KIKO'S HOUSE

The New York Times has an interesting story today on the latest chapter in the long slide of the Bush administration.

That would be the firestorm over the Dubai Ports World deal, which is being dubbed "Dubaiya" by less charatable commentators such as yours truly. The excerpt below notes that the conflagration was fueled by what might be loosely called the "new media."

The story of how President Bush, who has staked his political fortunes on his reputation for protecting the nation, was blindsided by the port security issue did not begin in Washington. When the news first broke, two weeks ago, the attention of the national news media was largely consumed with other matters, including Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of a fellow hunter.

But pressures from far beyond the capital forced the spotlight onto the Dubai deal. Fueled by a backlash on conservative talk radio and taunting by liberal blogs and comedy shows, the national outcry seemed almost organic, a bipartisan chorus that grew ever louder over the span of a week, reaching a cacophony that President Bush and members of Congress, besieged by calls from constituents, could not ignore.

The third anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq is March 19.

I don’t know about you, but I’m just about tapped out on commenting on the conduct and progress (or lack thereof) of the war and occupation, so Kiko’s House will be taking a different tack to mark this important anniversary:

How has the war in Iraq changed the U.S.?

I welcome your views on this provocative question.

Specifically, how has the U.S. changed in the three years since the invasion and what long-term changes, if any, do you anticipate regarding how Americans and others view the U.S.’s place in the world and its responsibilities as the sole remaining superpower?

Will there be an isolationist backlash or more Iraq-like wars in other trouble spots? Which view, if either, do you support?

And have Americans and others changed their views of the Bush administration specifically and the responsibilities of presidential administrations generally when it comes to foreign affairs, as well as the use of presidential powers?

Visitors to Kiko's House live literally the world over. You don't need to reside in the U.S. to comment. Anonymous comments are welcome.

Please send them to kikokimba@gmail.com

Many thanks.

Riverbend at Baghdad Burning confirms my long-held view that "ordinary" Iraqis just want to get on with their lives and survive the Saddam Era and Bush Era and want no part of the saber rattlers who seem bent on civil war.

An excerpt:

It does not feel like civil war because Sunnis and Shia have been showing solidarity these last few days in a big way. I don’t mean the clerics or the religious zealots or the politicians — but the average person. Our neighborhood is mixed and Sunnis and Shia alike have been outraged with the attacks on mosques and shrines. The telephones have been down, but we’ve agreed upon a very primitive communication arrangement. Should any house in the area come under siege, someone would fire in the air three times. If firing in the air isn’t an option, then someone inside the house would have to try to communicate trouble from the rooftop.

. . . I’m reading, and hearing, about the possibility of civil war. The possibility. Yet I’m sitting here wondering if this is actually what civil war is like. Has it become a reality? Will we look back at this in one year, two years . . . ten . . . and say, “It began in February 2006 . . . ”? It is like a nightmare in that you don’t realise it’s a nightmare while having it — only later, after waking up with your heart throbbing, and your eyes searching the dark for a pinpoint of light, do you realise it was a nightmare . . .

(Hat tip to Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly.)

A mischievous Democratic state legislator from Ohio says he plans to introduce a bill to prevent Republicans from adopting children.

The legislator says that "credible research" reveals that children brough up in Republican households tend to exhibit

emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.

(Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish.)

Here's the seventh entry in an ongoing series from Ambrose Bierce’s “The Devil’s Dictionary.”

Bierce (1842-1914) was a brilliant but underappreciated American author and journalist who had a long and tumultuous relationship with press baron William Randolph Hearst, and was a misanthrope possibly without peer.

HADES

Noun. The lower world; the residence of departed spirits; the place where the dead live. Among the ancients the idea of Hades was not synonymous with our Hell, many of the most respectable men of antiquity residing there in a very comfortable kind of way. Indeed, the Elysian Fields themselves were a part of Hades, though they have since been removed to Paris. When the Jacobean version of the New Testament was in process of evolution the pious and learned men engaged in the work insisted by a majority vote on translating the Greek word "Aides" as "Hell"; but a conscientious minority member secretly possessed himself of the record and struck out the objectional word wherever he could find it. At the next meeting, the Bishop of Salisbury, looking over the work, suddenly sprang to his feet and said with considerable excitement: "Gentlemen, somebody has been razing 'Hell' here!" Years afterward the good prelate's death was made sweet by the reflection that he had been the means (under Providence) of making an important, serviceable and immortal addition to the phraseology of the English tongue.

You've got to hand it to the Aussies for not mincing words.

