“AN IRAQ INVASION/OCCUPATION COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS”

Or, Why the Conservative Thing to Do Would Be to Leave Iraq Instantly

The exact figures are a little hard to confirm, but it certainly looks like the number of US troops killed from the initial invasion of Iraq through Saddam’s toppling was only a few hundred. Even counting all the deaths back home on 9/11 itself, the combined total is still less than we have lost since the occupation/pacification of Iraq started dragging into infinity.

The comparison between our pre and post occupation losses is even more pronounced if we count all casualties including mental problems, not just the deaths. Once we start looking at dollar figure drains on our treasury and economy from just conquering versus sticking around for “peace keeping” and “nation building,” the adverse cost comparison becoming truly staggering.

What that suggests is we should pull out immediately and say we will be back if they ever try anything again we don’t like such as looking at us cross-eyed. (After all, since they didn’t really have anything to do with 9/11 or have the nukes we thought, it must have been the Saddam’s sneer that justified invading).

It certainly calls into question the thinking of those who insist we must stay to keep them from attacking us later. Haven’t any of those geniuses who got us into this mess and want to keep us there ever heard of that quaint concept called cost/benefit analysis?

[more irreverence at resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]

“BUSH’S BUNGLING BARRISTERS”

Or, Why Do the Republicans Only Procure Problematic Prosecutors?

If anyone in the Republican Party had the common sense of an elephant, they’d promptly fire whoever is in charge of recruiting Republican prosecutors. Think about it. Is the entire GOP utterly incapable of finding even one truly competent lawyer within its ranks?

Look at the disaster of Special Prosecutor Ken Starr - millions of dollars and hundreds of staff utterly wasted for years chasing Clinton. It is hard to believe nothing could be uncovered in any of thousands of White Water transactions scrutinized.

Look at the White House counsel selections, Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Myers. They earn the title of Dumb and Dumber. Or perhaps Torquemada and Toots.

Look the circus created by the entire upper echelons of what probably should be renamed the InJustice Department. Monica Gooding for instance came from a law school of the quality that advertises on matchbooks, a place where you “learn” more about the rulings of Jehovah than the rulings of Judge Learned Hand. Out of the tens of thousands of lawyers annually applying for government legal jobs, surely they could have done better than Ms. Out-of-her-League Gooding.

Was she there primarily to make the newest boss, Alberto Gonzales, appear well qualified in contrast? If so, that failed too. The Gonz has proven to be so incompetent himself, he should be referred to as the “Attorney Corporal,” certainly in comparison to John Ashcroft, the prior Republican Attorney General. Of course, that particular boob’s own stature was no great shakes on the universal scale either (as illustrated by his insistence on covering the statute of Justice so that a bare bosom would not show). Remember, Ashcroft only got the top legal beagle job offer in the first place because he was available due to him being so bad at politics he lost his bid for a congressional seat to a dead man.

The dry rot penetrates all levels. As hard as it is to believe, the Keystone Koppers selected by the present Administration to showcase its machoness by bringing captured alleged terrorists to justice are even worse. In the trial of Jose Padilla for example, a self proclaimed and loudly so terrorist, they couldn’t get the death penalty even though the defendant had openly confessed to all the crimes. In fact, due to the federal prosecutor’s committing serious ethical violations during the trial while prepping its witnesses, they came damned close to having all charges dismissed by the judge. Incompetence, they name is Republican prosecutor. The nincompoop prosecuting that case made even “Heckofa job” Brownie appear talented in comparison. It makes you wonder if the Republican prosecutors can be trusted to tie their own shoe laces without an instruction manual written in words of one syllable.

Not a week seems to go by without a fresh revelation of misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance by Republican hired prosecutors. Could they have “passed” their bar exams the same way Bush was “voted” into office in Florida or Ohio? Perhaps Diebold has the concession on electronic grading of bar exams.

The latest fiasco involves the boneheaded prosecutors at Gitmo who managed not only to get three terrorist trials kicked for lack of jurisdiction, the results threaten the entire system of prosecuting those detainees. If you were Al Queda, you’d never want the Republicans to lose power. Despite stripping the Constitution to arm themselves with vast new investigatory and prosecutory weapons that would have delighted Stalin, Republican selected prosecutors still seem to end up shooting themselves in the foot. So much for the idea that it is the Republicans who will protect us from criminals.

Why have the Republicans been so uniformly ineffective in finding and hiring competent attorneys who happen to be Republican? Obviously, there must be many gifted as well as honorable attorneys who register as Republican. Perhaps it is because the “deciders” on who gets the jobs fiercely value loyalty to the Republican platform over expertise, experience, ethics, business sense or even common sense. Actually, it is personal loyalty to Bush that is even more important than loyalty to traditional GOP principles since, after all, Bush seems to ignore much of what the Republicans once stood for. Either way, loyalty is definitely deemed more sought after in candidates than such trivialities as upholding and defending the Constitution as called for in the sworn oath of office of federal prosecutors. Either way, truth, fairness, impartiality and justice for all, once the defining objectives for our justice system get short shrift when Republicans are picking those who prosecute.

One only has to look at the recent firings of the eight regional Attorney Generals. There are only 91 AGs altogether. Canning eight represented almost a tenth of the total. Most astonishing of all is that they were all Republicans and fired not for incompetence (which would be a good reason), but for not being enough of a salivating Bush Savant.

The apparent goal, overtly professed, was to convert the entire Justice department and all its bureaucrats into an arm of the Republican party dedicated toward one goal, achieving a permanent Republican dictatorship. They apparently did not feel they could achieve their goal by mere persuasion or the power of their ideas. They resorted instead to just grabbing power. However, since not everyone who grew up loving our country believes the system should be corrupted for that purpose, not even all Republican zealots, perhaps that explains why only underachievers achieved prosecutor appointments when Republicans are appointing.

In one sense, we probably should be thankful. If the Republicans had selected competent lawyers, their heavy handed attempt to convert our democracy to a permanent Republican controlled dictatorship might have succeeded. Let us hope they don’t find someone better at locate competent Republican prosecutors. That way, the next Administration will get to spend a lot of time prosecuting Republicans.

“WHO LOST IRAQ?”

Or, Damn the IEDs! Full Speed Astern!

Another Memorial Day has come and gone. Looking at all the white marble monuments marching orderly over the graveyard hills it makes me remember it’s been a monumental half decade or so of wasted effort in Iraq with enough new monuments accumulated to build a monolith. Enough blood spilled to float a battleship. Enough money burnt to have powered up all kinds of alternative energy plants so we wouldn’t even need to crudely steal the crude oil buried under that desert.

