Annapolis

After seven years of diplomatic neglect, George Bush has set aside a day - yes, one day - tomorrow - to try to work out the intractable six-decades-long Israel/Palestine problem.

What, pray tell, do they think they can accomplish in one day? Ask the people in the Middle East and you discover that Arabs and Jews can indeed agree on at least one thing: When asked that question, they all answer "Not much."

Oy vey. Even the choice of location is damning: The United States Naval Academy is the setting, and the motto of the Navy is "Don't give up the Ship" - invoking tenacity and determination, not diplomatic acumen and compromise. In Arabic, "Ana" means "I" and people the world over know the word "police." A Saudi humorist joked that the choice of location was an arrogant message from Bush to the Middle East "I am the police."

The question of borders has plagued both Israel and the neighbors for over 40 years, since June 4, 1967; and the implementation of the Six Day War armistice. Since then, conservative, some would say fundamentalist whack-job, settlers have made the occupied territories their home. Kicking them out of the West Bank will not be as easily achieved as the same feat was two years ago, when the settlers were evicted from Gaza. The Gaza Strip is not biblically significant. Jews do not have deep emotional or historical attachments to Gaza. Not so the West Bank, which is historically, theologically and emotionally significant to most Jews worldwide - let alone the "fundamentalist whack jobs" I just referenced. I can't see removing them without violence. The issue of borders certainly isn't going to be achieved in a day.

And you can't talk about the borders without acknowledging the 800-pound-gorilla playing the zither in the sitting room: Jerusalem.

On paper, the equation balances. The Arab neighborhoods would fall under Palestinian control, and the Jewish neighborhoods would be controlled by Israel. Except it gets dicey real quick - the neighborhoods are intertwined.

Ask any chemist - when you are working with volatile compounds, the slightest variation from the recipe and it will blow up in your face. And what cocktail could be more volatile than the 35 acres of the walled city of Old Jerusalem? All three of the major monotheistic religions consider Old Jerusalem and the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount to be sacred ground.

The problems are exacerbated by Christianist Zionists (who should make with the butting out already) who stick their noses where they don't belong and urge their constituencies to pressure the Israeli government to take Jerusalem off the negotiating table. Fortunately, we are making headway, and even the occasional Zionist Rabbi Is waking up and smelling the coffee. But before any Jew throws in with that lot, remember they are mentally ill. They want to precipitate Armageddon and damn us all to their hell. Those Jews who wake up pissed every morning that the Messiah didn't come last night find natural allies in them. The rest of us find ulcers, migraines and anxiety. Again we have a problem that's going to take more than a day to sort out.

And then you have nearly four and a half million Palestinians living in limbo, many still in refugee camps. And everyone, Jew and Arab alike, needs to be scolded by my grandmother for being obstinate jackasses and using the Palestinian people as pawns, especially the Arab world. They really screwed the Palestinians in 1948, the bastards. All of the Arab neighboring states should be held accountable. They are every bit as culpable as Israel in contributing to the suffering of the Palestinian people and need to be called out on that publicly. There is plenty of sin and blame to go around. Everyone has behaved abominably and nobody gets a pass. This can't even be mentioned at Annapolis. Hell, it would take a good 6 months of Arabs storming the door every time that little bit of reality comes up and is said aloud. I shake my head in disbelief. They offer a day? Oh, the humanity...

And how the hell do they even bring up security in the time allowed?

This is why I don't often write about Israel and Palestine. It's damned infuriating. No one is asking me, but if anyone did, I would say Frost was employing irony; good fences do NOT make good neighbors. The first order of business should be to tear down that damned fence and fill in the trenches, and restore the 10% of the territory that it's construction seized.

Then I would say let Gaza go to Egypt. Give the West Bank to Jordan. Give the Golan Heights to Syria, and let a disinterested third party settle the border with Lebanon, and nobody would get to whine about it. And suck it up. Learn to live with a divided Jerusalem.Until everyone concerned learns how to act, I would make Old Jerusalem a U.N. protectorate. Don't like it? Learn how to act.

