Via atrios, we learn that Jonah Goldberg has changed the subtitle of his book “Liberal Fascism” from “The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton” to:

“The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods”

I’d wager that the Doughy Pantload knows as much about Hegel as he does about, say, the prospects for civil war breaking out in Iraq and the probability of a broad consensus forming among Iraqis and Americans that invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea and well worth it, by last February.

As for Whole Foods, I would echo Scott’s sentiment:

I must admit that I’m unclear about how a chain selling food voluntarily to willing consumers represents “fascism” and “totalitarianism” in any sense. . .

Rob over at Lawyers, Guns and Money keeps making sense:

Who’s Winning in Anbar?

One can rarely peruse a right wing blog these days without reading about how “we’re winning” in Anbar. The talking point stems from the decision, in September of last year, of a number of tribal elites in Anbar to focus on operations against Al Qaeda, instead of against the United States military. As Jim Henley notes, crafting an alliance with tribal elites is hardly without risk, and does not constitute “victory” in any meaningful sense for the United States.

~~~

Having accepted defeat in the main aim of the war, collaboration with Sunni tribal elites is probably the next best option. The victory isn’t ours, though; it’s theirs. Al Qaeda wasn’t in Anbar before the war, and it may be gone from Anbar someday, but the Sunni tribal leaders have maintained and perhaps even increased their autonomy. . . . Rather than create a shining example for the Middle East, US policy is now directed towards enabling the most conservative elements of Iraqi society. The truly sad thing is that this does, compared with the execution of the first three years of the war, represent something of a victory.

The other point I would make is that the current rationale offered by Bush for perpetuating this was is the al Qaeda gambit — the notion that al Qaeda will turn Iraq into the “Caliphate” if we leave.

As noted earlier, al Qaeda has always had thin support in Iraq among the populace, even among Sunnis with whom they are nominally allied because of their support in fighting American troops. If al Qaeda cannot garner support in Anbar, the most radicalized and violent Sunni province, how are they a threat to control a country which is 80% Shiite and Kurd, both of whom loathe al Qaeda? The only reason al Qaeda was tolerated in Anbar the first place was because of our presence. Yet somehow returning Anbar to status quo ante represents a victory, even if the mechanism is otherwise antithetical to every other aim of this misbegotten war.

We’re still miles behind the Republicans when it comes to Orwellian nomenclature (think USA Patriot Act), but it’s a start:

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would allow labor unions to organize workplaces without a secret ballot election.

Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed to force consideration of the Employee Free Choice Act, ending organized labor’s chance to win its top legislative priority from Congress.

Got that? the “Employee Free Choice Act” was a bill that would have eliminated the requirement of secret ballot elections for employees.

Instead, an employee got to make his/her decision publicly, say in a union hall after a meeting or a parking lot in front of co-workers and a couple of Teamsters from the local. What could be freer than that?

Richard Cohen’s spoor, How the GOP Could Win, appearing in today’s Post:

The history I have in mind is 1972. By the end of that year, 56,844 Americans had been killed in Vietnam, a war that almost no one thought could still be won and that no one could quite figure out how to end. Nevertheless, the winner in that year’s presidential election was Richard M. Nixon. He won 49 of 50 states — and the war, of course, went on. Just as it is hard to understand how the British ousted Winston Churchill after he had led them to victory in Europe in World War II, so it may be hard now to appreciate how Nixon won such a landslide while presiding over such a dismal war. In the first place, he was the incumbent, with all its advantages and with enormous amounts of money at his disposal. In the second place, back then the Vietnam War was not as unpopular as you might think — or, for that matter, as the Iraq war is now. In 1972, almost 60 percent of Americans approved of the way Nixon was handling the war.

Before the 1972 election, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger disclosed that secret negotiations had been taking place between the United States and North Vietnam, and declared in a press conference that “Peace is at hand.” Nixon’s handling of the war met with higher approval in large part because he vowed to end the war, not perpetuate it indefinitely, and reduced US troop levels. Moreover, the Republicans inherited the war from a Democratic administration which had initiated and tragically escalated.

Now we come to the current race. The war in Iraq is not — or not yet — an issue for Republicans.

That’s because they’re not trying to explain their support of the war to the American people, who as a whole despise the war, but rather the ever narrowing segment of those who identify with the Republican Party.

Nixon running for reelection after announcing a Vietnam ceasefire and ending a war started by his opposition party is a far different kettle of fish than a Giuliani or a Romney running on a platform of indefinitely continuing a disastrous war started by their own party until a victory which they can no longer define is accomplished.

Even a twit like Cohen ought to be able to see that.

The ongoing struggle between the World the way W wants it to be, and the world the way it actually is, goes on.

First, Bush, describing the world the way he wants it to be:

President Bush Discusses Progress in Iraq, July 23, 2003
“Our greatest ally in the vital work of stabilizing and rebuilding a democratic and prosperous Iraq is the Iraqi people, themselves. Our goal is to turn over authority to Iraqis as quickly as possible. Coalition authorities are training Iraqi police forces to help patrol Iraqi cities and villages. Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid are working to establish as quickly as possible a new Iraqi civilian defense force to help protect supply convoys and power plants and ammunition depots. Offices have been established in major Iraqi cities to recruit soldiers for a new Iraqi army that will defend the people of Iraq, instead of terrorizing them.”

President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi Press Conference, September 23, 2004
“We’re making steady progress in implementing our five-step plan toward the goal we all want, completing the mission so that Iraq is stable and self-governing, and American troops can come home with the honor they have earned.

