Failing upward in bloody Baghdad

Two weeks into the first massive security crackdown in the capital of Iraq - an combined Iraqi and American force numbering some 75,000 troops - the US military declared that while things were going "more slowly than hoped," there was "no upward trend" in violence. The number of slain Iraqi civilian and military in Baghdad for than period totalled 154 as determined by figures compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. The following days exposed that "upward trend" disputed by the military. The next two-week period saw 233 casualties; the next couple of weeks, 228 slain. Finally, the Bush administration acknowledged the failure of its plan and changed tactics by launching yet another highly-touted security initiative, funneling still more US troops - thousands more - into the capital. When the initial fourteen days of the "new" new security crackdown revealed a drop in fatalities - down to 143 slain Iraqis - the military and the media hailed the news as evidence that the clampdown was working.

Few are talking that way now - not after a renewed wave of insurgent violence that resulted in a staggering total of two hundred and ninety-five murdered Iraqis over the most recent two-week period, September 26 through August 6. That's more than during any of the previous 14-day periods tracked here since the launch of the initial security initiative; that's one hundred and five more deaths than during the two weeks prior to the first clampdown. The late surge in fatalities indicates an successful adaptation by the insurgents to increased security - an deadly success as yet largely unreported by the American media and unacknowledged by the Pentagon. Meanwhile, blood contines to flow in the streets of Baghdad.

More on Iraq by Shakes.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

ABC Sucks

*** Take Action: The Dems are on it.
Email ABC here using a ready-made form that
took me approximately three seconds to fill in and send. ***

-----------------

Bubba Goes Ballistic:

A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.
Somehow, Clinton’s four-page letter (refuting the film’s claims) to ABC head Bob Iger made it into the hands of The Post. Huh. What a mystery.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.

ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan last night defended the miniseries as a "dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews."

"Many of the people who have expressed opinions about the film have yet to see it in its entirety or in its final broadcast form," he said.
Gee, might that be because ABC won’t provide them with advance copies?!

"We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast before forming their own opinion."
At which point, the damage will already be done. As Digby notes: “The reason this matters so much, and why Democrats are so apoplectic at the way ABC has handled this material, is that popular culture has a way of inculcating certain concepts into people's minds, especially young minds, far more effectively than talking head programs or earnest debates among political bloggers and columnists. This is the kind of thing that could taint the debate for generations if it takes hold.” And, more importantly, it’s being done not as a rewrite of history, but as a “first draft while the immediate events [are] still being debated.” All ABC’s protestations about how this isn’t “a documentary” don’t mean fuck-all when they’re simultaneously claiming that it’s based on the 9/11 Report.

This is totally, totally unacceptable. Disney is deliberately interfering with elections, and if they air this steaming heap of shit, their broadcast license should be immediately revoked.

(More from Pam. Media Matters detail the conservative defense.)

Open Wide...

Spot the Irrelevant Detail

Toast just forwarded this BBC article to me with the note: “See if you can spot the irrelevant detail in this story.”

A student who secretly filmed women in the shared bathroom at his university halls of residence in Bangor, Gwynedd, has been given a suspended sentence.

Judge Merfyn Hughes told Charles Greaves, 19, of Wellington, Shropshire, he had harmed the three victims and brought great shame on his family.

Greaves had admitted six voyeurism charges after he hid a digital camera inside an adapted shower gel bottle.

…The shower gel bottle had been specially adapted it to hold the camera, and pierced to create a hole for the lens, the court was told.

But the former student, who was described as an "overweight loner", had failed to get good quality images and had put a sign on the bathroom door asking all students to take baths instead.

The court heard police were called after the camera was spotted by a female student when she was running a bath.

They arrested Greaves and recovered his laptop with images of three women.
In case you missed it, the BBC helpfully labeled (in bold) one section of the story ‘Overweight loner.’

Open Wide...

Unwise Conventional Wisdom

In politics, there are some stories that just won’t die. Bill Clinton tied up all of LAX for a haircut. Not true. Al Gore claimed he invented the internet. Not true. Tipper Gore was pro-censorship. Not true.

A few times now, someone’s brought up the bit about Tipper, and her “crusade” against musical artists, most recently in comments last night, when Konagod asked, “Has Tipper Gore gotten past her inquisition phase regarding music lyrics?” And each time, it irritates the bejesus out of me that this story still won’t die, so let’s just get it cleared up right now.