But no one is asking me. Probably because they are afraid I would tell them.

UPDATE FROM COMMENTS: Pale Rider is spot on as usual.

You can't make this shit up:

[Indeed! You gotta get this...BG]

"Annapolis" was named after Queen Anne of England:

Queen Anne was the last of the Stuarts, the second daughter of James II and his first wife Ann Hyde.

She was shy, conscientious, stout, gouty, shortsighted and very small.

Anne was 'homely', and she did not have a particularly happy married life. Her husband, Prince George of Denmark, was a drunk and a crashing bore!

Prince George was a gross, rather ridiculous figure, even King James, Anne's father, remarked "I have tried him drunk and I've tried him sober, but there is nothing in him".

And:

Alex Haley, the late author of the world-famous account of his family entitled Roots, was able to trace back the arrival of his ancestors, who had been kidnapped from Africa, to the Annapolis City Dock. Although Maryland was formally a slave state, many of its citizens opposed the institution. Archaeologists have found that there was a large, free African American population in the area before the Civil War.

Cheney: against sanctions on Iran before he was for them

H/T Think Progress:

Cheney has 'fessed up that as CEO of Halliburton he opposed sanctions against Iran.

What he leaves out is that he evaded the law to do business with the Iranian government.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with rogue nations. In 1995, President Clinton signed an executive order barring U.S. investment in Iran’s energy sector. To evade U.S. law, Halliburton set up an offshore subsidiary that engaged in dealings with Iran.

In 1996, Cheney blasted the Clinton administration for being “sanction-happy as a government.” “The problem is that the good Lord didn’t see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments,” Cheney explained of his desire to do business with Iran.

His rationalization now is that it wasn't his responsibility to uphold U.S. law when he was a CEO.

I know. My head hurts, too.

Too Little, Too Late

Just a few words about General Ricardo Sanchez.

Yes, it's nice that he noticed that the war hasn't been going well. It's nice to have him actually speak up about what he thinks should happen.

I file it all under "Too Little, Too Late." The time to be courageous would have been when you were still in uniform. That is, you tell your superiors that the policies they want you to carry out and the orders they've given you are wrong and you quit on the spot. I don't know why this is so difficult--all Sanchez had to do was quit. He held on to his command, hoping for that 4th Star, and they screwed him out of it.

Sanchez needs to shuffle off to retirement and get out of the way of people who are actually speaking out. I'd rather hear from General Batiste any day.

And here is an excerpt from an an excellent article by retired USAF LTC William J. Astore:

So let me be clear: If we lose in Iraq, the American people will not be to blame. We cannot be accused of lacking a will that was never wanted or called upon to begin with. Yet the stab-in-the-back myth gains credibility precisely because so few high-level people either in government or the military are being held accountable for failures in Iraq.

In World War II, Thomas Ricks reminds us, our military relieved seventeen division commanders and four corps commanders of duty. With the possible exception of Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski of Abu Ghraib infamy, has any senior officer been relieved for cause in Iraq? Since none apparently has, does this mean that, unlike the spineless American people, they have all performed well?

To cite just one typical case, Major General Kenneth Hunzeker served as the commanding general, Civilian Police Assistance Training Team, from October 2006 to July 2007 in Iraq. Surely, this was a tough job, especially for a man with no proficiency in Arabic. Yet, by all accounts, Iraqi police units to this day remain remarkably corrupt, militia-ridden, and undependable. Does this mean Hunzeker failed? Apparently not, since he was promoted to lieutenant general and given a coveted corps command. Interestingly, his most recent official biography fails to mention his time in Iraq leading the police assistance team. Even if Hunzeker was indeed the best man for the job, what kind of progress could have been possible in a ten-month tour of duty? By the time Hunzeker learned a few painful lessons, he was already jetting to Germany and command of V Corps.

The kind of fate that awaited MG Hunzeker is what Sanchez figured was in the cards for him--a 4th Star and a nice post somewhere. When the Bush Administration abandoned him, he decided to find his courage to speak out.