~~~

The second step is to help Iraq’s new government establish stability and security. Iraq must be able to defend itself. And Iraqi security forces are taking increasing responsibility for their country’s security. Nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel are working today. And that total will rise to 125,000 by the end of this year. The Iraqi government is on track to build a force of over 200,000 security personnel by the end of next year [ed: 2005]. With the help of the American military, the training of the Iraqi army is almost halfway complete. And in Najaf and other important areas, Iraqi military forces have performed with skill and success.”

President’s Remarks on Homeland Security in New Jersey, October 18, 2004
“But every week, more and more Iraqis answer the call to arms. More than 100,000 soldiers, police and border guards are already trained, equipped and bravely serving their country. And well over 200,000 will be in place by the end of 2005.”

Setting the Record Straight
“Our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so they can defend their people and take the fight to the enemy. And we’re making steady progress. With every passing month, more and more Iraqi forces are standing up, and the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence. . . . Today, there are nearly 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists alongside our forces. American and Iraqi troops are conducting major assaults to clear out enemy fighters in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. Iraqi police and security forces are helping clear the terrorists from their strongholds, hold on to the areas we’ve cleared, and prevent the enemy from returning. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”
(President Bush, Remarks On The War On Terror, Anchorage, AK, 11/14/05)

Fact Sheet (ironic, I know) Progress and the Work Ahead in Iraq
“As Iraqis Stand Up, American Forces Will Stand Down. With more Iraqi Security Forces demonstrating the capabilities needed to achieve victory, American commanders have determined that combat forces can decrease from 17 to 15 brigades by the spring of 2006. This adjustment will result in a net decrease of several thousand troops below the pre-election baseline of 138,000. This comes in addition to the reduction of about 20,000 troops in Iraq largely to assist with election security. If Iraqis continue to make security and political progress, the United States expects to discuss with Iraq’s new government further possible adjustments. All the President’s decisions will be based upon conditions on the ground - not artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.”

Radio Address March 11, 2006
“By their response over the past two weeks and their participation in three successful elections last year, the Iraqi people have made clear they will not let a violent minority take that future away by tearing the country apart. And the Iraqi security forces have shown that they are capable of rising above sectarian divisions to protect the unity of a free Iraq.

The effective performance of the Iraqi security forces during this crisis showed that our hard work to build up and train these forces is paying off. In the coming months, we will help prepare more Iraqi battalions to take the lead in battle, and Iraqi forces will assume responsibility over more territory. Our goal is to have the Iraqis control more territory than the Coalition forces by the end of this year.”

President Bush Discusses Iraq War Supplemental, War on Terror, April 10, 2007
Our troops are also training Iraqis. “In other words, part of the effort is not only to provide security to neighborhoods, but we’re constantly training Iraqis so that they can do this job. The leaders want to do the job. Prime Minister Maliki makes it clear he understands it’s his responsibility. We just want to make sure that when they do the job, they’ve got a force structure that’s capable of doing the job. So that’s why I rely upon our commanders, like General Petraeus, that let me know how well the Iraqis are doing.”

Got that? For four years, we’ve been making incredible progress training Iraqi Security forces so our troops can come home.

Okay. So now for the world as it actually is, away from the dazzling glare of the GW Bush world-the-way-I-want-it-to-be:

General: Iraqi Forces Far From Self-Sufficiency, Washington Post, June 26, 2007
Iraqi forces will not be ready to assume full responsibility for their nation’s security for years, and the U.S. military should be cautious in planning to reduce its 157,000-strong force in Iraq given past setbacks, the American general in charge of the teams that advise Iraqi forces warned yesterday.

Brig. Gen. Dana J.H. Pittard, commander of the Iraq Assistance Group, said “it’ll take years” for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant in protecting the country from internal and foreign threats. He suggested that it will be at least two years before the forces, which number 348,000, can “fully take control” of the situation in Iraq.

And yet, somehow, if you accept President Bush’s narrative, we’re farther away from training sufficient forces than we were when we started. Amazing.

… google news, that is. from this am:

Delphi Deal Is Blow to Jobs Bank

New York Times -
By NICK BUNKLEY DETROIT, June 25 - Unionized workers at the Delphi Corporation, the big auto parts supplier, could vote this week to throw out the jobs bank, the longtime program that lets them continue receiving most of their pay after being laid off.