Tuesday, November 30, 2004

All You Need to Know About Where We Are Headed

Page 2: Rove Unleashed
Newsweek on the Web

Story Link Here

"The core principles are clear to anyone who listened to a Bush stump speech. They are drawn from a well of conservative (and, in the 19th-century sense, "liberal") dogma: that only free-market democracies respectful of traditional moral values can bring us a planet of fulfilled citizens secure from terror."

-----

Read it, know it, fight it. This is where we are headed...is this REALLY where you think we should go?

If so, I ask you this:

Whose morals will we be imposing upon others? We can't even agree on whose morals should dominate in this country! And, isn't the fact that we would be choosing a set of morals different from those in other countries and regions of the world part of the reason for discord and terrorism throughout the world?

Free markets or unrestrained capitalism? Do you really think corporations are capable of policing themselves? Do you really think that everything worth doing in society is profitable? Do you think everyone can be an owner? Do you believe in an aristocracy of wealth? Where does the middle class fall in the future? Do you really believe in trickle-down, supply-side economics of the 80's? Voodoo economics?

Have we forgotten history? Haven't we tried all this before? I suggest you reference the Civil War sans the slavery issue for the aristocracy of the landed and wealthy, the 1920's for political corruption and unrestrained big business, the 1960's for insurgency warfare...and how to lose it, the 1980's for Voodoo economics and rampant greed, and the 1990's for corporate ethics run amok.

Wake up America! It all sounds good and looks pretty on the packaging, but you're being sold a lemon.

If you can work through the above questions and still believe in the vision, then I ask you this: Is it working?

Yeah, I thought you might figure it out.

Health Care & The "Ownership Society"

Hospitals get hostile with the uninsured...Congress finds those without coverage pay much more

By Chip Reid
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:41 p.m. ET Nov. 29, 2004


After her husband died last year, Maggie Loncar was left with $13,000 in unpaid hospital bills and no health insurance. Loncar, a Wal-Mart cashier making about $9 an hour, says she had nothing left after supporting a daughter in college and another at home.

"I went to them and I said, ‘Can I work out payments?’" says Loncar. "I have no insurance, you know. I said, can I can work out some payment through the hospital?’ and they said no."

The hospital, Christ Advocate Medical Center outside Chicago, repeatedly demanded payment.
"(They) harassed me at work, calling me at work. Collectors calling all hours of the day and night at my home and at my work," says Loncar.


Finally, the hospital sued her and won the right to take a portion of her paycheck.

See link for the rest of the story...

-----

How about those Healthcare Savings Accounts? If you don't have the money for insurance and your company doesn't help you get it, just where are you going to get money to put into an HSA? This is what an "Ownership Society" looks like for those who can't afford to own. And just think, there are 45 million others just like her. Nice huh?

Please tell me how tort reform and HSA's will increase basic access for those like the person above? How will it create more doctors? How will it make drugs and equipment cheaper?

Are we really trying to create a society of have's and have-not's?
Power Corrupts...again...

Members’ Funds FreedChange Restores Federal Money for State Bids

By Paul KaneRoll Call Staff
November 29, 2004

Without floor debate or a single hearing, Congress changed election laws last week to allow Members to transfer campaign funds raised for a federal race to a run for state or local office.

A four-paragraph provision taking up less than half a page in the 3,300-page omnibus appropriations measure struck a portion of the landmark campaign laws adopted in 2002 and once again freed Members to apply dollars raised for federal elections toward bids for governor, mayor or other offices.


The authors of the campaign finance bill, known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, were outraged that their work could be altered without any consultation, although they reserved judgment on the substance of the changes.

“Regardless of the merits of the provision allowing Members of Congress to use their federal campaign accounts for state campaigns, a few senior Members of Congress or their staffs should not be permitted to rewrite the campaign finance laws by slipping something into the omnibus appropriations bill,” said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). “The American people deserve a legislative process in which laws are changed only after open debate and votes. This action is yet another demonstration that the appropriations process is broken.”

Aides said the provision was adopted at the behest of the Federal Election Commission, which earlier this year sent Congress a list of requests for legislative action, including the provision clearing up rules on federal dollars used for state races.

“It was one of the agency’s primary recommendations,” said FEC spokesman George Smaragdis.
Notably, however, the appropriators balked at one provision the FEC sought, asking Senate campaigns to file electronically with the commission in the same way House campaigns and all other federal political action committees have done for years. The Senate still requires workers in the chamber’s Office of Public Records to scan in thousands upon thousands of pages of election reports every quarter and then send them to the FEC.

The immediate beneficiaries of the change in law allowing for excess federal campaign funds to go into state races are Members considering bids for governor, particularly Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who had almost $6.7 million sitting in her federal campaign account as of Sept. 30.


Hutchison is considering a bid for governor in 2006 instead of running for re-election, a move that would pit her against sitting Gov. Rick Perry (R) in a potentially bruising primary.
Other lawmakers considering leaving Congress for other office include Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is mulling a bid for governor and had $3 million in his account on Oct. 13, and Rep. Jim Nussle (R-Iowa), also considering a gubernatorial bid. Nussle had $410,000 in his account on Sept. 30.


Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) is seen as close to entering the New York mayoral race and was sitting on more than $1.5 million as of Oct. 13.

Also in New York, Sen. Charles Schumer (D) had been eyeing a possible run for the governor’s mansion and many expected his opening ante to be a massive transfer from his federal account into a gubernatorial campaign. He had more than $13.5 million on hand as of Oct. 13.

But before the rule change passed Congress and allowed for his war chest to go toward a governor’s race, Schumer decided to stay in the Senate, taking over the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and assuming a precious seat on the Finance Committee.


Before BCRA was passed, leftover federal dollars from House or Senate campaigns could be transferred into state races as long as that particular state allowed it. But BCRA changed that, leaving out a critical phrase in campaign laws that had previously said leftover funds could be used “for any other lawful purpose.”

Without that phrase, FEC Chairman Bradley Smith authored a strict advisory opinion in March that made clear Members could not use the money for state races.

There has been some dispute regarding whether Congress intended to limit the transferring of campaign money into state races. Many GOP and Democratic lawyers believe it was an oversight, a mistake in the writing of the complicated law. Some reformers, however, including Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman and the campaign lawyer for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), contend it was intentional because McCain and others wanted to specifically stipulate that “federal dollars are for federal races.”

The FEC decided to clear matters up by asking Congress to change the law to revert back to the old language.

No hearings, however, were ever held on the FEC requests. A House aide said the Senate appropriators pushed for the campaign finance changes in the omnibus and the House side agreed only “because they were requested by the FEC.”

The omnibus measure also included a provision that allowed for Members’ campaign committees to give up to $2,000 per election to other campaigns, up from $1,000. That change keeps re-election committees at the same rate as individuals, whose contribution limits grew from $1,000 per election to $2,000 two years ago.

-----

What is it going to take for America to wake up? Are we going to repeat the mistakes of this country from the 1920's in the 2020's? Seriously, what part of big business, big boss mentaility and political corruption are we not getting here?

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Our Own Philosopher-King

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, November 24, 2004; Page A21

Editorial Link Here

Though his reelection campaign brilliantly marketed President Bush's anti-intellectualism, the truth is that his administration has trusted more to pure theory than virtually any modern president's. The Iraq war is a triumph of ideology over the facts on the ground (it's certainly not a triumph of anything else). And, as it's currently shaping up, Bush's second term looks to be even more theory-driven than his first.

Theory certainly is driving the administration's tax policies. In his first term, Bush took an ax to the taxes on dividends and mega-estates. In his second term, according to a story by The Post's Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, the president is looking at eliminating taxes on dividends and capital gains and creating generous tax shelters for all investment income. The theory here is that investment, not labor, is the real creator of wealth -- so the taxes on investment income will be scrapped, while those on wages will keep rolling along.

And in the name of this theory, Bush seems willing to sacrifice much of the social compact that made America, in the second half of the 20th century, the first majority middle-class nation in human history.

See link for the rest...

-----

Read it and try to understand what this administration's "world view" means to you. If you are looking close enough, I think you will realize their myopic view doesn't include you. Doesn't anyone remember "Voodoo Economics"? Guess what, this is nothing more than 80's "supply-side" economics rehashed and repackaged. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Iraq - My Predictions

You can read the following editorials for some context:

Dangers Of the '80 Percent Solution'

How to Defuse Iran

Much of how we will judge our success, or failure, in Iraq will come from how we frame the goals and objectives that signal success. At first, merely toppling Saddam was seen as success, but that measure of success was short lived. We are now stuck in a quasi-nation-building-counter-insurgency that is figuratively bleeding us dry economically and literally bleeding us dry physically and militarily.