Interestingly, Batiste is linked to Hunzeker, Petraeus and Sanchez. But where was the promotion and cushy job for Batiste? Did they offer it to him? Did he turn it down? Hunzeker was the one who took over the 1st Infantry Division from MG Batiste in a ceremony presided over by LTG Sanchez. Go figure.

And, I thought General Petraeus was responsible for training Iraqi police, a job which later went to...get ready for it...MG Hunzeker.

See how all of this relates to itself?

Given that the Iraqi police are incompetent, can't protect their citizens, and have been infiltrated by insurgents, why are we promoting two of the men who were directly responsible for using US resources to train them and equip them? Has anyone found all of that missing gear yet?

This is how we do things now--if you're an incomptent General, and you disagree with the Bush administration (Sanchez), then you get nothing.

If you're an incompetent General who fails in his primary mission to train Iraqi police (Petraeus and Hunzeker), you get promoted and handed more responsibility.

Who know when Petraeus and Hunzeker are going to announce their candidacy for President and Vice President?

No, You DON'T Get to Move the Goalposts...

Unbelievable...

Do they really think they're going to get away with denying that they're just moving the goalposts each and every time it looks like they're failing to make any significant progress in Iraq?

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

NO MORE MONEY! Make them accept a timetable for withdrawing US Troops and the Webb Amendment, giving service members equal time at home station for time spent deployed in Iraq.

This should go out as a wake-up call to Democrats who want to waffle and flip-flop--we're not only going to demand "better Democrats" but we're going to go after Democrats who cave in and support the administration over the needs of our troops and the overwhelming desire of the American People to end this war.

The US Ambassador had this to say:

Ambassador Crocker drew a distinction between the effectiveness of the American military buildup in quelling violence and the influence the United States could bring to bear at a political level.

“The political stuff does not lend itself to sending out a couple of battalions to help the Iraqi’s pass legislation,” he said.

Still, he said, there were some positive signs that Iraqis were interested in making headway on some thorny issues. Provincial governors, he said, were pressing for a law to define their powers. “We are past the point where it is an American agenda,” the ambassador said. “It is what needs to be done in Iraqi terms.”

I want to see Democrats out there, NOW, calling out the Administration for moving the goalposts. I want to see outrage and indignation. And I want it backed up with votes and with deeds.

Hear that, Presidential candidates?

Meanwhile, Huckleberry Graham sets the stage for the coup that was planned when the surge strategy was announced:

BLITZER: But what happens if they fail to divide up the oil, if they fail to get those elections, they don’t disband all the various militias by the end of the year? Then what does the United States do?

GRAHAM: So I am hopeful that some of these people at the local level will have a stronger voice. And I’m hopeful that Talabani, Maliki, and Hashemi and all the major players can have a breakthrough.

I’m asking them to do things they say are important for their country. The conditions are right now and, quite honestly, if they can’t do it by the end of the year, I have real doubts that this group will ever do it so we need a new political strategy to find a group that can.

WHAT???

"We'll find a group that can?"

I thought we had a law against overthrowing foreign governments. You'd think a sitting US Senator who pretends to know something about the law would know that.

Pardon me while I reset my indignation and outrage meters...

How does Trent like being in the minority?

Apparently, not a Lott...

Minority Whip Trent Lott, (WATB-MS) is resigning, just a year after cruising to reelection in the 2006 mid-term election. His resignation is the greatest blow to a GOP that is hemorrhaging incumbents and experienced leadership, creating an atmosphere that the Republicans will remain in the minority in both the House and Senate for the foreseeable future.

Faced with the possibility that the voters, sick of the obstruction of the GOP, will send a fillibuster-proof Democratic majority to the Senate, Lott is packing it in. In that scenario, obstructionism would not work for the petulant party of perpetual war, borrow-and-spend fiscal irresponsibility, and fascistic domestic policies.

While many of the quitters on the GOP side of the aisle have held key committee and subcommittee posts, Lott is the first member of the leadership in either chamber to pack it in.