It's gonna be the Economy Stupid...

In difficulty, there is always opportunity. Following 9/11, several opportunities presented themselves to the United States. We could have used the tragedy to change our world-wide energy strategy- pioneering in developing new sources of energy and efficiency which would be the envy of the world. We could have followed up on early victories in Afghanistan to crush Osama Bin Ladin and his Taliban allies. But, of course, we did not.

Now, the United States is facing difficulties again. I've been listening to a series on NPR about economic impact in the US. I highly recommend it. People are hurting and they are frightened and those things are going to come into play in the next election.

The American People will be looking for their political representatives in Washington and State Governments to implement solutions. They will be right to do so.

They will want to see America's public treasury taken care of, not squandered. They will want to see our society find ways to embrace a growing global economy- WITHOUT surrendering our jobs and our livelihood. They will want to see our representatives close loopholes that allow our wealthy to skirt their duty to the society at large- to admit that even the self-made man cannot make money or acquire property without the help of others (workers, educators, policemen, firemen, etc.)

At the same time, I hope that the American people will not miss the opportunities that have been presented to them in the midst of their hardship. In the NPR series, for example, one woman complained that she had to think twice, no, three times before taking a car trip.

But that is precisely what we should be doing- in times of lean, and in times of plenty. We should be thinking- we should be acting responsibly. And we should be taking responsibility for ourselves and the world in which we live.

It is only be regaining self discipline, and by learning to distinguish what we "need" from what we "want" that America will find her way back to success.

Times are hard right now, but opportunity to change ourselves, gain strength and ... well, grow up...is also here.

I hope America will take her moment this time. If not, there are others who will take it from her.

McCain Confused or Worse

If you are on Howard Dean's mass mailing list for the Democratic Party, then you got this message too. Still, I think it is worth repeating and thinking about. John McCain has repeated the same gaffe several times.

The Democrats wrote:

Today, as he was questioning Gen. David Petraeus, he again confused the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

At least five times as a candidate John McCain has stated that Iran (a Shiite nation) is supporting Al-Qaeda (a Sunni group) in Iraq. This is not some minor mistake, but a significant gaffe. He clearly does not understand the sensitive political dynamics in that region of the world.

The website Media Matters has been tracking McCain's habit of misstatement, going back to the Middle Eastern Trip he took with Joe Lieberman in March.

Much of the mainstream media has been ignoring McCain's linking of Shiite Iran with Sunni Al Qaeda, treating it as a simple gaffe- but the fact is that McCain has made this mistake more than once.

In the face of McCain's repetitions, it is impossible for us not to remember the post 9/11 rhetoric of the Bush Administration, in which they cited Bin Ladin and Saddam in the same breath so many times that, for the American public, the two became linked, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence to support any conjecture that they acted together.

Is McCain displaying a severe case of absent mindedness? If so, we should think twice about his ability to act as commander in chief.

But if McCain is resorting to the same kind of rhetorical duplicity that got us into 9/11 in the first place, and set us back so far in the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, then there is no need to think twice...he is unfit and unworthy to serve.

And if McCain is truly unable to see a difference, then he is guilty of the same tendency that Americans have often displayed in their world view: to see only a monolithic conspiracy, where there are, in fact, cracks and divisions to be exploited.

It was this tendency to treat the Communist Block as a monolith that brought America to grief in Vietnam, and it was the genius of Nixon and Kissinger to recognize that the seeming monolith of Communism actually masked a network of fissures and fault-lines which could be used against the enemy.

It has been America's tragedy (and Iraq's as well, perhaps) that the Bush Administration has fallen into the trap (out of mendacity or stupidity or a nefarious combination of both) of the Monolithic Block.

America will need, as her next President, a person who knows EXACTLY what the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni is....and how to exploit it to bring stability back to the world.

John McCain doesn't seem up to the job.

Reviewing Recent History: Getting The Basic Premise Wrong

A few days ago, I started watching webcasts of the PBS documentary show: Frontline. As we enter the fifth year of war in Iraq, it has been both fascinating and frustrating to review this recent history and perhaps to better understand how we have arrived here.


In addition to the opportunity to watch, or re-watch, these episodes, Frontline provides extended transcripts of the interviews conducted for the program. Consisting of material that often wound up on the cutting room floor, these interviews can provide flashes of insight to those willing to peruse them.

In the Frontline film, "The Dark Side", Collin Powell's former chief of Staff, Lawerence Wilkerson was interviewed. While he spoke on camera about the tense relationship between the "moderates" (like Powell) and the "hawks" (Chaney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz)- but one of the most prescient things Wilkenson said is found in his extended interview transcript:

Carl von Clausewitz [says]... that you must make sure you identify the nature of the conflict you're in. You must. That's absolutely essential. If you misidentify that nature, you're not ever going to get back on the right sheet of music.

But from the beginning, Wilkerson implies, mistake the nature of the conflict we were involved in against Al Qaeda. Their impulse was to see it as a new version of the Cold War against the Soviet Union- a struggle which had shaped their careers molded their personalities.

