Civil Unrest in Lebanon

While Lebanon's president Fouad Siniora traveled to Paris to attend the donor's conference to receive $7.6 bln in aid in order to shore up his fragile government which was severely affected by the ravages of the 2006 Israel/Lebanon war, the violence in his country continued to escalate.

While reporters try to sort out exactly what happened leading to Thursday's deaths, fires and curfews, Robert Fisk offers his perspective on the complicated situation of the past few days which cannot simply be described as Hezbollah and/or Syria/or Iran v Siniora - a meme the western press prefers to use in an attempt to simplify the political situation in the country.

Opposition demonstrations turn Beirut into a violent sectarian battleground

So the worst nightmare years may have begun again. There were thousands of them - Christians fighting Christians north of Beirut, Sunni and Shia Muslims in the capital, a rain of stones, shrieks of hatred and occasionally even gunfire - that turned Lebanon into a sectarian battleground yesterday.

At the corner of a street off Corniche al-Mazraa, I watched what historians may one day claim was the first day of Lebanon's new civil war, huge mobs of young men, supporters and opponents of Fouad Siniora's government screaming abuse and throwing tens of thousands of rocks at each other as a wounded Lebanese soldier sat next to me and wept.
[...]
After 31 years in this country, I never truly believed I would see again what I witnessed on the streets of Beirut yesterday, thousands of Shia and Sunni Muslims, the first supporting the Hizbollah, the second the government once led by the murdered ex-prime minister Rafik Hariri, hurling stones and hunks of metal at each other. They crashed down around us, smashing the road signs, the advertisement hoardings, the windows of the bank against which seven Lebanese soldiers and I were cowering. Again and again, the soldiers ran into the roadway to try ­ with a desperation all of them understood, and they were brave men ­ to drag the youths from each other. Some of the Shia men, Amal members, loyal (heaven spare us) to the Speaker of Parliament, wore hoods and black face masks, most wielding big wooden clubs.

Their predecessors ­ perhaps their fathers ­ were dressed like this 31 years ago when they fought in these same streets, executioners-to-be, all confident in the integrity of their cause. Perhaps they were even wearing the same hoods. Some of the troops fired into the air; they shouted at the stone throwers. "For God's love, stop," one young soldier screamed. "Please, please."

But the crowds would not listen. They shrieked "animals" at each other and obscenities and on one side of the street they produced pictures of the Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and of Michel Aoun, the Christian ex-general who wants to be president and is Nasrallah's ally, and on the other side of the street, the Sunnis produced a portrait of Saddam Hussein. Thus did the cancer of Iraq spread to Lebanon yesterday. It was a day of shame.

Hizbollah warn that Lebanon will see more violence

...there were other, far more disturbing elements to Tuesday's scandalous day of violence. Two of the old civil-war fault lines - on the road north of Beirut and in the suburbs of the city - were reopened. Siniora himself started warning of the dangers of civil war and the United States - as Hizbollah must have hoped - came out in support of the government, claiming, quite falsely, that the violence came from the Hizbollah-led opposition.

It certainly did come from their Amal militia ally but Sunni Muslim supporters of the government were in gun battles in Tripoli - they continued yesterday - and the "Lebanese Forces" youths of Samir Geagea, an ex-militia murderer who supports the government, were engaged in pitched stoning battles with other Christian Maronites.

Indeed, the inter-Christian war, in retrospect, was probably the most vicious of the day. Most of the wounded were hurt when Geagea's men tried to stop supporters of the Maronite ex-general Michel Aoun blocking roads outside the capital. Through some odd and tragic tradition of history, the Christian communities in Lebanon have often fought cruel battles with each other. Aoun and Geagea's forces killed each other at the end of the civil war. Even during the Crusades, the Christians of Tyre fought each other when Salahedin was at their gates.

Of the various foreign powers taking sides in this frightening battle for power in Lebanon - and they include Iran and Syria, of course, as well as the United States - one might well ask if the destruction of the Christian population of Lebanon was not part of their plan.

