Also Also

Holiday Notices and Wishes

Hey there--cupla things as we near Christmakwanzukkah. I'm out of state for a piece, making the rest of the first year of Also Also rather quiet overall. Time may present itself, but not on anything in depth. I do have an interview in progress with Portland City council and "clean money" candidate Amanda Fritz, but that will be in early 2006.

I wish you a very pleasant set of holy days, even if there's no holiness in them for you. May everyone be safe among those who are close to you, and may 2006 be an improvement on 2005.

--TJ

(Reid) WYDEN Joins Feingold on PATRIOT Filibuster Threat

[crossposting for once FROM DailyKos and not to it...first time on the recommend list!]

RawStory is publishing an exclusive* that claims Sen Min Leader Reid will vote against cloture on the current PATRIOT USA Act agreement, effectively vowing to filibuster the bill:

 

Reid has told aides he will vote against cloture -- a Senate procedure which requires that 60 senators support a bill being brought before the Senate before it is brought to a final vote. In essence, voting against cloture means supporting a filibuster.

"Senator Reid has several concerns including the National Security letters, the library provision, and some of the habeas corpus aspects which have nothing to do with terrorism," an aide told RAW STORY.

Interesting to note that last line on habeas corpus--the current version of the bill already reflects some compromise between Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, but still runs to the right of the Bingaman amendment largely restoring HC rights to Guantanamo prisoners. (If you recall, Oregon's Ron Wyden initially voted for the Graham bill restricting HC rights, but then voted for both the Bingaman and Graham/Levin bills after many of us pitched a fit. Much in the way that a subsequent defensive 3-and-out saves the cheese of a QB who turns the ball over, Reid may end up sparing Wyden lasting harm from his bizarre lapse.)

But in any case, whenever the party leader in one of the chambers signs on to blocking a bill, that's pretty big news. Reid continues to impress, picking battles that are both important and winnable.

Update 4pm--
Fresh from Sen Wyden's office, his statement on joining Reid and Feingold (and apparently Obama, Kerry and Republican Hagel) in opposing cloture:

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today announced his intention to vote against and support efforts to filibuster the conference report reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act, citing concerns about numerous provisions that could compromise Americans’ privacy rights that would be made permanent under the legislation.  Specifically, Wyden announced his intention today to oppose the legislation because it does not include sunsets for controversial powers and diminishes congressional oversight over the government’s use of these powers.

    “The current version of the report strikes the wrong balance between security and civil liberties and leaves Congress with inadequate oversight,” said Wyden. “Just as troubling is the inclusion of new language that will make it much more difficult for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves from possible Patriot Act abuses.  These unjustified changes do not make the Patriot Act a more effective tool for fighting terrorism and in fact, make it more susceptible to abuse.  I will vote against the current version of the legislation and support efforts to block its passage.”

    Specifically, Wyden cited strong concerns over a number of provisions contained in the conference report that would significantly compromise the privacy rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens.  These specific provisions include:

· A provision that makes permanent the ability of FBI agents to issue National Security Letters (NSL), or documents issued without the approval of a judge or grand jury, which allows the government to obtain sensitive personal information about law-abiding U.S. citizens;

· A requirement that requires anyone who receives a NSL to notify the FBI if s/he consults with an attorney and to identify the attorney to the FBI, potentially resulting in a significant blow to the right to counsel, something that exists nowhere else in law;

· A provision to impose criminal penalties on a NSL recipient who speaks out in violation of a NSL gag order, even if s/he believes his rights have been violated;

· A measure that fails to require a roving wiretap includes sufficient information to describe in detail the specific person to be wiretapped.

    While Wyden is an original co-sponsor of the Combat Met Act that was attached to conference report, he expressed his disappointment that this legislation was attached to the controversial PATRIOT Act.

     “As a cosponsor of the combat meth legislation, I am disappointed by the politicization of the meth tragedy in this fashion,” said Wyden. “I will continue to fight for the passage of the meth bill but not as a part of this badly flawed legislation.”   

*Andrew at NPI points out that while this is good news, it's also hardly an exclusive if Reid told AP about it last night. So take 'exclusive' with a grain of salt.