[Cheney, Rumsfeld and others bought the notion] that Al Qaeda has the capability to destroy the United States of America, its institutions, its very being, much as a 20,000-plus nuclear-tipped missile [arsenal] had the capability to had we gone to war with the Soviet Union and everyone unleashed his full panoply of weapons. This is ridiculous. This is utterly ridiculous. It begins marching you down in your decisions this road that is full of dangerous and even inept decisions, because we're not in an existential conflict with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesn't even remotely have the capability to bring the United States down...[T]his is a conflict of ideas; it is not a conflict of bombs, bullets and bayonets. ...

Wilkerson describes a briefing he received from a CIA agent. If Al Qaeda was the top of a pyramid, then, at the base, are ordinary people throughout the Islamic world, who, while they do not personally advocate killing (and especially not the killing of fellow Muslims) nevertheless "went into mosques all around the world and put shekels, dinars, dollars in the second box, knowing full well that the second box was not for charity; it was not for the mosque; it was for Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-like organizations."


How many people are dropping money in the box, wondered Wilkerson. The answer came back: Between 40 and 100 million people around the world. Those people, Wilkerson says, are:

the center of gravity of this war, and you don't get at the center of gravity by killing it or by killing others. You get at that center of gravity by proving to them your ideas: that democracy is the best form of government; freedom is the best human condition; and market economies, open, free trade is the best way to prosper in those systems of governance; and violence and killing people is antithetical to that. That's how you win that conflict. It's a conflict of ideas. You have to capture the hearts and minds of those people who are putting the shekels, dollars, dinars in that second box in mosques all over the world. You don't do that with bombs, bullets and bayonets.

This is not new, of course, this has been part of the debate (such as it has been) in the United States for a few years...but it is chilling to think back on five years of violence and death- resulting, perhaps in a weakened America, all arising from the acceptance of a false premise about the nature of the conflict in Iraq.

Reviewing Recent History: Frontline Onliine

We don't have a TV in England (it's expensive, about $300 US just to by the government license that allows you to have a TV for a year). Fortunately the web has gotten to the point where it can provide information and entertainment on almost the same level.

Lately, I've been catching up on years of "Frontline", the PBS documentary show. One of beauties of "Frontline" springs simply from it's depth of focus. Unlike other news magazine shows, which spend a hour on four or five stories (not to mention the commercial breaks), "Frontline" devotes a full hour to one story.

This myopic focus allows them to trace a complex story thread, step by step, in a way that the viewer can follow and understand.

In addition, Frontline posts volumes of additional information and interviews on line...making it possible to delve deeply into the story- or sometimes beyond the narrative being focused on and into a separate but parallel lines of inquiry.

After broadcast, the shows are posted on line, where they can continue to be watched and used, rather than fading into the ether that is "yesterday's news".

This is probably the most important service the PBS program provides. Because it is often by going back and reading "yesterday's news" that we are able to get a clear grip on what is happening in our world today.

It is important to read "today's news" of course, but when we go back two, three, four years- we are often able to see in disparate events, which seem somewhat random at the time, a pattern which we did not fully recognize as it was unfolding.

I've been spending my last few evenings watching Frontline's reports about the War in Iraq- and I highly recommend them to anyone who can carve out a little time over the next few weeks
- instead of turning on "American Idol" or whatever is on tonight, pull up a chair next to your computer and spend an hour- the picture will be a lot smaller, but the sound is good, and you'll find yourself rivited by TV that feeds you mind rather than sucks it dry.

The shows that I've seen so far are here:

• Cheney's Law
• End Game
• The Dark Side

If you get a chance, to watch them, or watch them again, I'd love a discussion....come back and comment.

Signs of Peace on the Market Place

For many years to come, September 12th will be a day dedicated to reviewing what happened the day before. It will be strewn with artifacts from September 11th far into the foreseeable future.

Today, the Church Street Market Place is strewn with leftovers from yesterday's demonstrations marking 9-11.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, given the political climate in Burlington, the most prominent leftovers are peace signs, hurriedly scribbled on the brick street.

While I don't disagree with the underlying symbolism, I was very sad to see that people found it necessary to deface public property in order to make their point about George W. Bush's war.

I was sitting near the top of Church Street this morning, drinking my coffee, and I watched a Marketplace employee pull up his cleaning cart, pour some water over one of the poorly executed peace symbols and scrub hard with a bristle brush for a few moments. It quickly became clear that this piece of graffiti would not wipe away easily.

As he was driving away, presumably to collect a heavier arsenal of cleaning products, I asked him what he was going to have to do to remove the peace sign. "Well, probably, I'm going to have to use acid," he said. "The chalk ain't so bad, but when they use crayons or paints, it just soaks right into these old bricks."

Acid! I thought. And then I imagined the barefoot toddlers who would be running in and out of the fountain and across those acid covered bricks once the sun had climbed higher in the sky.

And how long, I asked, will it take to clean these up? "Oh, let's see, I've been at it since around seven this morning...it's almost 10 now, and I still haven't got too far...so, well, at least longer than three hours."

I suppose someone could look at these peace signs and think: "Cool. No matter how hard THE MAN scrubs, the truth won't rub out."

But I can't see it that way. All I could think of was the money we as a city were paying for this labor...we could have put it toward a band, or housing subsidies, or urban renovation.