If memory serves, it’s been a time span stretching longer than either of our other World Wars. And, those were wars where we conquered vastly greater forces than the handful of terrorists taunting us do today, forces who back then indulged in even greater evils than suicide bombers, beheadings and IEDs. Unfortunately, the Middle Eastern wars soaking up all our efforts these days threatens to be infinitely longer than our longest bellicosity to date, the Vietnam fiasco. Worse, it is continually getting worse rather than better. And, every determination of whether and how to disengage appears to be dictated by a delusional dimwit whose track record has been one of ruination of almost every job undertaken his entire life, someone who even got his jobs and positions in the first place only out of favoritism, family fortune or fanaticism. So, maybe it’s finally the moment in time to figure out who lost Iraq.

Yeah, I know. We haven’t had the desperate heli escape from the embassy rooftop just yet, but Iraq is lost. Really, the only thing other than the final body count and treasury scraping is to assign blame.

Who deserves the blame for the colossal disaster that is breaking our military, bankrupting our treasury, losing our friends, lost our honor, killed our children, mortgaged our future, and made us a nation of habitual hypocrites? Or, possibly even more degrading and pitiful - a laughing stock, a gaggle of buffoons lead by a clown. Who gets the well earned loser label for the next 50 years or so as to why we will ultimately be kicked ignobly out of Iraq, not matter what we call it to disguise the defeat?

Hmmm. Let’s see. It was Bush who picked this fight, in fact already sought it well before the excuse arrived. It was Bush who ignored evidence an invasion of Iraq was not needed and then lied to us about what he was going to do and why. It was Bush who abandoned as “quaint” all the time tested, non-lethal, inexpensive options to accomplish the alleged goals. It was Bush who insisted we could do it on the cheap and that the Iraqi’s would strew our path with flowers. It was Bush who got absolutely everything he wanted to play with. Troops, weapons of mass destruction, literally pallets of cash were all his for the asking. He even got, although he did not openly ask for it, a secret trashing of the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the New Testament, not to mention just about every useful history, social studies, psychology, games theory and statistics book ever written. It was Bush who fired all the guys who guessed right about what would happen and promoted all those who got it horribly hopelessly wrong. It was Bush festooning his disciples with so-called “Metals of Freedom” for crushing freedom. It was Bush who continues to close his ears (and what passes for his cognitive mind) to the advice of those who have proved far wiser and more experienced than anyone around him on the subject of the Middle East factionalism.

It was Bush who chose to ignore the one successful military tactic his pappy proved could work in the Middle East given our small army of high tech toys; i.e. build a genuine coalition, smash the enemy hard, then promptly leave after announcing “We’ll be back if you ever scare us again.” That actually accomplished what was needed. (Yes Georgie, Saddam did have a nuclear weapon program; however, between the Israelis and your dad, it was smashed long before 9/11.) If we had done that (i.e. quick thrashing and exit), we not have exposed our vulnerabilities. There would not have been time to play on our divisions. They might still be scared of us if we did.

Even without the coalition, we could have destroyed Saddam’s offensive capability and not totally destabilized the region for our few friends if we just got out quickly. We could actually have done it on the cheap with few men; provided, we got skipped the “nation building” you yourself claimed wouldn’t work. Flipflopper. Granted, we would still have been an aggressor nation to launch a pre-emptive strike, the kind we used to say we despised when others did it. The killing of innocent men and women without a real cause has a cost, but it could have worked for the limited purpose originally claimed of insuring no nukes. Laughable though it may sound today, we might have been applauding Bush as a genius if he had simply followed his father’s play book. Think about it. That route could have avoided almost all the disasters that have followed from Bush Junior’s attempt at a “Penny Ante Putsch.” Bush would still be an embarrassing, merit less hack. Nevertheless, at least he would not be going down in history as the worst President - EVER.

So, since it was the Great “Decider,” Bush the Second, from day one choosing absolutely everything as to why, when, what, where, who and how and who continues to make all the wrong decisions on strategy and tactics. Since it remains Bush, Bush, Bush, gleefully smirking, taking vacations, and announcing Mission Accomplished despite every evidence to the contrary that his course was and is folly. And, since the only surge is in flag draped body bags, WHO LOST IRAQ?

Why, the Congressional Democrats of course. Them and, their dithering diarists, the Main Stream Media.

What? You thought I would say Bush? That would be like picking on a flounder for being flat. Yes, of course he did all those things alluded to. Maybe we should convert the Chief Crazy Horse Mountain carving into a Chief Crazy Bush sculpture. We need something that large to depict the monstrous scale of his frat boy follies. At the same time, there was a force in existence that could have, should have, stopped that infantile infection on the body politic. A force that was educated, trained and put into place for the primary reason of distinguishing fact from fiction and doing something about it. Unfortunately, the Congressional Politicians and the Press seem to be too gullible, too clueless, too lazy, too gutless and/or too ineffective to discover, prevent or halt the child hiding in the Oval Office from wreaking his malicious malodorous mischief. For that reason, as the adults on the scene, to their everlasting shame, it is the Congressmen and the Press who lost Iraq.

There is still a chance to redeem themselves. Not “win” Iraq. Not restore our soldier’s lives or our lost trillions. None of those are possible any more. That may have been possible at one time, but it cannot be done now, not at any price a sane person would be willing to pay.

Hint: the Democrats currently in charge and any political pundits with credibility left might try reading the Constitution. Humbled and marginalized though it has become, there is still some pretty good reading there. Try Article II, Section 4 for starters. In other words, between now and 2008, the Congressional Democrats should finally act like the adults they are supposed to be and take away Bush’s dangerous toy, the Presidency. You can take out his attack dog and consigliere simultaneously if they scare you, but take them out you must.

If it does not happen by then, we ought find some competent replacements who can do the job.

“A STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND THE PREZ’S PUZZLING PENNY ANTE APPROACH TO HIS SUPPOSED STRUGGLE FOR CIVILIZATION”

Or, 10 Questions to Terrify Bush about His War Against Terrorist States

Our feckless leader, George Bush, continually proclaims in increasingly strident rhetoric that continuing to occupy the countries we invaded is important. Nay, vital to our future. He insists it is not merely an ego trip or an attempt to steal oil or a chance to wear a flight suit and pretend he is courageous, but a “struggle for civilization itself.”

Okay, let’s take him at his word for the moment. Perhaps he has better information than the entire rest of the world. Perhaps he accidentally got something right. Perhaps God does speak directly to him.

