Six Years and Out

Retired General Anthony Zinni was one of Tim Russert's guests on Meet the Press this morning. He said several interesting things.

He suggested that U.S. Presidents should be limited to one six year term. Once elected they should become "elder statesman". I think the idea is, they would remove themselves from partisan political debates. General Zinni was dismayed that more people knew the name of the White House Political officer (Karl Rove) than knew the name of the National Security Advisor (Stephen Hadley).

This was a theme echoed by Torie Clarke on This Week on ABC which generated a small discussion about the amount of partisan politics being pursued inside the White House.

The President lives in a world of politics so a political advisor will aways be needed to help garner political support for the President's policies, but is having a PARTISAN political advisor intimately involved in every decision in the best interests of the entire country? Why should the number one partisan political advisor have an office in the White House? And this certainly applies whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat.

One of the reasons this came up was the missing emails that might document Karl Rove's involvement in the recent firing of several U.S. Prosecutors. From this investigation we found out that at least some White House officials were given email accounts on the Republican National Committee's email server. The idea was that the government should not be paying for partisan communications. Of course, it also allowed this communication, where one end was in the White House, from being subject to retention and disclosure laws that apply to White House emails. I'm with Torie Clarke (if I correctly understood her position), if you work in the White House, any communications that take place there fall under the rules of the White House.

A President is elected and then spends 8 years trying to get re-elected. When he (or maybe someday, she) isn't working on their own re-election they are trying to elect or re-elect members of their party. I don't see how that can be good for the country.

I don't know how a President decides when to pursue policies that are best for the country and when to pursue policies that are best for his political party, but it has to make his decision making process more difficult. I think that would make an interesting question for our Presidential candidates. I doubt you would get an honest answer out of any of them, so the best answer will be the one with the least BS.

Six years seems like a long time for a single term, but people tend to re-elect a President. Six years doesn't sound too bad when you realize that Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, as bad as they were and are, were reelected.

How about a six year term with a referendum at the three year mark? There would be no opponent, just a vote as to whether the President will get three more years or would face a full election the during the fourth year.

Thompson For President

This past week Fred Thompson, the former Republican U.S. Senator from Tennessee, has been testing the political waters for a run for the Presidency. Fred Thompson is also an accomplished film and TV actor who currently plays prosecutor Arthur Branch on TV's Law & Order.

Several commentators believe he would be a serious contender if he chooses to run.

Makes sense to me. Republicans like leaders who can make fiction sound like the truth.

U.S. Dept Of Agriculture - WTHWYT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has just lost a court case where it was trying to make the food supply LESS safe.

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wanted to test all the beef it processes for mad cow disease. Mad cow disease is incurable. If you've donated blood through the Red Cross in the past few years you know that they ask several questions about how much time you've spent in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has had a serious problem with mad cow disease which can take as long as 20 to 30 years to appear and then destroys your brain. The Red Cross is very concerned about accepting blood from people who might have the disease and not know it.

Creekstone Farms wants to test all its beef. I'm sure they would use this in their marketing to distinguish themselves from competitors. The Agricultural Department currently tests only about 1 percent of all beef slaughtered. Other meat packers were afraid that if Creekstone Farms were allowed to test all its beef, market demands might force them to test all of theirs. An expensive procedure. So the Agriculture Department threatened to take Creekstone Farms to court if they insisted on testing all the beef they processed. A court recently ruled that the Department of Agriculture could not prevent Creekstone Farms from the additional testing.

So I would like to ask the U.S. Department Of Agriculture, who threatened a business with prosecution because the business wanted to make the food supply safer,

What The Hell Were You Thinking?

Support The Troops. Don't Hide Behind Them.

Several soldiers currently in Iraq were interviewed on television the other day. They were asked what they thought about the war debate back in the US and was it hurting their morale. One soldier said yes it hurt morale. He said something like "How can people say they support the troops and not support their mission?"

I have a great deal of respect for the men and women fighting in Iraq and Aghanistan, but it is unfair to put them on television and ask them questions like that. These are well trained and disciplined soldiers and Marines. Some of the best people who have ever worn the uniform. They are trained to take on a mission and complete it. To ask them in the middle of the mission if it is the correct mission is not fair. For them to question their mission in the middle of a war zone would be to admit defeat. I imagine it would be like deserting their fellow soldiers and they are not going to do it. Anyone who would claim that we should continue this war because the soldiers believe in their mission is a scoundrel.

The civilian leadership (and voters) got us into this war and it is up to the civilian leadership (and voters) to get us out. It is completely unfair to expect the military to decide when to quit a war that will not have a clean ending. One soldier said something like it was OK if the people back home didn't believe in their mission, they would fight on. Lives of men like that should not be wasted so politicians can maintain their electability.

The Forever Stamp Hoax

The Post Office has recently announced that they are considering a new first class stamp with no value on the face. No matter when you buy it or what you pay for it, it can always be used in the future to mail a first class letter. They claim this forever stamp will save money. Not only does the Post Office not have to print new stamps when there is a rate increase, the one cent stamps that people must buy to use up the first class stamps with the old rate cost more to produce than their face value. A one cent stamp costs more than one cent to produce and distribute which means the Post Office loses money every time it raises the price of a first class stamp.

I'm not sure the forever stamp is a good idea, even though there are some countries who have been using it for years. The Post Office says it will be good for consumers, but I'm not so sure.

The Post Office says that this will save people money, but this new policy may actually cost some consumers even more money to mail their letters. When the Post Office announces a rate increase, some people will stock up on the forever stamp. Some people will buy a six month or one year supply of stamps. This means that the extra income that would currently be generated starting the day the new rate goes into affect will now be delayed by months as the forever stamps purchased at the old rate are used up. The Post Office will have to plan and implement rate increases much earlier than they are really needed so that most of the stamps purchased under the old rate will have been used up by the time the Post Office really needs the extra revenue. That means people who don't stock up on stamps before the rate increase will be paying for a more expensive stamp before current postal policies would have required.

There is an even simpler solution to this problem than the forever stamp. Allow first class stamps to used for some period of time after the new rate goes into affect. For example, let's say the price of a first class stamp is being changed from 37 cents to 39 cents on January 1. The Post Office could allow the 37 or 39 cent stamp to be used on first class envelopes until the end of February. This would allow people to use up the old stamps without the inconvenience or expense of one or two cent stamps and the Post Office would know that their revenue increase would be in full affect in only two months.

Sounds too simple, doesn't it? That is because you are not being told the true reason for the forever stamp. With the forever stamp the Post Office doesn't have to create, print and distribute new stamps for each rate increase. A process that takes time. With the forever stamp the Post Office can announce a rate increase a couple of days before it is to take effect.

This will also make it easier to have fractional cent stamps, 45.5 cents for example. A book of 10 would cost $4.55, two stamps would cost 91 cents and a single stamp would cost 46 cents.

It will also make it easier to adopt periodic rate increases (for example, a first class stamp whose price goes up one cent every 3 months for the next two years) or for rate increases every year based on the rate of inflation. These kind of increases will not get the same kind of news coverage so rate increases will become a non-issue.