That, of course, is a startling claim but one must understand the history of Lebanon and the region in order to gauge what Lebanon is now facing. As with all of the conflicts in the Middle East, it cannot be summed up in 60 second soundbites prepared for the evening news and the biases of those who cover these types of chaos, as we've all learned by now, must be seriously considered as we follow such fragile situations.

It was by design that Bush's state of the union speech this week attempted to mislead Americans by conflating so-called US enemies in deliberately distorted groupings.

Bush asserted that Shia Hezbollah, which has won seats in the Lebanese government, is a terrorist group "second only to al-Qaeda in the American lives it has taken." Bush is referring to attacks nearly a quarter-century ago on a U.S. embassy and a Marine barracks when the United States intervened in Lebanon's civil war by shelling Hezbollah strongholds. Hezbollah has evolved into primarily an anti-Israeli militant organization -- it fought a war with Israel last summer -- but the European Union does not list it as a terrorist organization.

At one point, Bush catalogued what he described as advances in the quest for freedom in the Middle East during 2005 -- such as the departure of Syrian troops from Lebanon and elections in Iraq. Then, Bush asserted, "a thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics and in 2006 they struck back." But his description of the actions of "the enemy" tried to tie together a series of diplomatic and military setbacks that had virtually no connection to one another, from an attack on a Sunni mosque in Iraq to the assassination of Maronite Lebanese political figure.

The Bush administration's motives are transparent: continue to demonize Iran and Syria while refusing to engage their governments diplomatically in order to garner support for an aggressive policy of militarism.

As Fisk reminds us, the situation in the Middle East belies such simple-minded thinking. Therefore, we must be cautious and educated. We learned that lesson (or did we?) watching the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq defy what the US and other governments stated would be fairly straightforward problems to deal with.

March 2003:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct and we’re not treated as liberators but as conquerors and the Iraqis begin to resist particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s unlikely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.

If western governments are to provide aid beyond the dollars being donated to the Lebanese government, they owe it to their citizens and Lebanese citizens to present a factual account of the limitations they face while acknowledging the complexities. It's easy to justify aggressive, heated talking points while pointing fingers if the populace refuses to learn about or is not given the full story. The Israel/Lebanon war almost crushed Siniora's government and reminded everyone that the way to peace will not be found via missiles or bombs.

The most influential voices in Lebanon - including Hezbollah - are now calling for respecting the current curfews in order to stop the erupting violence. There is no simple solution to this situation but first, at least, they have to stop killing each other and western governments would do well to not add fuel to those literal fires by pushing their broader agendas for the region on a democratically-elected government that is on the brink of dealing with yet another civil war.

Warblogger Advocates 'Sectarian Cleansing' in Baghdad

This was going to be a post comparing and contrasting two versions of reporting from Iraq about the current situation in Baghdad - one by a seasoned, unembedded journalist who has reported from Iraq for years, Patrick Cockburn, author of the front page piece in Thursday's Independent - and that of Hot Air blogger Bryan who, along with his fellow warblogger Michelle Malkin, just spent one week embedded with US troops in Baghdad. You'll find Bryan's rosier picture of Baghdad here.

The gist of this post changed however when I came across the following passage in the Hot Air story which left me stunned:

On the average day, much of Baghdad is quiescent, advancing with US help toward something like normal life. Troops can walk through town without incident, and militia fighters run away rather than face them down. Second, and this is an unsettling truth: Sectarian cleansing works. When the Shia and Sunni go their separate ways, violence decreases. In the short to medium term, it may be necessary to separate the two communities long enough to let Baghdad quiet down. That won’t be easy and we would probably only try it as a last resort. But it is a fact that most of the city’s violence is either in Sunni areas or in areas where the populations mix. The city isn’t roiling with violence from end to end, every day.

Now, as far as who I trust to bring me the truth from Iraq, Mr Cockburn certainly wins hands down.