In 1985, she, along with Pam Howar and Susan Baker, founded the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC). Their primary goals were a ratings system (similar to those issued by the MPAA for films), advisories about explicit/controversial lyrics on album covers, and obscuring covers depicting graphic violence or sex. Never, ever was their goal to censor artists—and, in reality, during the mid-80s, at the height of Reagan conservatism, there was a significant push in some quarters for censorship. That the PMRC was concerned with legislation that would allow artists to produce whatever they want, but still give purchasers (particularly parents, buying for their kids) fair information about the product, was completely obscured. They were lumped into the censorship camp. Unfairly.

Frank Zappa and Larry Flynt—two men who have been admirable defenders of First Amendment rights—led the charge against Tipper and the PMRC, accusing them of censorship, calling Tipper a “cultural terrorist” and names that were significantly nastier. It was a bad read of the situation, although, in some way understandable, considering that the culture was very divided then, much as it is now. (And, in truth, some of the allies who jumped on PMRC's bandwagon were significantly more radical, which didn't help PMRC's cause in the eyes of artists.)

It helps to understand the genesis of her interest. Tipper was moved to action when she bought Prince’s Purple Rain for her then-young daughter, because she liked the single “Let’s Go Crazy.” That song had no objectionable content, but the track “Darling Nikki” opens with “I knew a girl named Nikki; I guess U could say she was a sex fiend / I met her in a hotel lobby masturbating with a magazine.” At the time, there was no way for Tipper, as a mother, to know that the album was not appropriate for a young child, because the single “Let’s Go Crazy” was appropriate. She thought it would be wise, if artists were to be free to produce whatever content they wanted, to give consumers a heads-up, like we had come to expect with movies (and now also expect with TV shows and video games). Not really such an insane idea, and certainly not akin to censorship.

(In fact, it was a lot less so than Hillary Clinton’s rumblings about video game internet code downloads. She should simply point to the ratings system and tell parents to stop buying shit for kids that they’ve been warned is for mature consumers.)

The issue that some artists had at the time was that the advisories would lead to diminished sales, which would then cause artists to self-censor in order to sell more albums. And that may have been a legitimate concern (though it turned out to be unfounded), but it was not the same as Tipper and/or the PMRC requesting that artists be censored.

In any case, by 1987, Tipper regretted that things has turned out the way they had, and apologized for frightening the artistic community, saying “if I could rewrite the script, I certainly would.” Though she couldn’t, the least we can do is not rewrite history in her disfavor. Even the most progressive parents in the world want the opportunity to expose their children to magazine masturbation in their own good time.

(And, as an aside, I should mention that I find none of the above-mentioned ratings systems flawless. I absolutely despise the double-standards the MPAA, for example, applies to male and female nudity and gay and straight sexual content. That is, however, a whole other discussion. The idea of a ratings system isn't intrinsically bad; its application, however, can be very problematic.)

Open Wide...

Islam v. Christianity: Which is right?

As debated by Steve Carell and Stephen Colbert.
An oldie but a goodie.



Via Christopher at After School Snack.

Open Wide...

Military Handover in Iraq

“Coalition forces” (in other words, the US) handed over control of Iraq’s armed forces to the Iraqi government today—“a move that U.S. officials have hailed as a crucial milestone on the country's difficult road to independence.” Uh huh.

Handing over control of the country's security to Iraqi forces is vital to any eventual drawdown of U.S. forces here. After disbanding the remaining Iraqi army following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, coalition forces have been training the new Iraqi military.

However, it is unclear exactly how quickly Iraqi forces will be prepared to take over their own security.

Days before the engagement, the 8th Division's commander, Brig. Gen. Othman al-Farhoud, told The Associated Press his forces still needed support from the U.S.-led coalition for things such as medical assistance, storage facilities and air support.

"In my opinion, it will take time," al-Farhoud said when asked how long it would take before his division was completely self-sufficient.
Okay, well, this is obviously a necessary step if we’re ever going to withdraw, although I’m not sure what suddenly makes sense about this handover that didn’t makes the exact same sense six months ago. Or a year ago. Or two years ago. Back then, the excuse was that Iraq wasn’t ready, but are they any more ready now, really? There’s more violence now there than ever, undoubtedly making the transition even harder.

Violence continued in the hours before the handover Thursday. Six bomb attacks targeting police patrols in Baghdad killed at least 17 people and wounded more than 50.

A suicide car bomb targeting a police patrol outside a gas station near the Elouya Hospital in central Baghdad killed 10 people, including four policemen, and wounded 21, police said.