Forget for the moment the wisdom of going to Iraq as the point is now moot - the country saw fit to reelect Bush, even though prior to the election most of the country thought going into Iraq was a mistake. We are there now and must find some way to extracate ourselves from the mess while achieving some sort of stability, otherwise it will have been a colossal waste of time, money, resources, goodwill and, most importantly, life.

So, in order to claim victory, we need to determine the objectives that must be met AND the measurements that we will use to determine whether that objective has been met. Unfortunately, don't expect to get a clear answer from this administration on what these objectives and measurements are, because they don't know themselves.

The initial plan ASSUMED we would be welcomed as conquering liberators and when that assumption proved false, the plan and the overall operation went into a tailspin. The administration was so confident of their plan that they refused to engage in any risk analysis or contingency planning. Their hubris was such that they even refused to listen to those most in the know or even the President's father - a former President and nemesis to Saddam.

Ask this administration when we will be able to pull out and they quickly translate -read spin - the question into one of proposing a "timetable". They say this is bad because it emboldens the insurgents to fight, or wait to fight, in order to take advantage of the stated timetable. Perhaps this is true, but it's also irrelevant. The real question has nothing to do with a timeline, but with the objectives that must be met for this foray into Iraq to be considered a success to the extent that we can withdrawal our troops and turnover support to the UN or some other organization. Hence, the straw man of "timing" as these objectives are unknown and the administration cannot be seen as simply grasping at straws.

I guess they will know success when they see it.

Further exacerbating this problem is that a short-term solution that would allow us to withdrawal relatively soon may not play into the long-term NEO-CON plan to pacify the Middle East and allow control of the natural resource at the center of their grand strategy for protection of the United States and our economy: stable access to cheap oil. It will not be good enough to hold an election and establish a constitution for Iraq if the resultant government is not sustainable, stable or aligned with our agenda. Consequently, this administration is faced with a conundrum that keeps it from specifying the objectives and measurements that must be met in order to declare victory and withdrawal because it cannot clearly state the objectives that must be met to meet the conflicting short term and long term goals.

If the administration wants to save face, money and lives, it will leave as soon as it can point to a successful election (don't EVEN ask them for a definition of that!), a trained military and police force (again, what does that mean?), and a relative reduction in insurgent activity (5 deaths per day as opposed to 10?).

However, if the administration takes this short-term solution to our involvement in Iraq, it runs the risk of leaving nothing more than a well-built facade that has nothing behind the fancy front door. Basically, we will have built the shell, but the Iraqis will be responsible for the rest of the house. The problem with this approach is that Iraqis don't know HOW to build this type of house AND they're not sure WHO should build it AND they may allow a "family" to live there that we don't like.

Where does that leave us after the election?

The Short-Term Solution

The most likely result would be the election of a Shia dominated government, followed by our pullout, followed by civil war. This civil war would be fueled by insurgents from most of the Sunni dominated middle east and others with similar interests and hatred of the Shia (read Al Queda et al). These insurgents would be helped by the Saudis and others to ensure that the Shias do not gain a large foothold on their borders as well as gain access to oil revenues. The Shias would be backed by Iran and may garner the support of the Kurds as they have no love for the Sunnis who punished them so severely during Saddam's reign and who could broker a deal with the Shias for some autonomy. The Kurds could easily stay mostly above the fray, supplying economic and logistical support to the Shias, further solidifying their position with the Shia government.

I call this the "ensure continued Republican dominance via saving face in Iraq" plan.

The administration can always use the time between pulling out and total chaos to recharge the military and make a case to go to war with Iran, thereby ensuring stability in Iraq via the back door. However, the timing of this must be perfect. It must take place after mid-term elections in the US and must be late enough in the cycle for the civil war to be low enough in intensity to not disturb the election of a Republican president. In short, Bush can be blamed for the civil war AFTER a Republican is elected.

However, if the US cuts and runs shortly after elections and some as-for-now unstated objectives are met, we will NOT be able to ensure that Iraq, the Middle East and, most importantly, access to oil is stable. This would be a resounding defeat for the NEO-CON ideology with regards to foreign policy as none of the goals would have been achieved. Although, I'm sure they will gladly spin it as a success because Saddam is gone and Iraq is a nominal democracy based on the fact that "they had an election, right?"...no matter how flawed it may be.

The Long-Term Solution

The long term solution would involve the long term commitment of US troops to Iraq while we back up the elected government to ensure stability, rebuilding, and most importantly, access to oil. This means the establishment of semi-permanent bases in Iraq. This semi-permanent presence will result in the continued insurgency by both the disenfranchised in Iraq and the Muslim extremist who will see our bases as further occupation by the infidels. We will have basically traded our bases in Saudi Arabia for bases in Iraq AND we will continue to dominate access to oil and will continue to kill Muslim along the way.

Can you say militant recruiting poster?

The long term approach is also fraught with risk as the election will almost certainly result in a Shia dominated government with close ties to Iran that will have the effect of disenfranchising the Kurds in the north and the Sunnis who were in charge up until the invasion and election. If the Shias are smart they will make a deal with the Kurds that will ensure access to oil and other economic assets in the north while giving them some autonomy. They will do everything to crush the Sunnis outright as retribution and as a way to ensure continued control. The worst part will be that they will be infiltrated to the hilt with Iranian agents who will work to build close ties with Iran.

The Shias will build these ties with Iran to ensure continued support and Iran will back them to ensure Iran has a large foothold in the Middle East and access to coveted economically important natural resources. This will inflame the Wahabi hatred for Shias and will further exacerbate the insurgency by outside entities - mostly Wahabi-aligned entities such as Al Queda. And, don't think that Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Wahabism will stand idly by while the Shia's become a dominant player in the oil business and a looming threat on their border.

This will result in American troops being caught in the middle of two warring factions that share only one thing in common, their hatred for us. We will NOT be able to stem the tide of support for either faction and we will be left with either choosing a side, which will enrage the side not picked, or we will be left trying to referee and control two highly motivated and well armed groups who won't play by our rules in the first place.

The administration may see the long-term approach as beneficial because they can placate either side long enough to ensure mid-term elections and possibly the next Presidential election. Furthermore, it will allow them to have some control over the oil and the region via having troops on the ground. Lastly, it would put us in a position to blame Iran for the "troubles" and would give us further reasons and a kickoff point for invasion.

The only cost would be money and the lives of soldiers, none of which are coming from the families that received the largest tax cuts or the families of the men and women making the decisions.

On to my prediction.

First and foremost let us dispense with ANY notion that we are in Iraq to protect us from terrorist attacks in the short term. Forget it. That's NOT why we went there in the first place and that is not why we are there now. We went their based on an ideological vision that the way to bring lasting stability in the Middle East, thereby securing the most important economic asset, oil, is to force the Middle East into democracy. It's only a side effect of this vision that Islamic terrorism will supposedly stop due to the democritization of the Middle East - an assumption worthy of its own risk analysis.

Second, let us also forget about debating the merits of this vision. History, I believe, will make it clear that the "assumptions" behind this vision were suspect to begin with and were the result of the myopia that is the West's, and more importantly, America's ignorance of the world around us and our collective idea of what freedom means and how our democracy plays a part.

The NEO-CON vision's central assumption is that everyone wants to be like us and if they just give it a shot, via by choice or by force, they will see the light. I will leave it to you to figure out whether this assumption is valid. However, for those of you who can think for yourself, is it so far off to label this "vision" a "crusade"? Are we not simply replacing Christianity with Democracy? And, if so, can we really be surprised by the Islamic backlash given the history of earlier crusades? It doesn't mean I agree with their response, it simply means their perception cannot be discounted. In fact, it is this very perception that we are fighting against, and losing.

Third, forget about the NEO-CONs admitting their mistakes and adjusting fire. Fundamentalist ideologies, which by definition require faith, as opposed to critical thought, in the underlying assumptions of the ideology, cannot bear scrutiny or dissent. One need only look at the denial of the facts on the ground in Iraq and the Middle East during our recent election and the complete overhaul of the cabinet to ensure loyalty to see that this administration has no interest in evaluating their vision's results and adjusting course.

To put it in poker terms, they are in this hand to the end as the payoff is simply too big if they win. The only problem is, their chance of drawing the winning hand is less than 50% and even if they draw the hand they want, it may not be the winner anyway. Oh, and they aren't even playing with their money...or lives.