But why not let the message stand? Of course the answer to that seems easy to me- but I'll be obvious...if you have the right to scribble peace signs, what would prevent someone else from scribbling swastikas?

"With great power comes great responsibility." Sure, it's a line from a Spiderman movie, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Being right is pretty powerful stuff...but with that, of course, comes responsibility. Attempting to spread a message of truth by putting graffiti on public property doesn't add to that power...it only detracts.

To put it another way...Adults take a stand and do something...very little children write on walls.

Inept: The Threat From Al-Qaida Grows

I have an email pen-pal who is very conservative. When challenged (on almost anything political), he almost inevitably responds with a jab toward the "Rad-Libs" (Radical Liberals- a group which seems to include everyone from Jane Fonda to the Clintons to Lee Iacocca and perhaps even including Republican Pete Domenici). In general, the refrain from the right reads as follows: "Well, perhaps you Rad-Libs will realize how wrong you are when Al-Qaida has blown up Boston. You just don't seem to get it: everything you say is helping the terrorists."

There is news today that will fuel the fires of the debate. The AP is reporting that: "A new threat assessment from U.S. counter-terrorism analysts says that Al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001."

Conservatives will use this report to say: "See? We told you so."

But the real question is: "George W. Bush has had SIX YEARS to deal with this very real threat. During FIVE of those years HIS PARTY held control of both houses of Congress. What the Hell is he Doing? Why is Al-Qaida STRONGER THAN EVER?"

The answer is, of course, that this President is either Inept, or Corrupt, or, most probably, both.

George W. Bush and his administration had the support of the Congress, the People of the United States and most of the World to send our military into Afghanistan, and demolish Al-Qaida once and for all.

Instead, they chose to use their opportunity to invade Iraq and attempt to secure it's oil supply for the United States. At the time of the United States action against Iraq, there was no Al-Quada presence in Iraq. But now, according to the reports:

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited Al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq."

In other words, we sent our troops to Iraq to fight an enemy that was not there when we arrived but who managed to get in AFTER we entered. Meanwhile, Bush has allowed Al-Qaida's forces to dribble across the boarder into Pakistan, where we have no political authority to pursue them.

The Clinton Card

Right-wing friends will, at this point, offer up their old Chestnut: Clinton Had Al-Qaida's Osama Bin Laden in his sights and failed to kill him.

Like a lot of propaganda, this is a distortion of the facts wrapped around a tiny nugget of truth. The Clinton White House did have Osama Bin Laden in their sights and did fail to act. MSNBC had the story here in 2004.


Yes, Clinton DID miss an opportunity, no doubt. It will be yet another imperfect spot on his imperfect record.*

However, just because Bill Clinton screwed up- this is no excuse to let George W. Bush off the hook.

As your mother used to say to you: "If Bill Clinton Jumped off the World Trade Center, would you do it too?"

What Now?

The AP article also includes this speculation:

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.

WHY? Why, every time this President Screws up, are the media and the right-wing noise machine able to drum up the argument that, because he has been so horribly wrong for so horribly long, that we need to give him MORE support?

This.
Makes.
No.
Sense.

But enough about Bush. This is what Democrats must do:

My right-wing friend is right about one thing: THERE IS A GRAVE ISLAMIC TERRORIST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.

This threat must be countered.

In the short term, we need to consolidate our military operations, and refocus the fight on AL-QAIDA...

In the long term, we must, WE MUST refocus our energy policy to find a way to cure ourselves of our oil addiction. As long as we are addicted, militant Islam will be our drug dealer.

That is a plain and simple fact.

*Postscript

And, of course, I'm not going to just sit here and let the "Clinton Chestnut" stand unchallenged. As the MSNBC article points out, when Clinton was hunting Osama Bin Laden in 1998, it was a very different ballgame:

A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.

Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”

In reality, getting bin Laden would have been extraordinarily difficult. He was a moving target deep inside Afghanistan. Most military operations would have been high-risk. What’s more, Clinton was weakened by scandal, and there was no political consensus for bold action, especially with an election weeks away.[emphasis added]

The American Public had not yet solidified their support for an all out war on Al-Qaida in 1998...at that point the largest terrorist attack in American History had not been perpetrated by Islamic Terrorists, but by home-grown right-wing nutballs in Oklahoma. Even the USS Cole attack (in October 2000) was two years in the future.

The situation for Clinton was muddy...and he bungled it.

The situation for Bush was crystal clear...and he screwed it up beyond belief, paying the price with thousands of American Lives.

It is not hard to know where the Lion's Share of the Blame belongs.

What If?Could we have broken our Oil Habit?

It is a sad truth that I buy books much faster than I can read them. Thus, the late John Kenneth Galbraith's 1994 work, A Journey through Economic Time has been sitting on my shelf since I purchased it, used, a few years ago.

This summer, however, it has finally made the the journey from bookshelf to nightstand...the book is full of nuggets, but here is one I just couldn't pass up.

In Chapter 20, "The Dim Years", Galbraith is describing the "stagflation" that gripped the economy of the 1970s: unemployment levels are rising along with prices, while the country is reeling from Vietnam, Watergate, and massive social upheaval. This is the environment which breeds Archie Bunker.