The Debate on Measure 37 Continues

Rather than attempt to recreate the points and discussion over here, let me point you to Russell Sadler's recent BlueOregon column on the continuing debate over Measure 37, Oregon's land-use compensation initiative that was recently overturned in Marion County. Sadler's primary motive is to call attention to the rather amateurish recall effort, aided by the state's Constitution Party (think Judge Roy Moore), but the copious commentary broadens to an evaluation of both Judge James' ruling, and the common-man principles on which both M37 and the ruling are grounded.

Yours truly is one of those commenters, and so I'll point you in that direction for my thoughts on the matter within the context of other viewpoints. There's only a little trollage; most of the discussion is serious and substantive--and for earlier stabs at the ruling from when it was first issued, here's a previous Sadler column.

--TJ

Expert Predictions on Post-Election Iraq

If you bought the full program, with all the bios and stats for the major and minor players in the Iraqi fiasco, then none of the following analyses are likely to surprise you. Predicting outcomes is largely a numbers racket, and the numbers in Iraq aren't hard to fathom--obviously some coalition of Shia parties will control the new Parliament, and Sunni participation will lag (although at least one report tonight paints a picture of encouragement). The rest of the story is in who is being backed by whom, and how that dynamic will be impacted by the rather formal statement of who will be empowered by the election and who will be marginalized.

Much of the below is cribbed from Juan Cole, which for the purposes of this conflict is largely like saying you got some materials from the Library of Congress. (The Hardball interviews are my contribution; a benefit of free workout time at the office. Chris Matthews has a strangely sycophantic streak about himself when it comes to Bush, but he consistently brings on guests who trash the operation, so watching it is better than Wolf at 4pm.) First and foremost, something you probably did NOT know even if you got the program; it's still not something that has received any serious media play: the major winners in this week's election want us out and are OK with shooting at us to help make the decision easier:

According to the reports, the "Pact of Honor" that was adopted consists of 14 points, among which the following demands and agreements are the most important (the sentences in quotation marks are translated from the document as quoted in the reports):

• "withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq"; "elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country, while working seriously for the building of [Iraqi] security institutions and military forces within a defined schedule";

• suppression of the legal immunity of occupation troops, a demand coming with the condemnation of their practices against civilians and their breach of human rights;

• categorical rejection of the establishment of any relations with Israel;

• "resistance is a legitimate right of all peoples, but terrorism does not represent legitimate resistance"; "we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing, abducting and expulsion aimed at innocent citizens for sectarian reasons";

• "to activate the de-Ba'athification law and to consider that the Ba'ath party is a terrorist organization for all the tyranny it brought on the oppressed sons of Iraq, and to speed up the trial of overthrown president Saddam Hussein and the pillars of his regime";

• "to postpone the implementation of the disputed principle of federalism and to respect the people's opinion about it."

The conference established a committee that is responsible for following up the implementation of the resolutions and reporting on it after six months.

If anything, the conference was a testimony to the increasing importance of the Sadrist current. As for the actual implementation of its resolutions, it will greatly depend on the pressure that the same current will be able to exert after the forthcoming election, if the United Iraqi Alliance -- of which the Sadrists are a major pillar on a par with SCIRI -- succeeds in getting a commanding position in the next National Assembly."

Ah, the Sadrists. Certainly no fundamentalism there. Remember that of the two, Sistani is the "quietist" (Koran not necessarily the literal guide for politics), while Sadr is the traditionalist (Koran is your law text). Remember back when he was wanted for murder? I know it's the Moonie Times, but it's true! We kind of well, let all that slide if he agreed to lay low for a while. And he has, waiting patiently until December 16th. And here's where the ugliness starts. Here's Bob Baer, CIA expert and inspiration for Syriana, on Sadr's strategy:

BAER:  I think, Chris, we are going to see worse problems after the election, because the Shia are going to say we are the legitimate rulers, we are taking the oil, we‘re taking the power and oh, by the way, you Americans, thanks a lot, now leave.  And it‘s—you‘re going to have a radical government ...

MATTHEWS: Well, that would be interesting.  Do you really believe that the Shia would feel themselves confident enough to hold the place once we leave? 

BAER:  With Iran‘s backing, why not?  Muqtada al-Sadr was put in by Hezbollah.  He‘s been told to back off until after the 15^th.  I think pretty well the best prediction after the 15^th, he is going to say all right, thank you very much. 

MATTHEWS: I‘ve never heard this before.  You believe, Bob Baer, based upon your knowledge, that the government they elect in Iraq and we supervise next Thursday will have enough self confidence to say we can leave? 

