Just a thought. I haven’t actually seen the footage from Meet the Press yet, but The Anonymous Liberal has some great commentary on Senator James Webb’s handling of Lindsay Graham and on how to address the BS about Iraq:

It is not at all surprising that Iranians are assisting Shia militants in Iraq. The Saudis are doing the same thing for Sunni militants. If there’s a proxy war in Iraq, it’s not between the U.S. and Iran, it’s between Iran and Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. And we’re caught in the middle. The primary fault line in Iraq is between the Sunnis and the Shia. Naturally, the countries that border Iraq, like Shia-dominated Iran and Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, have an interest in who eventually controls Iraq. This was an utterly predictable consequence of invading Iraq.

We are not at war with anyone in Iraq, really. The war was against the Iraqi armed forces and the Republican Guard, and that war ended in 2003. What we have had since then is an occupation, something very, very different from a war. There are no clear fronts and no distinct enemy armies to defeat. There are homegrown militias, insurgent groups, and a handful of foreign fighters with all sorts of agendas. To speak of “winning” and “victory” is quite simply childish. Occupations either end or they don’t. Finally there is a Democrat with the cojones to stand up and speak some sense. Keep it coming, please.

In case you missed the news from London today, there were almost some bombings. Big ones, apparently. They were stopped by police. But remember, only Bush’s military can keep us safe from terrorists. That gets less credible all the time.

This actually happened, according to Reuters (or did it?):

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad had to reconvene the U.N. Security Council and rerun a meeting on Friday after reading the wrong statement on Sudan, effectively wiping an entire council session out of history.

At the first session, Khalilzad, current president of the council, read out a hard-hitting statement denouncing aerial bombardment in the troubled Darfur region in a clear critique of the Sudanese government.

When the session ended, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin was the first to point out that the statement was not the one that the council’s 15 members had agreed, participants said.

After about 10 minutes, officials managed to corral diplomats wandering off for the weekend back into the council chamber. Khalilzad opened a new meeting under the same serial number at which he read out a more anodyne statement that just urged all parties in Darfur, rebels included, to end violence.

“He read an old version” of the statement at the first meeting, U.S. mission spokesman Benjamin Chang said of Khalilzad. “That first one (session) never happened.” U.N. officials agreed that in effect the earlier session had been superseded.

Khalilzad’s only admission of error at the second meeting was when he concluded by saying with a grin: “The meeting IS adjourned,” stressing the word “is.”

Afterward, he told reporters: “There were two words that were there in the first statement that shouldn’t have been there. It was late in the day, Friday, administration under a degree of stress, but you know, we’re all human beings, it happens.”

Well, that’s certainly inspiring. The statement itself hardly inspires shock or awe.

Will Bunch at Attytood has posted about the #2-selling book at Amazon.com:

It’s called: “The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps,” by Michael D. Evans. The “O” in “MOVE” has a very un-Christian set of crosshairs in the middle.

I blinked several times, then went and got some more coffee, then came back to my computer and the words “Final Solution” were still there. I have not read this book, nor do I know much about its author, but words are important, and those words especially carry some weight. These ideas, to the extent that they are widely shared, certainly merit discussion and a big ol’ rhetorical smackdown.

Reviews of the book seem to be mostly negative:

I’m currently serving in the United States Army deployed in Iraq with the 25ID. Think for yourself. The fact that this book is on the best-seller list makes me want to vomit. The author is intent on seeing democracy controlled by religion, knowing that through these beliefs he can control the people. Think for yourself. Trust God and not the author who mangles and manipulates His words for the sake of power.

Then again, there was also this one:

Everyone should read this book but especially Americans. All indications are that the public has let 9-11 fade into the past. This book will wake you up. It’s well documented, a very real fast read (unless, like me, you tend to highlight pertinent passages to pass on to those who have fallen asleep). I recommend this book to anyone who values the United States of America and our “remaining” freedoms.

I actually agree with everything this guy says, except that (a) he is actually making a case for the war in Afghanistan by invoking 9/11 and (b) he seems immune to the irony of mentioning our “‘remaining’ freedoms,” ignoring who is principally responsible for the freedoms not “remaining.”

What troubles me is the eagerness for further war in the Middle East as fulfillment of Biblical prophecy possibly bringing about a tribulation period or something. This did not start with Newt Gingrich’s oddly eager invocation of “World War III” to describe the brief Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006 (whose outcome was hardly certain, anyway). This has been going on for some time, but the Iraq War seems to have resulted in increased rhetoric. What I don’t understand is the idea (and this may seem somewhat straw-man, but the people making these arguments are notoriously slippery) that humans, by forcing the events described in the Bible to happen in the right sequence, can hasten the Second Coming, apocalypse, etc. Does God (and yes, I know I don’t technically believe in Him, but go with me for a second) have a checklist of events that he is waiting on before sending Jesus back? Isn’t it just a tad arrogant for people like Newt or John Hagee to think they can hasten the end times by encouraging war in the Middle East? My biggest beef with organized religion is the idea that any one man (or woman) can speak definitively for God, let alone be the catalyst for Armageddon. If the Bible is any guide (and most if not all Christians say it is), God is gonna do what God is gonna do, so everybody chill. Instead of the constant obsessing over the afterlife, take some time to appreciate all the great stuff He’s created in this one.

On the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, this happened:

Tens of thousands of Shi’ites — a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags — rallied Monday to demand that U.S. forces leave their country. Some ripped apart American flags and tromped across a Stars and Stripes rug.

It is truly heartwarming to see the march of freedom in Iraq, particularly the freedom to “desecrate” the American flag, something quite a few people in Washington feel a need to stop.

Of course, the White House sees this as progress:

Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions. And that was something they could not do under Saddam. And while we have much more progress ahead of us — the United States, the coalition and Iraqis have much more to do — this is a country that has come a long way from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

I suppose this is a great step forward for Iraq, but also for irony–we have given them the freedom to demand that we leave. Good enough for me.

What do you have to say about flags, transvestite British comedian Eddie Izzard?