In the middle of all of this, Arab nations flexed their political muscles for the first time, sending gas prices flying and tempers soaring. It is not hard to make the argument that the mistakes we made then, and the policy we set (or failed to set) has helped push us into the current Iraq debacle with which we struggle.

Galbraith describes a meeting of Carter's advisers as they determine how to wrestle with the economic shocks of the 1970s...

Proposals for rationing the supply and the controlling the domestic price of petroleum products, the natural answer to embargo and an external control of supply, were dismissed out of hand. Urging a simple gasoline rationing program at a meeting of economists at Camp David in the summer of 1979 at the peak of the oil-price crisis, I managed only to establish myself as mildly eccentric.

If we had taken that advice then, if we'd broken our oil addiction, and thus the power that the Middle East wields over us...just imagine how different today might have been.

Democrats Loose TractionorShhh, shh, the GOVERNOR'S coming

Well, you know what they say...it's all fun and games until somebody looses an "aye".

Vermont Democrats have talked tough, but at the last minute, they ducked and swerved on H. 520. The picture at left shows my present opinion of Democratic Leadership. (And yes, I suppose some of my fellow bloggers are entitled to watch me eat a piece of humble pie at the blogger's barbecue.)

First, in an excess of politeness, they decided NOT to move the July 11th veto session until later in the year to give themselves more time and more votes to override the Governor's Veto on H.520.

From the AP (via Boston.com):

Symington had said the day before that she was contemplating delaying the
July 11 vote until September to accommodate some lawmakers that said they
couldn't make it to the Statehouse that day.
But Republican legislators
wanted the session held July 11, as scheduled.
"I've had a commitment from each and every one of the 49 Republicans to be there on July 11, but I know that Democrats don't have a full slate," said House Minority Leader Steve Adams, R-Hartland.
Symington said she decided not to change the date after speaking with the minority party caucuses.

That's what I like about Democrats...we're so NICE! We speak to the minority and make things convenient for them....and I'm sure, positive, that the Republicans would do the very same for us...they are such decent folk. (Careful, dear reader, or some of my dripping sarcasm will fall on your shoe.)

Now, after talking tough and even bringing AL GORE into the act...Vermont Legislators turned tail and dropped the tax on Vermont Yankee at the last minute...maybe, they begged Governor "BIG JIM" Douglas....you'll like us better now, please, sir, please?

And of course, the Gov. smiled and said, "No. I don't like you any better than I did before. I'm STILL going to Veto your bill. And now, I've taken your measure and found that you, despite your numbers, are lacking in strength, in determination, and will power."

And I'm sure we Democrats will growl, and show our tiny little yellow teeth, and then go cower in a dark hole somewhere.

This was a clear case of what we should do (H.520- combating global warming, promoting exciting new Vermont businesses, not giving Nuclear Power a cheaper tax rate than wind energy) and what we shouldn't do...

As a friend of mine just put it: "Sometimes, you have to draw the line and just stand there...win or loose."

Sometimes, it's the Heroic Last Stand (the Alamo, Masada, Roland and Rear-Guard) that gives others the courage to carry the fight to victory...but Vermont's Democrats have refused to do that. They have decided to play it very safe...

...and that makes me very sad, very sorry, and frankly, very much less likely to lick a stamp or write a check the next time around.

Republicans On Crime: Falling Down on the Job

Perhaps because they love to say things like "Dead or Alive" or "Bring 'em On" or "Lock 'em Up" or "Book 'em, Dano"--- Republicans have earned a reputation as being Tough on Crime.

Perhaps because we have looked to the root causes, have extended some sympathy for the conditions that breed crime, we Democrats have earned a reputation as being Soft on Crime.

But the fact is that it was a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who presided over the first DECREASE in violent crime in the last decades of the twentieth century.

Under Reagan, under Bush I, crime was up. Under Clinton, violent crime fell dramatically.

Now...the Republican’s are back, and so is crime. Coincidence? I think not.

Neither, apparently, do the Editors of Alabama's Huntsville Times. In my web search on this issue, I came across this editorial. I find it particularly fascinating, because this burst of common sense bubbles up from a Red, Red Republican Red state*

Violence is up; it will be expensive and difficult to reduce it.

If you think the illegal immigration problem is a thorny one to solve, check out the increasing incidence of violent crime. Not violent crime somewhere else; violent crime in Huntsville. The Rocket City's rate was up 18 percent from 2005 to 2006...

... What's the cause? The usual suspects. Here [is one]:

Not enough police. The money for federal grants that pay for more local officers has declined under the Bush administration. It has other spending priorities. And local governments haven't found the revenue to hire more police without federal help[emphasis added].

Now, here's the rub...WE HAD IT LICKED. (When I say "WE", I mean the Democrats, and, although my fellow blogger J.D.Ryan over at Five Before Chaos will HATE THIS, I mean SPECIFICALLY "we" Democrats of the more pragmatic, centrist type...i.e. The DLC.)