Read what Cockburn describes. You'll note that there are, of course, distinct Sunni and Shi'ite areas already in Baghdad. Using the logic posited by Bryan of Hot Air, that separation should have caused the city to 'quiet down'. This, however, is the reality of those separations:

Baghdad has broken up into hostile townships, Sunni and Shia, where strangers are treated with suspicion and shot if they cannot explain what they are doing. In the militant Sunni district of al-Amariyah in west Baghdad the Shia have been driven out and a resurgent Baath party has taken over. One slogan in red paint on a wall reads: "Saddam Hussein will live for ever, the symbol of the Arab nation." Another says: "Death to Muqtada [Muqtada al-Sadr, the nationalist Shia cleric] and his army of fools."

Restaurants in districts of Baghdad like the embassy quarter in al-Mansur, where I once used to have lunch, are now far too dangerous to visit. Any foreigner on the streets is likely to be kidnapped or killed. In any case, most of the restaurants closed long ago.

It is difficult for Iraqis to avoid joining one side or the other in the conflict. Many districts, such as al-Hurriya in west Baghdad, have seen the minority - in this case the Sunni - driven out.

A Sunni friend called Adnan, living in the neighbouring district of al-Adel, was visited by Sunni militiamen. They said: "You must help us to protect you from the Shia in Hurriya by going on patrol with us. Otherwise, we will give your house to somebody who will help us." He patrolled with the militiamen for several nights, clutching a Kalashnikov, and then fled the area.

So much for 'sectarian cleansing'.

The Hot Air blogger, in true warblogger fashion, then seeks to destroy the credibility of the MSM reports of the situation on the ground claiming, for example, that 'the AP farms it out to locals whose loyalties will inevitably taint their reporting' (just part of the ongoing attacks on the AP the warbloggers have been pushing for months). So, it's quite ironic that Bush war supporters like Bryan and Malkin continue to claim that the small amount of time they spent with US soldiers roaming around Baghdad while being protected by guns, helmets and vests ought to be more reliable than what real journalists like Patrick Cockburn provide on an ongoing basis - year in and year out - while he risks his life.

Just whose 'loyalties' have tainted whose reporting?

Maybe Bryan and Malkin should have embedded themselves with Cockburn for a week if they wanted a real picture of what's going on in Iraq. He could have shown them what "sectarian cleansing" really looks like. Not only that, maybe they actually would have learned something that might challenge their illusions. But that would require self-honesty and humility - qualities that are very hard to find on any of the warblogging sites. They really do hang onto the notion that being 'right-wing' makes them right all of the time. Facts be damned.

Bush was being narrow-minded when he said that he'd keep fighting the war in Iraq even if the only supporters he had left were Laura and their dog, Barney. He'd still have them, Joe Lieberman and all of the warbloggers - no matter what actually happens.


Related: Palestinians Under Pressure To Leave Iraq

Release the Hounds; Cheney's CNN Interview

TPMmuckracker has the transcript of Wolf Blitzer's interview with a testy Dick Cheney and the overall message is this: anybody who opposes the Bush's administration's so-called strategy for the war in Iraq just wants defeat and isn't strong enough to see the fight through. And, unsurprisingly, congress be damned.

Q What if the Senate passes a resolution saying, this is not a good idea. Will that stop you?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: It won't stop us, and it would be, I think detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as General Petraeus said yesterday. He was asked by Joe Lieberman, among others, in his testimony, about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment, and then pass a resolution at the same time and say, but we don't agree with the mission you've been given.

Q So you're moving forward no matter what the consequences?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: We are moving forward. We are moving forward. The Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding. But in terms of this effort, the President has made his decision. We've consulted extensively with them. We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done. I think General Petraeus can do it. I think our troops can do it. And I think it's far too soon for the talking heads on television to conclude that it's impossible to do, it's not going to work, it can't possibly succeed.

Q What was the biggest mistake you made?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Oh, I think in terms of mistakes, I think we underestimated the extent to which 30 years of Saddam's rule had really hammered the population, especially the Shia population, into submissiveness. It was very hard for them to stand up and take responsibility in part because anybody who had done that in the past had had their heads chopped off.

