Starving the Beast using the Tax Code

The Democrats, who are poised to take control of Congress in a couple of weeks, are about to face the almost insurmountable challenge of ending the war in Iraq. There is general concensus that this is the will of the electorate, but there are a broad range of ideas on how to execute that apparent mandate, from an immediate evacuation of US forces to an escalation with the intent of a swift, victorious conclusion, and just about everything in between. The Iraq Study Group report, due out on Wednesday, will likely be a mish-mash of status-quo and minor adjustments, but the basic tone is an eventual withdrawal. It get the Duh-of-the-day award for that one. Seriously though, it's unclear how the Bush administration will view the report or if they'll follow the advice of the distinguished panel. The bottom line though is that, as commander in chief, Bush calls the shots, the way he sees fit, as long as the war is funded.

Democrats could, if they wanted to, opt to stop funding the war and that would force us to pack up and leave Iraq. Of course you know what the fallout would be to that. First of all, it would never pass. Also, anyone who proposed it would be howled at for not supporting the troops.

But there is a way to do this. Imagine this:

The Democrats propose one of the biggest tax cuts in U.S. history. It's across the board and percentage based. In fact, they could even make it disproportionately slanted toward the super rich.

Here's how it works.

They come up with the amount of all income tax revenue spent on the wars, in the last fiscal year, as a percentage of all income tax revenue combined. Say that's 25%. Then, on the revised 1040 form, you're allowed to choose to fund or not fund the wars. If you choose not to, simply take that 25% percent as a deduction.

You want to see how popular the wars really are? As soon as people are faced with the choice of coughing up a few thousand extra dollars... or using that money for something more important to them, suddenly they're not so detached from the war anymore. It comes with a real price tag, and an invoice due on April 15th.

Let the American public defund the war in the same way we fund it. Use the Tax Code.

Swearing to God

For the first time in our history (that we know of) Americans have elected a practicing Muslim to the US House of Representatives. Rep. Elect, Keith Ellison, (D-Minnesota) plans to take the oath of office using a copy of the Koran instead of the Bible. As you might imagine, this has raised the ire of the religious right who are convinced that the Bible is the only acceptable publication upon which to place one's right hand while performing the pre-employment ritual designed to ensure that a newly hired public servant doesn't do anything corrupt, illegal, self-serving or in voliation of the Constitution. Perhaps if the current practice was even marginally effective, they'd have a coherent argument, but to them, it goes much deeper than that. We're talking about the Bible, the "Good Book", that venerable guide for the American race, inspired by God (R-Heaven), being supplanted by enemy's actual playbook. It's as if the gentle musings of a certain blue-eyed Nazarene are being replaced with bomb-making instructions.

Just after the election, CNN blowhard Glen Beck had Ellison on his show and asked him to prove he wasn't "working for the enemy", suggesting that if one is Muslim, one is suspect. The other day, a group of Muslim clerics from Arizona was booted off a US Air flight home because they prayed before getting on the plane.

On Wednesday, an article appeared on the American Family Association's web site [read it here] excoriating the very idea of using the Koran instead of the Bible. Dennis Prager, the article's author writes: "...imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?" (FYI, Hitler was a Christian although he didn't act like one.) There are plenty of racists in Congress who'd swear on a stack of bibles that they weren't. He also makes the analogy of secular officials using a work of Voltaire as their preferred oath book. Prager doesn't get it.

Taking an oath of office is like making a promise with collateral. It's publicly putting your soul on the line as though the book would deliver a fatal electric shock if you didn't mean it. But that's not so farfetched. To a Christian, the Bible is the most powerful symbol of their faith. It's so powerful, in fact, that it overlaps onto Jews, Mormons and Agnostics alike, who are regularly sworn in using bibles. To a Muslim, the Koran is life blood. How many people do you know that actually memorize the Bible? It's really naive, and quite stupid, to cheapen the Koran by comparing it to Mein Kamph. It's also an apostasy to over a billion Muslims.

Nothing could be more symbolic of a true committment to his oath of office than for Ellison to use his Koran. It would also demonstrate to the world that America is diverse and tolerant of that diversity.

Diffusing Blame - Bush on the War Path

Bush is traveling to Jordan this week to try and find someone to help him out of this ungodly mess he's created in Iraq. On his way, he's making a few stops to visit some of the mighty coalition partners, like Estonia. Until the 1990's, Estonia was part of the Soviet bloc and, as I recall, their main export was a low grade of coal, the consistency of peat, that only burns if it's added to regular coal. Other natural resources were smoke and the color gray. But I digress. While making a speech to the NATO summit, Bush pointed out that when he meets with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri Al-Maliki, in Jordan, he's going to demand some answers, primarily to the question of what is his plan to quell the sectarian violence in Iraq.

It's kinda tacky of the president to suggest that Al-Maliki better figure this out or else. It's not like we've left him much to work with. When we crashed into Iraq, we disbanded the Iraqi army, dismantled a functioning government apparatus, and disenfranchised a large portion of the population using a tactic called "de-baathification", a cleansing operation, if you will, that backfired and energized a massive insurgency. Not to mention the fact that we currently have about 130,000 troops parked in Baghdad, a daily reminder to millions of pissed off people that they're living under occupation. Al-Maliki is fully aware of the stakes and Bush knows that.

What's really happening here is a dilution of responsibility. This war is a disaster and we stand a good chance of losing big. Bush does not want that squarely on his shoulders, especially since he's already picking out carpet for his presidential library, that $500-million institute where he plans to "fine tune" his legacy. Since he's basically out of ideas, Bush thinks everyone else should step up and bail him out, but as soon as they do, he'll make sure some of it sticks to them. He starts by sacking Rumsfeld (one of his most loyal soldiers), then refusing to talk to Iran and Syria, probably so they don't lose their "axis of evil" sheen. Now he wants it to look like the Iraqi government is responsible for the ongoing maelstrom because they are powerless to stop it. He is pinning his biggest hopes on the Hamilton/Baker-led Iraq Study Group but nobody expects to hear anything new and promising coming from them. In fact, they are deeply divided amongst themselves over fundamental strategy (escalate versus evacuate). Bush also says NATO needs to accept more of the "difficult assignments" if this is going to succeed. We can expect that when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January, Bush will ask them where their plan is.

This shortage of ideas and an unwillingness to get more involved underscores the fact that none of these people got us into the war, so you can't really blame them for not having the answers. Ultimately, Bush is Commander in Chief and he is, for that reason alone, directly responsible, but more than that, it was his direct orders that lit the fuse.

While the administration fans out to grasp at anything they can to improve their performance in Iraq, they take that opportunity to manipulate the conversation in ways that give the impression that others are equally culpable for their miscalculations and failures.

Early in our country's history, James Madison said this:

"In war, a physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace."

This is why the constitution is so careful to place war making powers under the control of congress because, as Madison goes on to say, "the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man."

We can see how the Republican-controlled congress abrogated it's constitutional authority by giving Bush carte blanche to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, however it turns out will forever be etched in the legacy of the 43rd Prsident of the United States.

The Illusion of Control

I'm sort of a football fan. I watch games from time to time and I like my home team (the Bucs) except when they suck. The most enjoyable games are where there's 30 seconds left, the team with the ball is down by 2 points and has the ball at mid-field. The game could be won or lost by either team and could turn on a single play. A nail-biter, as they say. The games I usually wander away from are the ones where it's the fourth quarter and the score is 34 to 3. While it is statistically possible to score 4 touchdowns in a single quarter, there's really no chance and if you're that far behind, the kind of day you've had so far is not likely to improve much. Yet, there's 15 minutes of play left and it's crunch time. Full speed ahead. Besides, there's always next Sunday.

War is a little different. It's not a football game. You don't get tackled, you get your legs blown off. When the opposing team scores, lots of your guys are dead. If you're losing, you're dying in large numbers and there is no next Sunday. And when the head coach more interested in the cheerleaders than in the game, you're in deep shit.

There's a lot of conversation these days about what we should do in Iraq. In fact, most of them start with the phrase "here's what we need to do". That somehow suggests that all it takes is the right plan, we go in and execute it and voila, victory! There is this illusion that we have some sort of control over what we're doing there. This naivete was best summed up by the cheerleader-in-chief (Bush) when he said recently, "We have a plan for victory. It's called winning".

Actually, we have very little control over the situation there. That's why there are so few options, if any, and that's why we hear people like Henry Kissinger saying that there is no possibility of military victory. Kissinger said that. Like so many statements, those are code words for something a bit more ominous. If there is no military option, then all that's left is a diplomatic course. Okay, who do we negotiate with? Al-Maliki? He can't do anything. Iran and Syria? They have the high ground. How about the insurgency leadership? That would mean negotiating with those who we've labeled as terrorists. And besides, want do we have to offer them? Do we threaten them with military strikes? How about sanctions? The fact is that no one in that region has any reason, or need, to negotiate with us. All anyone there wants from us is for us to leave. If we leave, they win. If we don't leave, they still win because it's the fourth quarter and we're down 56 to zero, we've benched our hapless quarterback, the coach is an idiot, the players on the field are all tired and there's no second string.

They say failure is not an option. They're right. It's a foregone conclusion.