The COPs (or Community Oriented Policing) program was created as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement act of 1994. The program is described on the Department Of Justice website as follows:

the mission of the COPS Office is to advance community policing in jurisdictions of all sizes across the country. Community policing represents a shift from more traditional law enforcement in that it focuses on prevention of crime and the fear of crime on a very local basis. Community policing puts law enforcement professionals on the streets and assigns them a beat, so they can build mutually beneficial relationships with the people they serve. By earning the trust of the members of their communities and making those individuals stakeholders in their own safety, community policing makes law enforcement safer and more efficient, and makes America safer

More money to hire police, more pressure put on those police to become a part of their neighborhoods, to cut off crime at the source rather than serve as an occupying army...and crime fell during the Clinton years.

During George W. Bush's administration, however, COPs has been underfunded (and police officers have been pulled from their jobs at home to fight overseas in Bush's disastrous war) and Crime, according to the FBI is going up again.

An essay on the DLC website takes Bush to task:

Remember the great crime wave of the late 1980s and early 1990s? Well, we're beginning to get some nasty reminders of what it was like before the large and sustained -- and in some places dramatic -- drops in violent crime that America enjoyed for about a decade. Recently released FBI statistics showed violent crime up nationally in 2006 for the second year in a row, with particularly disturbing rises in murders and armed robberies in Midwestern cities.

Even as crime shows signs of making a big comeback, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans have consistently worked to undermine the crime-fighting initiatives of the Clinton years, cutting federal law enforcement assistance to states and localities by about $2 billion since 2002. At the same time, many police departments are struggling from personnel shortages (in part because police officers are disproportionately represented in the reserve and national guard units that have been called up for Iraq), higher costs, and new anti-terrorism responsibilities.

A particular target for the GOP has been the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program, the signature Clinton crime initiative that placed over 100,000 new officers on the streets in the late 1990s, and also strongly promoted the proactive, problem-solving policing strategies that showed such great success in reducing crime in many major cities...

Democrats are trying to reauthorize COPs...and yet this action is being held up by Republicans in the Senate...

Again, the DLC:

... it's time for Republicans to get over their strange antipathy toward the importance of police officers in fighting crime, and their reflexive opposition to any initiative identified with President Clinton. In anticipation of the unpleasant new crime statistics, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called for a national response focused on -- you guessed it -- longer mandatory sentences for those convicted of violent crimes. If we learned anything about crime-fighting in recent years, it's that smart policing can have a big impact on preventing crimes before they happen. It's certainly no time to deny police departments the help they need to turn around the upsurge in violent crime. And we encourage presidential candidates in both parties to make this a serious issue in 2008.

But, if the Republicans continue to have their way (which, I hope, is unlikely) then we are more liable to get something along the lines of what the Huntsville Timespredicts:

What we require are a variety of approaches that target all of the problems and promote a variety of solutions. Above all, we need, as a country, to embrace the noble concept that civility, not violence, should be a national virtue.

What we'll probably get is a "War on Crime" from a politician who will use the figures to scare us and to make it appear that the matter is being addressed.

But, in the meantime, crime creeps back into our cities, our once solid national financial strength seeps from between our fingers, and our once awesome position of respect throughout the world evaporates like ice in the sun...

Just another example of progress rolled back, and opportunity squandered...brought to you by the Bush Administration.

Post-Script

*(Although, I must admit, I don't know much about the Huntsville Time's editorial staff...they may be a bunch of liberal holdouts trapped in the heart of the Confederacy.)

Worth A 1000 Words

They Say A picture is worth a Thousand Words...so I'll leave you with this one.

Now What?

Yesterday, we got to read about how the Presidential Spokes-Goblins complained that the timing by Democrats in forcing Bush to Veto the Spending Bill near the anniversary of the Land-on-an-Aircraft-Carrier-and-declair-mission-accomplished speech by Bush was just a stunt designed to expose a....what? Legitimate Photo Op by the President?

Today, Bush has vetoed the suplimental spending bill which contained withdrawal deadlines. Bush said it would be stupid to tell the enemy when we were going to withdraw...but then, if, as the President said, the mission WAS accomplished...then what the hell are we still doing and dying there for?

The problem is that it will be difficult for Democrats to create a fallback strategy that works. Ultra-Liberals are going to vote for NO FUNDING if the bill doesn't talk about withdrawal. Moderate Democrats and Republicans will vote for funding without withdrawal timelines because we just can't leave our troops in the lurch. We can't hurt Bush without hurting them.

What should be done then?

Personally, I like the plan favored by the Democratic Leadership Council--- go ahead and vote the money...get the troops what they need...but only keep them in the field for a short time until the money Runs out, and Bush has to come back and ask for more... this will remind the American people of two things. 1) Democrats DO support the Troops, and 2) Bush's war strategy has been a complete failure which has cost far too much in both lives and treasure....

The "short leash" approach undermines the administration's classic Rovian tactic of polarizing the debate into a false choice between perpetual pursuit of failed policies and a precipitous withdrawal, with no rational "exit strategy" in either event. And forcing Bush back to the negotiating table quickly will also maintain unity among virtually all Democrats and some Republicans who agree that ending our combat role in Iraq

Read the DLC article here:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=254282


UPDATE

According to an AP Article posted this afternoon entitled, Veto Makes Democrats Weigh Concessions, :

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters ...``We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need,'' said Hoyer, D-Md.