Another suicide car bombing in Taiyran Square in the center of the city killed three policemen and wounded 15, the prime minister's office said. Police initially reported two civilians and two policemen were killed.

Two suicide car bombs exploded near al-Nidaa Mosque in northern Baghdad, the prime minister's office said. Nobody was hurt in the first, but the second killed three civilians and wounded 12.

Another suicide car bomb in Taiyran Square in the center of the city killed two civilians and two police special forces members, and wounded 13 people, police said.

In western Baghdad, a roadside bombing in Qahtan Square near Yarmouk hospital wounded four people, including a policeman, Mahmoud said. Elsewhere, in the upscale district of Mansour, a roadside bomb explosion killed a man and injured his daughter and another person, police said.
Control of the country was handed over to the Iraqi interim government on June 28, 2004 (right before the final push of the presidential election), at which time Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said: “We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation,” even though they clearly weren’t. Now, we’re handing over control of the military (right before the final push of the midterm elections), and there’s no evidence that the Iraqi government is going to be better able to control the increasingly spiraling security situation now than they were then.

I understand the motivations behind the argument that we’re got to stay in Iraq until we fix what we’ve broken, but it’s obvious at this point that we can’t effectively address what’s going on there now, and even if we could, the Bush administration isn’t really interested in doing that, anyway. They hand over administrative control at a time when it will ostensibly help Bush. They hand over military control at a time when it will ostensibly help Congressional Republicans. Their decisions aren’t being made by what’s happening on the ground in Iraq, but according to what’s happening in polls in America.

If Bush were really interested in turning this endeavor into a success, he’d commit more troops, even if it necessitated a draft, and dig in with no regard for American casualties until it was done right. But he’s not really interested in that, because Americans would never stand for it, and his party—and worse yet, his legacy!—would suffer severe blows. So he’s going to keep talking tough while he dicks around, trying to win back the support of the increasing number of Americans who want us the hell out of Iraq, because they see it’s not winnable, before they realize that it’s because of him that it isn’t.

The whole thing is completely disgusting, utterly disingenuous, totally antithetical to his “stay the course” and “I make hard decisions even if they’re unpopular” rhetoric, and basically just a shameful blight on America. And that doesn’t even begin to describe the mess he’s created for the Iraqi people.

Open Wide...

Kristen Breitweiser writes a letter

To Ann Coulter.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Bosom Buddies


"...and it's about two guys who are the best of friends, bosom buddies, right? And they have to cross-dress to live in an all-female hotel, so now they're also 'bosom' buddies! Get it? Hahahahaha."

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

We've done this one before, but it was almost a year ago now and is totally fun, so I'm doing it again. It's really more of a game, I guess, than a question, but you've got to sum up the Bush administration with one movie title, by replacing only a single word with "Bush." (Or, if there's a name in the movie title, you can substitute "George Bush.")

So, Bush Fiction or George Bush and the Chamber of Secrets. My favorite is Fun with Dick and Bush, because it references Dark Lord Cheney and has the added benefit of sounding dirty.

Warning: This quickly becomes addictive, lol.

Open Wide...

Buh-Bye, George

Seeya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

(Btw, you may have heard of the US Attorney who went after Ryan. His name is Patrick Fitzgerald.)

Open Wide...

Dispatch from CARE

I just got the following email from CARE (whose work I’ve previously mentioned) about Female Genital Cutting (FGC), and because there has been such a strong response here, from both women and men, to issues of body mutilation such as clitoridectomies and breast ironing, I thought I would pass it along. The first step is just signing the petition to signal your support of CARE’s campaign to eradicate FGC.


Dear Melissa,

There's no getting around it: The practice of female genital cutting is deeply disturbing to talk about.

But discussing it is important. Every day, in countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia, as many as 6,000 girls risk undergoing this painful procedure. The consequences for their health and emotional well-being can be severe.

Through CARE, you and I have a very real chance to help communities abandon this practice and prevent the pain and suffering it causes. The first step is simple, but tremendously important: Read on to learn more about FGC and how you can help fight it.

What is Female Genital Cutting?
The term FGC refers to several different forms of cutting. Infibulation, the most severe, involves the removal of all or part of the external genitalia, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstruation. The cutting usually takes place before the age of 12.

Despite complications that can include severe bleeding, infection, long-term difficulties with intercourse and childbirth, and even death, many communities see FGC as part of their cultural heritage and a valued rite of passage. Both men and women sanction the practice as a way to ensure a girl's virginity before marriage, fulfill a religious obligation and maintain their cultural identity.