BAER:  I think they will.  And I think their plan will be—is to go into Ramadi and Fallujah and take care of business.

"Take care of business." I don't think he means they'll set up a tax-abated economic development zone. How will they exert that power? With the intelligence and security apparatus of the Badr Brigade, a longtime partner/acolyte of the Iranian paramilitary service. It is these forces that have quieted down southern areas and even parts of Baghdad; not only are they probably the most badass Iraqis short of the Kurdish peshmerga, they are stragetic in their methods. Their control of the area  is the price they seek for making things look politically quiet for the Americans.

Via Cole we get a really sharp history and analysis of the Badr, and how they are another primary set of 'businessmen' ready to TCB. But what I found most interesting was the rather pernicious allegation that the "horrified revealment" of US-backed Iraqi security abuses of Sunni detainees was actually engineered by the US. Recognizing that a disaffected Sunni could really mess things up long term, the idea is that exposing the torture of Badrites et al would pump up the ballot box in Sunni areas. The US government, cynically exploiting the torture they claim they know nothing about for political gain? Can't be.

Believe it. Matthews' other guest that workout Tuesday was Michael Ware, TIME's Baghdad correspondent. He didn't reference the timing of the torture revelations, but did make it clear that the US was wary of the Shia landslide and wanted to try to pump up the Sunni any way possible:

WARE:  Well, there has been considerable Sunni outreach, particularly by the U.S. mission here, trying to contact Sunni community leaders, tribal leaders, sheiks, the opinion makers, to try and get them to bring their people to participate in this process.

America, to some agree, went to bat for the Sunnis in the constitutional process.  Yet by in large, it was to very little avail.  The people who hold the ranks of power kept a tight hold on those ranks.

Strangely, what we‘re seeing now is an enormous shift, an evolution in U.S. strategy.  They‘ve always had engagement with the Sunni, even with the insurgents.  We‘re seeing that ramped up. The U.S. mission here has recognized that the war cannot be won militarily in the time available, that is being given it by the American
public.  So they‘re looking for a political solution, they‘re looking for their allies. What are they doing?  They‘re bringing back the new Baath party.  The new Baath, not the Baath of Saddam, but a Baath as military intelligence said, “expresses Sunni nationalism.”

MATTHEWS: Will it work?  Can we bring together Sunni nationalism and Shia nationalism to form a new coalition?  A new government?  A new deal? 

WARE: Listen.  Politically there a ripe middle ground here in Iraq that‘s waiting to be captured.  Right now, those who are benefiting from the system, as it stands, are the extremists on both ends.

Hey, that sounds kind of hopeful! Ware does say that the US has appeared to figure out which horse to back, better late than never. Maybe this will shake itself out shortly after the election, and we can start leaving in gradually increasing numbers. But ultimately he too shares the opinions of the rest:

WARE:  Well, put it this way.  I‘m certainly—I‘ll bet the house that American troops cannot leave this country any time soon.  The ones who are winning from this war are America‘s enemies, Iran and al Qaeda. They‘re the ones who are getting stronger, not weaker.

Something to look forward to. {cough} Hey, you want something affirmative? Here's an affirmative, answer-the-tough-questions advocacy for withdrawal sooner than later. Read the responses, and arm yourself for the next conversant who says we can't just leave...

--TJ

 

Did Minnis sic EPA on Portland?

Wow, the Portland City Council is really becoming dogged at investigating those who appear to want to cost the city money. Yesterday's Oregonian fronted the story of Wednesday's meeting in which commissioners, particularly Erik Sten, challenged PGE officials to explain why they kept money charged to ratepayers as utility tax. The exchange got quite testy, as you can see if you watch the video of the meeting.

Today brings more news of a different sort of antagonism--the report in today's Portland Tribune suggesting that House Speaker Karen Minnis encouraged the federal EPA to seek punishment against Portland for its sewage runoff problems:

During the 2001 session of the Oregon Legislature, rural Republicans and agricultural interests, citing news reports of farmers getting fined for letting a relatively small amount of cow feces to reach rivers, started complaining that Portland was getting fined less for doing a lot worse. House Speaker Minnis sponsored a resolution that asked President Bush and Congress to fine Portland for its sewage overflows. The measure — House Joint Memorial 13 — passed the House in a fiercely partisan vote, over Democrats’ objections. According to documents obtained by Wyden, a Minnis aide faxed a copy of the draft resolution to the EPA on March 29, 2001.
   Because the measure was never approved by the state Senate, it had no more legal significance than a used tissue. Legally speaking, “it had no impact,” says lobbyist John DiLorenzo, who conducted research for backers of the resolution. “It was never adopted.”
    This distinction appears to have been lost on staff at the EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice. Even though it failed in the state Senate, Ciannat Howett, a senior enforcement attorney at Regional 10, sent an e-mail to her colleagues on March 26, 2001, that said the resolution “provides a window of strong support by the Oregon Legislature for EPA action against Portland for its CSO violations.”

Minnis aides both deny that her fax was the impetus for federal action, and call Commissioner Sam Adams "desperate" for "trying to pin Portland's environmental problems on the Speaker..."
Of course what he's actually doing is pinning the problem of being prosecuted on Minnis, for environmental problems the City is actively engaged in addressing.

There is background in the story to the effect that the EPA had asked its field offices to suggest cities with water runoff problems, and that region HQ in Seattle had reported Portland as one of those cities. But it was not until the Minnis fax that wheels appeared to begin turning towards punishing the city for those problems. And while there is some dispute over what was said, it seems clear that at a minimum, Republican lawmakers from rural parts of the state were intent on seeking punishment for the city as some kind of payback for infractions their own constituents had been noted for.

Minnis clearly knew that Portland was fully underway in its efforts to stem sewage runoff, and her ubsubtle statement to the feds of Republican support for action against the city suggests a partisan, rather than environmental, motive. Thankfully it appears that after intense lobbying by Council, EPA is now willing to extend deadlines for remediation, past the point at which the Big Pipe is scheduled to be finished.

Problem or not, there's simply something entirely unseemly about Minnis trying to get the EPA to force penalties on the largest city that she supposedly represents, or to encourage one part of the state to antagonize another as political payback. Throw another arrow in the quiver being assembled to unseat Minnis in next fall.

--TJ

Viv Novak to Testify; Non-Exculpatorily?

firedoglake has been quite good over the last couple of months in keeping track of the players and dates involved in the Plame scandal. I have to confess my eyes finally glazed a bit with the Viveca Novak revelations coming out. It's really not fair in a scandal to have two unrelated people with the same name, especially when not Brown or Smith. And now it's apparently uninvolved reporters having conversations with Rove's lawyer that somehow becomes relevant and (if you believe Luskin, the lawyer), good for his client?

But Jane holds your hand here and then later and more damagingly here. Here's the gist in her view: Luskin was hoping that by relating his conversation, it would provide a plausible reason for Rove to not have told the grand jury about his conversation with Matt Cooper. If Rove could somehow shorten the timeline between Luskin hearing from Novak about Cooper, and his magical remembrance that he DID in fact talk to Cooper, then his sudden change in testimony could be tied to Viveca having reminded Luskin of the conversation.

Yikes...still with me? Luskin was hoping Novak had provided a spur to make Rove's changing story look like failed memory. But Jane thinks Novak may screw things up before the GJ and mention multiple conversations...including one BEFORE Rove's testimony where he had no recollection of the Cooper conversation. Now rather than giving Rove an alibi for his memory, it makes the testimony look even more suspicious than before.

Is Luskin really that stupid, or is he just desperate? Hamsher seems to think so. And in a sidebar, she correctly wonders what kind of BS the journalistic code of anonymous sources must be if Novak was blabbing about TIME's secret source to government lawyers. Throw her on the stake with Woodward--had I the benefit of Jane's plausible analysis, I too might have been one to read of her ethicless behavior and say, "WTF?"

Heads Up: GOP's Abramoff Deflection Machine Warming Up

This is of course serious dog bites man news, but the deflector shields are being passed around in Congress in an attempt to insulate vulnerable GOP Congresspeople from the stench of the growing Abramoff scandal:

The campaign will zero in on Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.); Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, both Michigan Democrats; and the Democratic Senatorial Committee (DSCC), among others, for taking money from Abramoff’s former clients.

Stabenow is up for reelection next year; Reid and Levin are not. With the entry of Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard (R) into the Senate race in Michigan, many leading Republicans believe they have a reasonable chance of unseating the first-term senator.

Republicans have spent months trying to blunt Democratic ethics charges. But the new communications blitz — which will include disseminating talking points to Capitol Hill Republicans and flooding local media with information linking Democrats to Abramoff — marks a more coordinated effort to halt the anti-GOP tide.

NRSC spokesman Brian Nick said the campaign committee would “be getting the resources” not only to senators up for reelection but to all members of the Republican Conference “so that they can offensively message that Democrats are playing partisan politics with an issue that involves all of Congress.”

My God--"offensively message?" I'd say this PR flack offered an outstanding example of offensive messaging. Note of course that he doesn't use the phrase "point out the fact that," because that would have the unfortunate effect of being false--since it doesn't involve all of Congress--just about 40 of them, 37-39 of them Republicans.

The reason for posting this notation of the obvious is that it would strongly behoove the Democratic Party to quickly get straight and "rebuttally message" what the clear differences are here between their politicians and the Republicans:

1. Payments AFTER votes; and
2. Payments from the tribes, not Abramoff.

Taking money from special interests, odious as I find it, is SOP for federal politicians. That's not an issue. What becomes an issue is when money is spent, and favorable votes are then suddenly cast. That's not what you have with Senators like Dorgan (who Roll Call strangely doesn't even mention) and Reid, two figures with long support for tribal casino interests, who voted favorably and then sometime later received payments.

And those payments came directly from the tribes, as the standard political donation. What Abramoff's relationships were to Republicans under suspicion, is something wholly different. Abramoff wined and dined, golfed and consulted, hired and pampered his better friends. And then they immediately did really nice things for him. The tribes? They got shafted.

So when this sewer trail of sad-sack 3rd grade "everyone's guilty" justification comes down the pike from Offensive Message Central, remember what your old pal Uncle Torrid said: after good, before bad; tribes good, Abramoff bad. And if that isn't enough of a scorecard reference for you, just pay attention to the names coming from Michael Scanlon and now suddenly Ben Fitial, who have agreed to turn state's evidence and start dropping bombshells over the next few months. As said elsewhere tonight, they may make Ronnie Earle look like mama's breast milk by comparison.

--TJ

Oh, NOW Hitchens Wants Someone Fired

I still have a residual respect for the writer/faux raconteur Christopher Hitchens. Back when Dennis Miller could say fuck on his show and wasn't warped into someone else by 9/11, there was no better episode than one with Hitchens, slouched into the guest chair with a smoke and a scotch as if the interview had been moved to the green room, bantering on in a wickedly funny manner about how much he hated the Americans, but how much he preferred them to the British. I suspect I was not alone; he was on several times.

So for many of us, the bizarre reincarnation of Hitchens after 9/11 as a sort of Oscar Madison version of Andrew Sullivan*--so ardently believing in Middle East hegemony and disdainful of those who would not give President Bush the benefit of all doubt--has been something to ponder. It's not so much his general support of Bush's grandiose vision, as it is the tenacious clinging to support when it should be clear to any half-intellectual that Bush is not the right seer for the job. Someone as smart as Hitchens would have been expected to bail out on this 3rd-rate burglary of a war long ago, but rather than cut bait and put away dreams for reality, Hitchens simply insulated himself by calling cowardice on those who had the nerve (or sense) to say 'enough.'

Which is why it's more than a little flabbergasting that what Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, the Downing Street Memo, European renditions and other disgraces could not accomplish, payola to the Iraq media does:

This time, someone really does have to be fired. The revelation that Defense Department money, not even authorized by Congress for the purpose, has been outsourced to private interests and then used to plant stories in the Iraqi press is much more of a disgrace and a scandal than anyone seems so far to have said.

I mean, just picture the scene for a moment. An Iraqi family living in, say, Anbar Province, picks its way down the stoop to collect the newly delivered newspaper. This everyday operation is hazardous, but less so than going down to the corner to pick it up, because there are mad people around who do not believe that anything should be in print, save the Quran, not to mention nasty local potentates who do not like to read criticism of themselves. Further, the streets are often dark and littered with risky debris. The lead story, however, reports that all is well in the Anbar region; indeed, things are going so well that there is even a slight chance that they will one day get better. Who is supposed to be fooled by this? The immediate target is, one supposes, the long-suffering people of Iraq. But over time, the printing and dissemination of cheery reportage must have been intended to be picked up and replayed back into the American electorate. If done from state coffers, that is probably not even legal.

