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."