In any event, his call to arms is a serious proposition and deserves full consideration. We are willing to march into the abyss and indulge his every vainglorious whim. BUT... if this is truly a “struggle for civilization itself” as asserted, if this is truly a task suggested directly to Bush by the voice of God himself, if this is truly the most important aspect of the current Administration, then we have some questions.

Dear President Bush . . .

1. Why aren’t you demanding your own children join the military? It looks like the military could use every warm body available if what you say is accurate. Even if the girls are addiction prone or even fearful cowards like yourself, they could still scrubs pots and peal potatoes in a military Mess Hall if nothing else and free up others for combat.

2. In fact, why aren’t you instituting a draft to induct all the children of your fellow Warhawks into the War’s efforts? Don’t we need them for the “surge” before the Army if permanently broken?

3. Why aren’t you donating your vast family fortunes, particularly the unearned portions, to either the War’s efforts or its side effects? After all, you presumably won’t need it if you fail and civilization collapses into barbarism. Show us you mean what you spout by sacrificing to the cause what you Republicans treasure most - your personal treasure.

4. While we are on the subject, why aren’t you taxing your friends who are making billions war profiteering by price gouging and jailing the many who are engaging in theft and corruption? Make them give it all back so that we can fund your follies.

5. Why aren’t you using all the tools at your disposal such as the diplomatic ones that have proven to work in the past? We realize that you are terrible at diplomacy. Anyone who gropes the female head of state for Germany on TV obviously hasn’t a clue in that regard. Nevertheless, there are some talented people out there assuming you haven’t finished culling all the career foreign service employees in the State Department yet because they might be secret Democrats.

6. Since you are always talking about how we must do things if there “is even a 1% chance” they might be successful, how about offering your testicles to Iran for instance in return for a halt to their nuclear weapons program and full inspections? They could brag about it, but we wouldn’t care if it worked. Either way, it would be a literally minuscule price to pay and well worth it if we got what you have been demanding from them. Surely there is a 1% chance of it working. Moreover, it would not even be painful with anesthetics.

7. Why aren’t you instituting a crash project to completely eliminate the need for gasoline? Of course, that would bankrupt your oil buddies, but look how much it would harm those states that don’t like us like? It would remove a major source of their power over us not to mention reducing their ability to build weapons of mass destruction.

8. Since your own efforts seem to be failing miserably, why aren’t you resigning so that someone more competent can complete the task?

9. Why aren’t you at least firing those who have been proven wrong and rehiring those who got it right? Get rid of all those hacks who were appointed solely because they were Republican campaign contributors, but haven’t been doing a “heckofajob.” Give them a Medal of Freedom, which is not longer worth anything anyway, and terminate them.

10. Why don’t you stop smirking? It may take plastic surgery to do it, but we simply cannot take you seriously as long as you look like a frat boy just back from a panty raid.

The bottom line is that we don’t mind following you if this is a struggle for civilization. We are civilized folks and want others to be civil even if we have to kill them to civilize them.

We don’t mind, well, we don’t mind too much, enduring sacrifices if what is at stake is really a new Dark Ages, but we are not stupid. Well, at least most of us are not stupid, at least those not currently appointed by you to run government agencies.

The point is we don’t blindly follow leaders anymore like your namesake, George Custer. At least, we don’t do so forever. So, if you are going to insist this is a struggle for civilization, logic says you too must act like it.

We allowed you to get away with the “Do as I say, not as I do” scheme back in the Vietnam era when you were hiding from combat while ponticating that others should die in your place. That was back when you were just the drunken frat boy living off your rich parent’s money though. That only works once. Now you are the President. The “Exampler” as well as the “Decider.” Consequently, act the part if you want us to believe you. Be the First Family to do the things that need to be done.

In other words, answer the questions and then we can discuss what to do about the struggle for civilization. Until you do, we see it as merely a struggle to keep you from wrecking the place until we can throw you and your friends out.

"A VOCABULARY TEST"

Question: What is a synonym for gutless, spineless, fearful, weak-willed cowards?

Answer: Congressional Democrats!

I would call them chickens, but in actuality poultry is far more courageous than most elected Democrats. Perhaps the Democrats should trade in the jackass and adopt the amoeba as a symbol.

Why the outburst of name calling you ask, particularly when Bush is obviously infinitely worse on all counts? Well, normally, calling an adult a derogatory name has little effect. It is, or should be, the old "sticks and stones" response once we are past kindergarten. But, apparently calling the Congressional Democrats names scares the hell out of them and goads them into action. Or, in the case of Bush calling them "surrender monkeys" on Iraq, cowers them into inaction.

Perhaps calling the Congressional Democrats names for knuckling under to Bush's vetoes and not taking the difficult course of finally getting out of that Middle East fiasco might counterbalance their fear accumulated from being falsely labeled by Republican war hawks as supposedly "not supporting the troops" or the biggest lie of all - "losing Iraq."

The Congressional Democrats seem to bend in the wind coming from blowhards in the White House. Perhaps if the wind blows hard enough the other way with countervailing accusations of the same specious type, they might finally stand up and stay standing up for long enough to do what is right and needed. Get us out of the folly overseas.

“TRAFFICKING IN IDEAS”

Or, Alternate Ways to Eliminate Traffic Jams

The May 7, 2007 US News & World Report cover story was entitled “America’s Worst Commutes.” The article bemoaned the nation’s growing traffic jams and how people were wasting valuable time stuck on the roads trying to get to work.

The traffic jam problem is serious, but it is a self inflicted wound. Unfortunately, the reporter on the topic spent his column space merely repeated the usual homilies (mass transit, special lanes, etc.) while belittling some promising, while admittedly partial, solutions and choosing to ignore others entirely or was negligent in uncovering them.

For instance, there are primarily only two city models in the US - the “LA model” where housing and business are widely separated and the “San Francisco model” where they are not. Sadly, the former with its freestanding houses, each surrounded by large lawns and cul-de-sacs going nowhere, has been declared as well as promoted by publications like US News over the years to be the American dream. Zoning laws now expressly forbid usage mixing in most of the country. In other words, residential zones are here and the places where they must go when they wake up are way over there. Consequently, people cannot walk to work, restaurants or entertainment. A potential elimination of a major chunk of the resulting vehicle traffic problem would be to change the zoning laws and/or provide incentive for workplaces to be near home much like groceries and schools are (or at least used to be).