The bloody geniuses at country's tourist board have kicked off a posh new US$120 million ad campaign with a TV spot replete with bog standard themes -- dusty outback roads, Abos, scantily-clad sheilas, roos and wallabees, as well as golf, beer and more beer -- that is aimed at its biggest overseas markets. These include the U.S., China, India and Japan.

As stereotypical as the spot may, be campaign's theme is a real corker:

We've switched on the lights.
Turned up the Verdi.
And the champagne's on board . . .

So where the bloody hell are you?

Here's a link to a video of the spot. Methinks the theme is aces and will encourage even more folks to give Australia a burl.

William F. Buckley, the dean emeritus of conservative American journalists, has lost a step or two in recent years, but is still worth reading and heeding. His view on the state of affairs in Iraq falls somewhere between mine and Country Bumpkin's, whose reponse to my blathering yesterday (Iraq: 'We Broke It, Now We Own It') is a thoughtful counterpoint.

Here's a link to Buckley's brief commentary in the National Review, as well as an excerpt:

Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.

He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.

Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon yesterday downgraded the only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support. The battalion had been repeatedly cited as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.


And finally, this chilling excerpt from Healing Iraq, the widely disseminated blog of "Zayed," who is a Baghdad dentist:

Fierce streetfighting at my doorstep for the last 3 hours. Rumor in the neighbourhood is that men in black are trying to enter the area. Some armed kids defending the local mosque three blocks away are splattering bullets at everything that moves, and someone in the street was shouting for people to prepare for defending themselves.

There's supposed to be a curfew, but it doesn't look like it. My net connection is erratic, so I'll try to update again if possible. The news from other areas in Baghdad are horrible. I don't think it's being reported anywhere.

My father and uncle are agitatedly walking back and forth in the hallway, asking me what we should do if the mob or Interior ministry forces try to attack us in our homes? I have no answer for them.

I've never been a car guy in any regular sense (hot rodding teenage years, shadetree mechanic adulthood, crazy about NASCAR, etc.). But I do have an aesthetic appreciation for a well turned out automobile and follow the auto industry both from a design-engineering and market perspective.

I drove VWs and then Volvos for years because of their practicality and reliability. But from a design perspective, no other automaker was ever inclined to steal the VW's noseline or Volvo's boxy profile to adhese to spiff up its own product line. Then I took up with Audis because of their practicality, reliability and marvelous Quattro all-wheel drive system. It was then that I noticed that other automakers were nipping and tucking some of their own offerings with Audi touches.

This has prompted an interest in the often subtle evolution of design themes from one car to another, which leads me to an interesting recent New York Times article on Chris Bangle, BMW's chief of design and the most influential -- and controversial -- designer of his generation.

The focus of the article was on Bangle's BMW Butt, as I will call it.

I refer to Bangle's introduction in the redesign of the 2002 7-Series of a trunk lid that rose above the rear fenders, as opposed to the typical rounded off design. Over the years, Bangle has crafted this butt onto the entire BMW product line, although it has been a bit toned down in recent years. The metamorphosis is now complete with the introduction of the new Z4 coupe (pictured above).

I don't care for Bangle's BMW Butt. I find it ungainly, and familiarity has not warmed me to it as it has other designs that I disdained at first such as the Lexus RX or radical recent Cadillac redesigns.

But other automakers have taken notice, and Bangle's BMW Butt is oft imitated on many Japanese and Korean models and now even (gasp!) the new Mercedes flagship -- the S-Class.

I'm not sure what all this proves. Other than once again imitation is the severest form of flattery.

Forget about all the justifications, good intentions, historical precedents, flag waving, democracy wishing, opportunism, finger pointing and other blame gaming surrounding the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

With that war-torn country consuming itself in an orgy of violence following the bombing of the Golden Dome earlier this week, one thing needs to be remembered above all.

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it with the accumulated wisdom of a distinguished military career that spanned Vietnam to the first Gulf War, and a second career as a diplomat on the world stage:
And, I add, are compelled to fix it.

Powell's words must not be forgotten as Iraq teeters on the brink of civil war and the Bush administration's post-invasion scheme further unravels. (Notice that I did not call it a strategy; there never was one.)

The Times of London provides this horrifying summary of the last 24 hours:

At least 200 Iraqis and 7 U.S. soldiers killed. These included 53 in Baghdad, 47 at a roadblock in Nahrawan on the outskirts of Baghdad, 25 in Basra, where 12 inmates were removed from a prison and 11 were killed, and 16 in Baquba where a bomb aimed at an Iraqi foot patrol took out 8 soldiers and 8 civilians.

The U.S. created, aided and abetted the conditions that led to this upsurge in sectarian violence.