"Mis-underestimating" Iran and Syria

Two major powers in the middle east, and each bordering Iraq, Iran and Syria have reached out to the Iraqi government, and each other. Here we have two countries that represent the two main rival factions in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites, possibly coming together in Iran for a summit to discuss their main problem... the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the unrelenting violence that many feel is exacerbated by that occupation.

This presents a complication, shall we say, to the Bush administration's efforts to get a grip on things. While the pentagon is mulling over their "Go Big, Go Long, Go Home" options, which sounds more like the latest Verizon Wireless plan than a foreign policy, it seems that Syria and Iran clearly see what the rest of the world sees, which is, we don't have a clue what to do right now. Therein lies an opportunity for them to make a power play and this could limit the U.S. options even further (as if these three had any real promise to begin with).

Syria and Iran, separately, present challenges to the U.S. Sryia borders Lebanon and Israel and seems to favor Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is heading nuclear and is already quite powerful. Working in concert, with Iraq as an ally (even reluctantly), creates a swath of influence reaching from Afghanistan to Israel. You think we've got problems now...

For years, Bush has been taking a threatening tone with Syria and Iran. There's enough evidence in the rhetoric to conclude that his plans for these two countries are not that different than his original plan for Iraq, that being military invasion, regime change, installation of a U.S. -approved pseudo-democratic government, with the intended goal of complete U.S. dominance of the middle east. That has been the Neo-con dream all along and they are not shy about saying it. All one needs to do is listen to what comes out of the American Enterprise Institute (the Neo-con think tank).

Iraq was somewhat unique in that it was isolated, even within the region. Our invasion was largely contained and, for the most part, what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq.

However, if we mess with Syria, they're likely to take it out on Israel. And, of course, doing anything to Israel is like hitting a beehive with a baseball bat. Taking on Iran militarily is a whole different ball game than Iraq as well. While Iran can't respond in kind to us (they're not going to park a carrier task force in the Gulf of Mexico), they have said that they possess "deterrent capability", meaning simply that our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan would increase by orders of magnitude if Iran wanted them to. This has tempered the conquest somewhat but it's also easy to imagine that the plan is (was) to continue the adventure from bases in a stable and cooperative Iraq. With the first invasion complete, the oil flowing, the Iraqis happily liberated, American support for the rest of the plan would be easy to come by.

Things have not exactly gone as planned. Iraq is a quagmire and Afghanistan is worsening. Israel lost a war with Hezbollah (at best, a stalemate), demonstrating that it is vulnerable. Our tough talk has held no sway in Iran and our credibility is almost non-existent in the rest of the world. Yet, Bush insists the military option is still on the table and, as Cheney said, its "full speed ahead".

In addition to the fact that the U.S. does not have a plan for Iraq, it is also common knowledge that the U.S. military does not even have the combat troop strength to beef up it's numbers in Iraq, in a sustainable way (as General Abizaid testifed before the Senate Armed Service Committee last week) let alone to get involved in a conflict that spans the entire middle east from Pakistan to the Mediterranian, an area roughly the size of the U.S. east of the Mississippi. Even this doesn't take into account the real possibility of a destabilizing effect on Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia if this thing drags out. We'd have fond memories of when it was only a quagmire and not a full scale morass.

Rep. Charles Rangel has been very vocal about his plan to introduce a bill in the House instituting the draft. No one believes it has a chance but it does put one card on the table. Senator Lindsey Graham insists that we must engage an all-volunteer force and that if we cannot, we would "explore other options". What are those other options? Tactical nukes maybe? If you can't build the volunteer force to the size you need it, and you won't draft, what other means are there to fight a continent-size war, where we must either win decisively, or lose quite spectacularly?

Watch the Iran-Iraq-Syria thing very closely. This is an important development with potentially terrifying possibilities, especially if we continue to not want to talk to them. We complain about Syria not controlling its border with Iraq. We complain about Iran supporting Shiite militias. Does anyone think this is not part of a strategy on the part of those countries? Of course it is. Now they are beginning to move that strategy into its next phase, which it to consolidate power and squeeze the U.S. out.

Don't forget, we still have al-Qaeda waiting in the wings to strike us at home and the best time to do that is when we are at the nadir of our failing effort in the middle east. There's probably not a swingin' thing we can do about it either.

Alternate Endings - The Bush Legacy

It's November 17th, 2009. Whitehouse press secretary David Corn announced today that President Obama's long-anticipated universal health-care program, a bit behind schedule and not without its problems, is due to launch by the first of the year. Nothing since 9/11/2001 has garnered so much media attention, with the exception of the end of the Iraq war, and the mad dash from the Baghdad green zone to the Kuwaiti border now known as the "Exodus", or as Jon Stewart called it, the "Exit U.S." The difference now is that President Obama's initiative will likely save more lives in the first couple of months than the over 10,000 Americans who lost theirs in the war.

A lot of other things have happened recently. The Republicans barely regained control of the Senate in 2008 but the Democrats picked up even more seats in the House, after the investigations into corruption sent 40 of its members to prison and many more into political exile. They're still at each other's throats, but they've made good progress and people seem to be a bit more satisfied. They were able to pass the health plan by a good margin as well as the Alternative Energy Act, part of which will ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles in the U.S. by 2025.

The regime of North Korea collapsed and the country has basically been annexed by China, for the time being, for humanitarian reasons, although talks of reunification of north and south are moving ahead. Once journalists were able to freely travel in North Korea, the world was amazed and sickened at what they saw and the outpouring of aid has been monumental.

Fidel Castro died last year and I've been to Havana twice now. What a cool place and only an hour flight from Tampa. Cuba has become the focus of world attention, some calling it The Hague of the west, as the facility at Guantanamo Bay, which was shut down last year, is being reopened as it awaits its new sole inmate, Osama bin Laden, who was captured 2 months ago in Pakistan and will stand trial in Cuba. The publicity surrounding this trial is already becoming an economic boon for a country struggling to rejoin the free world.

As the first decade of the 21st century comes to a close, we reflect on the events of its rocky start. Foremost among them are the final days of the Bush 43 presidency. Back in 2006, I wrote two alternative endings; basically guessing how he might spend his last 2 years in office.

Alternate Ending #1 :

After the Iraq Study Group report came out in December 2006, it was clear that it was not possible to outsource the solution to the failing effort in Iraq to a committee, even one as distinquished as the ISG. The recommendations were a mix of diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria, minor tactical adjustments, and phased withdrawal with no set timelines. None of these things were appealing to anyone so nothing changed. In early 2007, Congress approved Bush's "final push" plan that would increase troop strength by several tens of thousands. The Democratic controlled congress saw it as a way to either finish the job, or demonstrate that enough was really enough, although there was little confidence in the former and a costly way to prove latter. Republicans also had mixed feelings about it. Senator McCain was its leading proponent, hoping that success would make his presidential hopes a reality. Others reluctantly voted for it for much the same reason as the Democrats in a rare bi-partisan showing.

Despite assurances, the operation was a disaster. With no set-piece battles that the U.S. military would undoubtedly win, the insurgency swelled to astonishing levels, as did the intensity of street fighting and Baghdad became an echo of Fallujah, bombed out and ruined, and more dangerous than ever before. The bulk of the "final push" effort was to reinforce the green zone and protect the cowering Iraqi government and U.S. occupation from ceaseless withering attacks from every direction. The final blow came when several Scud missiles landed in the green zone, to the complete surprise of everyone, inflicting more casualties than in the entire period of occupation up to that point. Referred to as the "Iraqi Tet Offensive", any remaining support for the war evaporated. Newly appointed Defense Secretary Gates resigned along with several Generals and the Bush adminstration was against the wall.

That same week, an underground nuclear explosion was detected in northern Iran, followed by a gloating proclamation from the Iranian government that it was now "ready to talk to the U.S., eye to eye."

In the spring of 2007, U.S. forces abandoned Iraq in a rapid withdrawal to Kuwait. An emboldened insurgency overran the green zone but despite the dire predictions from some, allowed the U.S. to leave with minimal harassment, down the same highway the Iraqis used to flee Kuwait after the first gulf war, known as the "highway of death".

Bush, Cheney, and incoming Defense Secretary Bill Frist, remained myopic, despite the reality on the ground, insisting that the whole point of the war, all along, had been to protect the United States from nuclear attack from Iran. In his final State of the Union Address, Bush referred back to his earlier "mushroom cloud" reference, in the run-up to the war, in a feckless attempt to connect Iran to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. For the first time in recent memory, a President was booed by the Congress during his speech to the joint session.

The Iraqi government, installed during the U.S. occupation, managed to survive, although Prime Minister Maliki was voted out of office and several others in his government were assassinated. Iraq remained in turmoil but with the televised execution of Saddam Hussein behind them and the U.S. gone, violence began to subside and the country began to heal.

Shortly after the elections in 2008, Donald Rumsfeld was arrested at Heathrow airport and sent to Germany to face trial for war crimes. Bush returned to Crawford, Texas, and is said to be involved in a Hydrogen distribution startup. There are no plans as of yet for a George W Bush presidential library due to a lack of financial donors.

Alernate Ending #2 :

After the Iraq Study Group report came out in December 2006, it was clear that it was not possible to outsource the solution to the failing effort in Iraq to a committee, even one as distinquished as the ISG. The recommendations were a mix of diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria, minor tactical adjustments, and phased withdrawal with no set timelines.