There are other, more subtle, ways to discourage the sad LA model we have spent the last six decades building. A massive tax on gas, second cars, and parking spaces would provide a market incentive. (If the new revenue generated was used to fund alternative energy sources, that would be a bonus.) There would surely be hardships and dislocations with those who chose unwisely to live in the barren ‘burbs, but perhaps less than feared and assuredly it would be better to do it now before permanent grid lock develops. (Rationing works too, but there are more possibilities for favoritism, cheating and corruption with that type of approach.)

There are also better and cheaper techno fixes too than the ones the US News reporter bothered to mention. For example, encouraging new ways to work and shop at home helps. Is going to the office from 9 am to 5 pm five days a week the only practical way to produce? Surely not. What about supervision, you say? Hard to see if a worker is sleeping on the job if he is at home? That is where new and even off the shelf technology, such as keyboard monitoring, might be useful. If you can monitor your pets from the office over the internet and if customer service can be provided from India, why can’t home workers be appropriately supervised using some of the same techniques? Although, the real test ultimately is, or should be, what and how much the worker produces rather than where and how it is done.

About thirty years ago, I was caught in traffic stalled in a snowstorm watching a ski tourer pass me on the way to work at Downtown Denver. The normal half hour one way trip was increased to two hours. I vowed never again to live further away than I could walk to work. The unintended consequence of that decision was that over the decades it has been almost like finding an eighth day in each week. I suddenly had use of ten to twelve hours per week, 500 hours a year or more, I could devote to other things thanks to not being forced into a car, breathing fumes that same length of time. And, that doesn’t count the small fortune unspent on gasoline, not to mention keeping that money out of the hands of oil producing counties and companies who seem to hate us.

The next time an investigative report is done on the subject, it would be nice for the country if the investigators dug deeper. They should interview those innovating rather than just those wringing their hands.

“THE NEW ‘IMPROVED’ OATH OF OFFICE FOR POLITICAL APPOINTEES”

From the Office of Attorney Generalissimo Alberto Gonzales

“I, (insert name of incompetent hack) , pledge undying personal loyalty to El Jefe, the glorious George Armstrong Custer Bush, and do solemnly swear exclusive allegiance to the current Republican Platform of military aggression, class warfare, religious indoctrination, arrogance, and intolerance for which it stands.

As to the quaint old Constitution, I promise to uphold at least the Second Amendment and whatever specific part gives sole power to the President to rule everyone else without question. I reserve the right however to invoke the Fifth Amendment when I am caught shafting the Constitution or a Congressional Page/Intern, whichever comes first. Oh yeah, I also promise to obey some of the Ten Commandments if they do not inconvenience me too much.

I understand that I serve to pleasure the President. I also understand I will be fired if ever my performance at torturing terrorists, traitors, illegal immigrants and Democrats (which are all often one and the same) fails to exceed the political aspirations of my boss because firing for lack of political zealotry and poor job performance are hereafter one and the same.

I swear this so help me God, God Jehovah of the Old Testament of course (not that wimpy liberal Jesus of the New Testament). And, except when the FCC can hear me, I will faithfully and fully swear at anyone who disagrees on anything.”

[Footnotes from the Federal Human Resources Department to all new Republican Appointees regarding oath taking: (1) “When do I get my Medal of Freedom?” should not to be the first question after giving the oath. (2) Once the oath is given, you can no longer lie to Congress until you have cleared the exact wording of the lie with Karl Rove. (3) promptly make an appointment with the Preventive Maintenance Department to have a computer specialist show you how to permanently delete embarrassing e-mails. And, (4) meetings with your future campaign exploratory committees and interviewing recruiters from K Street lobbyist firms for future jobs must be conducted after regular business hours or on weekends.]

[Special footnotes for appointees who have law degrees: (1) Be sure to turn in your ethics exemption cards before accepting bribes. (2) When taking calls from indicted Congressmen, please use only the red “scramble” phone to insure the conversations remain private. And, (3) If you have not already done so, please provide a copy for our files of your law school transcript confirming your grade in Constitutional Law 101 was a “D” or lower]

"WAGING CLASS WAR"

Regarding the Undeclared War of the Upper Upper Upper Class Against Everyone Else

Class warfare was re-initiated back in the eighties. Although the war is an undeclared one, it is clear anyone making less than $100,000 a year is losing.

It is war about numbers. The ultra rich have the dollars on their side and the numbers are big. They have been using it to attack the only number everyone else still has on their side - voter totals. The latter is a superior number if the people recognize they are under attack and finally decide to vote on the subject.

Unfortunately, thanks to the multi-leveled economic attacks against those who work for a living(lobbying/bribery, control of media, spin when caught, anti-union laws, job outsourcing, attention redirection, name calling, vote fraud, theft, thuggery, etc.), the uberrich have been quite successful so far in reversing all the gains Americans have made since the days of the first Robber Barons.

The poor have been marginalized, exhausted, made ill, sold drugs or killed off. The middle class have been unwittingly distracted, deceived, out maneuvered, or out shouted. Even the mildly well off have been under attack without realizing it. They were bought off or co-opted with the illusion that they might someday be allowed to join the already unconscionably rich. Ironically, while that is the quintessential "American Dream," it has about as much mathematical chance of coming true as the lower classes' eternal dream of winning the lottery. Sadly, the ladders to the upper 1% levels have been pulled up behind established super rich by right of declared entitlement. With the exceedingly rare exception, usually self made like Gates, the titled aristocracy and self described “noblemen” of yore have nothing on the greedy offspring of gazillionaires.

Hopefully, the instinct for self preservation of the rest of us might kick in one of these days as the 99% look at the 1%'s lifestyle and ask why the 99% should pay for it. Hopefully, the concepts taught by Jesus (which have been hijacked by the greedy rich in this struggle) will be rediscovered and taken back. Hopefully, some of those who are the paid lackeys of the richest of the rich will find their conscience and re-read the principles for which this country once stood.

“ 'S A DAMN SHAME WE REMAIN”

Or, Changing the Debate on Iraqi

Unless the shape of the debate changes soon, it looks like the earliest our troops will realistically be allowed to hope for getting out of the mistake known as Iraq is the day Bush is removed from office or whatever day the amoebas in Congress finally grow a spine. Unfortunately, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be foolishly boxed into a “debate” defending against the assertion that anything ending the fiasco is somehow not “supporting” the troops.

Bush and his NeoCons have once again conned the nation into a non sequitur. What the anti-Iraq quagmire activists need to do is change the question. How to do that? Are there any challenges or demands that can be made (besides the obviously useful impeachment alternative) that might assist? Actually there are several in which Bush’s own rhetoric can be successfully used against him. How about:

ALTERNATIVE 1: LET’S VOTE.