So it's the Iraqis fault. And the fact that Cheney et al lied to the world about its supposed evidence of Saddam's WMD along with the fact that this administration and its neocon supporters have so totally mismanaged this war has absolutely nothing to do with where things are at now.

Here's a bit of trivia. Guess who said this:

When asked why the United States should not invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, a prescient critic said, "Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there.... How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there?... I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion.

The answer?

The critic was none other than Dick Cheney, who made these comments as Defense Secretary in 1991, explaining the first Bush Administration's decision to end the Gulf War after Iraq had been expelled from Kuwait.

Mr 'flowers and candy' and 'last throes' Cheney. What made him that things would be any different than what he predicted in 1991? Oh yes, I forgot. '9/11 changed everything'.

Q Here's what Jim Webb, senator from Virginia, said in his Democratic response last night. He said:

"The President took us into the war recklessly. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed."

And it's not just Jim Webb, it's some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House, are now seriously questioning your credibility because of the blunders, of the failures. All right, Gordon Smith --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash.

Related: Flailing McCain

[The] Senator from Arizona has gone on record as a staunch supporter of the Iraq war since the beginning but, as poll numbers plummet, he is now voicing his own displeasure over the war. He called the war Cheney’s "witch's brew" and "terribly mishandled". He also said that our troops on are the verge of a terrible defeat. The rant didn’t stop at the Vice President as he stated, "The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense."

He added, “"Rumsfeld will go down in history, along with McNamara, as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." It comes as no surprise that McCain lashed out at Rummy but Cheney, on the other hand, has usually earned kind words from McCain.

McCain also said although he supports the surge that President Bush is trying to push, he doesn’t know if it will work and also if its enough troops. He says that we can not afford to lose and that is why he supports the tactic.

Maybe if he stopped kissing Bush's butt, people would take him seriously.

Video: Hagel on Wednesday's Iraq Resolution

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is a man on a mission and that mission is very simple: demanding long overdue oversight of the Bush administration's lack of policies on the war in Iraq and an honest dialogue about the realities on the ground.

One Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee debated and passed a non-binding resolution to show its disapproval of Bush's so-called surge.

Hagel was among the most forceful supporters of the measure.

I don't know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.

I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to Central Com over the weekend. They haven't even team B-ed this plan. And my dear friend Dick Lugar talks about coherence of strategy.

There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as we can be.

[...]

If we don't debate this...if we don't debate this... we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.

And not only that, you fail the Iraqi people. That is the essence of all this, Senator Hagel. Thank you for stating it so clearly.


CSPAN will have the video of the entire debate when it becomes available sometime today.

Update: The video of the hearing has been posted. Hagel's full statement begans at ~43:05.

Which Part of "Maher Arar is not a terrorist" Doesn't the US Government Understand?

Via the Globe and Mail:

Edmonton — American Ambassador David Wilkins is slamming Canada's efforts to have Maher Arar removed from a U.S. security watch list.

Mr. Wilkins says Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day is off side with his efforts and should back off because a U.S. review determined Mr. Arar should remain on the watch list.

Mr. Wilkins says it's “a little presumptuous” for Mr. Day to say “who the United States can and cannot allow into” their country.

The ambassador says the U.S. found its own reasons to keep Mr. Arar on the watch list, although Mr. Day says he's seen the information and found nothing new to suggest Mr. Arar is a safety risk.

It found its own reasons? Like what? Oh we can't know that because it's classified on national security grounds, right?

I think it's more than 'a little presumptuous' for Ambassador Wilkins to slam our government for demanding freedom of movement for Mr Arar after he has been cleared of any wrongdoing and suspicion in our country.

Wilkins is just an apologist for the US government's extraordinary rendition (torture flights) program which he exhibited in a 2005 interview with the Canadian Press:

OTTAWA (CP) - The new U.S. ambassador to Canada is making no apologies for Maher Arar's deportation to Syria, arguing that it's better to be safe than sorry in the fight against international terrorism.

David Wilkins is also warning that other Canadians with dual citizenship could face a similar fate if they fall under suspicion.