Hoyer was reluctant to say exactly what the bill will look like, but said he anticipates a minimum-wage increase will be part of it. He also said the bill should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders would adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, R-Pa., to fund the war two or three months at a time.

In the article, Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying: ``The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him"

But, somehow, I fear that that is EXACTLY what is going to happnen.

Demonstrating Against Vermont's Congressional Delegation: Noise for the Sake of Making Noise?

Last week, a group of protesters staged a sit-in of Peter Welch’s office to protest his lack of willingness to end the Iraq war right this minute.

Yesterday a group of protesters did the same at Bernie Sanders’ office.

The demonstrators, irate that Sanders wasn't present and didn't join the telephone call, said they didn't understand why a war opponent would vote for funding. "The funding has got to stop," said Bunny Daubner, 75, of Bristol. "How can you say you're against a war and still give money to it?"

I understand the frustration; I share it, but good grief, what a USELESS way to focus one’s energy.

“I believe it would be counterproductive to take the position that some are advocating, namely to vote against anything that doesn't include an immediate or nearly immediate withdrawal from Iraq," Sanders said. "That would mean voting with the Bush administration and congressional Republicans and handing a victory to those who want to continue and perhaps expand the war into neighboring countries."-Burlington Free Press

Despite the ages of the protesters, it strikes me as immature grandstanding; I can’t help but think that they are secretly more than a little gratified to have gotten their names in the paper.

In fact, it’s worse than useless…

For one thing, in case these protesters have forgotten: many of us still have friends and relatives in Iraq. George W. Bush has made it quite clear that he is going to keep them there, and he has made it quite clear that he’s not all that concerned that they have the protection they need (body armor, for example) to be as safe as possible.

Would these protesters be willing to sacrifice the life of a young American Solider just to score a political point against Bush?

Also, by focusing their anger on strong potential allies like Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders, the protesters actually help to turn in the energy of the center-left coalition in on itself.

As George W. Bush has proved time and time again, he doesn’t NEED to maintain a majority to retain his hold on power; he simply needs to KEEP the majority divided against itself.

I am proud of the way Vermont’s Congressional Delegation is working to do the long, difficult and painstaking work necessary to knit the majority back together in order to accomplish the goals supposedly cherished by these protesters.

Between the growing scandals at Department of Justice, the recent revelations about Political Abuses at the GSA, and the growing dissatisfaction with the War held by the American public, this work is actually going faster than I would have dared to hope.

Given that, I think it is ironic that some have chosen to thank our delegation by trying to paint them as the enemy.

Vermont's Welch On The War: Turn the heat Up Another Notch

As I remarked yesterday, I am very heartened by what I am hearing. I am getting ready to take part in a winningbattle in 2008 to take this country back from those who have hijacked her and attempted pervert everything she stands for in the world.

This is going to be a long fight. It didn't start with Bush, perhaps it didn't even start with Reagan. But it seems possible that the balance may be shifting again.

As Winston Churchill might have put it: "This isn't the end. It isn't even the Beginning of the End. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

With these thoughts in mind, I enjoyed watching Vermont's Congressman, Peter Welch, deliver supplemental remarks on the floor of the House. Hope you like it too.


Rep. Peter Welch on Iraq Supplemental

Afterthoughts

After I wrote this this morning, I turned my attention to the Washington Post, and was dismayed to read the headline: "Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding".

Great. I thought. Here I am celebrating, and the liberals are Relenting. But then, I actually read the story.

The situation is not perfect. I would have preferred that the Bush administration be denied further funding for the war. However, this was not meant to be. But, as must always happen in a democracy, compromise allows for forward movement. Here are a few quotes from the story:

Liberal opposition to a $124 billion war spending bill broke last night, when leaders of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus pledged to Democratic leaders that they will not block the measure, which sets timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.

The acquiescence of the liberals probably means that the House will pass a binding measure today that, for the first time, would establish tough readiness standards for the deployment of combat forces and an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline for their removal from Iraq.

This is not the best news...but, Damn, it is GOOD news.

To the surprise of many antiwar activists, House Democratic leaders have been able to keep their conservative Blue Dog members largely onboard as they ratcheted up the bill's language. But with Republicans virtually united in opposition, Democrats can afford only 15 defections.

Consensus building is a GOOD thing...just ask Ned Lamont if the Daily Kos crowd can win on it's own.

When Democratic leaders first spoke of attaching strings to Bush's $100 billion war request, their biggest fear was that they would lose their conservatives. Since then, the bill has actually grown more assertive in its efforts to bring the troops home. [emphasis mine]Initial efforts to tie the deployment of combat forces to tough standards for resting, equipping and training the troops have been bolstered by binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet. If the Iraqis fall short, troop withdrawals could begin as early as July 1. In any case, the withdrawals would have to begin in March 2008, with most combat forces out by Aug. 31, 2008.

Again. There is a lot to be upbeat about...

A Message to Vermont Kossacks:Stop Peeing in the Grill, This Going to be A Great Party!

Because of household repairs, my computer has been offline for about a week. This means I haven’t been blogging. But I have been reading the news, and I am having a great time.

Still, that’s not true of everyone. Certainly, Bush hasn’t been having a great time. But it seems like there is faction over at the very lefty Green Mountain Daily who are not having as much fun as they should be, either.