Maybe we should talk about this forever stamp a little more before it is implemented.

Pardon The Fall Guy?

Many conservatives are crying for an immediate pardon for Lewis Libby. Some have been spinning and twisting so creatively to prove that this case is a travesty of justice they should be given auditions with Cirque du Soleil.

Here are some arguments for a pardon.

How can you punish a man when no crime was committed? Prosecutor Fitzgerald was given the task to determine if a law had been broken and he determined that it had not. Nothing wrong with that. Prosecutors are not expected to return an indictment in every case they investigate. If they were, what kind of justice would that be?

In the process of the investigation Mr. Libby broke the law by lying under oath. Should Prosecutor Fitzgerald have ignored that because no one was indicted for the original crime being investigated?

I'm standing on the street and see a man break the window of a jewelry store, run in, grab a watch and run out. As he runs by I trip him. While he is down I take the watch from him and leave. The original crook gets away and is never caught. I later pawn the watch. Have I committed any crime? If I were caught, could I claim innocence of any crime since it would be unjust to punish me for stealing a watch that was already stolen? Could I claim that just because the first crook was never convicted, I shouldn't be convicted?

If convicted, do I deserve a pardon?

Two of the jurors in the Libby trial said they would be happy to see Mr. Libby pardoned. Conservatives have jumped on this as proof that the conviction was unjust and a pardon is appropriate. What?????? These are the jurors who convicted Mr. Libby. They found that he committed a crime. They have sympathy for him and wouldn't mind a pardon because they think he is a fall guy. Conservatives........wake up..........the jurors think Mr. Libby is guilty and they think others were also guilty of crimes. You are agreeing with jurors who think there was a band of crooks, possibly including the Vice President. They are sorry only one person was convicted. A pardon based on this line of reasoning is an admission that Mr. Libby and other people were guilty of crimes.

The injustice in this case is that there was a secret attempt to discredit a political opponent that originated in and was directed from the Office of the Vice President. The administration didn't stand up in the press room and say Ambassador Wilson is wrong and here are the facts as we see them. They didn't publicly confront Ambassador Wilson and say that they believed he was pursuing his own political agenda. They secretly used the power of the government to discredit the man and his wife. A wife that didn't just work at Wal-Mart. She worked at the CIA! They didn't stand at the podium and say Ambassador Wilson wasn't sent by the Vice President, he was sent by his wife who works at the CIA. They didn't say this publicly. The weasels leaked their story to the press and then denied they were the source. Why didn't they just stand up and say these things? Because it was easier to allow other people to hide their lies than to publicly face the facts. Is this administration in a war with terrorists or their political opponents?

Is the air in Washington DC so polluted that people who work there lose their judgement and common sense?

By the way, I predict that if Mr. Libby's conviction stands, President Bush will give him a pardon. I just hope he doesn't also give him the Medal of Freedom.

Repeal The Second Amendment

The recent ruling that Washington DC restrictions on handgun ownership are unconstitutional was interesting. It clearly shows that the term "strict constructionist activist judge" is not an oxymoron.

While the United States Constitution is a superb document, it was not without its flaws. This interpretation clearly shows it is time to repeal the Second Amendment. Most the of ruling revolves around historical interpretations that no longer have much meaning.

Much of the majorities argument centered on whether or not the Second Amendment is an individual right. They conclude it is an individual right and offer as one proof Robertson vs Baldwin which includes the much quoted phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;." The majority ignores their own admission that it is legal to restrict gun ownership by insisting that a person has a constitutional right to keep arms in their homes for self protection and as preparation for service in a militia (an arcane and unclear entity).

Citing legal precedence, they do agree that there are legal restrictions as to what kinds of weapons a person can own. A sawed off shotgun can be legislated as illegal, because the term "arms" refers "only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals;" (Miller).

Although not stated, the clear interpretation is that any weapon that is commonly used by the military or for public defense is legal in a home. That may have made sense when most soldiers carried muskets. The judges have basically said it is legal for people to have in their homes fully automatic assault rifles, machine guns, rocket propelled grenade launchers, etc. in case they are called upon to join a militia. The case before them did not require them to decide whether or not restrictions on these weapons outside the home would be legal.

The language of the Second Amendment is unclear and out of date. It needs to be repealed.

Read the courts ruling here.

Boehner, You Are An Idiot!

John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, was on the news again tonight and he hasn't gotten any smarter than the last time I wrote about him.

While commenting about the Democratic plan to get troops out of Iraq, he said something like "if we leave Iraq you can bet the terrorists will follow us home."

John, did you ever ask yourself if it was all that easy for the terrorists to come over here when the troops leave Iraq, why don't they do it now before the troops leave? If you were a terrorist why would you fight the US military in Iraq with all their guns, tanks, helicopters, etc. when you could just come to the USA now and kill helpless civilians? Hmmm, maybe the NRA has been arming Republicans and I just haven't heard about it. Or maybe the terrorists are smarter than you are, John.

Or John, did it ever occur to you that if you are correct, why don't we just move all our troops to Afghanistan? The terrorists would follow us there and we would only have to fight one war.

I guess you don't have to be smart to get elected to Congress. You just have to be smarter than a majority of voters in your district.


Technorati Tags: Boehner Iraq Terrorists Political

Bill Divorces Hillary

I recently heard a report that Republicans are going to hold all their dirt on Hillary and Bill Clinton until after Senator Clinton has the Democratic nomination won. Then they bring it all out and create such scandals that Mrs. Clinton can't win.

Republicans had better rethink that position. If Republicans start making Bill Clinton the focus of the campaign, Hillary will support Bill and then at just the right moment, Bill will go on national TV, apologize for his indiscretion's and admit that his failures shouldn't doom Hillary's chances. His embarrassments shouldn't cause the country to lose a great president. He will then state he plans to divorce Hillary and remove himself as a distraction. Hillary will emotionally object, but Bill will keep insisting and Hillary will gain a huge sympathy vote. Republicans will look very anti-family and Hillary will skate to the win.

Republicans beware.


Technorati Tags: Clinton President Divorce

A Simple Question For The Vice President

In my previous post I complained that the Vice President was trying to confuse people by equating the war in Iraq with the war on terror and al Qaeda. I also said that this confusion made the war on terror more complicated. I should have added that even worse, his repeated connection of Iraq and al Qaeda trivializes the war on terror by implying that it will be won or lost depending on the outcome of the war in Iraq. With that in mind, I'd like to ask the Vice President another question.

If every member of al Qaeda now in Iraq were killed tomorrow, would we be able to declare victory in Iraq and start bringing home all the troops the next day?


Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Cheney al Qaeda War On Terror

Accept Your Responsibility

Vice President Cheney in a recent interview said, "I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al Qaeda strategy." He then added, "The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

I have a few questions I'd like to ask the Vice President. I'd like to ask the Vice President if he realizes that Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are reflecting the current opinion of a majority of American voters? I'd also like to know if he ever considered that it is the failed policies of the Bush administration that have led the American people to question the value of surging additional troops to Iraq? Finally, I'd like to know if realizes that his lying to the American people has contributed to the public's disillusionment with the war in Iraq? For example, he continues to confuse the war in Iraq with al Qaeda. The war on terror is complicated and he makes it even more complicated by not being honest!

If the war in Iraq ends as a failure rather than a success, it will be the direct result of the failures by the current administration. If the war in Iraq had already been successfully concluded, they would have claimed responsibility for the success. As it is, this administration alone must accept responsibilities for the failures, including waning support in the US. If the administration could give us a clear definition of victory and a clear plan that had a chance of success, the American people would support them.



Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Cheney Pelosi Murtha

DoughNut Dollar

The US Mint is once again trying to get the American people to accept a dollar coin. They plan to release a series of coins bearing the images of US Presidents starting with George Washington. The Mint may make a mint on the coins people collect and take out of circulation, but this will not convince the public to use these coins.

The first attempt at a new dollar coin was the Susan B. Anthony coin which was too similar in size and color to a Quarter. People rejected this coin for everyday use. The next attempt was the Sacajawea gold coin. This too was rejected. I think it is the same size and weight as the Susan B. Anthony, but it has a gold colored finish. I haven't seen the new President dollars, but unless they are radically different than the previous two attempts to make dollar coins, people won't use them for everyday commerce either.

I believe the problem has to do with size and identification, the reasons that the Susan B. Anthony coins were rejected. As a person who likes the idea of dollar coins and who tries to use them, I think I understand the problem. Put 10 one dollar bills in you pocket and you would never know they are there. Put 10 one dollar coins in you pocket and they start to get heavy and the coins are still too hard to distinguish from a Quarter. A worn Sacajawea coin looks gold colored only in the right light.

I suggest they create dollar coins with holes in the middle. I should note that the Mint considered this and rejected the idea. I can't remember why. Maybe it was because it is hard to put an image on a coin when the center is missing. Even if you kept the diameter of the dollar coin the same, with a hole in the middle it would be easy to recognize and lighter. You can't make the coin too light (for example, aluminum coins feel like play money), but you can make a pocket full less noticeable.

The President dollar coin program is supposed to last about 10 years (four new coins a year), so it will probably be about 15 years before the next new dollar coin attempt. Maybe by then the Mint will have some people who can think outside the box and inside the hole.

Technorati Tags: Dollar Coin

Universal Post Secondary Education

It is time to start talking about how to make post secondary education as available and expected as a high school education for US adults. We live in a world where our manufacturing labor costs cannot compete with the developing countries without drastically lowering our standard of living. Unless we get immigration under control, we will have more unskilled workers than we can use. Our future lies in remaining a country that can produce workers with skills that are as good as or better than other countries. New technologies and new uses for current technologies are being generated at an ever increasing pace. The US must remain the world's technological leader, but to do so it will have to take active steps to increase the number of skilled workers at all levels.

I don't know how we do this, but I'm sure we have people who can come up with many good solutions we can debate. We don't need to do this overnight, but we should start soon with a goal to make a post secondary higher education, continuing education and vocational education available in an affordable and practical way to every citizen within 10 years. I included continuing and vocational education because we know that the labor market will change drastically over the years of a person's life time. Encouraging people to enhance or gain new skills and knowledge will help people in an ever changing labor market.

In addition, as people live longer and our population ages we will probably see the age at which a person can retire increase. Helping people prepare for jobs that match their life conditions and job market opportunities so they can be productive longer and meet their financial goals will benefit everyone.

Technorati Tags: Political

SURGE means Sacrifice

I guess for the troops and their families SURGE now means

Sacrifice Until Radical Groups Eliminated

or

Sacrifice Until Real Government Exists

Either way they bear the brunt of this "new" policy. I hope for everyone's sake it works, but I don't have much hope.

Technorati Tags: Political Iraq SURGE

How do you spell "Stay the Course"?

It sounds to me like Stay the Course is now spelled S, U, R, G, E.

EverybodyHasOne has learned from a White House source that SURGE stands for

Stay Until Radical Groups Eliminated

or

Stay Until Real Government Exists

(the use is context dependant, depending on which one the administration thinks gives the longest time frame).


I suspect that SURGE will join the military terms FUBAR and SNAFU...

Screwed Up a Really Good Effort

As used in a sentence, "Bush really SURGEd us!"

Technorati Tags: Political Stay the course Iraq SURGE

News Or Opinion?

On the January 4 Scarborough Country show on NBC, Joe did a segment on Bill O'Reilly's ranting about bias at NBC. Bill claimed everybody at NBC hates President Bush. I don't think that's fair and balanced. I wonder what Bill would say about a claim that everybody at Fox loves President Bush.

Joe Scarborough had a guest, author Bob Kohn. Mr. Kohn claimed as proof of NBC's bias a statement by NBC's respected, veteran journalist and on-air reporter Richard Engel that Saddam Hussein's execution was a "PR disaster". Mr. Kohn asserted that this was clearly biased reporting.

According to Mr. Kohn, Richard Engel could have removed the bias by adding a phrase like "some people said the execution was a" in front of "PR disaster".

Now that would have really convinced me I was listening to objective reporting. Mr. Kohn clearly didn't convince me I should buy his book.

He inadvertently gave a better example of bias when he made the case that Saddam Hussein was a very bad person and history will remember how many people he killed, not how he died. Kohn's point was that the important story was the execution of a terrible dictator who killed many people. That statement clearly shows how Mr. Kohn would have added his bias to the story. I think news reports over many years have established that Saddam Hussein was a very bad person who killed many people and who deserved to die. That is no longer news. His execution and reactions to it was news.

Bias is always present in reporting. It is sometimes overt, but more often it is subtle. Which stories get covered? What angle and aspects of a story are covered? When you show a picture of a person, do you show one that is flattering or one that makes the person look malevolent? As an example, note which pictures of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi are shown. Ask yourself if that picture might show a bias.

True news organizations and journalists work very hard to report accurately and objectively.

A respectable news paper clearly differentiates news from opinion. There is an opinion section and there are news sections. The cable news shows mix news and opinion into a witches brew that only the dedicated viewer can separate. I suggest that all media find ways to clearly identify which segments are news and should be held to high standards of objectivity and which are opinion.

It is current practice to clutter the edges of the screen with all kinds of "information". How about the word "Opinion" in big letters on the screen?

Today on Fox there was a segment where a guest commentator lambasted Nancy Pelosi for hypocrisy. She objected to Nancy Pelosi surrounding herself with children at the swearing in ceremony last week. How could Nancy Pelosi, a strong proponent of abortion rights, dare to act like she really cared about children? Obviously, people who support a woman's right to choose must hate all children. Only Fox would give such a lunatic air time.

As bad as that was, just prior to the segment was a full screen shot of the word "NEWS". You can only laugh when anyone at Fox complains about news media bias. I suggest that Fox indicate an objective news segment by replacing that annoying, rotating FOX News icon on the lower left of the screen with a yellow non-rotating icon that indicates that this segment is objective news.