Yeah. I know. We thought we already did last November. But, apparently it was not explicit enough on the question of Iraq. If so, it would be pretty easy to organize a special election, a national plebiscite solely on the subject whether to (a) leave now or (b) stay until our soldiers run out of blood or our treasury runs out of money, whichever comes first. Consider it as a national No Confidence Vote which European nations have turned into a proud and useful tradition. Let’s ask Bush and Cheney to resign if they cannot persuade a majority of the voters that Western Civilization itself is riding on us staying in Iraq forever. If he truly has confidence in what he is telling us, ask him why not put it to a vote?

Of course, since we already know Bush is totally opposed to democracy here in the States and is too cowardly to really debate the subject, that will never happen. (In fact, it might even prove counterproductive given how Bush’s minions like the owner of the Diebold voting machines seem to magically achieve voting totals which defy logic and evidence when there is no paper trail to check against.) BUT, Bush does loudly and frequently claim he’s at least for spreading “democracy” in the Middle East. So, let’s let the Iraqis give us the purple finger as to whether they want us to remain.

Why should Bush consider agreeing? He can continue pouring our assets down that rat hole until the end of his term assuming he is not removed by impeachment. On the other hand, he seems to be starting to worry both about his “legacy” and has good cause to worry about post term investigations. Frankly, it’s a perfect solution for him. If the Iraqis vote to keep us as their guards, he wins the debate and can blunt criticism of him. If they vote for us to get out, he then has cover to pretend whatever later disaster happens is all the Iraqis’ fault, not his own massive bungling.

If Bush won’t consider an Iraqi vote or if the civil warring factions there would not allow it, how about demanding a UN General Assembly vote in which we agree not to exercise a veto and to abide by the result? Once again, Bush who surely knows he has already lost the war assuming he can read the reports from his own generals, can shrug his shoulders and say “Well, I would have won, but I wasn’t allowed to do so.” Legacy saved, at least in his own mind.

ALTERNATIVE TWO: MAKE IT ALL VOLUNTEER TROOPS.

Bush claims he “supports the troops” and touts the “all volunteer” army with which he likes to play toy general. While it is not true if almost everything learned about missing armor, extended tours, poor vet care, rotten salaries, and literal rotten food, etc. is accurate, nevertheless, let’s insist he make Iraq an “all volunteer” mission. It used to be a tradition that when you sent troops on suicide or dangerous missions, volunteers were called for. If Bush believes so much in the mission, he can truly “support the troops” by saying they don’t have to go to Iraq unless they feel the same way.

Normally, in a real war, that would not be a good idea, but most of our other wars have been fought for valid reasons in which there was a real and present danger from something other than tin pot dictators we had put in power ourselves or a covetous desire for resources like oil. Consequently, let’s give our boys and girls a choice as to whether they want to die in Iraq for Bush’s ego, particularly when they are being asked to do so at a salary one-fifth what the Bush and Cheney are paying Blackwater private mercenaries to do the same thing.

No doubt it will cost substantially more to bump soldier salaries sufficiently high enough to persuade them putting Iraq oil in Halliburton pockets is worth dying for. At the same time, wouldn’t a significant increase in enlisted man compensation finally show some genuine “support” for the troops instead for the empty words Bush has been so fond of mouthing?

Better yet, how about initiating a draft of all those who voted in favor of the Iraq war starting with Bush’s military age offspring? That way, we would not even have to raise salaries. They wanted the war, they get it.

Naturally, Bush will fight such a proposal, but in doing so it once again exposes him for the utter hypocrite he is and shifts the focus on which the issue is presently stuck.

ALTERNATIVE THREE: MAKE IT ALL VOLUNTEER FUNDING.

Don’t cut off the funds for the troops, but perhaps insist instead that they be paid for by those who want the war. Perhaps a line could be added to the income tax returns in which citizens and companies could specify how much they would voluntarily add to their tax burdens to fund the Iraq war. Bush could use those earmarked funds, but only those funds.

Oops, the big companies like Cheney’s Halliburton don’t pay much taxes. In fact, they are leaving for places like Dubai so they can pay even less. But, since the war is being really fought to supply them with oil revenue (plus a lot of easy war profiteering), they may have to be assessed some new taxes if the Republicans want to continue in their “Crusade” as Bush used to characterize it. Let them be asked to give back some of the billions they have stolen in graft, corruption, overcharging, insider trading and “bad accounting.”

If that does not supply enough money due to the public finally wising up or the corporations being too cheap to give back some of their obscene profits and obscene CEO obscene salaries, perhaps Bush can hold a telethon or use some of the campaign contribution bribery and lobbying funds he has stashed away. The bottom line is let those who want the war foot the bills for it. If they don’t, then use against them the same “unpatriotic traitor” mantra they call everyone else.

ALTERNATIVE FOUR: ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR OIL

Basically demand the Prez prove that this is not really all about Oil by eliminating its consumption for fuel in this country. Demand immediate genuine progress be accomplished by launching, say, a massive Manhattan Project or first Lunar Mission urgency to end dependency before his Presidency ends. Ask that at least as much be spent on a useful alternative energy goal as has been spent on Bush’s military adventurism. Perhaps a 100% tax on gasoline at the pump, a surtax on oil company profits, mandatory gas rationing as occurred in WWII, elimination of restrictions on wind, wave, solar and other non-oil construction such as the suburban zoning height restrictions preventing home wind generator towers plus a huge research and development project on fuel cells and other hopeful methods.

This only indirectly would be an impetus for getting the troops out, but it would finally require the rest of the country to share some of the burden and sacrifice. Bringing that sacrifice home would remind the heads in the sand public that something is going on for which they too have a responsibility. It broadens the debate.

ALTERNATIVE FIVE: DEMAND STANDARDS BE SET FOR WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE FINALLY “WON” SO WE KNOW WHEN WE CAN FINALLY LEAVE.

For instance, have we "won" and can get out if the death toll is dropped to, say, 25% of what it was last year? How about when the electricity operation is on for at least 50% of the day at least six days a week? How about if the daily death toll and utility service availability is at least the same as the average for, say, Mexico, East Timor or Algeria? Those are not very high standards to achieve. How about when reporters can report from anywhere and only, say, 25 a year are killed attempting to do so.

If we cannot achieve even those very low standards, then we will never achieve higher ones and it is better to demand we get out now while we still have the shirt on our backs.

No standards - no continuing.

ALTERNATIVE SIX: DECLARE PEACE, NOT WAR.