Fourth, assume the NEO-CONs know that their only hope for keeping their vision alive is to ensure the continued election of Republicans to the White House and the Congress. So, while they will certainly press their agendas both domestic and foreign, they will NOT make any moves which will jeopardize the overall NEO-CON fantasy of the democritization of the Middle East. This means we will see many, if not most, military decisions made for political reasons. This means that virtually every decision will ensure that the least damage to election results will be the overriding factor in determining what actions will be taken in Iraq. You need to only look at the decisions made, and approved by the White House, that allowed us to try and prosecute this war on the cheap to realize that the goal of victory is second to the goal of neo-con vision.

The NEO-CONs indeed have a long term view, but the holders of such views have done little cost/benefit analysis and have done virtually NO risk analysis with regards to world reaction or effects on our own economy and sociological well-being. And, they certainly did no contingency planning. Its clear to them I guess, and that's good enough.

So, given all the constraints above, what do I think will happen?

First, the President has a very small window in which to take direct action in Iraq before decisions will begin to affect mid-term elections. People will only tolerate so many body bags before one's "values" become irrelevant.

Second, the war will be used as a distraction to ensure that domestic agenda items can be moved with little scrutiny. Any legitimate scrutiny will be spun by tying the issue to national defense and will be spun to show that any vote against will harm the security of the United States.

Third, and most important, the election in Iraq will take place come Hell or high water.

Make no mistake, insurgents could be standing at the polls killing every third voter and it will still take place and it will still be called a success. Using the NEO-CON slight of hand, they will trumpet ANY election as a triumph as they will quickly point out, "They've never had an election before, so this is obviously a victory for freedom!"

Let's be clear and beat this dead horse into the ground...NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, the election will be spun as a success.

If the supposed "liberal" media had any balls left they would be asking the administration what specific criteria will have to be met for the election to be considered a success. That way we could at least measure our success against something, anything. To them I say, good luck getting the question asked and better luck trying to get a straight answer...because then we could hold them accountable and we can't have that.

So, assuming the polls go the way of the demographics (Florida and Ohio not withstanding) and the US decides to NOT tinker too much with the election, we should expect that the "winner" will be a Shia as they make up easily 60% of the country and the other 40% is split between the Sunnis and the Kurds.

If this occurs, the initial reaction will be a continued insurgency by Sunnis. Unfortunately, unless we can demonstrate some control over the government, the Sunni dominated Middle East will start taking a greater interest in the insurgency and will start to support it; even more than they are now. This will include the Saudis and virtually every other Sunni dominated country in the Middle East. They will simply NOT allow a Shia dominated government to control so much oil and be ensconced so close to the motherland of Wahabism - this will be just another recruiting poster for Al Queda. Furthermore, Iran, which is steadily infiltrating and outright staffing Shia parties now, will have a heavy influence with the newly elected government.

This leaves us with propping up a government that is aligned with Iran, that will be seeking retribution on the Sunnis that punished them for 30 years, and will want us out as soon as possible so they can consolidate their hold and kill more Sunnis. In order to prop up this government we will have to fight Sunni insurgents, now backed by supposed allies, and reinforced with Al Queda operatives. All this so we can ensure the continued operation of a government that will move to consolidate power and change the constitution as soon as we leave to install a theocracy. At best, this will spark a civil war, at worst they will succeed and establish a theocratic state aligned with Iran that will now have access to natural resources that will supply economic means to continue Iraq's or Iran's nuclear ambitions and expand Shia influence in the region.

Nice, huh?

Now, let's suppose we tinker with the election or the constitution enough to ensure that even though a Shia will be head of state, the parliament, or whatever they will call it, will be sufficiently diverse that overall control will be dispersed enough to ensure that Shias cannot dominate political control.

Or, worse, we somehow engineer a Sunni win.

Starting with the second scenario, all bets would be off. Shia would INSTANTLY pick up their guns and go to war. They would never understand how their demographic dominance didn't translate into control and they would NEVER allow themselves to be ruled by Sunnis again. We would instantly be sitting in between an experienced and armed Sunni minority, backed by Al Queda and possibly others, and a well armed Shia population, backed by Iran. If we choose the side of an illegitimate, at least in the eyes of the majority, government (like we did in Vietnam by the way), then how will we maintain any semblance of "moral high ground" AND how will we explain defending the very people we were fighting 3 months ago and who are backed by the very people who attacked us in New York? Talk about strange bedfellows.

The most likely result of such an action on our part is civil war with us in the middle.

Now, if we tinker just enough to give the Shias a win, but make the position weak, while making the parliament artificially diverse and powerful (Tom DeLay anyone?) thereby giving more influence than is justified to the Sunnis, then we are faced with a more complex problem, but one that will require much more nuance to manage, something not exactly in the bag of tricks for this administration.

First and foremost, we will have to continue to defend the new government from Sunni insurgents who would be unhappy with ANY result that didn't give them overall power plus those who see the arrangement as a sham. Add in a little Al Queda and Iranian influence for good measure and we are back to our pre-election stance with only an election to point to as some sort of pyrrhic victory.

The question then becomes, how long do we stay to ensure the following:

A) That the government can stand on its own two feet.
B) That the government will remain a democracy and will negotiate trade in good faith; ensuring access to what this is all about, cheap oil.
C) That the government will not choose to go the way of a theocracy, constitution be damned.
D) That Iran will not have undue influence.
E) That the Shias won't use their new power to bring the Sunnis to their knees.

Of course, meeting all of these objectives ensures nothing as without continued presence, the Shia, as they are doing now, can simply bide their time and play nice until we go. Then, after we leave, they can do whatever the hell they want. (How many times will it take for us to learn that they can be your best friend and still lie through their teeth?) How do you think they convinced Al Sadr to give up his arms and stop fighting? They know time is on their side. If we stay too long, we will become the only enemy for all insurgents and if we don't stay long enough, they will wave goodbye with one hand while giving the signal for wholesale change and retribution with the other.

Shias don't have to worry about mid-term and Presidential elections, economic hemorrhaging, and body counts.

Finally, all of this assumes the Kurds decide to cut a deal and play nice with the winner because the only thing certain in all of this is that the Kurds will have NO control no matter what. They have one of the most, if not the most, prosperous cities in the country and they will not look kindly upon anyone telling them how to run their business or trying to take over outright. Should they feel they are being shut out, they have guns too and will use them. If they cut a deal and get too much autonomy, then the Turks might just intervene either overtly or covertly. The Kurds are a wild card that seem to be being left out of the mix as they have stayed out of the current fracas. But, it would be a mistake to think they won't want a piece of the pie and that they won't be willing to pick a side and fight should it come to that.

So, what does this all mean and what approach will this administration take?

Well, here is my prediction:

The administration will send more troops first and foremost. They have the initiative and the small window available to them and they will use it to secure enough of Iraq to implement elections that can at least be spun to look like a success.

The election will be held, most likely on time. A delay will not be tolerated as it will be seen as a failure that could cast a cloud on all further actions and effect US mid-term elections.

A Shia will win, but the position will be diluted by the resulting constitution, which will try to placate the minority Sunnis and Kurds by giving them more power in the parliament then they would otherwise get due to demographics.

This dilution of central power will not sit well with the Shia and will result in some insurgency by hardliners. It would take extreme discipline within the Shia ranks to keep this from happening. However, with Iran's influence they might be able to keep themselves under control long enough to show us the door. If not, we will be looking at a two front insurgency.

The Sunnis will fight. They will fight until they are destroyed or damaged enough for us to hand over security to Iraqi forces, most of which will be Shia who will relish the thought of having the opportunity to knock heads in the Sunni Triangle. Those Iraqi units dominated by Sunnis will not fight against their brothers for an illusive dream of Iraqi freedom and certainly not when ordered by Shia they used to dominate. They will either leave or fight for the Sunni insurgents. They certainly will not stand by and watch Shia controlled forces wreak havoc upon their brothers and sisters.

We will fight to secure the installed government and our timetable for pullout will be as follows:

Option 1) If our body count can be kept low, as defined by popular discontent in America, then we will stay and reinforce bases at least through mid-term elections in the US. After mid-term elections we will work to counter what will become a growing insurgency from both sides, aimed at getting rid of us and whatever power is in place. Sunnis, Al Queda and others will work to see us gone in order to prosecute their war against the Shia government and the occupying infidels who put them in power. The Shia, backed by Iran will work to see us gone so they can go about the business of retribution and installation of a shia theocracy.

The longer we stay, the more enemies we will encounter. We will work to keep things at a low boil long enough to either pull out ahead of the next Presidential election or we will ensure that the body count and expense is kept at a relative minimum to ensure a Republican win in 2008. The timing will be tricky for we cannot give them enough time to go to full scale civil war or install a theocracy aligned with Iran before the US Presidential election. That can happen AFTER the election, but not before.

Option 2) If the Sunnis go all out and some Shia decide to go rogue and fight Sunnis, and our body count starts to look like it will fill a granite wall or two on the mall, we will call the mission a success, pull out just before mid-term elections, and work to counter Iranian influence. We will quietly turn a blind eye as the Sunni uprising is brutally put down by the Shias. We will most likely spin it as the Iraqis killing terrorists bent on destroying freedom.

Our main goal after pullout will be to somehow influence the Iraqi government to NOT change the constitution and install a theocracy before the 2008 election. Doing so would result in the US figuring out that we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives trading one problem for another. If we cannot do this, we will work to spin it as the "will of the Iraqi people" and will somehow show that they will be a "democratic theocracy" in NO way influenced by Iran. (Laugh all you want, just watch.)

Again, Option 2 only has to hold water long enough to get a Republican in the White House in 2008. If they can do that, then we can combine the "growing influence of Iran in Iraqi affairs" with Iran's "Nuclear intentions" to start the "pacification" process all over again, solving the Iran problem while realigning Iraq via the backdoor by destroying their benefactor. (Come on, they don't have to buy their own bullshit, they just have to sell it.)

There you have it. Print it out, put it in an envelope and seal it. I may be off on some particulars, but this is what I think you will see happen over the next 2 to 4 years in Iraq. Bet on it.

-----

Comment

You may think its cynical to place all the emphasis on politics, but its politics and ideology that put us into Iraq in the first place. You can try to rationalize our invasion through glowing words about freedom and liberty, but George Bush and the NEO-CONs et al couldn't give a rat's ass about that. The installation of "Democracy" is a means to an end and that end is trade and oil. If spreading democracy to promote a safe and just world were the endgame, then we would start with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others who export radical Islam and terrorism, not Iraq, which while a dictatorship, was secular and not contributing to the global Islamic terrorist threat. If Saddam had never invaded Kuwait and threatened the world's oil supplies, we would be working with him right now, as we were before, and like we are with other dictators, to achieve our goals...atrocities and democracy be damned.

Doubt me?

If implementing democracy were the endgame, don't you think we might have a better idea of what it would take to democratize a culture and people that have no experience in freedom or representative government; have been artificially divided, not by tribe or religion, but by arbitrary lines carved out by westerners; and have perceptions of the western world which prevent it from seeing the good that we do?

If it were the endgame, would we have not prepared for such an enormous undertaking as the building of a democracy from scratch?

If protecting us from those that have attacked us were paramount, where the hell is Osama Bin Laden?

Look, if you buy the mumbo jumbo that is the NEO-CON ideology of world peace, then at least acknowledge that it has been implemented poorly. If you are going to force-feed "democracy" to the world, then you better be prepared to beat the ingrained culture out of them and you better be prepared to go all out, no expense spared, no destruction held back, no killing checked.

We are neither prepared nor capable of doing this. We certainly cannot afford to go it alone economically and we either were incapable or unwilling to take the time to bring others around to our way of thinking. Furthermore, we cannot rise above our own moral code to deliver the violence and destruction necessary to destroy their will to fight, especially within the constraints of preemptive action.

People love to compare this "war on terror" to WWII, but its not. And, Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terror. WWII was total war. WWII was war against a nation state or states that attacked this country and our allies. WWII was NOT a preemptive war and the goal of WWII was NEVER to spread democracy...it was to vanquish our enemies that attacked us and to end their ambitions once and for all. Fire-bombing civilians and cities of the enemy that attacked us, unprovoked, wasn't even a question. Millions died and absolute destruction was wrought to include the only use of atomic weapons. THAT is total war.

It took us 50 years to recover.

We were able to install democracies in Japan and Europe because they had no way to resist us - they had been completely and totally subdued.

I ask you, are we, as a people, prepared to kill millions, wreak unimaginable destruction and devastation, to preemptively promote democracy?

Are we willing to do the same around the globe in hopes of killing every terrorist that ever lived?

Are we willing to do the same to ALL of the countries from which these terrorist come forth and are supported?

Because, if we are not, then overt actions like Iraq will NEVER succeed and they will only feed the fire. Its that simple. You either make the decision to go all the way, or you don't do it. If you cannot kill them all, literally and figuratively, if you cannot absolutely destroy their will to resist, then you will NEVER be able to forcibly change a culture that has existed for a thousand years before yours ever came into existence.

Now, given that understanding and the current climate in the world, what do you think are our options? Total war alone? Or, low-intensity war joined by allies?

It really is a question of how you want to pay the bill. Tens of thousands of US body bags and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of civilians up front or thousands of body bags and less civilians along the way but for a longer period of time. If we go total war, our sons and daughters will still be killed and we may still not be able to prevent attacks on our civilians until we have wreaked unheard of destruction upon a people that has never directly attacked us.

Can we as a nation morally survive such an approach?

If we go the low-intensity route, we are still vulnerable and many will still die and in the end, the numbers may be the same. Its a question of intensity of both destruction and healing.

What's the answer? It depends on how you frame the question.

What's the answer given the current global climate? Low intensity.

This country, much less this world is not prepared for total war. Its that simple. And, if you think we can go it alone, forget it. We need only look at the imperial powers that passed through history before us to understand that in the long run, we cannot do it alone. This means mobilization for long-term counter-insurgency. It means understanding that we will be attacked again and that the solution will take time, money and lives. But, in the end, I think we will be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and the rest of the world in the eye.

However, if we choose to go total war, than we need to do just that. We had 16 million men and women in uniform during WWII. We are twice the size as a nation now and can barely muster 2 million. It means the draft. It means war bonds and higher taxes. It means sacrifices at home to pay for the effort. It means the killing of thousands if not millions of innocents. It means thousands of dead sons and daughters. But, if you are going to let the end justify the means, then let us at least be able to achieve the end we believe is so righteous.

So, make a choice America, but for the sake of your own soul, stop deluding yourself that this half-assed, do it on the cheap, politically motivated warfare is going to carry the day...it won't. And, it will only prolong the pain and suffering of everyone involved. Make a choice America, but just be sure you AND your kids can live with that choice in the end.
ENRON Accounting, Now In New Government Flavor

Story Link Here

Republicans Finding Ways To Account For Overhaul
Social Security Change Expensive in Short Term

By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 23, 2004; Page E01

Republican budget writers say they may have found a way to cut the federal deficit even if they borrow hundreds of billions more to overhaul the Social Security system: Don't count all that new borrowing.


As they lay the groundwork for what will probably be a controversial fight over Social Security, Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration are examining a number of accounting strategies that would allow the expensive transition to a partially privatized Social Security system without -- at least on paper -- expanding the country's record annual budget deficits. The strategies include, for example, moving the costs of Social Security reform "off-budget" so they are not counted against the government's yearly shortfall.

-----

Okay, let me get this straight. In order to hide the fact that it will cost BILLIONS if not TRILLIONS to overhaul Social Security we are going to change accounting rules so we can bury our collective heads in the sand? Isn't this how ENRON got in trouble? Aren't there companies being investigated for doing exactly this sort of shenanigans?

This is "bottom line" thinking at its absolute worst. Seriously, we are trying to change the "prospectus" to keep the stock price artificially high. The only problem is THIS "prospectus" is the financial health of our country. This is what happens when you let corporate thinking run the government; bad corporate thinking at that!

What part of the smoke and mirrors are you not getting? What part of the continual slight-of-hand are you missing? For the last four years we have been robbing Peter to pay Paul (forget the fact that Paul is the rich guy in this scenario) and this past election has only emboldened the short-term, bottom line thinkers even more.

This is the "NEO-CON Mind Trick" combined with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's "Somebody Else's Problem Field" at work.

NEO-CON: "There is no cost to our plan. Just look, the deficit did not increase!"

RED STATE CLONES: "There is no cost to your plan."

BLUE STATE JEDI: "WTF!!!?"

Wake up America, the same mentality that allows CEO's to walk away with millions while their workers walk away with pink slips is now controlling your government.

NEO-CON Mantra: Me, Mine and the Bottom Line

Monday, November 22, 2004

In His Vision

Story Link Here

Bush Seeks to Rule The Bureaucracy - Appointments Aim at White House Control

President Bush has ousted Saddam Hussein, toppled the Taliban and defeated the Democrats, but last week he took aim at a more enduring foe: the federal bureaucracy.