So I have a message for them: CHEER UP! …and stop peeing in the bar-B-Que pit! This is shaping up to be a great party that’s going to go on until 2008, and then we are REALLY going open up the “whup ass” and have some fun!

[Just in case you missed it, Vermont Daily Briefing has a great post about the clean new wind scouring the land.]


The firing of the U.S. Attorney generals is NOT going to lead directly to an impeachment. The president can hire and fire U.S. Attorney’s at will, for good reason, or bad reason, or no reason at all. They serve at his pleasure. There is an excellent article on the subject by ADAM LIPTAK in the New York Times, March 18th.

However, MOST Presidents don’t fire U.S Attorney’s just for political reasons. It makes them look like they are, to quote (ha!) Bush himself: “On a Partisan Witch Hunt”.

It’s a lot of fun to see Patrick Leahy out in front like (as one commenter on GMD put it) “a junk yard dog”.

And it’s going to make Bush appear even more the twisted, tiny, ineffectual little man than he does already.

Much more of this and the American people will finally say: F#%k you! Both to the President and to the Party he rode in on.

Everything that Democrats have been saying is finally being proven true and the Republican bastards are starting to feel the heat.

So, why is it that when you go to an ultra lefty site like Green Mountain Daily, the mood is often SOOO dark that you feel like George W. Bush just go elected to a third term?

Consider this comment from JDRyan- somebody I have a lot of respect for- attached to an essay begging for “impeachment” (again!):

Is it just me
or are some of you baffled at how our delegation is hardly paying attention to this? I'm particularly shocked about Bernie.. considering his anti-Bush rhetoric is par for the course, you'd figure at least he'd be on board

Seriously: Leahy, Bernie and others have finally got the Bushies on the ropes, and are making them look like crooks and morons every day and night on the evening news. Yet, the Daily Kos “Kossac” crowd is all but accusing our congressional delegation of participating in some deep dark conspiracy to keep the Impeachment talk out of the State House.

Maybe they are correct. Maybe this is a Conspiracy of Power. But maybe, just maybe, these seasoned old political infighters have just a bit more experience than we are giving them credit for.

Maybe tricky old foxes like Leahy and Sanders know what’s possible, and what’s not possible, and how to use reality to their credit to bring the Bush Blitzkrieg to a stop.

I’d love to see Bush be humiliated and removed from office, but much more importantly, I’d love to see the damage he has done be reversed.

Frankly, I’d say that Pat Leahy and Bernie Sanders and most of the rest of the Democrats are off to a damn fine start.

So...What Happened In February? Henry Waxman Follows the Missing Money... Continued

Cross Posted at Green Mountain Daily


The question sort of just hangs out there...what happened to the TONS of cash that the U.S. shipped to Iraq?

That's right...TONS of cash. According to a Denver Post Article, 363 tons, to be exact. In true better late than never fashion, I started following this February story just as March was rolling over the horizon...oh, but what interesting reading it is...if only you can find it.

I'm going to post a link to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform here at Rip and Read.

That way, I might remember to check it out from time to time- if I rely on the "Liberal Media" to keep me informed, I'll grow old.

In the meantime, here's part of an opening statement by Chairman Waxman. As you may recall, his congressional committee is looking into the billions of dollars that has simply disappeared in Iraq.

You can find more committee documents at: http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1175, if you can stand to read more:

Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Hearing on "Iraq Reconstruction: An Overview"
February 15, 2007

Last week, our Committee focused on the $12 billion in cash that our government sent to Iraq.

We learned that no one knows what really happened to that money or even whether it ended up in the hands of terrorists. All we know is that the cash is gone and billions were wasted.

Today we get more bad news. The Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency is going to testify that there are more than $10 billion in questioned and unsupported costs relating to Iraq reconstruction and troop support contracts.

This estimate is three times higher than the $3.5 billion in questionable charges that the Government Accountability Office warned us about last year. And in this new report, $2.7 billion in suspect billings are attributed to just one contractor: Halliburton...

Even worse, the actual amount of waste is likely even higher. The Defense Contract Audit Agency arrived at its $10 billion estimate after reviewing only $57 billion of Iraq contract spending.

But American taxpayers have already spent over $350 billion for the war in Iraq. There's $300 billion still to audit. The total amount of waste, fraud, and abuse could be astronomical.

Let's add it up. Last weekÂ’s $12 billion in cash and today's $10 billion in questionable charges combines for $22 billion. And there's still the potential for tens of billions more in waste.

It's no wonder that taxpayers all across our country are fed up and demanding that we bring real oversight to the "anything goes" world of Iraq reconstruction.

Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, will tell us about a particularly egregious example of wasteful spending. It involves the State DepartmentÂ’s contract with DynCorp to train and equip the Iraqi police.

...the government could not demonstrate that it had actually received tens of millions of dollars in critical equipment, including armored vehicles, body armor, and weapons.

This is the equipment that is supposed to be going to the Iraqis so they can take up the fight and allow our U.S. service members to come home.

... I want to assure the American people that we aren't going let a handful of corporations walk away with enormous windfalls while thousands of American soldiers are sacrificing everything to defend their country.