Never mind. Now that I think about it I realize they've already done that. You've seen that yellow box haven't you?

Technorati Tags: Media Bias NBC Fox Bill O'Reilly Joe Scarborough Bob Kohn Richard Engel

John Boehner - Shut UP

John Boehner, Republican from Ohio and House Majority Leader, was on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday. He stated that al-Qaeda is wreaking havoc in Iraq. He repeated the line often used by Republicans that we have to defeat the terrorists in Iraq or "we'll be fighting them on every street in America."

What would you do if you were a leader of this country and believed that a military loss in Iraq meant we would be fighting terrorists on EVERY street in America? Well, in World War II, when that might have been a possibilty, we geared up a massive response. Every fiber of the country was committed to making sure the enemy never got that close.

If I thought a loss in Iraq meant fighting terrorists on my street, I would reinstate the draft. I would gladly go. I'm 50+, but I can shoot a rifle, or drive a truck or cook and deliver meals. I would expect Homeland Security to be organizing local self-defense units. I would expect my taxes to go up to help pay for whatever resources are needed. I would send an Army of 500,000 to Iraq. Seal the borders and then scour the country.

What kind of sacrifices has John Boehner, the President, the Vice-President and most Republicans asked of the American people? Reinstate the draft? No. Raise taxes? No. Significantly enlarge the armed forces? No. Send more troops to Iraq? Not really. The only sacrifices Republicans have asked from Americans to help win the war in Iraq is to live in a state of fear and give Republicans more power. The main thing they want from you is your vote.

John Boehner's actions do not show that he is really worried about fighting terrorists on every street. He is just trying to scare you into voting for Republicans. To my fellow citizens in Ohio, please vote the jackass out of office!

I've heard many times that Democrats think Repbulicans are stupid. I don't think all Republicans are stupid. But I saw Richard Nixon elected twice. When he was elected the second time it was clear that he was a very bad President to anyone who was paying attention to the news. I saw George W. Bush elected twice. Similarly, it was obvious by 2004, that George Bush was not up to the job of President of the United States. If voters do not throw Republicans out of office in droves next week, I and many Democrats, will once again have reason to wonder what kind of logic Republicans use when they enter the voting booth.

Are you really willing to retain politicians who support an ill conceived and an utterly failed policy in Iraq for a promise of a ban on gay marriage?

Technorati Tags: Political John Boehner Iraq War on Terror

Stay The Course? Sorry, My Bad!

According to President Bush, when he said "Stay the course", he didn't really mean "Stay the course". At least not the way we all understood it.

Since we just don't understand that the war on terror requires new thinking, we really can't appreciate the subtleties behind the phrase "Stay the course". So as not to confuse our simple minds further he is not going to use the phrase any more. Maybe Karl can come up with something less complex.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Stay the course Iraq Political Cartoon

Used with permission.

It Takes A Rack To Keep You Safe

Click on cartoon to enlarge.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Habeas Corpus Political Cartoon

Used with permission.

Send The Bill To My Kids

The President today said something along the lines that you can count on Republicans to keep your taxes low.

Are you really motivated to vote for Republicans because they promise low taxes? Even when you realize the country is running record deficits each year and that your children and grandchildren will be paying the bill for your low taxes?

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Republicans Taxes

This Is A Sad Day

An American citizen is declared a terrorist by a government, grabbed by the police, spirited off, tortured and never told what he is accused of or given legal assistance to defend himself.

Guess which country this could happen in...

The United States - after the Congress passed and the President signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 today.


Wake up people. This President and the Republicans pose a greater threat to the long term security of this country than do terrorists.

VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Republicans Habeas Corpus

Happy Birthday! You Owe $28,500.

Happy Birthday to the 300,000,000th U.S. citizen born today.

Your share of the national debt is about $28,500 and growing every day.

Grow up fast. Get a good education and a good job. We need your taxes.

Technorati Tags: Political National Debt

The President Can't Lose in November

News reports have President Bush and Karl Rove very upbeat about the coming election even though polls show Republicans in trouble.

This make sense. President Bush is very concerned about his place in history. If Republicans lose either the House or Senate or both, President Bush will spend the rest of his term blaming Democrats for his inability to do what is necessary to solve problems. It has to have been very frustrating to have Republican control of the Presidency, House, Senate and Courts and have such a terrible record to show after six years.

President Bush might even be relieved if Democrats won one of the legislative branches. He could dump all of the problems he has created on the Democrats and probably start sleeping a little better at night.

Karl Rove would love a Democratic win. He would have two years to prove Democrats are just as incompetent as Republicans when they can't solve all the problems Bush created in six years. Two years to spin six years of failures and orchestrate a Republican Presidential win in 2008.

So, of course, President Bush and Karl Rove are upbeat about the mid-term elections. No matter who wins, they can't lose.

Unless the Democrats win big, then get their act together and show how a party in power can truly lead.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

Hey, Republicans, Listen Up

I know this is a waste of time, but I do believe that when presented with the facts in a straight forward, non-confrontational manner, people can understand truth from obfuscation. I believe Republicans are good people who want the best for this country, but sometimes they are not skeptical enough of what the authority figures in their party tell them. So Republicans, listen up.

Be skeptical any time a politician includes the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism in the same sentence. The 9/11 Commission and the President (among many others) have made it clear that there was no connection between Iraq (and Saddam Hussein) and Al Quida. Yes, since we went into Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein there are now Al Quida terrorists in Iraq, but if we killed all of them tomorrow we still couldn't bring our troops home. We would still be in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. And if we killed all the Al Quida terrorists in Iraq tomorrow we would not have decreased the threat of attacks inside the US AT ALL. I have not read of any connection between the Madrid and London bombings and members of Al Quida in Iraq. Iraq is not the central planning location for terrorist attacks and threats around the world.

The war on terror and the war in Iraq are slightly related because we opened the door for terrorists to cause trouble there, but there is only a tenuous connection between Iraq and the war on terror. Whenever someone equates the war on terror and the war in Iraq, start listening very carefully because they are trying to confuse you.

Another way Republican politicians try to confuse the situation is their claim that Democrats do not understand that this is a war. Democrats are accused of wanting to go after the terrorists as if this were a police issue and not a war. Well, let's look at the situation. You can call the fighting in Afghanistan a war. We are fighting pitched battles with heavy weapons. We were correct to go into Afghanistan to take out the Taliban. We weren't completely successful, so now NATO has agreed to take over the fight.

We are in a war in Iraq, but most of the fighting does not involve terrorists. We are in the middle of a war that revolves around internal Iraqi factions and issues.

So where in the world are we fighting a war with terrorists? Where are we fighting battles with mortars, machine guns, tanks, helicopters, etc.? There are terrorists in Spain. Are we fighting a war there? There are terrorists in Great Britain. Are we fighting a war there? Most of the war on terror is being fought by collecting intelligence, disrupting operations, stopping the flow of money and arresting people. We fight the war on terror with tighter security at air ports and sea ports. Most of the war on terror is not being fought with troops. We have certainly needed our armed forces in the war on terror and may need them again, but military action will not win the war on terror by itself. It is not even the major component.