In a flurry of actions in recent days, he and his top lieutenants have taken steps to quell dissent at two fractious agencies -- the CIA and the State Department -- and to increase White House control over others, including the Justice and Education departments.

The White House moves, and similar changes anticipated at other departments, are likely to quiet some of the already infrequent dissent that has leaked from agencies during Bush's first term. They may also put a more conservative stamp on the bureaucracy's administration of the laws and making of rules on everything from the environment to business to health care.

See link for the rest of the article.

-----

Look, we ALL know that the federal government could use a little efficiency, well...okay, a LOT. And no one is surprised that Bush wants a supportive cabinet. All this is well and good except for the fact the Bush et al wants to SHAPE these agencies to fit the ideologies of their agenda. They want not only to change HOW the federal agencies do their job, but WHAT they should be doing as well. And, that WHAT is geared more towards an ideology that favors big business and brash foreign policy than you.

So, to those poor souls who will have to put up with at least 4 years of loyalist dolts who's experience takes a back seat to their loyalty to the King...errr...President, I say this:

LEAVE!

Get a job somewhere else, doing something else. Do something really fun, or useful, or profitable and do it for yourself. Forget your ideals about serving the greater good or the country, 'cause your new bosses certainly don't care about that stuff. Let the political ass-kissers try to figure it out for themselves. I'm SURE they will do a great job.

And, for the political ass-kissers whom have probably never really worked a day in their lives I leave you with a quote from one of my favorite movies:

"Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we drive your ambulances. We connect your calls, we guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us."

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Elections Over...More Troops Please

Story Link Here

BAGHDAD, Nov. 21 -- Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq say it is increasingly likely they will need a further increase in combat forces to put down remaining areas of resistance in the country.

-----

Not surprising since they've need more troops since the invasion. So, just where will they be coming from? I'm betting Poland won't be kicking up anyone new.

In His Own Words

Story Link Here

The shooting of a wounded insurgent by a marine as told by the cameraman.

I interviewed your Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Willy Buhl, before the battle for Fallujah began. He said something very powerful at the time — something that now seems prophetic. It was this,"We're the good guys. We are Americans. We are fighting a gentleman's war here -- because we don't behead people, we don't come down to the same level of the people we're combating. That's a very difficult thing for a young 18-year-old Marine who's been trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat. That's a very difficult thing for a 42-year-old lieutenant colonel with 23 years experience in the service who was trained to do the same thing once upon a time, and who now has a thousand-plus men to lead, guide, coach, mentor -- and ensure we remain the good guys and keep the moral high ground." I listened carefully when he said those words. I believed them.

So here, ultimately, is how it all plays out: when the Iraqi man in the mosque posed a threat, he was your enemy; when he was subdued he was your responsibility; when he was killed in front of my eyes and my camera -- the story of his death became my responsibility.

The burdens of war, as you so well know, are unforgiving for all of us.

-----

Do you now know why war should never be a choice of ideology?

The marine, who is guilty, would never have had to make the choice he made if the choice to conduct a preemptive war had never been made in the first place. Who should be held accountable for putting the marine in that position?

Do you now understand why so many soldiers have to be treated for mental health issues when they return? Imagine...IMAGINE how hard it is to reconcile the taking of human life, even when justified. Now, imagine taking life, or losing it, for something as dubious as an ideology about how to bring peace to the world through superior firepower.

Are you getting it yet?
Prying Eyes?

Story Link Here

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Sunday that "accountability will be carried out" against whoever slipped a provision into an omnibus spending bill that would have allowed two committee chairmen to view the tax returns of any American.

"I have no earthly idea how it got in there," Frist said on CBS's "Face The Nation." "Nobody is going to defend this."

-----

Again, this won't go through, but who thinks it was a good idea to put it in the bill in the first place? Is this what we can continue to expect for the next four years?
Tax Reform...for the Rich

Story Link Here

Parts of the story below.

More relief for struggling millionaires you thought the current Bush tax rate rewarded the wealthy, wait until you get a load of his administration's latest plan

By Michelle Goldberg Nov. 20, 2004

Liberal policy wonks -- and even some who aren't so liberal -- did a double take when they read the new tax plan floated by the Bush administration in the Washington Post on Thursday. Was the White House really suggesting eliminating incentives for employers to offer their employees health insurance plans? Was it really proposing to shift the country's tax burden even further onto states that didn't vote for Bush, like New York and Massachusetts?

It was.

The Post reported that according to White House advisors, the Bush administration "plans to push major amendments that would shield interest, dividends and capital gains from taxation, expand tax breaks for business investment and take other steps intended to simplify the system and encourage economic growth."The plan would further shift the tax burden off of people whose money comes largely from interest and investments -- the very rich -- a prospect that liberals find disheartening but not surprising. But what really caught financial experts' attention was the next paragraph, which explained how Bush intended to pay for these tax cuts."

The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral," the Post explained. "To pay for them, the administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers said.""Revenue-neutral?" asks Martin Press, a high-profile tax attorney and registered Republican. "There's no such thing. When lawmakers refer to 'revenue neutral,' they mean it helps someone and hurts someone else." If such policies move forward, says John Irons, associate director for tax and budget policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, "You'll see an economy that benefits only the very few at the very top. People in the middle will be squeezed, people in the low end won't be helped at all."

------

The first part of the plan -- which would get rid of federal tax deductions for state and local income tax -- would fall disproportionately hard on Democratic-voting states, which already pay more in taxes than they receive from the federal government. On his blog MaxSpeak, the economist Max Sawicky calls the proposal "The Bush Blue State Tax." Experts say the second part, which would do away with the tax deduction granted to employers for providing health insurance, would likely throw millions of people out of group plans, forcing them to buy far more expensive individual insurance.

------

If removing the health-insurance deduction would reward some of the administration's supporters, removing state and local tax deductions would punish its enemies.

Why?

Because these state and local income taxes are highest in such blue states as New York, Massachusetts and California, says Press. New York City also has an income tax. State taxes are lowest in the red states, which provide fewer services. Texas and Florida have no income tax at all.

Right now, people who itemize their tax returns -- about 30 percent of taxpayers, according to Sawicky -- can write off the money they pay in local taxes, thus reducing their federal taxes. "If you're in New York and you're a high-income person, you pay more state income tax, but the blow is less severe because you can deduct it," says Sawicky. "So in effect the price of your state income tax has been reduced. If you pay a dollar in state income tax and you're in the 35 percent bracket, you can deduct $.35, so in effect your state income tax is only costing you $.65 on the dollar."

"If you take away those deductions, you're in reality increasing the taxes on high-taxing, generally blue states," says Press.

-----

So is the Bush administration truly pushing a system in which someone who lives off interest and dividends -- say, Paris Hilton -- would pay less tax than the person who cleans her bathroom? "Yes," Press says.

He continues: "The attitude is that everyone who is working 40 hours a week doing an average job at a construction site, or is a store clerk, or me sitting in an office doing economic analysis, is feeding off the people who are the real successes. The attitude is that the economy should be geared to benefit the people who are business owners, who are rich, who are giving us the benefit of jobs. That's what you really see in the tax code."

-----

Even if these ideas are thrown out in negotiations, what kind of hubris exists in this administration that it thinks its okay even to float such ideas?


Thursday, November 18, 2004

Something is wrong...

Editorial Link Here

It would seem that hanging chads may make a comeback. There is a growing problem in Ohio with a vote "undercount". Evidence suggests that a larger percentage of ballots than can be accounted for by mistakes or "no-choice" choices have been counted as a "no choice" for President vote. For instance, in one county, won by Bush by 2.3%, 5.6% of the votes cast had NO choice for President.

Ok, this is a problem no matter what. Are you telling me that the United States of America is going to have to go back to paper ballots counted by hand?

The fishy smell is getting stronger.

I will say this, Keith Olbermann is doing an unbelievable job of reporting the NEWS and keeping editorial commentary to a minimum with regards to this subject. Most won't even touch it because it will either fizzle out or explode and no one wants to be on the wrong side. Perhaps if they just reported the news and didn't feel the need to pontificate on one side or the other we would get through this mess much faster.

Again, not too much smoke yet, but if the righteous right pundits start getting shrill, than you can bet there is concern growing in their camp. I'll BET you Rove has someone keeping an eye on this now.
Deregulation Is NOT Your Friend

Story Link Here

"FDA flexing less muscle" by By Marc Kaufman and Brooke A. Masters

In the past four years, the Food and Drug Administration has taken a noticeably less aggressive approach toward policing drugs that cause harmful side effects, records show, leading some lawmakers, academics and consumer advocates to complain that the agency is focusing more on bolstering the pharmaceutical industry than protecting public health.

-----

Understand this: the administration believes that over-regulation has stifled the economy and industry. They believe that corporations are capable of policing themselves in the absence of government regulation. That is their ideology and their approach to government with respect to corporate law and governance. Some of you may choose a side simply on that understanding. Others may need to think about it a little more. For those people, I ask you this:

- If the industries most regulated, and targeted for deregulation, are in such need of help, why are many, if not most, recording enormous, if not record profits?

- Is it the government's job to protect corporations or people?

- If the government succeeds in passing tort reform legislation, under the camouflage of healthcare cost savings - which has been shown to be bullshit, AND the government dispenses with regulations regarding how business is conducted, what remedy will the average American have to seek restitution or justice should a corporation produce a product or service that does real harm to that person or their family?

- Why does there seem to be a correlation between those industries being deregulated and those seeking corporate welfare or tax breaks?

- Given the history of corporate greed, abuse, malfeasance and tax evasion, do YOU think they are capable of policing themselves?

- Do you know the number of regulations that have been set aside in every government agency since 2001?

- Do you understand that regulations can be set aside WITHOUT congressional consent?

- Do you feel safer in trusting the government to protect you from corporate abuse and mistakes or the corporations?

Answer these questions to yourself honestly and then make a choice about who will best represent you in the future.


Wednesday, November 17, 2004

A Response To: "War and the Media"

By Bill O'Reilly

Editorial Link Here

Unedited Video Here

Hannity's Vile Rationalization Here

Bill,

I am an Army Reserve Major with a year tour in Afghanistan under my belt and I am truly and honestly disturbed by your analysis of what took place on that video. Your analysis makes several leaps of logic and glosses over a great deal of information regarding what took place before that marine shot the wounded insurgent. Your outright claim of innocence on behalf of this soldier is more damaging than any reporting and investigation on this subject.

First, the information currently available states that the wounded insurgents in that room were given first aid treatment by the men who originally engaged them or found them. This means they were searched for weapons and booby traps before the other team arrived. This also means that they were left behind because the first team believed they were no longer a danger or able to reenter the fight.

Second, the man made NO sudden moves and had no weapons. Period. The man was laying on the ground, in his own blood.

Third, shooting a man who is booby trapped, will not disengage the booby-trap. And, he would have had to have been booby trapped between the time the first team assaulted the position, cleared the room, treated the wounded, and left them as combat ineffective and the time the second team arrived.

Now let's take a look at your "analysis".

"On the tape, the Marine is clearly heard saying, "He's faking he's dead. He's faking he's dead." He said that right before he shot the insurgent. That statement shows the Marine thought the man was a danger."

This is irrelevant as it is his judgment that will be on trial. Simply stating a threat does not make it so.

"And he might have been. The day before, the same Marine unit lost one soldier because an insurgent corpse was booby trapped. Wounded men and even the dead in Iraq can kill you."

Again, irrelevant - see point number three above. Yes, the wounded can kill you, but a man lying in his own blood who does NOT make a move, at all, is not a threat and is not capable of triggering a booby-trap. As I said, and as it is stated in your own quote, a dead man can be just as deadly, but killing him in cold blood does not change that. Therefore, such actions have NOT reduced the threat and again are unwarranted.

"The Marine policy of engagement authorizes the use of force when a soldier is presented with a hostile act and -- this is key -- hostile intent. A sudden move by a prone man in a war zone must be taken seriously. One grenade would have killed every Marine in that room and the cameraman as well"

One cannot engage an enemy that is neither firing or moving with intent to fire -OR- cannot engage someone in a room that has been cleared simply because they are in the room. You cannot engage on hypothetical actions. Your statement presupposes that the man COULD have made a move, therefore he has the INTENT to be a threat. THAT is an incredible leap of logic and one that is ridiculous on its face.

"Clearly, the Marine did not come upon the prone insurgents with the intent to harm them. If so, he would have opened up when he entered the room."

You make an intellectual slight of hand here that is disingenuous and dangerous to objective viewing of the video. The men were NOT prone as in a position of getting ready to fight or shoot. They were simply lying on the ground due to their wounds or unwillingness to fight. Talk about ridiculous items.

"This Marine is innocent of any and all wrongdoing, and the videotape proves it."

You are simply wrong. This marine broke the law of land warfare AND the UCMJ and will be punished under the UCMJ. He will be spending many years in military prison.

That videotape clearly shows a man, under stress, who made a very bad decision to take justice into his own hands. All infantry soldiers are drilled in the procedures for securing prisoners and wounded enemy; none of the drills involve summary execution for breathing while wounded, lying on the ground, with your eyes closed.

Your "analysis" of this video smacks of ignorance with respect to the Law of Land Warfare, the UCMJ and the conduct of American professional soldiers in time of war. Your claim of innocence for this man is based on your idea of justice, which I suspect means that they should all be killed for merely fighting against us. Deserving to die and being summarily executed without acute cause or trial are simply two different things and NOT how the American professional military soldier does business. This "analysis" is myopic at best and unconscionable at worst.

I ask you this: If that was an Al Jazeera video of insurgents coming upon a wounded US soldier and the same thing occurred, what would you be saying about that insurgent's innocence?

You have crossed the line with this one Bill and you have exposed yourself as a man who holds no value for anything other than your personal ideology of how life should be. I am disappointed and saddened by your lack of respect for the laws of this nation, the world and the mititary and I am truly shocked at your lack of moral justice.



Power Corrupts, Absolute Power...

Story Link Here

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.

The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

-----

Can we handle four years of this?
Internet Hunting

Story Link Here

Underwood, an estimator for a San Antonio, Texas auto body shop, has invested $10,000 to build a platform for a rifle and camera that can be remotely aimed on his 330-acre (133-hectare) southwest Texas ranch by anyone on the Internet anywhere in the world.
The idea came last year while viewing another Web site on which cameras posted in the wild are used to snap photos of animals.

"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.

------

Yup...this is who voted for Bush!

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

A Response To: "The Lesson of Fallujah" by John Gibson

Editorial Link Here


My Response:

Your assumption is that Iraqis want us there and that some, if not many, are not willing to die or have their homes destroyed in order to see us gone. Conversely, you assume that they are equally willing to die to stand up to insurgents who will summarily kill them for resisting. (You did live through Vietnam, right?) Furthermore, you assume we can provide enough security to ensure that the second assumption won't happen - which we obviously cannot. And, finally, you are assuming that people who have NEVER known freedom or the benefits thereof are willing to lay down their lives on the premise that invader's ideas of how to live a better life start with an invasion and the killing of 100,000 civilians.

That's quite an array of assumptions to get to your premise that examples of retribution will somehow bring them around to our way of thinking.

Beatings will continue until morale improves.

Simple is as simple does.

-----

John Gibson is kept on Faux News in order to make Bill O'Liely look like a moderate. Can you imagine the xenophobic, hate-filled spawn that would come forth from a joining of Ann Coulter and John Gibson?
All the President's Men Redux?

Story Link: "I Smell A Rat"

Look, I don't see too much smoke yet, but I'm starting to catch a wiff.

All I'm saying is, Watergate started with what was believed to be a simple break-in and people STILL have a hard time believing that an American President tried to cheat an election.

If there is nothing to this, than let's fully research and investigate to lay it to rest. If nothing comes up, than it will be a case study for statistics classes for the next 50 years. But, if there is smoke AND perhaps fire...then what?

You know what is bothering you? It's that deep down in your gut, you KNOW it really wouldn't surprise you.

Let's ALL hope that we remain unsurprised...regardless of the fact that it means four more years of Bush et al.


THIS Should Scare the Hell Out of You!

New Threats, Old Weapons

Let's be clear about what this man is saying in the editorial: He is advocating the development and tactical and doctrinal use of low-yield nuclear weapons.

He uses the word deterrence to cover up the basic premise that modern war demands new nuclear weapons. I can assure you that the threat of the use of a low-yield nuclear weapon will NOT stop insurgents in a city and woe be the man who makes the decision to use one to clear out a city or stop troops from massing for an offensive.

Convincing the public that producing, stockpiling and training our soldiers to use tac-nukes is a good idea would certainly be interesting to watch. It seems that those who favor this approach forget that our current enemies are not nation-states with armies to mass, but are global insurgents tied to a religious ideology. Whose country are you going to nuke to kill these guys? Just what do you think would be the world or regional reaction to such an attack?