"The United States is committed in its war against terror," Wilkins said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We're committed to making sure that our borders are secure and our country is safe. Will there be other deportations in the future? I'd be surprised if there's not."
[...]
Wilkins, who took up his post in Ottawa about two months ago, seemed puzzled when asked whether he or his government had any regrets about the affair.

"You talking about regrets by the United States?" he said.

"The United States made that decision (to deport Arar) based on the facts it had, in the best interests of the people of the United States, and we stand behind it."

The ambassador went on to describe the action as an example of the hard-nosed approach that has governed U.S. anti-terrorist policy since the 9-11 attacks four years ago.

"The thing is that tough decisions have to be made every day now in this new environment we're in," he said.

"When you make decisions at the border or inside your country you don't get second chances. You've got to be right all the time in terror, because if you make the wrong choice an act of terrorism occurs."

But when you are wrong, Mr Wilkins, as your government was in the case of Mr Arar who is innocent, you need to admit it. And you can't get away with calling what happened to Mr Arar a 'deportation' when your government knowingly sent him to Syria to be tortured.

It's time for Wilkins and his government to stop smearing this man who has already suffered so mightily as a result of their actions. This has gone on long enough and our government has every right to speak on behalf of its citizens who have been treated unjustly - whether Wilkins and the other bullies like it or not.

Rangel Compares Guest Worker Program to Slavery

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonite on Tuesday:

RANGEL: This guest worker program's the closest thing I've ever seen to slavery. I mean, how do you bring people over here and the employer decides how long you're going to stay and God knows what you've got to do if they have a baby. Do we change the Constitution and say that the child's now a citizen? I would hate to believe that this great country of ours in order to free, or rather, to bring cheap labor for entrepreneurs are willing to have a contract with Mexico to do this.

Surely, Rangel isn't suggesting that liberal Ted Kennedy and most Americans support 'slavery'? Is he?

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRAT, CHAIRMAN OF SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE

"The President has laid out a vision of comprehensive immigration reform that includes genuine enforcement of immigration laws; creation of an employment program that would meet the needs of our economy; establishment of a path to citizenship for the millions of immigrants who have roots in our country; and integration of immigrants into American life through civic education and English language training."

"We can agree with the principles the President has put forth and we look forward to working with the administration and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact a comprehensive bill."

Video: The Democrats Response to Bush's State of the Union Speech

Newly elected Senator Jim Webb (D-Va) did a bang-up job with his rebuttal (text). He had the style and substance necessary to make clear points in response to the SOTU speech, which you can read here.

My response to the speech?

All hail the unconquering failure! or Flail, you unconquering loser! or Won't you just go away already??...or something like that...



While Bush was busy rehearsing and then giving his little speech on Tuesday, here's what was going on in Iraq: 100 Iraqis, 5 GIs Killed; 56 Iraqis Wounded; Helicopter Crash Kills 5 Americans.

Write Your Own Caption

Photo credit: CP/Fred Chartrand

You Just Lost my Support, John Edwards

Raw Story reports on a speech given by John Edwards at the Herzliya Conference in Israel along with this question and answer session:

Cheryl Fishbein from NY: When you do learning of Jewish texts, you give credit to ideas of scholars who have helped you ask questions, I would like to give credit to my friends and colleagues who have had this same overriding question of shared a existential threat: Would you be prepared, if diplomacy failed, to take further action against Iran? I think there is cynicism about the ability of diplomacy to work in this situation. Secondly, you as grassroots person, who has an understanding of the American people, is there understanding of this threat across US?

A: My analysis of Iran is if you start with the President of Iran coming to the UN in New York denouncing America and his extraordinary and nasty statements about the Holocaust and goal of wiping Israel off map*, married with his attempts to obtain nuclear weapons over a long period of time, they are buying time. They are the foremost state sponsors of terrorism. If they have nuclear weapons, other states in the area will want them, and this is unacceptable.

