another false dawn

as i mentioned earlier, ive been having some computer probs this week - and i dont think ive solved anything - so there might be some more probs in the next few days/weeks - if i go quiet here, but not here then its just a computer
problem... (altho i should be able to post here via another computer anyway)

but the other reason posting has been light is cos im struggling to work out what the hell is
going on. im not sure if its a massive disinfo campaign to create noise everywhere, or if the repugs have lost control of the meta-narrative machine or maybe i just have a headache.

heres a summary:
* iraq is an absolute disaster. really. there are simply no good options. this current operation to be a 'bracelet' around baghdad is both a) crazy and b) scary. the fun thing is to watch the media reports claim that 40000 iraqis will be deployed. none of them even question where 40k grunts are gonna come from, given our probs with training and numbers in the past, and none of the reports seem to question whether its a good idea to circle the capital, or whether its achievable, or what power vacuum it might create around the rest of the country etc etc. lots of
questions. i read somewhere that they are gonna use the peshmerga. militia is bad, mmmmkay.

meanwhile, we have all this zarq nonsense going on. are they gonna chase a limping (sic) zarq across the border into syria? thats one of the main reasons behind the 'foreign fighter' rhetoric.

* the iran drumbeat continues. the chris wallace thing today was just the latest episode. im kinda caught between two positions wrt iran (and nth korea to a lesser extent) - all the trappings point to an attack/invasion, but at some level the attack doesnt seem 'real' or 'imminent' or whatever (i cant find the right word). in the months and weeks leading up to the iraq invasion, the feeling was a lot different. whether that portends a surprise attack, or no attack, or simply that the propaganda will continue to build, i dont know. the media campaign seems similar-ish, but with iraq we just *knew* that it was imminent - at the moment, id be suprised if we attacked iran at the mo

* im of the same mind wrt nthkorea - the propaganda seems to be pointing to something serious going on there - but in my bones i dont think that america is going to do that soon - which forces us to ask why the propaganda campaign is underway - and i dont have an answer to that question. apparently there are others in the field who are more concerned

* the newsweek debacle is hysterical. theres not a single element of any of the arguments that are valid. none of the details - the only question is why the repugs picked this fite. i dont know the answer.

* re the filibuster/nucular deal, as ive discussed, it needs to be taken in context - firstly, we havent seen the internals on the deal (some of which are probably 'secret'). secondly, the deal doesnt mean anything - at best the deal buys some time - altho with a very specific cost.
thirdly, its important to remember that the filibuster issue is merely one very small battle - these people wanna take over the world and will dismantle any possible obstacles - the fili on judicial noms may have been an important constraint, but it wont stop the juggernaut.

* on bolton, we are winning. frist was complaining that we were filibustering just days after agreeing not to filibuster. frist knows that the filibuster deal was about judnoms, and i predicted that that 'constraint' was all nonsense. 100% is not enuff for these people. 'winning' on bolton simply means keeping it alive. as always, its not about bolton - its partly about the shitehouse ignoring the request from the senate and the subsequent precedent, but the main story is that they *really* want bolton at the UN - its about the future, not about 'rewarding' him for
being a loyal soldier. look how quickly they dropped their 911 hero, kerik. they could drop bolton, but they havent. u could argue that they cant afford to be seen losing on this issue given that they had a terrible week, but they didnt drop him last week, either. why are they fighting so hard? we know its not a reward,and we know there are hundreds of others who could cause equal havok. heres a thought: maybe its not that the shitehouse really wants him there, maybe bolton really wants to be at the UN... he's said that the happiest day of his life was taking the white-out to americas name on the icc agreement (or a similar agreement) - perhaps he really* wants to continue with the whiteout... how can bolton force the veep to fight for boltons evil little dream? maybe he's blackmailing them!that scenario doesnt sound outrageous. imagine what he knows... tradesports still has him @ 10/1 on - which seems *really* high - id have thought that the average pundit would have him at about 2/1 on, or perhaps 4/6 - which is a massive difference. i completely dont understand - the market seems so absurd to me that im led to wonder whether it is being played by people with inside knowledge. i doubt it - but it does seem odd that bolton is a 90% chance at this moment.

* the larger issue is that there seems to be some signals that the existence of the blinky administration is under threat. i dont wanna be optimistic, and i cant point to the source of my faint optimism - but something seemed to switch a little bit in the last week or so. it wasnt that the repugs had a bad week on some specific, technical matters, it seemed separate to that. i posted a few days ago that the media reporting on iraq seemed to have lost the facade, but i didnt see much follow-up on that, so that wasnt it either. maybe it was john conyers and TheMemo and other things. maybe its just another false dawn...