Why CARE is uniquely able to help.
Through years of working side by side with communities on agricultural, health and education projects, CARE has proven our compassion and commitment. Building on this foundation of trust, we are in a unique position to respectfully open up a community dialogue about abandoning FGC. Our approach includes:

Educating key "change agents." Support from community leaders, religious leaders and village elders for abandoning FGC is essential to our success. By working with these respected members of the community, we can promote effective, lasting change.

Starting a community dialogue. In many communities, FGC is rarely talked about, let alone a subject for public debate. CARE helps to bring men and women together to talk about the issues openly, beginning discussions that examine the value of FGC and throw light on its harmful consequences.

Supporting individual change. The first people to stand up against FGC often face serious challenges in the community. CARE has helped to organize "safe houses" and support groups for families who publicly renounce FGC.

Slowly but surely, we're making progress. We have already seen changes that would have seemed impossible a few years ago. Communities are now having public discussions about alternatives to FGC. Women are taking more active roles in the debate. In some areas, entire villages have abandoned the practice.

I am encouraged by the progress we've made in several communities, but there is still much to be done. And that's where you come in. Please, take the first step today to help us end female genital cutting. Click here to sign our petition to end FGC.

With your support, I know we can help more and more communities stop FGC. Together, we can make a real difference in the lives of women around the world.

Sincerely,
Helene D. Gayle MD, MPH
President and CEO, CARE

Open Wide...

Liar-in-Chief Acknowledges Secret CIA Prisons

“President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged previously secret CIA prisons around the world and said 14 high-value terrorism suspects — including the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks — have been transferred from the system to Guantanamo Bay for trials. … The announcement from Bush was the first time the administration had acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons, which have been a source of friction between Washington and some allies in Europe.”

Condi must be happy she can put her tap shoes away for awhile.

In other news, the Pentagon has released a new Army manual that “bans torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, for the first time specifically mentioning forced nakedness, hooding and other procedures that have become infamous during the five-year-old war on terror. … It also explicitly bans beating prisoners, sexually humiliating them, threatening them with dogs, depriving them of food or water, performing mock executions, shocking them with electricity, burning them, causing other pain and a technique called ‘water boarding’ that simulates drowning.”

Everybody clap for the big boy!



Not only did he admit to a heinous lie, and decide
to stop unnecessarily hurting people, but he went
a whole day without pooping his pants!

It’s totally pathetic that we’re expected to be happy that only under the pressure of electoral defeat will the GOP even begin to pretend they have integrity. And, even then, the truth is revealed cloaked in assurances that their repellent bullshit was necessary to keep us safe.

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo

Open Wide...

WTF???

Linkmeister, in full:

Did the Softwood Lumber deal the US just made with Canada include a $450 million slush fund channeled to the White House from the Canadians? Could be. Buried in the text of the recently-agreed softwood lumber agreement with our neighbors to the North is a clause which says that the Canadian timber industry must

... sign over $450 million to an escrow fund slated to be conveyed to the White House. The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says that Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The government of Canada thus is making a gift of $450 million to be spent by the president. That was more than a belt buckle, even more than a stetson, on July 6th. There is only one date certain in the deal: that the planned expenditure of the $450 million must be determined by September 1.
By law and by the US Constitution, all monetary gifts to the US must go into the Treasury. If this trade lawyer's analysis is correct, the Bush Administration is once again breaking the law. That's bad enough, but from a political point of view, imagine Karl Rove with $450M to spend on Congressional campaigns in this year's midterms.

There's a much more thorough analysis here. The full text of the lawyer's remarks can be found here.
I don’t even know where to begin. The thought of Bush with $450 million to spend with no Congressional oversight is absolutely mind-blowing. As Feldman (the lawyer who’s quoted, above) points out, “At the height of the Watergate scandal, focus was on an illegal slush fund available to the Committee to Re-Elect the President, that was thought to be tipping the balance of American politics. The fund never exceeded $20 million. One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was that he received foreign campaign donations, perhaps as much as $50,000. … The entire Republican campaign war chest is less than $300 million. Canada will add to it by 150 per cent in funds to be expended for ‘meritorious initiatives.’ It does not require much imagination to foresee the strategic places where this money will be spent.”

This has been unfolding since April, and it’s the first time I’m hearing anything about it. Where is the media on this? Where are the Dems? I’d like to believe that having heard nothing about it means it’s nothing, but, unfortunately, that can be a very foolish assumption these days.