Men like this seem to look at the physics of low-yield weapons like the physics of smoking. They think that if they confine the weapon to a small area, it will only affect that area. Really? Ever been in a room where half is set aside for smokers? How well does that work?

This administration and their actions are encouraging this kind of thinking. This is the direction we are heading. Just what value are we promoting with this idea?

Becoming a nation of warriors set upon righting the world through force is an option. However, do NOT expect our enemies, old and new, to sit idle and allow themselves to be destroyed in place without fighting back. Violence begets violence.

Make your choice America, but at least try to be informed about the consequences of your choices.
Know-Nothingism

Intolerence Is NOT a 'Value'

By Timothy M. Gay


My friend jokes with me about how pathetic it was for Kerry to pander to the gun lobby by going duck hunting. I ask you, which is worse, pandering to hunters or fear-mongering, hateful bigots who use religion to cover their politics and to get reelected?

The new conservative right: Me, mine and the bottom line.

Monday, November 15, 2004

Fallujah Is Only ONE Step

These are excellent editorials that highlight the complexity of insurgent warfare. If we continue to claim victory via body counts, you should be concerned. If you want to understand the enemy we face, then start to learn all you can about insurgent warfare. Know this to start: tactical victories are not and will not be enough.

Fallujah's Empty Promise by Michael Moran

The Real Battle by General Wesley Clark

Friday, November 12, 2004

A Response To: "What Hinges on Fallujah"

By George F. Will

Editorial Link Here

My Response:

I find it disheartening to see you making the same observations about our counter-insurgency activities in Iraq as was made in the beginning of the Vietnam War. We are already reducing our victories to body counts, again. And, while we are focusing on one area, another is exploding with violence and insurgency. The answer in Vietnam was more troops. Why? Because we had to be able to address insurgency all over the country, not just city by city. What's the answer going to be here? We half-assed it to begin with for political reasons (forget the question of WHETHER we should have gone, that's moot now) and now we are reduced to putting out fires instead of catching the arsonists.

How conveniently we forget that we weren't supposed to be fighting this fight now in the first place. Victory had been declared. Guess not.

The fallacy of safety at home via belligerence abroad is short-term thinking at its best. While I agree we should take the fight to the enemy, HOW we do that is as important as WHETHER we do it. A good start would be sticking to the original enemy before you go out and make more. Has Osama Bin Forgotten? I say that if OBL can make a video mocking our President and our election, it speaks highly of our ineffectiveness at stopping the broader, global insurgency. While we may not have endured any more attacks inside our borders, the rest of the world has not been so lucky. Do you really think that's because they haven't sent troops to Iraq? And, how many attacks did we suffer inside our borders after the WTC bombing in 1993 when we apparently weren't "too deep in their knickers"?

I ask you, since we will never get an answer from this administration, what objectives must be met for this foray into Iraq to be considered a success? We know there will be no timetable, so what objectives must be met and how will they be measured? Conservatives are very fond of ROI analysis and I'm curious as to what achievements will make this effort worthwhile not just to this administration, but to those of us who have sacrificed? Conversely, when will enough be enough? When will it be ok to say it was a mistake and its time to go home? Will we fill up another granite wall on the mall in Washington D.C.?

Would we not be better served by your column if you asked tough questions that provoked thought as opposed to cheerleading for something you believe in ideologically? Wouldn't your ideology be better served if you helped to force this administration to deal with the realities of their actions so they could at least try to be successful?

If this administration is determined to see their ideology through and they continue to do it on the cheap and without listening to recommendations counter to their politics, then you will be spending a lot of time putting lipstick on a pig that looks remarkably like a pig from the 60's and 70's.

The difference is, this pig's from the conservative republican farm.
Know Your Enemy

The Club for Growth

Unrestrained capitalism and free market utopian fantasy is their game.

Need a reason to watch them? They backed Coburn in Oklahoma, who says abortionist should be put to death and that Gays are the greatest threat in our country today (have some cognitive dissonance with that fundamentalism), because he also is a free market zealot. Nice.

Bottom line is as bottom line does.
Faith Supersedes the Law?

Story Here

Gonzales was asked whether his personal view of abortion would play a role in his vetting of judges.

He responded, "There are no litmus tests for judicial candidates. ... My own personal feelings about (abortion) don't matter. ... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job."

Said Brown, "Gonzales' position is clear: The personhood of the pre-born human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take."

-------

Ah, so, its okay to be an activist Judge when it meets with your ideology. Isn't there a word for that? Oh yeah, situational ethics.

Faith trumps law? Is that where we're headed?


Frist: Judicial filibusters must stop

Senate majority leader may press again for rules changes

Story Here

Frist said filibustering judicial nominees is "radical. It is dangerous and it must be overcome. The Senate must be allowed to confirm judges who fairly, justly and independently interpret the law."

-----

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you nominate someone who will do just that and then you will easily get the 60 votes required. But no...its much more ideologically sound to change the rules so you can push through someone who interprets the law fairly and justly within the boundaries of your ideology.

Where was the push for rule change when Clinton's nominees were being blocked?


Damn, I Wish I Were This Clever

The Political Capital MasterCard

Thursday, November 11, 2004

The Neo-Con Spin...err...Grand Plan...err...Monday Morning Quarterbacking

This an email from a friend, not his views, and my response.

Email:

I think this is all one big excuse to:

a. Squeeze Iran into a "free" nation
b. Place airbases that much closer to China

People I speak with tell me the biggest difference between Kerry and Bush was their stance wrt/ China and N. Korea. All the married gay people with stem cells and having late-stage abortions was political spin-doctoring of the opiate for the voting masses. America can understand this issue but not refueling distance if we need to conduct pre-emptive strikes into China if they decide to seize Siberian oil fields.

The real issue is oil and China, and how we balance the military threat with the economic necessity of our trading of high-dollar goods with their low-dollar goods. Islam is getting in the way.


My Response:

That's NEO-CON ideology at its best. And, its crap.

You want to solve the Oil problem, reduce our dependency on Oil and let the Siberians worry about China invading. And, hard to stop a preemptive strike from a Nuclear Attack Submarine. Conventional war wouldn't EVEN be an option. Come on, the basic rule of strategy..."Never start a land war in Asia."

You want to cripple China, stop buying their shit and bring manufacturing jobs back home. But, can't do that cause profits would plummet and we would have to pay real wages to people and then we couldn't have 6 TV's in our house.

As far as "squeezing" Iran into a "free" nation...good luck. We aren't having too much success with FORCING Iraq. I doubt SQUEEZING a soon to be Nuclear power is going work. My bet is after they vote, the Shia's start their insurgency and make it a religious state. Hell, they might even vote that way. Then what? More ideological foolishness.

Even if you buy this shit, we exhausted ourselves on the first move and now cannot even think about completing the rest. You want to see political frustration and self-righteous indignance? Wait until it becomes clear to the neo-con pinheads that even though we're the biggest guy on the block, we can't kick everyone's ass without our posse' backing us up, oh and more than 50% of the country. Right now that posse' is looking pretty weak. We're so bogged down trying to hold down our new "street corners" that we can barely muster a drive-by shooting.

The Neo-Cons did ZERO risk analysis and mitigation planning on their grand plan and therefore had no contingency plans for when the world told them to go pound sand. They were so convinced of their own bullshit that they failed to even THINK about the possibility that their plan wouldn't be so clear to everyone else.

Hubris...I think its a value now.

A Response To: "Keeping You Alive" by Bill O'Reilly

Editorial Link

Media Matters Commentary Here

My Response:

What is the difference between an "activist" judge and an "activist" Attorney General?

Answer: Nothing, one is just more dangerous than the other.

You again dance around the problem of defining modern war and terrorism for political expediency. YOU want to be able to deal with "terrorists" using extra-legal procedures that are defined by men who are using the ABSENCE of law or precedence to make room for such extra-legal behavior. In short, there is no law therefore we can make it up to suit our goals and objectives as we see fit.

There's a problem with that. The Legislative Branch of this nation is tasked with creating law. You yourself consistently rant about this very fact when some "activist" judge interprets law in a way that is counter to your particular ideology. Can you say flip-flop? Or, is it situational ethics?

If you want to define this in simple terms, try this:

We first reevaluate the "War on Terrorism" and put in terms of war…not crime. Our biggest problem is that we cannot seem to realize that we are fighting a global insurgency. We continually confuse tactics, which are terrorist in nature, with the overall prosecution of a global insurgent war.

Second, we clearly designate what is a criminal act and what is an act of war.