I believe from the bottom of my heart that most Iraqis -- no matter their ethnicity or religion -- want a civil, violence-free society. But merely acknowledging that is only a starting point.

With responsibility comes accountability.

It is the responsibility of the U.S. to ameliorate the conditions that it created that have led to this latest and hitherto greatest crisis, which inconveniently comes at the very time when political necessity at home demands a plan to withdraw troops that are now more desperately needed than ever.

The Bush administration also must be held accountable for the witch's brew of horrors that it concocted.

I take no comfort in the fact that the architects of the war -- notably Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- have been revealed as profoundly incompetent and extraordinarily shortsighted.

(Have any three key American government officials been as wrongheaded and caused more carnage than these? Well, perhaps LBJ, McNamara and Rusk. But that only serves to remind us that the lessons of the Vietnam quagmire, which had so much to do with the emergence and growth of the neoconservative movement that underpins Bush foreign policy, have been cast asude by the president's own coven of "we know best" neocon hawks. They have chosen to forget history and we all are condemned to repeat it.)

Yes, Iraqi politicial and religious leaders also have responsibilities. Yes, the fledgling national Army and police forces must prove that they are capable of putting down the violence and maintaining law and order over the long haul without U.S. hand holding. But confining U.S. troops to their garrisons while Shiites and Sunnis maraude, loot, kidnap and kill will not win the day.

Only the U.S. can provide the stability still so maddeningly elusive in Baghdad and some other parts of the country nearly four years after a post-invasion occupation that Vice President Cheney smugly predicted would be over practically as soon as it began. A mere three months, he said, and American troops would be homeward bound.

Only the U.S. can deal with an infrastructure crisis that leaves Iraqis with less oil, fewer hours of electricity and, extraordinarily, less hope in some respects than during Saddam's reign. Did anyone believe that there would be a need for daytime curfews three years and nine months after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"?

It would be criminal to simply dump the huge mess that the U.S. has made back on Iraqis and say, "it's your country, it's your responsibility, it's time for us to go," but more and more people are suggesting just that in and out of Washington. But abandonment is not an option.

The Bush administration has been notable for talking the talk, but falling far short when it comes to walking the walk.

It is one thing when the victims of its hubristic ineptness are Americans, whether New Orleans residents clinging to makeshift rafts amidst raging floodwaters because of a botched federal disaster response or elderly pensioners desperately in need of life-saving medications because of a botched federal prescription drug plan.

It is entirely another when they are a people who, for the most part, are trying to put behind them the duel nightmares of first the Saddam Era and now the Bush Era and get on with their lives.

As the dust settles a bit around the furor over the takeover of the management of six major U.S. ports by the government of the United Arab Emirates, several things are clear:

* A fair number of smart people agree with me that the issue is not the deal itself, although it raises a bunch of questions on its own.

President Bush's veto threat is idiotic -- and has only served to further anger his fellow Republicans -- but he's probably right on this one.

* The issue is the lousy state of ports security specifically and homeland security generally some four and a half years after 9/11 despite Bush administration bluster to the contrary.

The vitriolic Republican reaction to the deal was all but inevitable following publication last week of a Republican report revealing the stunning magnitude of the administration's failure to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

* The administration's ongoing ineptitude on homeland security has resulted in the unthinkable: The Democrats have seized the high ground on a national security issue.

Here's a roundup of comments from hither and yond:

From a Washington Post editorial:

You know there's something suspicious going on when multiple members of Congress -- House, Senate, Democrat, Republican, future presidential candidates of all stripes -- spontaneously unite around an issue that none of them had known existed a week earlier. . . . [W]e're wondering if perhaps American politicians are having trouble understanding some of the most basic goals of contemporary U.S. foreign policy. A goal of "democracy promotion" in the Middle East, after all, is to encourage Arab countries to become economically and politically integrated with the rest of the world. What better way to do so than by encouraging Arab companies to invest in the United States? Clearly, Congress doesn't understand that basic principle, since its members prefer instead to spread prejudice and misinformation.

Mansoor Ijaz in National Review Online:

It is understandable that American politicians would want to seek clarifications, safeguards, and accountability on the DP World deal in honor of all those who were mercilessly murdered on that tragic September morning. But the best way to honor their memories is to use the Dubai deal as a model to build effective bridges to the Arab and Muslim world — as we did in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan — instead of erecting barriers that reveal America's paranoia and fear about some Islamist doomsday scenario no one can predict, all the while alienating the very people we need to help raise up the Muslim world's disaffected so they are not so desperate to tear us down.