President Bush, tempered by the "thumping" his party received in the 2006 elections, discarded most of his far-right GOP advisers and made a very visible shift toward his "uniter" stance. In an address to the nation, he as much as apologized for the "miscalculations" of the past six years and committed himself to working with the Democrats in Congress. Because of the cynicism felt by the population, he took the almost unprecedented step of replacing part of his administration with prominent Democrats, including the appointment of Gen. Wesley Clark as National Security Adviser, ignoring the outcry from GOP hardliners. In addition to that, he insisted on weekly meetings with the leadership of the House and Senate majority and minority, calling it the "Unity Council". Each closed-door session was followed by a televised press conference.

The first action of the Unity Council was to devise an exit strategy for Iraq. While pundits complained about the secrecy of the plan, it became quickly apparent that U.S. forces were moving around. Many were redeployed to Kuwait and northern Kurdish areas of Iraq. A large number of troops were redeployed to Afghanistan, but few actually returned to the United States initially.

The U.S. stepped up air strikes on insurgent targets and special forces missions where groups of insurgents or al Qaeda forces could be located and attacked. The U.S. troops on the ground were, in effect, replaced with squardons of unmanned ariel vehicles (UAVs) armed with cameras and hellfire missiles and Iraqi security forces patrolled the streets below. It was an effective strategy that killed many of the insurgency leaders and demoralized its troops. With less U.S. forces on the ground, much of the anti-U.S. insurgency melted away and even sectarian violence began to subside.

The message sent to the new Iraqi government was very clear that their destiny was now in their hands and there was a noticeable rise in nationalism almost immediately. The initial uptick in violence, as a result of the new strategy, threatened to undermine the Unity Council's resolve but the weekly press conferences and joint efforts pushed much of the harsh criticism to the fringes of each party.

By the summer of 2007, most of the U.S. forces were redeployed and the additional attention on Afghanistan began to make inroads into the continuing conflict there. To the American people, the middle east was still a mess, but it was clear that their government was on the same page for the first time since the war began. Other countries began to respond as well and international involvement grew. By the end of the year, Iraq was a low-intensity conflict, a daily but below-the-fold news item, and the exit strategy itself was considered a success, although the war was considered more a stalemate than a victory.

While the war had stood down, and Bush had earned a certain amount of respect for his role, it was election season once again and the GOP was not to fare well.

John McCain, who had supported escalation of the war, narrowly defeated Rudy Giuliani in the primary but was roundly defeated by Barak Obama in the general election. McCain hammered on the continued threat of terrorism during his campaign, but the public euphoria inspired by the end of the Iraq war focused the nation on social issues such as health care, imigration, the environment, jobs and education. While Hillary Clinton had much support, she was simply overwhelmed by Obama's skill and charisma on the campaign trail, though some said she paid the price for her own support of the war.

Shortly after the 2008 elections, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh was found dead in his hotel room from an apparent overdose of pain killers less than a week after a video of him and his gay lover was posted on YouTube. George Bush returned to Crawford Texas to write his memoirs and oversee the construction of his presidential library in Houston.

Well, those were the two predictions I made back in 2006. Interesting how things actually did turn out.

The Business of War

Lip service is abundant everywhere you point your ear. We hear day after day, from both the adminstration and Congress, that our goal is to win the wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on Terror. If you try to reconcile rhetoric with action, what that actually translates to is that we want to successfully manage these wars to a conclusion that probably looks nothing like the traditional war winning that comes to the minds of most of us History Channel addicts.

Let me explain.

The first rule of the consulting business is that in the absence of a clear solution, there is certainly money to be made by prolonging the problem. In fact, many fortunes have been made by those who've developed such expertise.

Before 9/11, our economy was heading quickly away from the gains made during the Clinton years and this was due in large part to NAFTA, globalization, outsourcing and a host of other ideas that seemed good at the time. One could argue that Bush inherited this, and I agree with that, but he also lacked the skill to deal with it intelligently. Then he received a gift from Osama.

One of the first things to happen in the war room under the Whitehouse, according to Richard Clarke (who was present at the time), even while the dust settled in New York, was a very clear order to link that event to Saddam Hussein. They'd been looking for a way to justify what they had wanted to do all along, and now they had it.

The invasion of Iraq was a business decision made for a number of reasons. It was initially intended to consolidate the power of the U.S. to guarantee continued profits to multi-national corporations by controlling a resource-rich part of the world that could not be controlled through any competitive advantage of the U.S. over China, Russia and India. It required a more definitive (forceful) approach. Second to that was to bolster a dipping U.S. economy by firing up its military industrial complex. The social impact of a war, in someone else's country, is an economic lift across the board in this country. In the case of a middle east war, the oil markets go wild too, and that has a broad reach. Manufacturing needs materials, demand drives prices, gobs of money gets dumped into every corner of society. The only problem is what I call the "Rogaine Paradox". To sustain this illusion of prosperity means the need for endless war. Once you stop the blood-letting, the economy quickly reverts back to it's pre-war state and the speed of this regression is what makes the difference between a recession (a slow downward trend) and a full-on depression (a crash landing).

This is further illustrated by the range of opinions on what we should do. Ideologically, the further right, the more support for continuing the conflict. The further left, the more support for rapid withdrawal. This is natural because the right is usually more pro-business while the left is usually more pro-social. While the right answer is probably somewhere in the middle, there may not even be an answer.

The fact is that we're there. We've drawn deeply off the crack pipe of war and now the choices are grim. Continue the war - with its loss of life and treasure, reputation and strength, or withdraw now and face the economic reality. As for the other arguments against withdrawal, such as what unpleasantness will fill the vacuum left behind in Iraq, that is where my own opinion solidifies.

We've lost the war in Iraq. That's not just my opinion. It's being said by senior military and goverment officials everywhere. Maybe they're not using the "L" word (yet), but they seem to be uniformly convinced that there is no military solution. The Iraq Study Group report, due out in a few weeks, will most certainly underline that assertion. We've lost the war in much the same way as we did in Vietnam. The military has no ability to defeat the insurgency or even provide effective security in Iraq and popular support for the at war home is disappearing. So, what do we do? Hang out for another few years and let the body bags pile up a little higher before finally escaping off the embassy rooftop? Or getting out now, taking our lumps for it, but being able to look back in 2 years relieved at how well we've healed since we pulled out those 2 years ago.

Despite lip service to the contrary, it just seems too obvious that the plan was never to get in and get out, like was suggested by Rumsfeld prior to the invasion (you may remember his "six days...six weeks...I doubt six months" estimate). And the Pentagon and other war-making agencies are full of seasoned smart people who had to have known better. The fact is, they did. Could anyone be so inept as to not think there would be insurgency, sectarian violence, an influx of foreign fighters, backing of major factions by other countries in the region (Iran and Syria), tribal loyalty over nationlism in the Iraqi police and security forces, retribution against decades of abuse and a non-startable democratic government where nothing of the sort had existed in the lifetimes of most of its members? It was as if the war was planned, sold, and prosecuted by the Poofters Froth Junior High Cheerleading Squad, with the consent of Congress.

But that's not what it was about. We want a big footprint in middle of that region and we're willing to sacrifice a lot to put it there. Heck, look at the price of conquest in WWII. Germany and Japan had their sights set on something and look what they put into it. Something like 50 million dead before either one of them decided it was over. Of course they lost big but the point is that on a new-world-order scale of things, our losses and those of the Iraqis aint shit to these neocons. They want to reshape the planet and civilization and their ideology tells them they have no choice. Well, like every single other conquest in the entire history of conquests, this one will not turn out the way they hoped. Chaos is the constant nemesis of pragmatism.

Not only is the war lost, left to whatever political or face-saving maneuver we can devise to get out of it, but the neocon dream is sidelined, at least while they are not in complete control. Bush still has his legacy to worry about. In fact, that's about all he really has to do anymore since he's not going to get too much done pushing his existing agenda. He is already going to go down in history as presiding over one of the worst strategic blunders in human history but how will that chapter end?

We went willingly to war, lured like compliant little consumers by an astonishingly brazen marketing campaign. As the money machine began to hum, and the pigs jostled for position at the trough, the messy reality of war began to overwhelm the project. With no controls in place, it has taken on a life of its own and we are virtually powerless to control it. Is it any wonder that any concensus among the war makers, sparse as that may be, is the realization that there really are no good ideas and "stay the course", in all its vernacular forms, is merely a euphemism for "hang on for dear life". That's no way to run a business.

How will the Republicans Comport Themselves?

Now that the Republicans are firmly ensconced in the minority, at least for the next 2 years, it remains to be seen how they will carry themselves.

It's fairly evident that, to them, the end (their agenda) justifies the means (anything goes). When Clinton was elected, and even before, he was pilloried for every conceivable thing the Republicans could come up with that could bring him down, from Whitewater and Travelgate to Monica Lewinski (the latter clearly a self-inflicted wound). The result was probably the beginning of the end of Republican domination because it showed that they were much more interested in power for the sake of power than doing anything meaningful for the rest of us (Remember us? American citizens?).

In the midst of all the crap, wasted time, millions spent on witch-hunt investigations, Clinton still managed to get quite a bit done and who knows what the government, as a whole, would have accomplished had they not been at war with each other.

For the last 6 years, it's been all GOP all the time and while they've managed to get some things done, it's not hard to see what those things are: wars, monumental deficits, increased debt, destroyed credibility, increased vulnerability, corruption scandals, and on and on, all the while telling Democrats to just sit down and shut up. That's one-party rule for you. Lord Acton's take on absolute power is a law of nature.

Now the Congress is a counterweight to the adminstration, not a rubber stamp, and both parties are on notice. The Dems have an opportunity to contrast themselves to the Reps not only in ideology and direction, but in how they choose to share power. It was promising to hear Pelosi say that she would be speaker of the House, not the Democrats. While that might just be honeymoon pillow-talk, she's right. They have to work together now because, for so long, the Congress has only really represented half the country, and that has been very destructive.

Don't misunderstand me here. The Dems are in power now and the Reps are not going to get much of they want. For example, Joe Biden, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said yesterday that the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN was "dead on arrival". Yeah, it sucks losing power. But other things, like the conduct of the war, will need to be managed by compromise and concensus.

How will the parties comport themselves? We've heard the commitments made by both that they intend to work together, but the Democrats have the upper hand. If the Republicans can learn the art of negotiating from a point of disadvantage, they can remain relevant and we will ALL be better for it. If they follow their usual philosophy that their agenda is the only valid one, a mission from God as they like to think of it, they will continue to drift toward the political margins.

Impeachment - On or Off the Table?

According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and reaffirmed by Rep. John Conyers, the Democrat majority will not seek impeachment proceedings against Bush. But does that mean they do not see that as a potential eventuality?

In the early 1970's, the rumblings over increasingly apparent malfeasance in the Nixon administration, that eventually led to Watergate, were becoming louder and louder as each new revelation added fuel to the fire. Yet, the Democrats, even in 1973, stated that impeachment was not on the table. But, it didn't need to be. They did not need to risk political capital by instigating that kind of action against a president of the other party, a huge risk that the Democrats of today undoubtedly understand. What did happen were the investigations, the non-optional constitutional duty of Congress, and the light they began to shine on Nixon led him to commit political suicide. Nixon didn't need to be impeached. He tripped and fell on his own sword. His arrogance fueled by power was quickly replaced with contrition fueled by exposure and the resulting public outcry.

If I was in the Congressional Democrats' shoes, I would be looking at Watergate as a model for what I was about to unleash on Bush. Compared to what this adminstration has done, Watergate is akin to parking in a handicap spot. All the Dems have to do is their constitutionally-required oversight duty and the rest will take care of itself.

What a Difference a Word Makes

A follow-up to my last post, it's amazing how so much can turn on so little. If I had to sum up, in one word, what has completely transformed the landscape in Washington, that word would be "Macaca".

What a difference a day makes

Or, in the immortal words of Nelson Muntz, "HA ha".

It seems things are about to change. Even the beleaguered Iraqis are once again hopeful, cautiously optimistic at least. The House of Representatives and, dare I project, the Senate, are now under the control of the Democrats. Some people, rightfully so, have every reason to be worried about their futures. Others, this writer among them, are hopeful that a balance of power between the legislative and adminstrative branches of government will stop the bleeding.

While there is a general giddyness in Democratic circles, I am not seeing the arrogance we saw in 1994 when the Republicans wrested control from the Democrats. This is a positive as far as I'm concerned. The Democrats in Congress have contributed much to the problems we are faced with, mainly through their annoying tendency to cower and hide from the ideals we want them to represent. They've been given a chance by the electorate, many from the ranks of disgusted GOPers, to show that they can be an effective counterweight to a runaway adminstration and to show they can stem the tide of K-Street corruption, the latter being the biggest issue among certain exit poll results. But, the Dems are on probation. We're all watching. 2008 will be the real report card.

Nancy Pelosi is poised to become the most powerful woman in American history, if not world history, becoming the first woman Speaker of the House. Congratulations in advance! Tough-as-nails, experienced, but also a grandmother, she has put forward a 100-hour plan that doesn't include any baby-eating, devil worship, or nomination of Osama bin Laden as supreme overlord. Her plan does include increasing the minimum wage, enacting the 911 commission recommendations, cutting the student loan interest rate in half, and changing the prescription drug plan to allow the government to negotiate lower prices from drug companies. Her plans also include curtailing subsidies to the hugely profitable oil companies, more funding for homeland security, etc. As far as furthering the homosexual agenda, the GOP seems to be doing fine with that. While she can present her agenda and get it passed in Congress, it still faces the veto pen of the President and we'll certainly see how that works out. What I hope to see from Speaker Pelosi is a calm, measured and intelligent management of the House that brings together the skill of her experience as a tenacious legislator and leader with her experience as a nurturing mother and grandmother. I also expect her to devote a certain amount of time to exposing the dark underbelly of the Bush administation and GOP and nailing some of these fuckholes to the wall.

While nobody wants a singular focus on investigations, the way it was while Clinton was in office, there is an expectation that there be hearings, firings, indictments, prison terms and copious amounts of public ridicule of those who have done so much damage and, in some cases, have committed crimes. At the very least, there is an obligation under our system of laws to investigate and prosecute crimes if there is probable cause, and there certainly is that. Look for C-Span ratings to improve somewhat over the months to come.

The greater agenda should be a positive, inclusive, and uplifting one, but there must be an example set for future leaders that trampling our Constitution is not to be tolerated.

One last thing:

Katherine Harris, you're a trainwreck. You blew your family fortune and still got your ass kicked. Nobody wants you around anymore, especially your own party. Go get a job at the make-up counter at Walmart, after you finish posting your concession speech on fugly.com.

The Domino Effect

November 7th will be a watershed event in Washington that could have far reaching implications and possibly trigger an abrupt change of pace in nearly everything happening today. While various polls suggest a variety of outcomes, it is becoming increasingly plausible that the GOP could lose control of both the House and the Senate in the election. The prediction is beginning to come from some of the key pundits whose views represent both sides. One such prediction is that the Democrats could pick up in excess of 30 seats in the House. Of course, this collective slap of reality has yet to play out as we are still weeks away from the election and a lot can happen in a short period of time.

Despite the hopes by GOP politicos that something big will happen to turn things in their favor, like a sudden cessation sectarian violence in Iraq, bin Laden surrendering, or the second coming of Christ, there is little hope of anything more than simply stopping the bleeding. But even that is a tall order given the almost daily revelation of some new twist on a scandal or even a new scandal. It's unfortunate for the GOP that the negative energy has a life of its own now and even the most innocuous thing seems much more poignant, in light of everything that's going on, than if it had happened in a vacuum. For instance, the Foley scandal begat the Hastert Scandal, which is in the process of begetting a Kolbe scandal (a camping trip with a couple of pages years ago). Bob Ney just pleaded guilty to corruption charges, faces up to 10 years in prison, and this follows indictments, resignations and imprisonment of others in his party. Now Curt Weldon is being looked at by the FBI for possible lobbying-related misdeeds. There's no end in sight.

Speculation, wild as it is, suggests the North Korean nuke test was suspiciously timed, perhaps to affect the outcome of the election. The fact that Bush is more of a threat to them with control of Congress than without it may lend a little creedence to that theory.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going terribly with no real working strategy. For the first time since Bush uttered his "stay the course" mantra, he is talking about changing course, this shift in attitute following strong statements by military leaders and ceaseless withering violence on the ground in Iraq. While this does sound promising (perhaps he is beginning to pay attention), it doesn't do much for the unwavering resolve stance responsible for much of his support. On the other hand, Afghanistan faces the threat of reverting back to Taliban control, by popular support, and we are reminded this week that there is no senior administration official in charge of the Afghanistan operations. It is apparently relegated to mid-level Pentagon control. If Afghanistan is lost, what becomes of our relationship with Pakistan? With the US effectively defeated in Afghanistan, Musharraf could easily be ousted and that entire region could be out of our reach once again. Now you have a nuclear-armed nation run by radical Islamists who idolize bin Laden.

If, by some stroke of fortune, the GOP retains control of Congress, what do they do next? These scandals, inane as they may be, don't evaporate on November 8th. Any voluntary course-correction in Iraq by the administration is not likely to be nearly enough to turn the corner. Some GOP supporters are even suggesting that they need to lose in order to regroup. The ultra-conservative Wall Street Journal even predicts a boost to the economy if the Democrats prevail. This means people want change, even if for the sake of change. And it may be a foregone conclusion that the dominos are falling and cannot be stopped and that a national re-boot is as inevitable as it is desperately needed.

A little history goes a long way

At Bush's press conference yesterday, he was asked several questions about some of the books written about him, such as the Bob Woodward book "State of Denial". He made the comment, "You know, there's just a lot of look-backs. Presidents don't get to look back..."

When Bush said that presidents don't get to look back, nothing could be further from the truth, or troubling, coming from someone in his position. There is no more powerful a tool for a leader than the lessons of history and it has been said that those who ignore the mistakes of history are destined to repeat them. Bush is not navigating uncharted territory by any means but he has decided to disregard the detailed map left behind by his predecessors. This country has been in existence long enough to have the experience of many past presidents, wars, social struggles, natural disasters, economic disasters and also many positive things, giving us more than enough to draw from. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that Bush is not interested in the wisdom of history and that is, perhaps, the root cause of his failure in nearly everything he has done, or attempted to do. In a nation built on the rule of law, what do you see in every law office? A wall of history, the volumes of case law, the wisdom of historical precedent. Looking back is the first thing any decider should do before moving forward.

The Real "WMD"

A story that got a bit of newsplay today, but clearly not enough, was about a recent study, funded mostly by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in part by the Johns Hopkins Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, and conducted by a group of independent researchers, which aimed to estimate the total number of Iraqi deaths attributed to the U.S. invasion and it's continuous aftermath. They came up with the number 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths, as a result of the war, as of June 2006.

What made the news is that it is said to be controversial and President Bush, today, basicially said it was a bunch of hooey. Since the Pentagon does not keep records of civilian deaths, and passive observation (noticing bodies in the street) historically accounts for only about 20% of a wartime death toll, one can only conclude that the adminstration's quick dismissal of this report is an attempt to get it out of the way as quickly as possible.

We've seen, in so many cases, that the Bush adminstration has very little interest in the findings of the scientific community whether it be the effects of global warming, economic policy or now the real cost of an elective war.

The study is a cross-section cluster sample survey, which is basically a carefully selected statistical sample of the population, clusters of people, if you will, in various parts of the country. The sampling takes into account things like population densities, empirical data and many other factors that allow the researchers to study a statistical group, in this case 1849 households spread across 47 clusters, and to scale their results up to the total population figures to arrive at their final estimate. It's not some hammerhead with a spreadsheet. This is real science.

This technique is used all the time by many different organizations including census takers, political pollsters, public health agencies and corporate marketing professionals, for all types of demographic analysis. It is a scientifically sound and highly effective method, and may be the only way to conduct a survey like this, particularly under the current conditions in Iraq.

The study looked at typical mortality rates nationally and among the sample group (data which can be substantiated), then looked at the increase in mortality rates due to the war. This was then extrapolated to the entire population.

The study concluded that 2.5% of the Iraqi population has perished as a result of the invasion and occupation and the majority of deaths are attributed to gun shot wounds, car bomb explosions and other war-related trauma. 2.5 percent. If this was happening in the U.S., it would mean about 7.5 million dead. But not to dimish the Iraq results by comparision. 654,965 is a very big number, and growing daily.

In Bush's comments today, downplaying the report and refuting the death toll, he also stated that he understood that there were innocent lives being lost but that the Iraqis seemed to be tolerating it well. Tolerating it?! I don't see anyone tolerating anything. I see Iraqis in a hellish situation trying to deal with it and hopefully survive it. I see anguish and pain, fear and abject misery.

I can't say that this raises to the standard of genocide, because while the numbers are staggering, genocide has a more specific definition beyond just numbers, but it is certainly in the realm of war crimes to have allowed, through willful negligence, a disaster of this magnitude, considering that most of the deaths have occured during the post-invasion period where there was clearly no adequate planning.

Once again, we've seen science discarded for political expediency. Only after the dust settles might we ever know the true numbers of dead, but I'll always put my money on the academics, because more often than not, they turn out to be correct.

North Korea ... Now what?

I was stationed in South Korea, in Ui Jung Bu, which is midway between Seoul and the North Korean border. This was back in 82-83, about midway between the previous shooting war and today. Even then, there was a sort of tension in the air, like smell of ozone after a close lightning strike (although it might have been the fertilizer they used on the rice fields). The South Koreans are some of the sweetest people on Earth. As you walk the streets, you notice that everything is separated by masonry walls 6 feet, or so, high, forming a labyrinth of little compounds where people live together. You also notice the bullet and artillery shell holes in the walls and in the sides of older buildings, still there as a reminder of something really bad that happened.

My friends and I spent a lot of time seeking out the treasures of Korea, namely the mountain temples and places where Americans simply did not go, and where the people had never met an American. I met a girl on the street in Pusan, at the southern end of the country. She came up to me and told me she had never met an American before and would I mind having coffee and English conversation. That was very cool. Her name was Kum Sun Lee and we were friends for the rest of my tour.

There's a place called Freedom Bridge up near the border. I guess after the war, it was where the POWs crossed on their way home. It's a steel tressle bridge over a river and it's riddled with bullet holes even though it's been painted over many times. Right next to it are the remains of a bridge that was bombed back to stumps of concrete sticking out of the water. There's a little museum near the bridge and we stopped there on our way to the border one day. While we sat on a bench, an old woman came up to me and started to wipe my boots with a rag. There was a younger man with her, perhaps her son. She didn't speak English but he did. I asked him why she was doing that (it was a little awkward) and he simply said she remembered the Americans during the war.

I was a Forward Air Controller (FAC) in the Air Force. My job was to call in close air support, or "air strikes" as they are commonly called. We all had forward observation locations (FOL sites) assigned to us and these were usually sites along the border, the frontier between South and North, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ). I don't know why they call it "demilitarized" because it is most definitely militarized. My spot was at a ground surveillance radar site on the top of a hill overlooking the actual border and North Korea itself. Should the war ever start up again (it never officially ended, just a cease-fire), the entire military was to head south to surround Seoul with the exception of the guys in my unit and a few others. Our job was to head north until we either ran into the North Korean army or made it to our FOL site. Then, call in air strikes until we were overrun or killed, I guess. We practiced this a lot, except for the last part.

At the time, North Korea was run by Kim Il Sung, the "Great Leader" as he was called. The South was run by a military dictator. I can't remember his name but his goons were everywhere. They looked like little Asian Gestapo guys but they were generally pretty cool.

The South Korean army is made up of some of the toughest people you will ever encounter in your life. We did a lot of work with the 22nd ROK Marines (Brave Tiger), the division of Korean Marines known to strike terror in the hearts of the Viet Cong. Even if there was one ROK attached to a patrol of Americans in Vietnam, the VC would high-tail it out of the way. These guys were mostly all advanced black belts (not the fake kind you can earn in a year, the real thing) and when they worked out as a unit, they sparred. Very impressive. Again, some of the nicest, generous and gentle people I've ever met, but I wouldn't want to fight against them.

The South Koreans know the stakes and they know that it's their home that is threatened by what is perhaps the most hostile regime since Stalin, after whom the northerm regime is modeled. War in that part of the world is especially brutal because of the ridiculous terrain and deadly cold winters.

Now, North Korea is beating the drum louder than ever. The Great Leader has long since been replaced by his son, child-like but even more brutal than his dad and not to be taken lightly. The population of the north is so completely brainwashed that they truly believe that they live in paradise (the kind with bodies in the street and nothing to eat) and that the Americans are bloodthirsty barbarians who want to deprive them of what little they have. Of course, they're not altogether wrong because we seem to think economic sanctions would be helpful. But now they've basically validated what we already knew. They've got nukes. How nice.

There's not a whole lot of technology in between detonating a fission device (which they have) and sticking one on top of a ballistic missle (which they also have) and pointing it basically at anyone. Even if it's just pointing straight up, it's a real big problem and guess who gets to deal with it? Yep, the same bungling idiots who have us all tied up in Iraq, allowed American citizens to become refugees in their own country, and can't even pronounce the word nuclear.

They've already made a tough situation even more difficult with a bit of a credibility problem. When the 6-party talks failed, Bush said, quite emphatically (in that "dead or alive" style he has) that we would not tolerate nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. Then, when Kim fired a rocket, Bush talked tough again but did nothing. Now they test a nuke and Bush says we better not catch them giving the technology to Iran or anyone else. What if they do? What are we gonna do about it? We haven't done anything so far and each time we don't do anything, it makes it all that much harder the next time. Also, the more opportunities you miss, the less options you have the next time. Pretty soon, the only option you have is violence. Can you imagine a war with North Korea? Just think about that for a minute. Is it even sane that some consider it an option?

North Korea would most certainly come out swinging. They've got a million and a half of those soldiers you see goose-stepping fiercely in Pyongyang parade videos and there's no way we could hold them back from the only thing they can do, and that's to charge into South Korea. And the last time we got into it with them, China got involved and I don't recall that we'd had a beef with China before that. The point is, the Korean part of the world is not the middle east, which is basically a continent-sized desert. North Korea is immediately adjacent to China, Japan, South Korea, with Russia not too far away. A conflagration in that part of the world would change the world as we know it and people would die in very large numbers.

I don't think anyone has a clue what to do. The Adminstration? They don't know what to do. You can tell they don't. Nobody does. Gotta go. Adult Swim is on in a minute.

Focus on the Family? Sure you do.

On the October 6th broadcast of James Dobson's "Focus on the Family", Dobson echoed some the rumors advanced by Matt Drudge and Michael Savage that this whole Mark Foley flap was just a prank by some former pages. He said it "turned out to be what some people are now saying was a -- sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages". Here's more.

So, what was the joke Jimmy? Was it that the pages simply fabricated this stuff, for some reason, to embarrass or destroy Foley? Or was the joke simply that they waited until an opportune moment to reveal these salacious messages to the media? If it was a pure fabrication, why did Foley abruptly resign and literally vanish within hours of the ABC News reporter asking his staffer for an explanation of the messages, and before it was even broadcast, rather than trying to defend himself, his reputation and career? Even if the latter was the case, how does that somehow make it not a big deal?

We all know, by now, what went down and because there is no one in Congress suggesting that the messages were fake (as they dive for cover), these rumors, albeit circulated on the prestigious Internet, are simply a stupid attempt to soften the reality of this affair and lessen its ramifications.

But let's talk about you, Jimmy, for a minute.

Dr James Dobson, faithful Christian, moral leader, defender of American family values, a man with the spiritual well-being of the nation at heart, a man of deep intellect cast in the image of God. Gimme a freakin' break.

You are nothing more than a self-serving Pharisee and Conservative gasbag doing the bidding of your corrupt benefactors. A known pedophile makes repeated advances on children and what do you do? You blame it on the children. What family are you focusing on? What god do you worship? You are a disgrace to real Christians, and for that matter, anyone of real faith. Worse than that, in your influential position, you have a responsibility far beyond the average faithful and you do great harm with your words because people believe you.

I was raised around a religious dogma that suggests one can go to Hell simply on a technicality, like not subscribing to specific esoteric doctrines, and I do not believe that. What I do believe is that Hell, should it exist, is where people like you are destined to spend eternity. People who deceive and conspire in the name of God.

Simply saying "God damn you, Dobson" is not taking the Lord's name in vain (as we were led to believe in Sunday school). However, a man in your position, saying the things you say, is most certainly taking the Lord's name in vain, and worse, everytime you open your sanctimonious pie hole.

Like so many people, for my whole life, I've felt the tug of conviction to find God and become part of a faithful community. However, I cannot imagine, even for a moment, becoming part of what you and your ilk represent. I guess the search goes on.

Nefarious Intent or simply Fair Game?

All this Mark Foley suff swirling about is really creating a huge distraction, for everyone, at a time when people are preparing to perform their solemn and civic duty of electing a new Congress. Candidates from both parties are on the home stretch, carefully managing their message, and trying to convince voters why they should either be elected or re-elected. It always gets interesting as desperation sets in and they start to "go negative". But nothing could prepare anyone for the explosion that occurred when it was revealed that Rep. Mark Foley was engaged in something so completely indefensible.

While Foley's taken the obvious step of hiding in rehab and preparing his eventual defense (he's an alky, molested as a child, yada yada), a lot of other Republicans are getting sucked into this, simply because it was one of their guys and perhaps they should have done more about it. It can't be easy and the pressure is causing them to use anything they can to diffuse it a bit. Yesterday, they began suggesting that this was orchestrated by the Democrats, who may have known about this and leaked it to the media. It's called an October Surprise.

Well, I suppose that could be the case but the fact remains that it is an explosive issue, the timing of which seems more than a coincidence because the actual "pedoFOLEYa" goes back some months and even years.

If I was a political strategist and had something like this on my opponent, you can bet I'd wait till the absolute worst possible moment and then say. "um...here's something". Damn right. That's what happens in politics, business, war, sports, anything where someone is hell-bent on vanquishing an opponent. It's called an Ambush and it's the law of the jungle. It's even more effective if your opponent has basically set the trap for themselves and in this case, an irrefutable fact is that Foley did what Foley did and his abrupt resignation was every bit as damning as a confession. (I should point out that he has not been convicted of anything but a confession, like a resignation, is often a way to escape the pain of torture, guilty or not.)

But if we're going to point fingers at the Democrats for orchestrating this timely release of information, which is still in the realm of wild speculation, you could also make the case that Karl Rove was behind this. Okay, okay, hear me out.

Rove is known for his ruthless, shoot the wounded, eat the young, brand of politics and will stop at nothing to protect his investment. The administration also knows the stakes if they lose control of Congress. Were that to happen, Bush would likely spend the remainder of his term on the political water board, or worse. Rove, himself, is attributed with having suggested an October surprise and something like this, as risky and potentially self-destructive as it may seem, had one very clear result. Nobody is even talking about the Bob Woodward book. It's not even in the newscycle at all. You can bet that were it not for the Foley thing (or that sad event in Amish country), Woodward's revelations would be the lead story. It's also probably no coincidence that Condi Rice suddenly decided to spend some time in the Middle East, out of the spotlight.

I'm sure you're thinking this is crazy. Of course it's crazy. But put yourself in Rove's position for a minute (and consider his way of thinking). It is entirely possible that the Bush administration could effectively come to an end on November 7th. They know this. What lengths would they go to to prevent that, even risking a back-fire if the Republicans in Congress can't weather this? Do you think they care about the loyalty of Hastert and company? Sure, when it's useful. Do you think they would sacrifice nearly anyone to save their own skin? Without a doubt. This is not a game to them.

But how would this little diversion help the adminstration? Well, the Republicans could weather this and even rally their base. It is, indeed, a tremendously risky business but they may also be seeing no good alternatives.

So, it is entirely possible that the Democrats took advantage of something they knew, or perhaps a nosey investigative reporter just happend to stumble on it, or it might be part of a desperate measure, by desperate people, to simply change the subject. We may never know.

By the way, a comment about comments

Blogging is a wonderful advancement in technology and the ability to comment makes it all the more sporting in nature. A blog without comment capability is a bit like saying you're unsure of your own opinion and any challenge to it is a personal affront. It's also a little arrogant. So comment away but take my advice. Learn how to spell, be civil, and be aware that everything you say is a reflection on who you are, or what you've become. I do appreciate being read and tasting the savory venom of disagreement, although some of you commenters really ought to get a room.

Slow-motion Implosion

The Rebublicans want us to believe they are the party who deserve control of all branches of government (called single-party rule) because they a) keep us safe and warm, b) know better when it comes to what rights we should have as Americans, or humans for that matter, c) claim a monopoly on morality and d) that their world-view is the one intended by god.

Well, as we've all known, none of these things are true, nor do they work in a democracy like ours. The country, as a whole, is divided. It's true that about half the population supports the Republican agenda. But -- the other half does not. Under the current scheme of things, the does' are feeling empowered to run roughshod over the does nots and those of us who fall into that often ridiculed category of anti-war, respect-for-human-life, anti-racism, anti-bigotry, save-the-planet weirdos can easily be shrugged off by those who claim those values but who demonstrate something quite the opposite.

As Bob Woodward points out in his new book, "State of Denial" and David Corn and Michael Isikoff's new book "Hubris", things actually are as they appear to be to observant people, but the Republicans have refused to admit. The administration and its rubber-stamp congress have completely lost control of everything from foreign policy, to the economy, the wars and now even their own claim of righteousness. Woodward, Corn and Isikoff are journalists of high integrity and while the administration tries to answer to the claims they make, they cannot deny these things outright. Actually they do make denials but it is through clever use of words. For example, on the Sunday talk shows, Dan Bartlett (President's counsel) was out trying to get in front of Woodward's book, due out today. In the book, Woodward claims that several key members of the administration, including Andy Card and Condi Rice, wanted Rumsfeld replaced. When Bartlett was asked about that by Bob Schieffer, he said it was untrue. They did not want to replace Rumsfeld (there's your flat denial) but they did want to bring in a whole new management team at the Pentagon. Now, what's the difference? Something else that seems to be growing legs is the assertion that George Tenet (former CIA director) called for an emergency meeting in July 2001 because of what he saw as an imminent threat of attack by Al Qaeda, and that this went largely ignored, at least for the next two months. I recommend reading both of these books along with "The Emperors New Clothes" by Hans Christian Anderson. Also, listen carefully to how the administration responds. Their wordcraft is self-revealing if you listend for it.

And now we learn the GOP (God's Own Party) has, to their obvious chagrin, a sexual predator and pedophile in their midst, and not only that, they've know about it for a long time (that's the disgusting part). In fact, according to CNN at least, they used to warn congressional pages to keep their distance from Mark Foley because of his 'tendencies'. Why would they say that if they didn't suspect what Foley was about? Now it comes out that Foley, who abruptly resigned his seat in the House of Representatives, was preying on kids, former pages, using instant messager and email, sending salacious messages, probably while he jerked off in his congressional office. GOP leaders are literally diving for cover as this story explodes and glibly referring to these messages as "naughty" and "overly friendly". C'mon, man! This, added to the indictment of Tom Delay, incarceration of Duke Cunningham, corruption of Bob Ney, the racism of George Allen, Dr. Bill Frist's magical ability to diagnose brain damage by video, and lots of other things, clearly demonstrates that the Republicans can neither govern unilaterally, nor do they occupy the moral or any other high ground. This is without even factoring in the run-up to the Iraq war and its tragic mishandling.

There have certainly been numerous transgressions by both parties. I will never try to claim that Democrats are any better. In fact, I think the Democrats as feckless and weak. But it's simply disingenuous to suggest that one party has any claim to moral, ethical or ideological superiority over the other. People are people. All of us have points of view, good and bad ideas, as well as moral failings, which is part of being human. The whole purpose of a multi-party system is that there is a constant debate over the issues and hopefully the best ideas win. Not the strongest party, but the best ideas. Individuals without the proper comportment to lead are winnowed out and not coddeled by their party simply to hold onto a majority (although that's the natural instinct of both parties). We need to go back to balance and it starts with a balance of power in congress. A favorable outcome in November would be just that.

There was a time in our history when it made sense for the winner of the presidential election to appoint the bested opponent as vice president. We end up with the two best possible people in the Whitehouse, a balance of power with occasional fisticuffs. If you have a House controlled by Democrats and a Senate controlled by Republicans (or vice versa), there's nothing wrong with that either. It makes things a little harder to get done but at least things go completely through the ringer first and are fully vetted. Hopefully, then, the whole population feels well served by their government, not just the currently-enfranchised.

When Bush was running for his first term, he made the prophetic comment that things would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship, provided he was the dictator. While he, and his party, follow that philosphy in practice, we are reminded more and more everyday that while it may be easier, it's really not the better way.

The balance of power is what gives us our strength. Winston Churchill said, "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." He also said, "Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."

A Dark Day for Democracy

Yesterday, the US Senate voted in favor of S.3929,a bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. You can read the actual bill here and also see which senators voted for it. It passed 65 to 34 meaning a bunch of Democrats, including my own Senator Bill Nelson, voted for it.

This will go down in history, along with the Japanese Internment of World War II and Gulf of Tonkin Act that got us into Vietnam, as among the worst and most regretted legislation ever passed.

This bill gives monarchial powers to a president who already believes he is king. It gives him the power to arrest you, an American citizen, for any reason, without having to show you the evidence (Habeas Corpus), and detain you for the rest of your life without charge or trial. Don't believe me? Read the bill! Your Senators voted for a bill that gives the president tyrannical powers. Read the bill!

It also immunizes the administration, retroactively, from prosecution for war crimes, essentially pardoning them for things they could be charged with under the war crimes act of 1996, but have yet to be charged with. This is an unbelievable act by congress who has, once again, abrogated their duty to the country and handed almost unlimited unilateral powers to the executive branch.

This president has added signing statements to hundreds of bills, during his term, stating that he reserves the right not to comply with the law if he interprets is differently. He will not add a signing statement to this one. This tells you that it is exactly what he wants and we should have every reason to now fear for our safety as Americans if we dissent, associate with dissenters, or do anything that could, in any way, be considered support for terrorism and under the powers the president now has, means whatever he wants it to mean (really) which could be as simple as disagreeing with his viewpoint. This blog could land me in Guantanamo Bay, or worse, with no legal recourse, for the rest of my life. Read the bill.

Your feckless, weak and useless Congress is handing the president power no other president (other than perhaps President Hussein), but no U.S. President has ever had. Goodbye bill of rights.

I hope and pray that those who are in a position to will challenge the constitutionality of this and have it thrown out by the courts. Obviously we, the people, either don't understand it, buy the bullshit, or just don't care, otherwise we'd grab our torches and pitchforks and head for Washington. Another hope is that the Democrats, worthless as they may be, win both houses of congress and put a stop to this insanity.

I called my Senator today, Bill Nelson, and told his aide that the only reason I am voting for him in November is because I am voting against Katherine Harris (can you imagine that train wreck as a Senator?). I am very disappointed today, and deeply concerned.

We don't need no stinkin' National Intelligence

That's the message you get from the Bush administration when you learn that they've only ordered one National Intelligence Estimate on global Jihadism since the invasion of Iraq, just one.

In case you're wondering, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the general concensus, and hopefully honest assessment, of the combined intelligence apparatus of the government. It's purpose is to provide a sober bottom line on what we know, not what we think, or hope, or want, but is real. It's the best tool the president has, especially in time of war, because of its unfiltered analysis.

No one can argue that the world is in a state of conflict with political unrest, wars, a low opinion of the U.S and the constant threat of terrorist attack anywhere, anytime. That's got to keep a president up at night. Yet Bush has only ordered one NIE in nearly 4 years. And while most thinking people are probably not surprised, there is a firestorm of reaction to what is a very grim picture painted by this belated NIE.

I don't know about you, but if I was at war with the world, I'd have a full-blown NIE every month, with daily updates in between, and I'd be running it out of the basement of the Whitehouse so I could drop in on them day or night. This is important stuff!

Anyway, the Bush machine is trying to downplay the reality of the NIE by saying that the portion of it leaked to the media does not give the big picture. Okay, I'll give them that. But what is the big picture, and who leaked the part we did see? The latter doesn't matter but apparently one of the few people privy to the big picture felt somehow duty-bound to let us in on it and probably chose the portion that would get the most attention, so as to draw attention to the rest of it.

Anytime someone leaks classified material to the press, they do so at great personal risk so either this is someone with a conscience who has had enough of the bullshit and found an opportunity to do something positive, or perhaps it is a ploy by the administration to whip up controversy, get everyone focused on it, only to douse it with an incontrovertable rebuttal, just in time for elections. It's hard to tell anymore what is or isn't part of a carefully calculated political play, but judging by the record of these guys, they're not smart enough to pull of something like this so I'll stick to my own personal intelligence estimate that they've got another PR problem and a bit of 'splainin' to do. I can't wait to see how they handle it.

Where's a real president when you need one?

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that simply said "I Miss Bill". If you look past the incredible amout of bullshit heaped on him by his opponents, throughout his entire presidency, you'll see a lot of things Bill Clinton did that place him among the most effective presidents we've had and for that reason, I miss him too. One of the things that is often overlooked is what his opponents criticized him for at the time, his "obsession" with offing Osama bin Laden. Now, those same people, and we know who they are, are accusing him of not doing enough about bin Laden.

It seems a little odd that Bush has been in office nearly six years, has the full weight of the military, the CIA and the FBI, as well as a blank check from Congress, to go after bin Laden and not only does he continue to not do it with any conviction, but I hear they even cut back the bin Laden unit at the CIA for budget reasons.

When Clinton was president, he could not get the CIA or the FBI to even sign off on the fact that bin Laden was responsible for the embassies and USS Cole bombings, leaving him with limited options beyond cruise missle attacks and Special Forces raids (which were both called "wag the dog" tactics by Republicans at the time). He even had a plan in place to invade Afghanistan and take out the Taliban, but needed basing rights in Uzbekistan before he could launch the plan. He also had one of the best weapons we've ever had against terrorism, Richard Clarke, who worked for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, until Bush II decided he didn't need the one person who knew more about this subject than anyone on earth.

To add insult to injury, Bush ignored what Clinton had in motion and Condi Rice even said that there was no need to retaliate aginst Al Qaeda for the Cole bombing (now that we know who did it) because that happened on Clinton's watch and we're past that now. What?! The crux of the biscuit is that Bush ignored a secret briefing from the CIA with the title of something like "bin Laden plans to fly planes into buildings" about a month before...well, you know what happened.

And now these inept bozos have the gall to heap their miserable failures on Clinton? I'm sorry but Clinton left the ball on the 1-yard line and Bush fumbled it.

This weekend, Chris Wallace from FOX news had Clinton on for an interview under the false pretense (a lot of that going around) that the subject would be about Clinton raising 7.3 billion dollars to fight global climate change. In a bait-and-switch move FOX obviously got right from their benefactor's play book, Wallace started to press Clinton about his efforts to get bin Laden. Wallace was quickly confronted with how bad an idea that was when Clinton tore him a new asshole. You don't even have to lower yourself to watching FOX to hear how it went. It's easy to find a transcript and read it for yourself. Here's one.

Inventing Dirty Words

Nobody loves a good cuss word as much as I do, but I prefer to stick to the standard vocabulary. Some words really cross the line, like racial epithets, because they identify a group of people with a label that, by design, carries a negative connotation. Take that one step further, put a cuss in front of an epithet, incorporate a little spit with its delivery, and you've clearly demonstrated your low opinion of that stereotype.

What's interesting is how words with a positive meaning can be redefined as being negative, simply by the tone of delivery and by who is saying it. If you heard someone say, "look at those low-down Red Cross volunteers", you'd surely wonder what the heck they meant by that. Or how about. "Look at that good-for-nothing hospice nurse with her gentle smile and compassion for the dying. She makes me sick". How about this one. "Those pathetic Liberals."

Now that last one makes you pause for a second. What was the first image that popped into your mind when you heard the word Liberal? Depending on your point of view, it could be almost anything. Perhaps you had this image of athiests, gay people, vegans, hippies, pot-smokers, communists, women who make their own clothes, hybrid car owners, people standing in a food stamp line, coddlers and whiners,... maybe even terrorist symapthizers. Where did that image come from? Is that what the word Liberal actually means? If someone asked you if you were a Liberal, would you say "absolutely not!"? Is that really true, that you're not a Liberal? Let's dwell on that last one for a minute.

A quick look at the dictionary give some very clear definitions of what the word Liberal means.

1. Free from prejudice or bigotry.

2. Characterized by generosity and willingness to give.

3. Favorable to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies

4. Favorable to the concepts of the maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Are you in agreement with any of these things? Or, is there even one of these definitions you are diametrically opposed to? Just for a minute, forget about the look on Ann Coulter's face when she says the word Liberal and think about what the word actually means. By definition now, could you call yourself an American, a Christian, even a "good person", if you are not, by definition, a Liberal?

We've had the artificially negative connotation commonly associated with the word Liberal so drilled into us by the gasbag commentators out there that approximately half the population in this country could not face the prospect that they are one. And yet, look what the word really means. It's an actual word, in English, and it's in the dictionary. Look it up.

If you hate gay people, black people, white people, people from Boston, poor people, whoever, call them as you see them. Then see how many people actually still want to associate with you. Then, when you find them, go start your own country. That'll be easy because you won't need much space, perhaps something the size of a golf course.

A Republican Nightmare!

Here's something rather profound to think about. There are a number of things happening that could cause a more dramatic change in Washington that anything that has ever gone before, and there is serious likelihood of it happening. Here it is:

First, the Democrats could percievably win a majority in the House and, to a lesser degree of chance, but possible, a majority in the Senate in November. This, in itself, would have an enormous impact on what goes on in Congress from that point on, but the balance of power routinely shifts in Congress.

Publicly, the Democrats have shied away from talking about impeachment of the president as being on their agenda (should they have the good fortune to control the agenda) and that's obviously in their political best interest during a contentious election cycle. But we know darn well that it will become the centerpiece of Congressional activity because of at least one particular opportunity they simply could not pass up.

For sake of argument, let's assume they decide to pursue impeachment and removal of the President from office. That said, we know they would not want to do that and just leave Dick Cheney to take over. That would just make it worse. And besides, you couldn't really convict Bush without Cheney, who is arguably even more culpable in this criminal enterprise. So, suffice it to say, Bush and Cheney both go.

If you remember your civics lessons, you know that there is a succession order. If the president is incapacitated (and a successful impeachment would certainly be incapacitating), the vice president takes over. If the veep gets the axe too, the next in line is the speaker of the house. And just who do you think that would be in a Democrat-controlled House?

You got it... Nancy Pelosi.

Think about that for a minute. Then, consider this. Can you recall a situation where there was this kind of red meat hanging in front of a group of people so desperate for change? Now do you think they would opt not to pursue impeachment if they had the chance? You have to assume the Republicans have considered this and it becomes more evident as you see the efforts they go through to not lose control of Congress. A nightmare scenario for them.

El Presidente es El Diablo!

Dang! I've heard Bush called a lot of names, many by me, but the Devil? Satan, Beelzebub, The Horn-ed One... Nosafuge -- to be compared to the epitome of evil by another president can only mean one thing. I think, in the modern vernacular, the term is to be "Punk'd". Also, to suggest the president left behind a foul stench of Sulfur (what else has a sulfurous odor that humans can leave in their wake?), that's just brutal. You heard a lot of people come out and say that Chavez' comments were inappropriate, but from the sounds of laughter and speckled applause in the Assembly, it was at least entertaining. All that's left to do is add a laugh-track to the President's speeches and there's no where else to go. I think the footnote to all of this is that when reasonable discourse fails to point out the absurdity, simple ridicule (crass as it may be) can be very effective. There's an ulterior motive to this too. Chavez is, in large part, a populist in his country. He's speaking to his supporters, a base which is growing in South America, Cuba and elsewhere in the world. I wasn't sure how the Bushies were going to handle their worst nightmare, a democratically elected leftist leader sitting on massive oil reserves, but now it's gotten worse for them, at least from the perspective of the rest of the world. They're becoming a laughing stock. Maybe they should redecorate the White House in contemporary Pee Wee's Play House, just to be consistent. Or maybe a theme park with furry characters and rides. Decider World.

Pope on a Rope

What was he thinking? He did proof-read his speech I hope. Well, in a way I hope not because it should have been obvious to anyone that now is really not a good time to piss off everyone east of Mecca with something unflattering about the marketing methods their main guy. In all fairness, it's pretty common knowledge that there's a lot of sword-play involved in saving souls too. In fact, on the time scale of the middle east (where the old testament is considered recent history), they're still avenging the crusades and if you want to talk about spreading one's religion using swords and other unpleasant techniques, you needn't look much further than those crazy Templars and their hundred-years quest to start a Christmas club in Palestine.

The Pope's only had the gig for what, less than 2 years? And he's already besmirched his jerkin with something that's definitely going on his permanent record. You can look for him on Monster.com if this thing doesn't blow over pretty soon. I wonder if he gets to keep the little red JonBenet Ramsey cowboy hat he was wearing yesterday. That was cute, wasn't it?

Bluff Called - Now What?

On August 31st, there was this deadline for Iran to stop doing the [nucular] thing, or else. Well, Iran basically told us to go plook ourselves, and said a bunch of other incendiary things about us and Israel and the holocaust and all that, probably just to get us even more riled up, then laughed when the deadline passed and "or else" didn't happen. In fact, the Bushies are all into this diplomacy track now, former Iranian president Khatami is hanging out in the US and Ahmadinejad is headlining at the big UN soiree.

Now what? Are we going to bomb Iran now? It's like having a stare-down in the playground and only when the other kid walks away laughing, you throw a rock at him. That's the problem with acting like a badass. When you get your bluff called, you look even worse than if you simply came up short in a more diplomatically rooted argument. But this is serious too. Other countries are watching this. North Korea for one. Remember them?

Whenever we exercise our democracy by criticizing the adminstration, they and all their sycophants start screaming that we "embolden our enemies". Well, if you square off at somebody, then don't do anything when they call your bluff, what does that do, hmmm? I'm not saying we should send in the B-52s just to save face. That would be even more retarded! They just need to tone down the cowboy rhetoric, keep the diplomatic back-channel wide open, and start acting like a member of a world community.

Actually, Bush should have insisted on meeting with Ahmadinejad. If Bush truly is the tough guy he thinks he is, sitting down with his rival and saying, "Look man, we both know we have a problem here. Let's figure out what we're gonna do about it. Let's agree that we live in the same world together, despite our differences, and take it from there." That's what real leaders do. Not only would it shock the hell out of everybody, it would change everything. It would show the world that we really want to solve these problems, not simply create yet another controversial pretext for another war. Sadly, though, I think the latter is indeed the goal. Not only that, Bush's people certainly know that he could never hold his own in a debate, let alone a discussion, with Ahmadinejad. Forget about who has the moral high ground, Bush simply doesn't have the skill, or the balls, to face his enemy.

Coin-Operated Brain Wash

I must admit a certain envy for friends of mine who get along just fine without cable. It's almost kind of sweet, in a way, when I mention someone prominent in the news, and they don't know who I'm talking about. Or, they've yet to hear of some major current event that is reshaping the world as we speak. It's like "freedom from information". I can't do it. I'm a news junkie and I think it's important to know what's going on around us. An uninformed population is easily manipulated. But one needs to carefully filter out the 99% crap and find those nuggets of truth. But therein lies the danger. The act of filtering information is antithetical to the whole point of watching cable TV. The reason you have 200 channels is because you don't have the attention span to devote to anything substantive in the first place. And the things that get your attention need to be flashy and edgy, almost seizure-inducing. Here's where I'm headed with this. Most people really do want the truth, but at the same time, they want it flashed at them. That's why so many people get their news from Jon Stewart (myself included). But there's a dark side. FOX News.

Murdoch understands this very well. He knows that a population with the attention span of a Tse-Tse fly is easy to seduce with his brand of food-fight journalism where the loudest voice wins and the winner surely speaks the truth. He also understands the power of language; how the choice of words can alter perception. For example, during the recent outfreakage between Israel and Lebanon, Fox News reporters embedded with Israeli forces used terms like "we" and "us", suggesting that the Israeli side was "our" side and Lebanon was the enemy. Regardless of your preference, reporters who take sides are no longer objective. They're whores. (Notice I said Lebanon, not Hezbollah. Israel and Hezbollah were fighting, but the tanks rolled into Lebanon, where a lot of people like you and I watched their worlds come to an end.)

I know people, whose intellect I respect, become seduced and ultimately brainwashed by this insidious form of "info-tainment". Not only that, they're paying for it, like pumping quarters into a brain-washing machine. I can see the effects of this when I hear people insist they can sum up the world in loud bold-red shouting points, just like they hear coming at them. You simply cannot and it really undermines your credibility when you try (unless you are among others who think the same way).

The road to the truth is paved in gray, not black and white. Radicalism, on either side of an ideology, is destructive and disingenuous. The irony of fighting terrorism (violence) with war (also violence) seems to be lost on many people. It's like the shouting-match news. Whoever is more violent wins.

Yet the daily diet of corporate news, be it Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., focuses you on the concept of "the war" as if it were a force of nature, like "the hurricane", and not something we allowed to happen through our own apathy. The more it soaks in, the harder it is to change until something really bad happens.

Think about Germany in the 1920s and 30s. This was, and still is, a country full of intelligent people who want the same things we do, peace, prosperity, security and good food. Yet somehow a guy like Hitler ends up doing what he did. We all know how that ended but it did not begin with some kind of military coup or hostile takeover of the government. It was the silence, acquiescence, and tacit approval of the population that allowed the gradual steps to that end. Along the way, they were fed a diet of twisted logic, lies, and patriotic jibberish that became indistinguishable from the truth until it was too late. Even when the concentration camps were liberated, people living in the nearby towns were horrified to learn, for the first time, what had been going on, in their name, to their neighbors, friends, and people like you and me who just happened to have a 'berg or 'stein in their last name. The Germans then were not stupid people and neither are we now. If we think, however, that we are not vulnerable to the kinds of things that have led to disastrous results time and time again throughout history, then no matter how intelligent we are, we are very naive. If you fail to learn from previous mistakes, you are destined to repeat them.