Third, those caught engaging in an act of war will be either handled as a POW -OR- will be tried via a military tribunal that is CLEARLY and DEFINITIVELY structured to provide full rights to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial in FULL VIEW of the public and UCMJ judicial review.

Fourth, those caught engaging in a criminal act will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law utilizing all laws on extradition and prosecution of foreign criminals who commit criminal acts against Americans or American interests.

Why is it so difficult to achieve this? Because, in doing so you would take away the extra-legal activities that exist in the undefined gray area that is current law and convention. YOU don’t and those who support your view don't want that. You want MORE than your pound of flesh. Where is the morality and justice in that?

The world looks to us, at least they used to, for justice and hope, not just might and retribution. If we are to uphold the values that have made this country that "shining beacon on the hill", than we must strive to always take the moral high-ground from which you so easily ask some to be pushed. Read a manual on counter-insurgency and you will see that you must destroy the insurgents will to fight, but must also negate their reasons for fighting by winning their hearts and minds. If we lower ourselves to their tactics, than we no longer hold hope for those seeking justice and they will then see no other alternative but to join those who they at least perceive have their interests at heart. Indeed, morale, or allegiance, does NOT improve with more beatings.

Lastly, your assertion that torture is effective in gaining information is baseless. I have worked with some of the finest interrogators in the world and to a man, they will all tell you that virtually all torture, especially of the kind perpetrated at Abu Garib and other places, achieves little and carries a great risk of detrimental consequences upon discovery as witnessed by the exposure of our recent behavior. Our use of torture demonstrates our lack of preparedness and a lack of qualified interrogation resources. We cut corners, got little from it, and we got caught; further exacerbating a PR problem that is central to counter-insurgency success.

Revenge is NOT justice, no matter how good it may make you feel.

If this is your view of the world, I wonder from what set of "values" you are working.
"Kinsey" Comments

Comments from the Religious Right on the movie "Kinsey".


"Instead of being lionized, Kinsey's proper place is with Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele or your average Hollywood horror flick mad scientist," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women of America's Culture & Family Institute.
-----
Focus on the Family, an influential Christian ministry based in Colorado Springs, Colo., said in a review of the film that "Kinsey" mocks Christianity and condones immorality.

"To say that it is rank propaganda for the sexual revolution and the homosexual agenda would be beyond stating the obvious," wrote reviewer Tom Neven.
-----
Swindell, interviewed by telephone from Boise, Idaho, said the planned Generation Life protests are intended to discourage people from seeing the film, at least until they do their own research on Kinsey's life and works.

She said protesters would be handing out anti-Kinsey pamphlets and carrying signs with slogans like "Criminal, Not Hero."


See Story Here

No hate there!

Self-righteous hate, its a value now!
Our Collateral Damage

By Richard Cohen

Second Lt. Leonard M. Cowherd was killed May 16, 2004. He was 22. He was also a West Point graduate, so if you are looking for some way to mitigate the tragedy, that could be it. He chose the military. Of course he did not want to be killed, but he was a college graduate and a smart guy, and he understood the risks. In this, he was like a police officer or a firefighter -- something like that. They, too, understand the risks. So when something happens -- a building catches fire or some killer is cornered -- we pay people to do the dangerous work that we won't do ourselves. Is this more or less what we did in Iraq?

Maybe. Certainly, those who favored the war -- who palpably wanted it -- must have thought so. They must have seen it as necessary, and it may have helped that most of them -- President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the rest -- had never been in combat themselves, although plenty of those who had were in total agreement. Maybe it helps, too, to believe that the dead go to heaven, and so the end as I see it is not the end as they see it. Still, there is something awfully cold and mean about sending young people to die for what amounts to a geopolitical theory about the Middle East. Sorry, send your own kid for that.

See Whole Editorial Here
Neo-Con Mind Trick?

Karl Rove: "This is a mandate for the President."

US Press: "This is a mandate for the President."

51% of America: "This is a mandate for the President."

49% of America: "Don't be foolish fat man, your neo-con mind tricks will not work here."

--------

A 51 Percent Mandate?

By Brian FalerThursday, November 11, 2004; Page A06

Link

When is a mandate a mandate?

President Bush won more than 59 million votes last week -- more than any other presidential candidate in history and enough, his supporters have said, to claim a mandate. But other comparisons between this year's election results and those of previous contests suggest his win was somewhat less decisive.

Bush's unofficial three-percentage-point margin of victory, for example, was the fifth smallest since 1920. John F. Kennedy won in 1960 with 0.2 percent more votes than Richard M. Nixon. Nixon, in turn, won in 1968 with a slim 0.7 percent advantage over Hubert H. Humphrey. In 1976, Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald R. Ford by 2.1 percent. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral one. Conversely, 10 of the previous 21 presidential races were won by at least 10 percentage points -- and five of them were decided by more than 20 points.
What Kerry should have said on Wednesday

"My fellow Americans, the people of this nation have spoken, and spoken with a clear voice. So I am here to offer my concession.

I concede that I overestimated the intelligence of the American people. Though the people disagree with the President on almost every issue, you saw fit to vote for him. I never saw that coming. I concede that I misjudged the power of hate. That's pretty powerful stuff, and I didn't see it.

So let me take a moment to congratulate the President's strategists: Putting the gay marriage amendments on the ballot in various swing states like Ohio... well, that was just genius. Genius. It got people, a certain kind of people, to the polls. The unprecedented number of folks who showed up and cited "moral values" as their biggest issue, those people changed history. The folks who consider same sex marriage a more important issue than war, or terrorism, or the economy... Who'd have thought the election would belong to them? Well, Karl Rove did. Gotta give it up to him for that. [Boos.] Now, now. Credit where it's due.

I concede that I put too much faith in America's youth. With 8 out of 10 of you opposing the President, with your friends and classmates dying daily in a war you disapprove of, with your future being mortgaged to pay for rich old peoples' tax breaks, you somehow managed to sit on your asses and watch the Cartoon Network while aging homophobic hillbillies carried the day. You voted with the exact same anemic percentage that you did in 2000. You suck. Seriously, y'do. [Cheers, applause] Thank you. Thank you very much.

There are some who would say that I sound bitter, that now is the time for healing, to bring the nation together. Let me tell you a little story. Last night, I watched the returns come in with some friends here in Los Angeles. As the night progressed, people began to talk half-seriously about secession, a red state / blue state split. The reasoning was this: We in blue states produce the vast majority of the wealth in this country and pay the most taxes, and you in the red states receive the majority of the money from those taxes while complaining about 'em. We in the blue states are the only ones who've been attacked by foreign terrorists, yet you in the red states are gung ho to fight a war in our name. We in the blue states produce the entertainment that you consume so greedily each day, while you in the red states show open disdain for us and our values. Blue state civilians are the actual victims and targets of the war on terror, while red state civilians are the ones standing behind us and yelling "Oh, yeah!? Bring it on!"

More than 40% of you Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I'm impressed by that, truly I am. Your sons and daughters who might die in this war know it's not true, the people in the urban centers where al Qaeda wants to attack know it's not true, but those of you who are at practically no risk believe this easy lie because you can. As part of my concession speech, let me say that I really envy that luxury. I concede that.

Healing? We, the people at risk from terrorists, the people who subsidize you, the people who speak in glowing and respectful terms about the heartland of America while that heartland insults and excoriates us... we wanted some healing. We spoke loud and clear. And you refused to give it to us, largely because of your high moral values. You knew better: America doesn't need its allies, doesn't need to share the burden, doesn't need to unite the world, doesn't need to provide for its future. Hell no. Not when it's got a human shield of pointy-headed, atheistic, unconfrontational breadwinners who are willing to pay the bills and play nice in the vain hope of winning a vote that we can never have. Because we're "morally inferior," I suppose, we are supposed to respect your values while you insult ours. And the big joke here is
that for 20 years, we've done just that. It's not a "ha-ha" funny joke, I realize, but it's a joke all the same.

Today, I am also announcing my candidacy for President in 2008. And I make this pledge to you today: THIS time, next time, there will be no pandering. This time I will run with all the open and joking contempt for my opponents that our President demonstrated towards the cradle of liberty, the Ivy League intellectuals, the "media elite," and the "white-wine sippers." This time I will not pretend that the simple folk of America know just as much as the people who devote their lives to serving and studying the nation and the world. They don't. So that's why I'm asking for your vote in 2008, America. I'm talking to you, you ignorant redneck, perennially duped grade-school grads. Vote for me, because I know better, and I truly believe that I can help your smug, sorry asses.

Thank you, and may God, if he does in fact exist, bless each and every one of you."

JK