...To Be Continued.

So...What Happened In February? Henry Waxman Follows the Missing Money

February is almost over...what happened this month?

Well...Anna Nicole Smith died.

And, some astronaut put on a pair of diapers and raced crazily across the south to do something horrible to somebody in some lover's quarrel.

And Henry Waxman began holding hearings.

Who?

About what?

If you don't know, I'm sure you are not alone.

I mean, I didn't know until recently. I've been busy this month, and the only news I was seeing was the news that was easy to find (the headlines I see in the newspaper box on my way to work, or as I open my email program)

...My Dad had to point it out to me...and it still took me a week to go searching for it...

Here's the scoop:

According to the Denver Post :

House Democrats on Tuesday [2/6] grilled the former U.S. administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, demanding that he account for billions of dollars distributed in Iraq that no one seems able to trace.

Much of the questioning focused on $12 billion - mostly in $100 bills packed in huge bundles, 363 tons of cash in all - from Iraqi oil sales and frozen assets of Saddam Hussein's regime. The U.S. shipped the money to Iraq for Bremer's organization to disburse to Iraqi ministries.

Okay- granted, the audit was done back in 2005, and we did hear something about this then- but with the D.O.P. (that would be: Damned Old Party)firmly in control...we sure didn't hear much about it.

Now, it's finally being looked into-- and what are the headlines that are catching my eye? Bush Administration questioned about missing Billions? No...that's not it. Instead, we are captivated by a diaper-wearing astronaut and the death of Smith.

This is a big deal, of course, because it is quite possible that the missing money has found it's way directly into the hands of some VERY BAD PEOPLE and that many of the wounded soldiers languishing in hospitals today were put there with U.S. Taxpayer funded bullets*.

Again, From the Denver Post:

Oversight committee chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said that with no clear standards, it was possible that some of the money ended up in enemy hands.

But are we hearing about any of this? Bush Bankrolls The Terrorists? for example? Nope...hardly a peep...at least, not ABOVE the fold.

That damned old Liberal Media...they sure don't give those Republicans a fair shake, do they?

Yes... I KNOW it's my responsibility to stay informed...but, then, I might have looked more deeply into the news if I'd been given some indication that I would find something more valuable than the contents of Lisa Nowak's diaper.

Postscript

Note: Administration apologists, like L. Paul Bremmer, are quick to point out that these are "funds belonging to the Iraqi people …these are not appropriated American funds." But this simply obscures the issue...it was held by the Federal Reserve, shipped to the war zone on our planes, and may well have fallen into the hands of the enemies of our soldiers. So, I don't feel the phrase "Taxpayer funded bullets" is all that inaccurate.

Not only that, but according to Waxman's opening statement in these hearings, in addition to sending more troops, the President also wants 1.2 billion dollars...but if these guys can loose 12 billion dollars, a mere 1.2 billion should go in record time...and, in this case, it IS our money.

The Feingold Bill What Will Peter Welch Do?

“By passing my legislation, Congress can respond to the will of the American people and force the President to safely bring our forces out of Iraq. “With the President set on pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power -- it’s because it doesn’t have the will.”

The above quote is from Senator Russ Feingold’s explination of his recently introduced Senate Bill. The purpose of this bill is explicit: Use the Congressional power of the purse, and bring our troops safely out of Iraq within six months following passage of the bill.


I’ve done a lot of thinking about this, and I still have not come up with the answer. The deepest feeling part of me says: End it now. Bring them home.

It goes without saying that I feel that George W. Bush should go down in posterity as the President who committed the single worst strategic blunder in all of our history.

At the same time, now that he has gotten us there, what is the best way to exit the field? I’m not going to go in to my thought process now…if you want to know more, you can read a blog entry called “Checkmate” and the comments that followed the next day…I posted that back in October, and I still haven’t found any answers.

But that’s not really the point right now…the point is…what we should do? J.D. Ryan, author of the blog “Five Before Chaos” knows what he is going to do. And he knows what he’d like you to do.

Senator Leahy (our Vermont Senator, for any of you reading out of Vermont) is already on board. I haven’t heard the news yet, but I’d bet a quarter that Senator Sanders will be along any minute now. So the Vermont delegation to the U.S. Senate is covered.

A similar resolution has been introduced in the U.S. house…the question is…what will our new U.S. Congressman Peter Welch do?

Here’s J.D. Ryan:

Anyways, as we hear all the talk of Welch not going far enough, etc. , here's how to put him to the test. Call his VT office at 888-605-7270 or his Washington office at 202 225-4115 and tell them that you want Welch to publicly express support of Feingold's bill, and that 'symbolic resolutions' are meaningless, and don't go far enough. And remember, be nice.

I’ve enjoyed sparring with J.D Ryan over at Green Mountain Daily and on his own blog. I encourage you to check out Five Before Chaos and look for him over on GMD.

I think that I’m leaning toward calling Welch myself…and if, unlike me, you are unburdened with the “Hamlet Syndrome of the Centrist” and KNOW what you should do…then by all means, DO IT. Call or email your Senators and Congressmen.

What to know how? Here’s a great place to start:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
A Handy Little Tool, built at taxpayer expense, just for you.

The Senate is here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm