the Democratic candidates stand:

    THE TOP-tier Democratic presidential candidates jumped on Bush for
    dragging his feet on a troop withdrawal. But when they call for
    "withdrawal," you have to read the fine print.
    "The president would have us believe there are two choices: keep all
    our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject this choice,"
    said Barack Obama. His plan: withdraw "combat troops" but leave
    thousands in place to train Iraqi forces and guard U.S. personnel at
    the soon-to-open U.S. embassy, the world's biggest.
    It's unclear if Obama's definition of "combat troops" includes the
    U.S. warplanes based in remote areas of Iraq that are battering the
    country in a stepped-up air war.
    For her part, Hillary Clinton's Web site proclaims that she is against
    a permanent occupation of Iraq and touts her sponsorship of the
    proposed Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007.
    Read Clinton's proposed legislation, however, and you'll find numerous
    exceptions. The withdrawal could only take place when and if "the
    security forces of the government of Iraq are free of sectarian and
    militia influences."
    As with Obama's proposal, Clinton's proposed law would allow U.S.
    troops to remain in Iraq for "training Iraqi security forces";
    "providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces"; "protecting
    United States personnel and infrastructure"; and "participating in
    targeted counter-terrorism activities." Plus, the president could
    obtain a waiver to deploy troops in Iraq whenever U.S. "security" is
    at stake--essentially, a blank check for more war.
    John Edwards has tried to position himself to the left of Obama and
    Clinton on Iraq. "Every single funding bill that goes to President
    Bush should have a timetable for withdrawal," he said September 16.
    "If he vetoes it, they should send another bill with a timetable for
    withdrawal."
    Edwards calls for an immediate pullout of 40,000 to 50,000 troops and
    withdrawing all "combat troops" in nine to 10 months. Like Obama and
    Clinton, he disclaims any intention of a permanent occupation of Iraq,
    but leaves the door open for "non-combat" troops to remain.
    On his Web site, Edwards makes it clear that he's not shrinking from
    maintaining the U.S. imperial role in the Middle East. "After
    withdrawal," he said, "we should retain sufficient forces in the
    region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq
    does not spill over into other countries, creating a regional war, a
    terrorist haven or a genocide."
    Now, you may not find the Socialist Worker credible, but how do we
    explain an aircraft landing or taking off from Balad Airfield every
    five minutes, twenty-four hours a day as Charles J. Hanley [3]
    reported in July, before taking off on a speaking tour? Surely,
    10,000 flights a month are not hunting IEDs and the world's largest
    embassy with 25 foot thick concrete walls isn't needed for a country
    that's been bombed back to the Stone Age.
    As Senator Webb says
    We need to engage in that debate.
    The only question is who's going to speak up. While it's safe for the
    Senators to discuss classified information on the floor, unless the
    whole nation is involved, it's unlikely the killing is going to stop.
    And, btw, I think Greenspan's blaming it all on oil is the last refuge
    of the scoundrel. He, of all people, should know that the real
    targets of the U.S. military assets in the Middle East are, as the
    Secretary of State puts it, "a re-emerging Russia" (her personal area
    of expertise) and "a rising China" (the bugagoo of the Bushes).
    M/H
    Links:
    ------
    [1] http://www.webb.senate.gov/
    [2] http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/645/645_02_Bowing.shtml
    [3] http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070714/D8QCHASG0.html

    ReplyDelete