Digby calls this kind of agitation naive, but I find it rather more disturbing, dishonest, and blood-angering. Don't get me wrong; this is another in a long line of really dumb moves by the administration. It makes a lie and a joke out of the stated claim that we're trying to teach the Iraqis democracy, since  independent and trustworthy media are a neccessary cornerstone of all democracies. I'm not arguing with the content--I'm disgusted that Hitchens has the fucking NERVE to make THIS an occassion to drop the glove and say, "That's it--heads shall roll!" I mean, you could pick from a bigger list than the fresh fish menu (pdf) at McCormick and Schmick's if you wanted to get outraged about the incompetency and mendacity of the administration on Iraq. And he picks this? This is what has put him off his morning kippers and Glenlivet?

To start with, even Hitchens agrees that the Iraqis themselves are so used to this that they're probably laughing if they read Slate. Journalist payola is not likely on the top 50 complaints of Iraqis about the way the Americans are handling things. So why Hitchens is bunged up, I cannot say.

Furthermore, in his indignance he mindlessly trounces past multiple ironies, including the manipulation of our own media in nearly the same scenario: paying off for favorable stories. Anderson Williams, hello! He's worried about insidiously cheery stories making it back to the States eventually--the stories can save the cab fare; they're being manufactured here already. And beyond the payola aspect, there's the entirely sycophantic media ass-kissing before and at the start of the war that (with the help of shadow-scared Democratic Congresspeople) made the whole thing possible. As someone directly responsible for browbeating dissenters over their reckless truths and morale-hurting caution, Hitchens shows remarkable cojones in crying over the lost spirit of free journalism NOW, after all this time. Where was he when Katie Couric was rubbing herself on the Today Show while shouting, "Marines ROCK!!" during the  roll on Baghdad?

In for a pence, in for a pound, Chris. Quit making a mockery of this utter disaster of a war by getting your knickers twisted over something that yeah, sucks and hits close to home for you, but what amounts to a discarded axle on the highway of twisted metal and burned out machines that is Iraq. Take a page from Sully and finally vindicate your big brain--this isn't working.

*that is, before Sullivan himself gave up the ghost amidst so much perfidy and bufoonery from the administration...

--TJ

Congrats to the Portland Pilots!

I'm a little late in offering the now well-known news that the UP women's soccer team has won the national championship for the second time in four years. I watched much of the Penn State game on Friday, and a fair bit of the final's second half--but I fell in love with their style of play against a very good Notre Dame team last week. It is collegiate soccer no doubt, with more frantic clears and mis-hit passes than either the pros or the international game, but the Pilots are as talented an assemblage of amateur soccer players as I've ever seen.

They work so well together, particularly IMO on defense (although their offense was devastating this year, led by Christine Sinclair). Time and time again over the last two weeks it seemed that opposing attackers began to approach the penalty area and discovered that they had run out of options. Opponents rarely made clean breaks to the wings in order to serve an unmolested cross into the box, and on that cross no one inside the box found themselves without a marker. And if they did happen to get a shot off, Cori Alexander made the critical stop with an aggressive leap or a full extension dive. They really do play high quality soccer, and in a game with only a few climaxes of play, the flow of play is perhaps more important for entertainment than in any other sport. If you've got a crappy game of soccer, the lack of goals makes it seem all the worse.

The Oregonian did a pretty good job of catching the zeitgeist this morning, at least having the sense to splash it on the front page and across the full top fold of the sports page. They also put together a couple of nice sidebar articles  (see the items in the link marked parts 1, 2, 3), but as usual the one from the print version that I want to share with you is nowhere to be found.

When I came back to Portland in 2002, it was the last year of Clive Charles' coaching career, and also his life. He died before the season began in 2003. I went to the Portland Building to see them place the trophy in a temporary display--me and about 10 other non UP, non media persons. (I suspect a few more will show up at Pioneer Square on Friday). I knew who Charles was, but in person he was larger than life. It was clear the players idolized him not just as a coach but as a personal guide and mentor. I thanked him for his contributions to the city and soccer, and he thanked me in a quiet but direct voice. It was obvious he was sick, but he couldn't have looked more pleased to speak to me or anyone.