So when Republican politicians tell you that Democrats don't understand how to fight the war on terror, ask them how they think it should be fought. When they start talking about Iraq, ask them how the war in Iraq and the war on terror are related. Then ask them if we won the war in Iraq tomorrow, would the threat from terrorism go away. Listen to the answer carefully because at this point they will be trying to confuse you because they don't have good answers.

Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Republicans

Show Your Patriotism

It is clear that many people believe that the welfare of the country and the welfare of President Bush and the Republican Party are one and the same. If you attack the President, you are attacking the country. If you don't support the Republicans, you are unpatriotic. If you disagree with the President's handling of the war on terror, you either don't understand the situation, you would rather harm the country than admit the President is right or you support terrorists (by Republican definitions all these people are Democrats).

There is one sure way to show them you are as patriotic as they are ..........

VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Republicans

Let Them Vote!

A recent poll taken in Iraq suggests that the majority of Iraqis would, at the very least, like the United States to leave, soon. While this poll received some attention, it may not reflect the will of the Iraqi people.

We properly applaud Iraqis for risking personal danger and voting in two national elections. We respected their right to elect their own government. Maybe we should suggest that they schedule a nation wide referendum to let us know their true feelings. Voters would be able to choose from the following options.

• The U.S. should stay until the violence stops and basic utilities are restored.


• The U.S. should stay until asked to leave by the elected government.


• The U.S. should stay for no longer than one more year.


• The U.S. should leave within six months.


• The U.S. should leave immediately.

This would obviously be a non-binding resolution since the Bush administration would refuse to believe any result that didn't match their need at the time.

Technorati Tags: Political Iraq

Good Idea, Newt

I wrote a few days ago that Newt Gingrich suggested that Bill Clinton come up with a few ideas for catching bin Laden. Newt, the sharp witted politician he is, had the start of a good suggestion.

I suggest that Bill Clinton invite the leadership of the Democratic Party and all Democratic 2008 Presidential hopefuls to a secluded location. Probably no more than 30 to 35 people (that was not a joke about how many hopefuls there may be). They would agree that they would stay together until they could work out a detailed plan for an exit strategy from Iraq. Since you could never get that many Democrats to all agree on anything, they should shoot for an agreement that two thirds of the group can support. I good plan with lots of support could turn the tide for the Democrats and the country.

I know I'm dreaming, but what the heck.

Technorati Tags: Political Democrats

Ready, Fire, Aim

Click on cartoon to enlarge.


Technorati Tags: Political Republicans Political Cartoon

Used with permission.

Home For The Politically Arrogant

Click cartoon to enlarge.


Technorati Tags: Political Cartoon Political Republicans

Used with permission.

Just Be Glad You Can't Smell The Stench

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans Political Cartoon

The Clean Up Crew

The Democrats should call themselves the "Clean Up Crew" because after the mess President Bush and the Republicans have made, what the country needs now is a clean up crew. And the way things have been going the past couple of weeks, the clean up crew is going to need a lot of disinfectant just to kill the stench.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

Gingrich ASSumptions

Picking up on my previous post about the Chris Wallace interview with Newt Gingrich on Fox News Sunday this morning. At one point Gingrich said,

We are in a very hard war against people who hate us and want to destroy us. The fact is neither administration has gotten bin Laden. And instead of pointing fingers at each other, it would be nice for President Clinton to give us six or eight solutions. It would be nice for President Bush to admit this is going to be much harder than anybody ever dreamed. Winning this campaign is going to be a long, bitter, difficult problem.

I would like to challenge the statements "this is going to be harder than anybody ever dreamed" and "Winning this campaign is going to be a long, bitter, difficult problem."

There are a number of assumptions in those statements. First, though, are you talking about the war on terror or the war in Iraq? You confuse people when you don't make that clear. Certainly some people warned about the dangers of Islamic terrorism and the danger in post-war Iraq. Is it going to be harder than anybody ever dreamed? You bet, because no one would have dreamed that President Bush would screwed up the war on terror as badly as he has. Or would have dreamed President Bush would mislead us into a war in Iraq. Or would have dreamed that he would have failed so miserably in rebuilding post-war Iraq. I think you are implying that President Bush is making the best of a bad situation and I think the reality is the President turned a winnable war on terrorism that should be largely over after five years into "a long, bitter, difficult problem."

If we face a long difficult war on terror, place the blame where it belongs, on George W. Bush. If we had a competent President, the war on terror would, for the most part, be over.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

Be Careful What You Wish For

Chris Wallace interviewed Newt Gingrich on Fox News Sunday this morning. At one point Gringrich said,

We are in a very hard war against people who hate us and want to destroy us. The fact is neither administration has gotten bin Laden. And instead of pointing fingers at each other, it would be nice for President Clinton to give us six or eight solutions. It would be nice for President Bush to admit this is going to be much harder than anybody ever dreamed. Winning this campaign is going to be a long, bitter, difficult problem.

Be careful what you wish for, Speaker Gingrich. Everytime Bill Clinton speaks he shows by comparison how poor a President George Bush really is.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

It's The Pinocchio Effect

Click on cartoon to enlarge.


Technorati Tags: Political Cartoon Republicans

Used with permission.

Help, I've Fallen And Can't Get Up

Click on cartoon to enlarge.

Technorati Tags: Political Cartoon Republicans George Allen

Used with permission.

Allen Swift Booted

Senator George Allen has been Swift Boated and is about to be Swift Booted.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans George Allen
Swift Booted

Caught In Their Own Web Of Lies

Republicans have lost touch with reality. They realize all their assertions and policies are based on fraud. They scream that the Democrats have no plans because the Republicans now realize they have been living and preaching a pack of lies. Bob Woodward's new book reveals even more administration lies.

Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican from Tennessee, was just on Hardball with Chris Matthews to refute Bob Woodward's new book. She was unprepared to defend administration behavior. When Chris pressed her on issues for which Republicans have no answers, she fell back to repeating party lines as fast as she could, whether or not they were appropriate to the question. She repeatedly claimed that since Democrats have no plans, they attack personalities --- then in the same breath she starts attacking Nancy Pelosi. These people are so panicked they don't even listen to what they are saying.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans Lies

Call Me An Idealist

I've heard arguments that our country's future lies in maintaining a military that is massively superior to any other country. We will only be safe if we are so strong no one dares challenge us. I doubt that is even possible. We must maintain a military strong enough to counter threats, but I'm an idealist. Wouldn't it be better to set a goal to be the dominant country when it comes to freedom, education, tolerance, health care, civil rights and other qualities and traits that make us the great country we are? If we are generous in sharing our blessings with the rest of the world, maybe we won't have as many threats to counter.