As to what to do, we should not take anything off the table. More serious sanctions need to be undertaken, which cannot happen unless Russia and China are seriously on board, which has not happened up until now. I would not want to say in advance what we would do, and what I would do as president, but there are other steps that need to be taken. Fore [sic] example, we need to support direct engagement with Iranians, we need to be tough. But I think it is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran.

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran.

Maybe to begin with, John, you could contribute to that "truth" by racheting down the rhetoric about what's happening in Iran and actually researching what is true and what isn't. (*And how many times do people need to be reminded that Iran's president did not say he wanted Israel "wiped off the map"? Repeating that mistranslation is reckless and you should be above that.)

The current administration is lying about Iran's influence in Iraq and you're willing to bet the farm that mindless warmongering in order to protect Israel and America is the way to go.

Few doubt that Iran is seeking to extend its influence in Iraq. But the groups in Iraq that have received the most Iranian support are not those that have led attacks against U.S. forces. Instead, they are nominal U.S. allies.

The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the two largest parties in parliament, is believed to be the biggest beneficiary of Iranian help. The Shiite group was based in Iran during Hussein's reign, and Iran's Revolutionary Guard trained and equipped its Badr Brigade militia.

But the Supreme Council also has strong U.S. connections. Bush played host to the head of the party, Abdelaziz Hakim, at the White House in December, and administration officials have frequently cited Adel Abdul Mehdi, another party leader, as a person they would like to see as Iraq's prime minister.

Therefore, Mr Edwards, since you're spouting off talking points like this, I can no longer support your candidacy.

Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.
[...]
While Israel is willing to go back to negotiating table, little has been seen on the Palestinian side. We instead have seen chaos and violence on the street, and no revocation of violence against Israel.

And the final straw that broke the camel's back, coming from a man who claims to be working on reducing poverty, is this statement:

Outside assistance to Palestinian governance is not an entitlement.

You can fault the Bush administration's failed efforts in the region, which it most assuredly deserves, but you can't put lipstick on a pig and call it a new plan.

The Lame Duck's Speech

Of all of Bush's state of the union speeches I've watched, tonite's is the one I have the least interest in. Sure I'll tune in to see if he kisses Joe Lieberman again and to find out just how macho he tries to look when he's threatening Iran (although I don't think the script will involve 'bring em on' this time), not to mention keeping an eye out for any mention of Osama bin Laden (remember that guy?) or the forgotten war in Afghanistan that Canada's soldiers are still dying in but, overall, (and certainly after having read the handy leaks) the prospect of watching the emperor with no clothes mangle another public appearance simply doesn't hold the same appeal it used to (back when it was fun to count his faux pas - now it's just annoying).

Facing a growing revolt from within his own party (which is WAY overdue), Commander Codpiece is still sure to get the usual applause moments when he pontificates about how great America is and how it's supposedly winning the GWOT. And, as usual, Ted Kennedy won't comply by standing up and clapping in order to be politically correct.

On top of that, Michael J Fox will be in the audience to remind everyone about this president's refusal to fund stem cell research. Veto this, Bush. Michael dares you.

Every single domestic policy that Bush will try to promote this evening already has its opponents. From his new health-care plan to more promises about fixing America's oil addiction (which he did nothing about since he promised to during the last state of the union), Bush's back is up against the wall. And that's exactly where it belongs. At least this time, the Democratic congress can actually do something about that opposition and it has begun to do so - unlike the do-nothing, rubber-stamp Republican congress who had his back on all of his convoluted ideas. Bush/Cheney led. They slept.

So for all of Bush's confident, delusional smirking there will stand before America and the world a man whose tenure as president has been an absolute failure. He doesn't know it, apparently, and neither will his cadre of kool-aid drinkers admit it. Watch out for the fawning praise. It will be nauseating.

I expect this will be one of the least-watched SOTU speeches in recent history with most of the public being more interested in who was nominated for the coveted Oscars today than what this president has to say about...well...anything.

Related: You can read some excerpts from the Quacker-in-Chief's speech here.
(Summary: "blah, blah, blah...yadda, yadda, yadda...")

For a comprehensive analysis of Bush's speech, see What Bush Will Say, What You Need To Know.