Although Bush rejects international law, signed treaties, precedent, tradition, the words of his oath of office and most of the Constitution, Bush did seek a “war resolution” to allow him to use force in Iraq. Repeal that resolution or alternatively recognize that the Constitution requires Congress, and Congress alone, to declare war. Read it sometime.

If there is no legal authorization for the troops being in Iraq, then leaving them there would be an illegal activity for which Bush could be impeached.

As to cutting off the funds for the war, Bush attempts to characterize that as an attempt to harm the troops. In fact, it is the opposite. If Bush insists on leaving them there, then he and he alone is responsible for whatever happens next. In fact, by military law, troops are required to refuse to obey illegal orders which they would be if Bush ignores a demand for removal of the troops.

Cutting off the funds was necessary to finally end the war in Vietnam. Few now believe that troops were harmed as a result and that proved to really be the only way to bring them home. To continue the war would be an utter waste.

ALTERNATIVE SEVEN: MOVE THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE “GREEN ZONE” IN BAGHDAD.

Bush is always trying to show us how macho he is cutting brush, riding bikes, wearing flight suits. How about if he will not agree to any of the foregoing, double dog dare him to move his personal base of operations along with his VP, senior staff and Attorney General to Iraq. Ask him to show his own personal courage for once rather than the yellow streak he showed in the Vietnam War. He should be asked to show the troops he is behind them just a few miles away, not an entire hemisphere. Legacy-wise, Bush would be asked to put up or shut up.

If he inspires the troops like Custer did, great at least for him. He can go down in history as being proved right – far right. If he gets killed there, no big loss and perhaps the Smithsonian, which is too close to the White House when someone finally does try a nuke, might be saved.

Bush can be reminded that if God is truly on his side as Bush proclaims, surely He will protect Bush. If not, then Bush can be happy he gets to go to his eternal reward even sooner.

One thing is for certain. We can do without Bush and his crew here for the next two years.

And if he doesn’t want to discuss one of the alternatives above, we can always seek to truncate the tumor consuming the White House by reconsidering the great ALTERNATIVE EIGHT: IMPEACHMENT. Overtly rejecting all these other seven alternatives would prove Bush (once again) to be the Hypocrite-in-Chief and might be just the miracle growth tonic those in Congress need to either grow a backbone or conclude they will lose their cushy job next time around.

It is time to break out of the box if we are going to ever break out of Iraq.

“IS EVERYONE BUSH SELECTS A WOODEN HEADED, LONG NOSED PINOCCIO?”

Or, Why the Disinformation from the Justice Dept and White House on Their Plans to Fire Local Attorney Generals

Apparently, the Bush crowd prevaricates out of mere force of habit. Its members, especially its leaders, can’t seem to bring themselves to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even when it is entirely pointless to mislead.

In the most recent instance, Bush was free to fire any (or even all) the attorneys that work for the Justice Department. It may have been highly unusual to do so, extremely wasteful, basically slimy and partisan motivated. But, it was legal. Such attorneys serve at the whim of Presidents, wilful or not, and can be canned, no matter how good they are. The reason behind such a firing is legally irrelevant (unless it is motivated by one of a very small list of expressly banned reasons such as firing them because of their sex or religion).

Thanks to an odious clause the Republicans snuck in the so-called “Patriot Act,” Bush no longer even has to let the replacement appointees be reviewed by Congress. Consequently, he can initially put in top notch lawyers for “show” purposes and then quietly replace them later with the party hacks and zealots of which he is so fond. Or, he could put in hacks and zealots from the start. Either way, it’s perfectly legal. Stupidly legal, but legal.

Moreover, tradition has long held that when new Presidents arrive, they get to have their own party members heading the various offices. Granted, Bush was trying something new with the late term “blanket” replacements and granted there have also been matching traditions that you try to get the best lawyers available for the job and that you should try to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Those all go to help insure perceived fairness of the Department. Nevertheless, since it was only a “tradition,” Bush was free to stomp all over it and thumb his nose at the entire country and legal profession. It was legal to do so.

Why then did Bush and his boys apparently elect to lie about it? They got caught wilfully misrepresenting the reasons behind the firings. They also got caught misrepresenting the extent of the White House’s involvement. They ended up essentially lying to Congress, to the Press and to the People. They seem to be still playing “spin” or possibly outright lying further about the coverup.

Why when all they had to do was announce their usual “UP YOURS!” and proceed to do what they wanted? Unlike the searches without warrants, the violations of habeas corpus, the torturings and the other actual criminal acts for which they will hopefully have to pay in court, it was legal to do what they wanted in this instance. Yet, for some reason, they deliberately strategized in secret to mislead and deceive despite the fact that it would cost them little or no harm to be honest for once.

There is a lesson here for the rest of us. When anyone is found to be lying about even such little things, it strongly suggests they are probably lying on all the big things too, (not to mention operating our government at a level of incompetence that is truly mind boggling). Therefore, the next time a Republican tells you the sun will appear in the East in the morning, perhaps you should check an astronomical table before you rely on it and, while you’re at it, check your wallet too.

“TIPPING THE SCALES OF JUSTICE”

Or, a Few Thoughts Regarding the Peremptory Firing of Several Competent Federal Attorneys in Order to Replace Them with Political Hacks

Once upon a time, back when competence actually was valued and we preferred our bureaucrats to be as fair and non-partisan as possible regardless of who was in elected office, the local Bar Associations reviewed the backgrounds and performance records of proposed appointees for judgeships, attorney general and other key legal positions. It typically resulted in recommendations submitted to the President or Governors as to the relative qualifications, integrity and lack of bias of each individual being considered. The mutually agreed upon goal of all involved, at least regarding selecting individuals to manage our legal system, was to put the best person in office rather than merely the most zealous partisan available.

It wasn’t perfect, but since the Bar Associations tended to have vocal members from all parties, it worked pretty well. As members of a profession whose licenses were accountable to standards of ethics beyond mere politics and having experienced roughly the same basic law school education, there at least was a shared recognition the courts and enforcement of our Constitution were critical cornerstones of our democracy requiring principled people in charge who cherished those concepts more than the opinions of party bosses. Usually back then, the Governors or the President acquiesced by picking one of Bar recommended top candidates for the job. If nothing else, that method helped earn the consent of the governed (temporary voting minorities included), which is yet another central support for democracy.

Unfortunately, the efforts of the Bar to assist, along with many other customs and traditions which attempted to protect the justice system from petty politics, have been utterly trashed in recent years. The Bush Administration in particular for some reason seems to be interested in abandoning it altogether, converting (perhaps perverting) the judicial system to its own image. Which, if any of the stories regarding torturing those in custody, violating of habeas corpus, searching without warrants and other potential criminalities prove to be true, is not a very pretty picture.

Perhaps it’s understandable why those occupying the White House at the moment might want to insure their collective thumbs rest heavily on the Scales of Justice. But, it certainly seems like an extremely risky gambit to try. It’s akin to attempting a “shoot the moon” strategy in the card game called Hearts, where the consequences of failure to win it all incurs an extremely heavy penalty. Unless Bush manages to establish a permanent Republican majority or outright dictatorial control of the US, the attempt itself is likely to turn around and bite both him and anyone else running under the Republican banner.

Either way, the public should insist upon a return to a more non-partisan, more objective, method of researching, testing and selecting those individuals who want to be in charge of day-to-day justice in America.

"BUSHWA"

Or, Perhaps Bush Is Not Lying This One Time When He Says He Is Not Planning An Immediate New Invasion

For about the first time in about seven years, I find myself agreeing that Bush is possibly telling the truth (to the extent that he is capable of it) when he says that he has no immediate plans to invade Iran. After all, he knows (or at least should know if he bothers to read the data regarding the total number of our men and women in uniform) that the minimum necessary number of trained and equipped combat troops are simply not available, let alone on short notice.

Granted, he may want to invade. He probably does despise or fear the Iranians since he seems to despise or fear anyone who doesn’t believe he should be Emperor of the World, but even Bush must recognize that mounting an attempted invasion or even military intervention in Iran would leave us critically under strength to fulfill our commitments elsewhere in the world, not to mention put guarding our installations at home in jeopardy.

It's puzzling then why Bush would seem to be deliberately, almost recklessly, provoking the Iranians by instilling in them a worry he may start yet another “pre-emptive” war as he did with Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s sudden planned deployment of about half our currently sailing nuclear carrier fleets at Iran’s very doorstep, not to mention the countless press briefings on supposed Iranian supplied weapon attacks on our troops and the possibility that Iran might someday have WMD, all add up to what sounds like yet another prelude to war.

Why then? Could it be that Bush is inciting the Iranians because he would welcome the opportunity for an excuse to use nuclear weapon if our ships that he has chosen to provocatively put in harms' way are attacked. It is almost as if he is siting them there because he wants someone to attack them (as former President Johnson did so he could have his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution allowing a major escalation in Vietnam). If even some two bit pirate or independent insurgent in a dingy fires a couple of rounds at our armadas, Bush could then announce he was "forced" to use nukes to "defend" the new task forces he is putting in the Gulf and Red Sea because he has insufficient "conventional" forces to stop them otherwise. I hate to be that paranoid about Bush's intentions, but he has proven in the past that he is capable of unimaginable excesses.

Of course, it is always possible that when Bush says he is not planning to invade, he is just lying to us and will do so regardless of whether we are ready or have enough troops. Unfortunately, our military prowess is always bigger in Bush’s imagination than it turns out to be in real life, especially as to "nation building" and territory occupying tasks. Perhaps he is simply taking another step proceeding with his and his fellow Neocons' early revealed intentions to sweep the Middle Eastern oil producing countries clear of anyone who might threaten supply.

Still, my gut says he might actually be telling the truth for once on this one issue. The problem with Bush's credibility on any subject is that he is seems to have a pathology against telling the truth. He often seems to be someone who lies even when he does not have to do so. Take for instance his response to the British 22% troop reduction in Iraq shortly after Bush had been telling Congress he needed to increase US troop strength by 16% in order to "win." His Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said in a press conference immediately afterwards that the British withdrawal was all part of the "plan." That would imply we no somehow longer needed the British troop for our Baghdad "surge." Unfortunately, the statements emanating from the White House and Ms. Rice so defy logic and common sense as to suggest she and her boss are outright prevaricating or, at least, trying to "BS" us with the usual automatic politician “spin” response.

If Bush had simply indicated he strongly disagreed with the Brits and preferred the maximum number of troops from all nations stay to support our "surge," we could have understood that. That would have merely meant Bush was not persuasive enough with Blair or that Blair bowed to Parliament pressure. Alternatively, if it was truly all part of the "plan," Bush have announced the Brit intention to withdraw before Blair did. That way, he could have said our own troop surge was needed precisely BECAUSE OF the British reduction. Instead, Bush and his Secretary of State spokeswoman tried to play games with our minds again.

It makes you wonder if they are really that stupid or just assume all of us are. Either way, Bush convinces me once again that, liar or not on a planned invasion of Iran, he needs to be stopped cold.

“ASKING FOR PROOF”

Challenging the Theory That We Must Stay in Iraq So Terrorism Won’t Come to America

Republican diehard Bush supporters contend that if we pull out of Iraq, the insurgents we’re fighting’ll follow us home and attack us here. The theory being, it is better to battle them “over there” than in the streets of Astoria or Portland. Just once though, wouldn’t it be nice if people making such assertions looked at history, facts or even logic before mouthing such simplitudes?

For instance, can those who constantly parrot the Bush position point to a single example of that ever happening to us before? It doesn’t seem to have occurred after any of our other wars in the last century or so. Where are the newspaper and textbook accounts of any demolitions, arsons, ambushes or anything else conducted by defeated Nazis or Ninjas anywhere in North America. After we smashed their entire civilizations, they certainly had reason to seek revenge or punishment, not to mention the technical knowhow to do so. Castro? North Koreans? They still don’t like us after half a lifetime, but they didn’t “follow us home.” Castro is only 90 miles away.

Might it make a difference if we are the ones defeated or who give up? Look at Lebanon in the 70s. When a Lebanese suicide truck bomber blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, Regan hastily tucked his tail between his legs and slunk out of town. Clinton did much the same in Somalia after Blackhawk down. When was the last time you heard of a followup by either Lebanese or Somali Muslims on this continent afterwards?

Those were relatively isolated incidents. We left quickly after just one major adverse confrontation. Does it make a difference if we leave after a long nasty conflict? Well, the Vietnam War was certainly comparable to what is happening in Iraq, more so all the time. We could look to it to see what might happen if we pulled out after essentially acknowledging either defeat or at least that it is not worth the cost. Almost everyone will admit the Viet Cong were tenacious, fierce insurgents who fought using terror tactics for literally decades. Name one example of where the victorious insurgents in that conflict followed us home.