Technorati Tags: Political

ES, The New Political BS

The misinformation coming from Republicans is getting worse. I suggest we rename BS to ES, elephant shit.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans

Show Us Progress Or The Door

The options in Iraq are not just "Cut and Run" or "Stay and Pay" (or was that "Stay and Pray"). We need to get out of Iraq as soon as we can consistent with our responsibility to provide Iraq with the tools to build a functioning democracy and civil society.

The Bush Administration seemed to have had success with a technique I thought would not work. I was wrong. Unfortunately, they have forgotten their own successes. That tool was deadlines. We set deadlines for all sorts of tasks: provisional governments, elections, a constitution and to the credit of the Iraqis, they met those deadlines. Sometimes it took a little longer than planned, but they got there.

Why did we stop setting deadlines? Both for the Iraqis and ourselves. These deadlines should be large political goals, like, amend the constitution as promised and create a document that all Iraqis will want to support. Or decreasing sectarian violence as measured by number of murders. They could be more modest goals: Increase the availability of electricity, clean water and sewers by some metric.

It is clear that we have done about as much as we can to give the Iraqis the tools they need to make a country of their choosing. This administration can't give us a clear definition of "winning", so how about some goals and metrics that we expect the Iraqis to meet? If they can't make progress on basic issues they must confront to succeed, we leave.


Technorati Tags: Political Iraq

NIE Seals The Deal

This morning's New York Times has an article by reporter Mark Mazzetti titled, "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat." The article contains comments from people who are close to a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) completed in April. An NIE summarizies the opinions about a subject from 16 different US governmental agencies responsible for intelligence.

Here are some direct quotes from the article.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

Several politicians were asked about the report on this morning's news shows. Since the story just appeared this morning, there hasn't been time for Karl to communicate the proper spin. Instead of curve ball answers or slider answers, we got knuckle balls (all puns intended).

Among the best knuckle ballers was Senator Bill Frist on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

He said the American people just want to be safe. He listed attacks on the US - the WTC attack in '93, Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on the Cole and the WTC attack on 9/11. He then said "...we haven't been attacked in the last five years." The implication is that Democrats failed to protect you. Only we, the Republicans, can protect you.

The answers that come out of the Bush Administration and Republicans are so misleading and distorted, it is difficult to know where to start when trying to refute them.

Since 9/11 American interests have been targeted directly at least five times, including attacks in Karachi, four in Saudi Arabia and the attacks in Amman, Jordan. I guess the arguement is that these did not occur in the US although Senator Frist's list only includes two attacks in the US, the two attacks on the World Trade Center.

What about the attacks in Madrid and London? They also don't count because they weren't in the United States? Attacks on our allies don't count? We lecture the world that this is a global war on terror and then forget we are not the only country that has been attacked. And I'll bet Senator Frist wonders why some of the world thinks the US is arrogant.

Senator Frist wants to change the subject rather than talk about the latest NIE. He would rather talk about how Republicans and this administration are tough on terror and the Democrats are weak on terror. What were the Republicans and President Bush doing to fight the war on terror before 9/11? In the months before 9/11, why didn't they get Osama bin Laden? Why didn't they avenge the Cole? For an administration that claims the RIGHT to start preemptive wars to fight terrorism, they did NOTHING to fight terrorism before 9/11.

Senator Frist also threw in the overused and utterly untrue, we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. I guess that makes sense if you don't view the attacks in London, Madrid and elsewhere as real terrorist attacks. What he is saying is that while the intelligence agencies believe the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terror, it doesn't matter since we haven't been attacked in the US.

Senator Frist reiterated that this is a global war on terror being fought in many places besides Iraq and then goes on to just assume that therefore the threat is increasing. His implication is - - of course the threat is growing; this is a war. Duh. Isn't it just as reasonable to assume if you had done a better job of fighting the war on terror the threat would be decreasing? It is a war you've been fighting for five years. You've gotten everything you've asked for and you haven't won it. What your intelligence agencies are telling you now is that your actions in Iraq have actually made the war on terrorism worse! The threat should be decreasing, not increasing! You guys are incompetent!

Senator Frist was stammering this morning because the intelligence agencies have completed the case for throwing the Republicans out. With five years of unlimited resources the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership have not only not won the war on terrorism, they've made the threat of terror worse! Even those who claim the Democrats have no plan to fight terrorism (untrue) have a simple choice in November. Retain Republicans who have obviously failed miserably in Iraq, proven to be incompetent and whose actions their own intelligence agencies have said has increased the threat of terrorism, or give the Democrats a chance.

Technorati Tags: Political Senator Frist Iraq NIE Terrorism

Why Is Iraq The Central Front?

Senator Bill Frist was on ABC's This Week this morning and once again said we are fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here.

What a bunch of crap!

I would like someone to ask Senator Frist why, if he really believes that, couldn't we have just fought them in Afghanistan? There was widespread agreement in the US and the world that the war in Afghanistan was justified. Once we were there, why didn't President Bush just tell the terrorists, "Here we are in Afghanistan, bring it on."?

If all the terrorists are coming to Iraq to fight the US, why didn't we just have them come to Afghanistan instead? Wouldn't it have been easier to fight them all in one country instead of two? Iraq is politically a much more complicated place to fight a war than Afghanistan. Maybe the administration just didn't think about that.

We keep getting the same old crappy responses. Don't they think people are smart enough to catch on that they are being manipulated? I guess Republicans think at least some people are not that smart. And since they generally play to their base, guess who they think the real dummies are?


Technorati Tags: Political Senator Frist Iraq

Democrats Need A New Voice

I don't really want a Democratic Party that speaks with only one voice. A party whose members are bullied into supporting the party line even when they know it is wrong, but much of the country does. That is the Republican approach and all too often we've seen them march like lemmings off the cliff.

Some voters like a party with a single message for the reasons John Dean discussed in his book, "Conservatives Without Conscience" (see previous post). Other voters prefer a more unified voice since it indicates a party with a plan and members who are united to achieve it. Voters want action and affective governance, not more political in-fighting.

I believe the Democratic Pary agrees on broad goals they would like to achieve if once again given the chance to lead. Unfortunately, the party does not have a leader that can articulate their goals. To be honest, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not the right people to be the face of the Democratic Party at this point. Their personalities, public demeanor and rhetoric styles are just what Republicans want. I'm sure Harry Reid is a good person and a first rate senator, but neither he nor Nancy Pelosi give anyone confidence that Democrats can lead and defend this country.

Howard Dean is much more articulate and could do a better job of explaining Democratic positions, but he carries too much political baggage from his presidential run. His political smarts are essential to future Democratic victories, but he is not going to convince voters to vote for Democrats.

Democrats need more specific proposals and an articulate voice to explain them.


Technorati Tags: Political Democrats

Conservatives Without Conscience

I just finished John Dean's new book, "Conservatives Without Conscience." The preface, which explained how he came to write the book, was very interesting. The first part of the book was a little academic. I was hoping for some political fireworks. But John Dean brought together a lot of academic research to help explain the success of the Republicans the past couple of decades and why we should be concerned. At times it was chilling.

Conservatives will believe nothing in this book, but if, like me, you've encountered right wing rantings and hatred and wonder where it comes from, this book may help explain it. The book was interesting and seemed to be very well researched. Dean has many references to back up his writing.

Wading through the first part prepares you for the second part where you do indeed get some political fireworks and insight. Don't give up, finish the book. You'll like it. Unless you are a conservative. It is not very flattering to them.

Technorati Tags: Political Republicans Conservatives Without Conscience John Dean

Say It Ain't So

There was a report on NBC Nightly News tonight that the administration is planning a new call-up of a significant number of reservists this fall. It was also reported that the administration believes this call-up will be politically damaging, so they will not announce it until after the November elections.

I have no idea if either of these items are true, but I will be watching. If there is to be a call-up and if it would be better for the country to make such an announcement after the elections, that would be one thing. If it were better for our war effort in Iraq, that would be another. If it were better for the reservists to wait until after November to be called-up, that would be still another. But to wait because it would help Republicans win an election, that makes my blood boil.

I really am tired of being cynical about every decision the President makes. I really do hope tonight's news reports are wrong.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Iraq

Thanks, Bill

I chuckled when I heard the joke, President Bush has given hope to all school children. He has proven that ANYONE can grow up to be President.

Of course, it helps to have a father with all the right connections.

This old joke came back to me as I watched President Clinton on MSNBC tonight. I like a President who is smarter than I am. Someone who understands not only how to win elections, but how to use logic, reason and intelligence to communicate ideas. A President who wants to build communities through consensus and not fear. A President who is more interested in listening, understanding and proposing solutions than in lecturing. A President who is interested in governing the country and not just pandering to his base. How I long for the good old days.

How Long Can Republicans Blame Clinton?

A recent round of Clinton (Bill) bashing, made me once again wonder how many years it will take Republicans to get over their inferiority complex, take responsiblity for their own actions and quit blaming President Clinton for the ills of the world. In comparison to what we have now, he looks better every day.

It also made me wonder which will occur first,

A) Republicans stop blaming President Clinton for ________ (fill in the blank)

OR

B) The last US soldier leaves Iraq.

You've got to admit, that's a tough call.


Technorati Tags: Political Republicans Bill Clinton

The Worst President Ever, Nixon or Bush?

I think George Bush, the current president, is a terrible president. Of course, I didn't believe he possessed the necessary qualities to be elected the first time.

I wonder if there is a relationship with President Bush's "stay the course" policies and whatever illogic led people to re-elect him in 2004. Maybe many voters had to vote for him again or admit that they made a mistake the first time. Not a character trait that Republicans seem to exhibit. Or maybe it took more nuanced analysis than most Republican voters can muster.

But my musings today actually have me wondering if history will view President Nixon or President Bush (43) as the worst US President ever. In fairness, we should wait until President Bush's term ends in 2009 to take a poll, although I think I have enough evidence to vote today.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush

Now Wouldn't That Be Ironic?

After a violent few weeks, the war between Israel and Hezbollah seems to be over. This may be an ONCGTC moment (only Nixon could go to China). As bloody as the conflict was, it may have set the stage for a period of tranquility. There was world wide opinion that Israel lost the war, but more likely they "lost" the war and won the political battle.

I heard one commentator say that toward the end of the war, Israel was left pursuing the "Mad Dog" strategy. The idea was that while Israel could not easily win the war, they could make life so difficult for the Lebanese that they would not tolerate anyone poking the dog again. A slight provocation might set the mad dog on another rampage.

For decades, Israel has evoked an image of invincibilty. It had defeated all its neighbors and left them disheartened and demoralized. This is not a state conducive to compromise or peace. While objectively no one can claim that Hezbollah beat Israel, by not losing the Middle East sees them as victors. Now that Hezbollah has the aura of a winner, they may be more willing and able to negotiate.

Even if the money came from Iran, it was amazing how quickly Hezbollah started to help rebuild Lebanon. They were already organizing as a political party before the war. Hezbollah would probably win any election in Lebanon at this point, but not if people thought they would kick the dog again. If Hezbollah wants to become a political power and run the government in Lebanon, that is good. I don't believe the Lebanese people will allow them to start a war with Israel again.

It was amazing (and terribly ironic, given President Bush's Iraqi policies) that Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, said that "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it." Although they may not like him, Nasrallah may have the stature as a winner to negotiate some real solutions. Now that he is a winner, he may no longer feel the need to prove his military power (and would hopefully realize if he starts trouble again the Israelis will be better prepared).

One commentator, shortly after the cease fire, stated that even with a cease fire Israel still planned to eventual assassinate Nasrallah. At this point that would be very bad. Israel should not forget that Menachem Begin, who was eventually an Israeli Prime Minister, started out with terrorist ties. Nasrallah may be someone Israel can make deals with. Israel should, and probably is, working on a deal to get their two kidnapped soldiers back. This is a chance for Israel to determine if Hezbollah can be encouraged to negotiate instead of fight. Hint, another win for Hezbollah might not be such a bad thing.

Israel should keep the mad dog snarl, but encourage and help Hezbollah to be a positive political force in Lebanon. The Lebanese people have struck blows for democracy on their own so their desire for freedom and what looks to be a desire by Hezbollah to govern might be the right mix to make Lebanon one of those beacons of democracy in the Middle East we've been hearing about.

Now wouldn't that be ironic.

Technorati Tags: Political Israel Hezbollah Lebanon

The Smirk Has To Go

Senator George Allen, Republican from Virginia, was on Meet The Press this morning. It is never appropriate to judge the competency of a candidate by their visual appeal or lack thereof, but the voters of Virginia should be commended for electing George Allen even though he often exhibits a horrendous smirk.

His smirk is so bad, I'm sure it is the nickname people use behind his back. According to Wikipedia, a smirk "refers to a smile evoking insolence, scorn, or offensive smugness".

I don't know if Senator Allen's smirk is the result of an unfortunate physical malady or represents a personality leak. In any case, it needs to be removed by plastic surgery or counseling. It may be that he has had it for so long that the only group that can remove it are voters.

Technorati Tags: Political George Allen The Smirk

They Didn't Volunteer To Be Sacrificed

I support the all volunteer military and greatly appreciate the brave men and women who have volunteered to defend our country.

I do have to wonder if a volunteer military has allowed the human costs of this war to be hidden.

There is a rumor that a secret report has conceded that we have already lost Anbar province in western Iraq. I heard a comment that it would take 50 to 60 thousand troops to even try to take it back. How many people who agree with President Bush's "stay the course" plan would be willing to stay the course if a draft were needed to supply the 50,000 additional troops?

We need a real plan to get out of Iraq. We cannot indefinitely sacrifice our military on a failed plan just because they volunteered.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Iraq Military Draft

Shame on you, President Bush.

The Bush administration's assertion that they should be able to convict and punish a person based on information that the defendant is not allowed to hear and, therefore, cannot defend himself against, is outrageous. To insist that the government should be able to convict defendants based on confessions induced by torture or testimony from witnesses who were tortured is equally absurd. That a President of the United States is proposing such actions is beyond words.