The 9/1 deadline has obviously passed, and, by email, Linkmeister tells me he heard Feldman on CBC Radio's As It Happens program, Monday, 9/4, and Feldman said that the 9/1 deadline had passed with no determination (publicly announced).

I’ve got no bloody clue where I’d even begin to look for information about whether that determination was made and just not announced, or whether it was but fell through the cracks of a Friday News Hole before a holiday weekend, or whether it just wasn’t made at all, and the Bush administration now has its hands on a $450 million slush fund that it can use however it wants.

Anyone got any ideas? The mere possibility of this situation has me all in a dither, and, well, I’d like to find out if I’m getting myself wound up unnecessarily, or if this is actually a significant issue.

Open Wide...

Lordy Begordy

This story is totally making me laugh with glee, because, in spite of all the crazy gayhatin’ going on in Russia, it’s evident that reason will win out in the end.

Two men drew applause from residents of Ekaterinburg in Russia’s Urals as they undressed in the street, kissed in front of the gathering crowd and finally performed oral sex on each other.

…People who gathered around the couple reacted quite positively, took photographs, applauded and recorded them on video. Nobody bothered to call the police or protest.
And it was quite a crowd, too:


The show concluded by one of the men giving the other a blow job, after that the two promptly left and the audience strode off too.

The police said they had not received a single alarm call.

“Such actions are classified as an administrative offence and are definitely punishable,” a spokesman for the law-enforcement agencies said.

“Naturally, had we received an alarm, our officers would have immediately put an end to the incident.”
But you didn’t. And that’s awesome.

Gawd, is it Happy Hour yet? I'm suddenly in the mood for a White Russian.

Open Wide...

ABC: Stupid Pricks

Representatives John Conyers, Jr., John Dingell, Jane Harman, and Louise Slaughter write to ABC about their bullshit 9/11 docudrama.

Meanwhile, ABC refuses to provide an advance copy to Clinton, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, or former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger (who are in the bloody thing), even though it's given copies to Rush Limbaugh and right-wing bloggers.

I swear to the fates if this thing airs, I am never watching ABC again.

Open Wide...

Who's Afraid of Virgins?

MissPenName passed along this article, titled “The 30-year-old virgins,” to see what I’d make of it.

Well, let’s start with the subtitle: “It was once a badge of honor. But to the surprising number of adult women today who have not had sex, virginity is nothing but a curse.” Just ugh. But not even as ugh-ly as the image accompanying the article.


Take my cherry…please.

The “surprising number of adult women” who haven’t had sex turns out to be a decidedly unsurprising “7 percent of unmarried women between ages 25 and 29 … 5 percent between 30 and 34 and 4.3 percent between 35 and 39.” I’m not sure what number I would find “surprising,” but considering I don’t sit around contemplating the numbers of my fellow women who have or have not delicately held out their cherries for consumption in their fragile, cupped hands, I’m not sure that any number would surprise me, shy of, say, a majority. And since I also don’t contemplate the vast and myriad reasons that women decide to have or not have sex, 7% doesn’t seem unreasonable to me as the possible number of women who simply, consciously, choose to be celibate for whatever reason.

But lest my lack of imagination not run hogwild, the author assures me it’s nothing so dull. “Involuntary virginity” is, in fact, a terrible scourge, and the women who remain virgins later in life are neurotic and self-loathing—as well they should be, because men want nothing to do with mature virgins. It’s still fun, you see, to deflower an 18-year-old, because with “a young, nubile girl the fantasy is still out there. But can you imagine a 30-year-old virgin as the star of Internet-porn spam?” Huh? But from a 37-year-old man who refused to sleep with a 28-year-old virgin, we get the real reason mature virgins are undesirable: “I knew she already had a little crush on me, and if that happened, she'd have an unmanageable crush on me that would be difficult for both of us and end in tears for her.” And, from a writer at AskMen.com: “An obese thirty-something career woman virgin, for example, is not on the same level as a naäve [sic] 18-year-old virgin with a strict background who has never dated before.” Young, nubile hearts (in thin bodies?) are easier to use and abuse guilt-free.

What’s missing from this article are women who were not left feeling freakish by their later virginal status, men who don’t regard them as freaks, and any notion whatsoever that the real issues of later virginity are not female-specific. In a rare glimpses of non-hyperbolic reason in the article, a study by two Georgia State University associate professors of sociology is cited, which found that “a big part of sexual development comes from dating as a teenager and that involuntary virginity is a combination of shyness, body-image issues and getting a late start”—a conclusion, by the by, which was drawn after interviews with “34 male and female involuntary virgins.” Yet immediately thereafter, the article goes on: “A woman who has never had sex can start to feel alienated, like a social pariah, and the last virgin on earth (at least among her peers). This feeling can turn into a barrier to meeting a lover, and the chance that she'll ever have an intimate relationship starts to fade away.” Not a person. A woman. Because this article is all about the tragedy of women who aren’t getting any in an age when “women are supposed to give good head, be on top, take it from behind, experience orgasm for an hour; they're even supposed to experiment with other women.”