From a New York Times news analysis:

The administration's core problem at the ports, most experts agree, is how long it has taken for the federal government to set and enforce new security standards — and to provide the technology to look inside millions of containers that flow through them.

Only 4 percent or 5 percent of those containers are inspected. There is virtually no standard for how containers are sealed, or for certifying the identities of thousands of drivers who enter and leave the ports to pick them up. If a nuclear weapon is put inside a container — the real fear here — "it will probably happen when some truck driver is paid off to take a long lunch, before he even gets near a terminal," said Stephen Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign Relations.

. . . "I'm not worried about who is running the New York port," a senior inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency said, insisting he could not be named because the agency's work is considered confidential. "I'm worried about what arrives at the New York port."

Will Bunch in Attytood:

All these righty talking-head types seem stunned . . . that Bush didn't know about the ports deal until he read about it just a few days ago. Surprised that our president was out of the loop on something? Our question is this: Are you freakin' kidding me? Where have you people been for five years?

This isn't Jimmy Carter telling callers they took orange sunshine and to listen to some Allman Bros. This is exactly the guy you knew you were voting for not once but twice: The least-involved, most out-of-the-loop president in American history.

Here's the deal, OK. If you're truly outraged about the Bush's administration's support for Arab terrorists, then you shouldn't just stop a UAE company from buying our ports. You also need to stop buying any oil produced in Saudi Arabia, because that money directly supports terrorists. And unless they're willing to do that (and they aren't), then the critics of this are being hypocritical.

Peggy Noonan asks in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column why terrorists would want to target ports when airport security remains so lousy:

It's almost five years since 9/11, and since the new security regime began. Why hasn't it gotten better? Why has it gotten worse? It's a disgrace, this airport security system, and it's an embarrassment.

. . . So we're all talking about port security this week . . . That debate is turning bitter, and I wonder if the backlash against President Bush isn't partly due to the fact that everyone in America has witnessed or has been a victim of the incompetence of the airport security system. Why would people assume the government knows what it's doing when it makes decisions about the ports? It doesn't know what it's doing at the airports.

This is a flying nation. We fly. And everyone knows airport security is an increasingly sad joke, that TSA [the Transportation Security Administration] itself often appears to have forgotten its mission, if it ever knew it, and taken on a new one--the ritual abuse of passengers.

Now there's a security problem. Solve that one.

Herewith the eighth in an ongoing series of entries on slang, this one drawn from Robert L. Chapman's marvelous "Dictionary of American Slang (Third Edition)."

KANGAROO COURT

(1) noun phrase: By 1953: A mock court "The toughest prisoner announced that he was president of the Kangaroo Club and would hold court" -- E. Lavine

(2) noun phrase: By 1940s: A small-town police court where traffic fines to transients are high, and usually divided among the police. [Origin unknown]

In another sign of spreading concern over the avian flu, the Tower of London has decided to keep its famous ravens indoors. Special aviaries have been created for the six birds within one of the towers of the fortress on the Thames.

Legend has it the Tower of London will collapse and the kingdom will fall if all the ravens leave.

The Tower ravens - named Branwen, Hugine, Munin, Gwyllum, Thor and Baldrick - are said to be getting used to their new surroundings.

The Tower's Yeoman raven master, Derrick Coyle, told BBC News:

Although we don't like having to bring the Tower ravens inside, we believe it is the safest thing to do for their own protection, given the speed that the virus is moving across Europe. We are taking advice on the vaccinations against avian flu, and in the meantime, we will continue to give our six ravens as much care and attention as they need.

Will the destruction at the al Askariya Golden Mosque in Samarra today mark a turning point in in Iraq?

Most Iraqs seem to be sick and tired of sectarian violence, so one can only hope so.

Less likely is that the incident will end the battle of wills between Shiites and Sunnis over forming a new national government. It may even spark the full-fledged civil war that many have feared.

The mosque and its centerpiece "Golden Dome" is a Shiite holy site. Or I should say was after a group of men dressed like Iraqi police commandos set off explosives and pretty much destroyed the dome. The explosion, in a province with a large Sunni population, triggered other attacks elsewhere between Shiites and Sunnis.

Foreign fighters were likely responsible, and the attack bore the hallmarks of al Qaeda in Iraq, said Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie.

"They are really testing the patience of the Iraqi people," he said, calling on Muslims around the world to condemn "this act of terrorism."

Like I said, one can only hope so.

Practically everything that is wrong with the Bush administration and Congress, as well as the sorry state of the debate on homeland security, is on display in the firestorm over White House approval of a deal to hand over stevedoring duties at six major American ports to a company based in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.