And this article that remains hidden in The O's ether was testament to the lasting effects of Charles' legacy, both professionally and personally. Alexander did not know Clive, but speaks about how much he influence her life anyway. Senior Lindsey Huie has CMC tattooed on her foot, along with footprints to symbolize the mark he left on her. To read about how much everyone involved still included the memory of Charles in their celebrations was something I found very moving. It's always a revelation to discover people whose lives had that much power for others, and helps restore faith in the power of humanity during times when we can be forgiven for having lost so much of that faith. So to everyone involved with the Pilots' success, the highest congratulations and thanks for enriching our community. We're very proud.

--TJ

The Hardening of Positions in Iraq

In a year in which things have only sporadically seemed to improve in between waves of deterioration, it was a week of building tensions and an apparent settling of positions as the country moves towards another election in mid-December. First and foremost was the unrepentant declaration by the US government, that the still-mercurial goals of public safety and democracy would be the standards that must be met before the Iraq job is considered "done."

I should say now that the posturing on all sides is not necessarily a signal of the worst, especially given political realities. When we say that Bush has declared the battle will be fought until won, there's also no doubt that some measure of troop withdrawals will take place in 2006, if only the 12-20,000 who have served in a ramped-up security capacity for the constitutional and parliamentary votes.

There are still many who believe this nonsense about staying the course is only a hopeful buy for time in which a withdrawal of troops can be spun as the seeds of victory in Iraq. But if not tactically, in a politically strategic sense Bush has dug in. If you are going to run on the Bush coattails in 2006 as a GOP Congressperson, you are going to have to back the war full gonzo. That has frankly scared the bejeezus out of a lot of Republican insiders, but there it is.

The Iraqis are having their own moments of hyperbole, of course. Former interim PM Iwad Allawi claimed he was the victim of an assassination attempt as he attended a mosque in the holy city of Najaf. Juan Cole doesn't think much of the attempt, categorizing it more as an expected negative reaction to the cravenly political visit of a mosque by an unpopularly secular politician. Cole believes that the 14%  his party got in the January elections will be a high water mark for him, and certainly having stones and shoes thrown at you is not good fodder for your next campaign ad. Someone is backing Allawi--and the shiny four color posters suggest it's someone with money--but the people aren't buying.

In other ominous declarations, the head of a hardline Sunni group and signatory to the Cairo agreements of last month is talking fraud:

Abdul Salam Kubaisi, a senior official of the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, said the group would "reconsider the decisions" it reached with rival Shiites and Kurds at a national reconciliation conference last month in Cairo. The leaders had agreed that violence in Iraq should stop, U.S. forces should gradually withdraw and some detainees should be freed.

The agreement was hailed by the United States and other governments as an important step toward preventing the country from splitting into warring factions. But Kubaisi said the pledge to curb the violence had not been kept. He blamed the Shiite-led government's security forces and U.S. troops for the continuing attacks.

Another Sunni group claims solidarity, but as with the constitutional situation there are sects that run more moderate than these folks, so it's unwise to use this one group as a harbinger. However, these are the first signals I've seen about thoughts of a boycott, which contradict the US reports that Sunni are increasingly looking to participate politically.

Certainly eager to participate politically are the Shia, and Imam Sistani has sent out the word that it's good to vote--and by the way, vote only for one of the big three national religious parties...one of which is Moqtadr Sadr's group. The WaPo article mistakenly characterizes Sistani's call to the polls as a neutral one, not backing any party. Sistani clearly advocates a theocratic ballot, and refers to secular parties as "the dangerous ones." Furthermore, he notes ominously that he who wins the parliamentary battle, will control the true shape of a constitutional document wherein the hard questions were left for "later." In Sistani's eyes, "later" is Dec. 16th.

So what do you have? First of all you've got two Western-backed secularists in Allawi and Chalabi, who appear well funded and possibly the beneficiaries of an election fraud conspiracy, then you've got the hardline militant Sunni who will not participate if evidence persists of security force abuses from Badr and Sadrist militia under the guise of Iraqi police. The Shia who appear to be asserting control are not the moderates, and ideological impurity is being punished not only at the high political level (ie Allawi), but in the streets as hairdressers and liquor establishments are being harrassed. This only confirms the fears of the Sunni, who correctly sense that ideological purity is not going to work out too well for them. And you have a foreign occupation that claims it will not leave until somehow all these folks will come to the polls and agree to hash out differences over tea and pita. As I've quoted Dr. Phil before, "so how's that working out for you?"

--TJ