Yeesh.

This could have been a good article; it could have been an interesting critique of a hypersexualized culture that has made a certain level of extroversion a prerequisite for an intimate act, which tends to disfavor the shy and socially reserved. But instead it’s just another crap piece about yet another problem plaguing women in “surprising” numbers.

Open Wide...

When you and your ally aren't talking about the same thing

Four years ago, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan printed the content of a note to him by an unnamed friend (now archived at the P-D). The subject was George Bush and Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan:

I'm flat worried. I can't believe this guy Musharraf has pledged Pakistan's cooperation with us in our latest crusade. I don't even want to think about a coup or a popular uprising in the country that happens to be the proud owner of the only bonafide, field-tested nuclear bomb in the Islamic world.

But apparently, our president is telling a lot of these countries to 'choose sides.' Whoa. Slow down here. We're demanding these leaders to jump, right now, either to the right or to the left when their political survival requires them to walk a very high tightrope with no net.

Musharraf has got to put up with his own Talibanistas in the sticks, and his own military has been waging a 'terrorist' war against India over Kashmir. If he and President Bush claim to be in agreement it can only be because they aren't talking about the same thing.

And now the entire world sees that Bush and Musharraf weren't exactly on the same page:

Pakistan, Taliban sign peace pact

Having failed to counter the insurgent Talibans in the Waziristan tribal region on the Pak Afghan border, the Pakistan Army Tuesday entered into yet another peace agreement with the pro-Taliban militants, primarily "to ensure a permanent peace in the area and to put an end to the continuing unrest in the Waziristan region."

The agreement was signed after a meeting between a group of the local Taliban leaders and a jirga formed by the Pakistani military authorities to mediate on their behalf. According to the official sources, senior army officers and Taliban militants hugged and congratulated each other after inking the agreement at a school in Miran Shah.

The next graf is rather telling:

The breakthrough was achieved after the military accepted most of the militants’ demands — the release of all their men, return of their weapons and vehicles seized during various army operations, dismantling of the army check posts in the area, restoration of all perks and privileges of the tribal people and monetary compensation for all those residents of the area who were either killed and whose property was damaged during military operations.

Most of today's media's focus on Pakistan deals with the question of whether or not Osama bin Laden will be allowed to build a summer villa in North Waziristan and collect his mail without pesky worries over being arrested and deported. The Blotter at the ABC News site is running dueling posts on the subject even now. Bin Laden's status in Pakistan may be hazy - a matter of "hair-splitting," to borrow Pakistani Major General Shaukat Sultan might put it - but the peace pact between Pakistan and the Taliban is cold, hard fact. The White House is, for the moment, stunned and stammering over Islamabad's rapprochement with an avowed enemy. Bush will try to put a brave face on developments, but there's no getting around his having been made to look a fool by Musharraf, who - as McClellan's correspondent pointed out - has concerns of his own, and no great motivation to stick his neck out for Washington. The president of Pakistan made that quite clear while visiting Hamid Karzai, in Afghanistan:

Musharraf also said Pakistan would never allow U.S.-led coalition forces - currently hunting al-Qaida and Taliban fighters on the Afghan side of the border - into tribal areas on its side.

"On our side of the border there will be a total uprising if a foreigner enters that area," he said. "It's not possible at all, we will never allow any foreigners into that area. It's against the culture of the people there."

When you're fighting a war, it pays to be on the same page as your ally.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

This Just In

Bush responds to Keith Olbermann's question: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

Open Wide...

Peace, democracy, and the restoration of the rule of law.



...is open for business!

On September 5th, we launched a non-partisan camp for peace, democracy, and the restoration of the rule of law. Camp Casey moved from Crawford, Texas, to Washington, D.C., to create a larger camp focused not only on ending the war but also on righting injustices here at home and on holding accountable the Bush Administration and Congress. Here's the schedule of what's happening each day from now till September 21st. Here are free rooms and rides. If you can send a bus and need help paying for it, ask us. If you need help filling it, post it on the board.
You can check out the WaPo's coverage of Camp Democracy here.

Open Wide...