There are certainly many bad people in this world who deserve to live the rest of their lives in a cell or to be executed, but the government cannot punish someone just because the government thinks they deserve to be punished. We give our government vast powers, but we require them to exercise them within laws to help insure that these powers are not abused. This not only protects us from abuse by government officials, but it also from ourselves. While outrageous acts might move us to outrageous reactions, our laws remind us we have agreed on ideas and ideals that are more important than the emotional reactions of the moment.

Convicting people of unnamed crimes or based on coerced testimony sounds like something out of the old USSR or a third world dictatorship, not the United States of America.

Shame on you, President Bush.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush War on Terror

John Boehner - WTHWYT

According to House Majority Leader John Boehner,

"I listen to the questions today and I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."

I read your statement and wonder if you are more interested in the welfare of this country or saving your political ass!

And you are a liar. Democrats aren't your friends. A friend wouldn't make such a heinous statement.

Technorati Tags: Political John Boehner Iraq War on Terror WTHWYT

The Love Story Presidency

This is the Love Story Presidency..

Being a Bushie means never saying you're sorry.

Or, for that matter, that you ever made a mistake.

Or, even worse, admitting all your assumptions for going to war were wrong, but still insisting that even knowing they were wrong you would still go to war. Unbelievable.

If a definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome, what do you call voters who still support Bush's policies in Iraq? Worse, what does "stay the course" say about President Bush?

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Iraq War on Terror

2¢ On Confusion To Lose

It is clear that the President and Republicans plan to win elections riding a horse named Confusion.

According to a story on NPR, President Bush said,

"We should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century."

I don't know why we should all agree, but he goes on to say,

"We will not allow the terrorists to dictate the future of this century, so we will defeat them in Iraq."

I don't believe the President is stupid, so unless the Generals are lying to Congress, the President knows as well as we do that the fighting in Iraq is primarily an insurgency and a civil/sectarian war. So why is he misrepresenting what is going on in Iraq and insisting we are fighting terrorists there? Political expediency. Republicans still believe voters consider them better at protecting the country from terrorists, so every attempt is made to fool voters into believing that the war in Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.

Republicans have often suggested that Democrats don't want the US to succeed in Iraq because a failed Iraq can be blamed on the Republicans for political advantage, but it is becoming clear that the President sees political advantage in an Iraq in turmoil. If Iraq is a mess and he can conflate the war in Iraq and the war on terror, he stands to gain politically. We are in the third election cycle where Republicans have tried to convince voters that only they can be trusted to fight terrorism. If Iraq, the central front in the war on terror, were to become a peaceful, stable democracy, why would we need Republicans who have shown incompetence in so many other areas?

If the President honestly wants to bring the troops home soon and leave a stable Iraq, he would tell the truth. We made a mistake going into Iraq, but we've made a mess over there and we can't soon leave. While it was not a haven for terrorists, it could well become one if we leave a failed government there, so we now have both moral and selfish reasons for not abandoning Iraq. Of course, since the President has linked the Iraq with the war on terror, admitting problems in Iraq means admitting problems with his war on terror. Never gonna happen.

The President should also admit that our misadventure in Iraq have emboldened and empowered Iran. So before we leave we need to have a clear policy and plan for dealing with Iran. We are now fighting a war with Iran in Iraq. I don't know if that is a war we can ever win, but the President should start telling the truth, especially if he harbors any plans to take on Iran directly.

I thought the President was a man who believed in personal responsibility. A responsible action now would be to work to fix the mess in Iraq. A responsible action would be to admit mistakes. A responsible action would be to level with the American people and not try confuse voters in order to re-elect Republicans. I guess I got that wrong, he believes in personal responsibility - present company excluded.

Technorati Tags: Political President Bush Iraq War on Terror

Simple Lebanon Solution

Some facts about the current Israeli attacks within Lebanon are obvious.

• Lebanon and the Lebanese people are suffering more than they should.
• Israel has lost the moral high ground. Many countries who don't normally support Israel initially conceded Israel had a right to defend itself. Unfortunately, Israel has gone way beyond defending themselves.
• Israel decided to use this provocation to justify destroying Hezbollah. They misjudged the situation. They can't take out Hezbollah from the air. They can't afford a land war in Lebanon.
  
• Continued fighting is only benefiting Hezbollah.
• The world sees the Lebanese as victims, not as citizens of a country that supports terrorists and allows attacks on other countries to originate from within its borders.
  
• It is not possible to move Hezbollah far enough away from the Israeli border to protect Israel from Hezbollah rockets.
• The chances of getting an international force on the border that can solve this problem is zero.
  

Now that they've gotten the attention of the world and at least a few concessions that they have the right to defend themselves, Israel should go to the UN and offer a full cease-fire and pull-out with a condition and one stipulation. The condition is that Hezbollah return the two kidnapped soldiers. The stipulation is that Israel has the right to defend themselves.

The US should offer a simple resolution; Israel has a right to defend itself from attacks from outside its borders. Although even such an obvious statement might not be adopted, the US and Israel would have started a move to return Israel to the moral high ground.

Israel and the US should also make it clear that it is the responsibility of Lebanon to insure that Israel is not attacked by people from within Lebanon. Israel should clearly state that it will consider any rocket launched from within Lebanon to be an act of war by Lebanon. If they are attacked again by forces based in Lebanon, Israel will take whatever military action they feel is necessary. The people of Lebanon need to understand that they will be held responsible for the acts of Hezbollah, a group that is accepted by much of their country and is actually part of their government.

It is clear that the Lebanese Army cannot stop Hezbollah, but Israel should now use the people of Lebanon and the world to help control the problem. Israel has made the point that it will aggressively defend itself, it now needs to use this opportunity to get additional support from the world to keep Hezbollah's and Iran's aggression in check. I know some people will point out that Hezbollah, Iran and much of the world are not interested in morality, but I would point out that Israeli bombs have been falling for a couple of weeks now and that hasn't stopped the rockets either.

From the news it seems like Israel can pinpoint the source of a rocket launch quickly. If a rocket is launched, Israel should try to take out the launcher and other Hezbollah facilities in the area. The response doesn't need to be limited to just the launcher, but the response must be somewhat proportional to attack. The responses could escalate in severity if attacks continue.

Every attack should bring a complaint from Israel and the US at the UN. That won't necessarily stop the attacks, but it will help keep the world focused on Hezbollah's aggression and strengthen Israel's position if they have to attack again.

Israel had more support at the beginning of the current fighting than they've ever had. They should learn from this and build on it.

Technorati Tags: Political Israel Lebanon Hezbollah

Coulter Vs. The WWF

The press is giving Ann Coulter way too much attention. No one who can carry on a reasonably logical conversation or develop a cogent thought listens to what she has to say.

People listen to and watch Anne Coulter for the same reasons they watch professional wrestling. Actually, they are probably the same people.

Technorati Tags: Coulter WWF