Does that mean it is not possible? Of course not. The point is that the Iraqi insurgents could do so right now without having to wait. Thanks to an Administration that acts on wishes, a remarkably incompetent Homeland Security agency and a cheapskate Congress, an almost porous border exists. Pregnant women can walk across the border almost at will. What makes anyone think that’s a perfect defense against a stealthy terrorist? Worse, maybe one in ten thousand cargo containers docking in our ports are inspected. Put a nuke in any of them and a terrorist could touch off a bomb a few hundred feet from Wall Street. Hell, there is probably at least a one in ten chance that an uninspected weapon could be flown in on a FedEx plane if asked to pick up a package. Consequently, the terrorists don’t even need to come here.

Why haven’t they attacked so far? Good question, but it does not seem to have anything to do with inability to get here. Perhaps part of the answer lies in the statistics on violence in Iraq. They seem to be killing more of each other than us. If we leave Iraq, is that likely to diminish so that they could come after us alone? Is there any evidence of that in the past? Usually in similar situations, they seem to spend a long time fighting for power among themselves, then concentrating control once received and rebuilding after the consolidation. It typically takes years.

And, what happens after the rebuilding that’s distracting their attention and energy is finally successful? We could again look to our enemies in prior conflicts, whether Cold War or Brush Fire War. Look at our bitter foe Vietnam. Communist Vietnam has been now granted favored nation trading partner status with state visits by none other than Bush himself.

Should we be sanguine about the possibility of future terror attacks here? Never! At the same time, the next time a bellicose Republican starts spouting off about at least this particular justification for staying as an occupying belligerent in Iraq indefinitely, ask for an iota of proof. If not, let’s bury this bit of nonsense. Otherwise, we might end up getting more of our people killed than we might save.

“A DECISION TREE FOR ANALYZING IRAQ POLICIES”

Or, Trimming the Bushes Obscuring What Could or Should Be Done about Iraq

Possibly the most, certainly one of the most, pressing and divisive questions facing our country today is whether we should stay in Iraq or leave. If you believe the former, start with numbered paragraph 1 below for a way to ultimately determine whether that is a wise decision. If you believe the latter, start with numbered paragraph 8.

1. The current policy being pursued by the President, in its essence, seems to be simply adding approximately 21,000 military personnel to the 135,000 or so already there and staying there for an indefinite period conducting training and counter “insurgency” activities. If you favor that idea or are at least willing to investigate it further, proceed to paragraph 2. Keep in mind that even if you initially trust the President or any other “decider” for that matter, that does not excuse you as a citizen from exercising judgment of the decision, particularly when it is a literally life and death result at stake.

2. Begin with determining what are the potential benefits from the current “surge” policy as it is commonly called. Is it a prevention of civil war between one or more of the three Iraq religious factions? That would be a good thing. Is it an end to or at least substantial reduction of insurgency activities? An end to suicide bombers, kidnaping, mortar attacks and other terrorist activities in Iraq? Elimination of terrorist threats in allied countries? In America? Capture of Osama bin Laden? An end or at least substantial reduction of influence in predominately Shiite Iraq by predominately Shiite Iran and predominately Shiite Syria or other countries? A stable and/or democratic government capable of defending itself and rebuilding Iraq? A stable and/or democratic Middle Eastern region? Cheap oil? A permanent base for military and other operations in the regions? Significantly improved admiration, respect and/or at least fear of the US in Iraq or elsewhere? Prevention of nuclear weapons development by antagonist countries? Assuming there are any genuine potential benefits from the course of action under investigation, proceed to paragraph 3.

3. More important than the mere possibility of benefits is the question of how likely is it that each of the alleged benefits or goals will actually be accomplished by such a policy? It does not matter that we desire something in the abstract. Examples would be a perpetual motion machine or permanent peace in the ethnically and religiously divided Middle East. They are nice concepts, but not likely in our lifetimes, if at all. You should conduct a hard look to determine such likelihood. For some reason, that seems to be particularly difficult for Americans. Our particular view of history is that we will always prevail regardless of what history has to say on the subject when closely examined. The fact that we are almost as likely to be eaten by a shark in Nebraska as win the big lottery does not seem to deter us from gambling. Nevertheless, it will not help if we continue acting on wishes, assumptions, hope, ideology, arrogance, pride, or misinformation. Review each of the supposed benefits as to the realistic probabilities they will happen when the policy being considered is carried out. Assuming you ultimately conclude based upon real evidence that all, or perhaps any, of those proposed benefits are relatively likely if we continue pursuing the current White House policy, then skip to paragraph 6. If you are no longer as sure, proceed to paragraph 4.

4. If 21,000 additional boots on the ground, many to be “embedded” with Iraqi forces, are deemed by you to be insufficient to accomplish the desired goals, is there anything else that might achieve them? 100,000 troops? 1,000,000? Of course, if you start thinking that way, you must also answer the question of whether we have that many spare troops, especially the actual combat ones as opposed to support troops who typically outnumber ground pounders ten to one? Remember, we only count less than a million and a half military on active duty in the entire world at the moment. It is any easy confirmation on the internet with a Google or other search. So, do we need a draft? Factor in how long it will take to train them. Will other counties or the UN willingly supply all that is necessary? Are they interested in the same results as we are? Do they want that oil for themselves? Would they like us taken down a peg or two? Are they courting some of the other players such as Iran? Okay, how about then bringing in more pure mercenaries hired by our mercenary companies like Blackwater instead? Be sure to consider the effect though if they are not governed by our morals, ethics, or laws. Same issue on timing too. Can we train the new Iraq troops to adequately do the job? If so, can we do so before the American voter runs out of patience, not to mention can such newly trained Iraqi soldiers stay loyal to a national government instead of sectarian groups? How will they be used? Will it matter if electricity, jobs, schools, and other infrastructure are not restored and remain secure? If the answer to any of the forgoing is no, how about splitting Iraq to separate the warring factions? Monetary bribes perhaps? To whom? Bigger rewards for bringing in villains? Given what we are already offering, do we have enough money in the Treasury? Are we likely to interest anyone in accepting even if offered? Would more diplomacy work? That does not seem to have been tried. How about returning to a semblance of neutrality regarding Israel and Palestine issues? Sacrificing Israel? Everything is on the table for the purpose of analyzing alternative routes as to whether they would have any chance at success. Would that buy Iraq friends? How about nuking Iran? Would that eliminate an enemy or just create new ones? How about permanent relocation or internment or maybe just outright genocide of one or more of the groups in Iraq? Offering the testicles of Bush and Cheney? Be creative. We are not discussing morality at this point, but mere feasibility. Morality and legality are a second level for elimination of any particular alternative. Go to paragraph 5 now.

5. If any likely new possibilities or alternate policies present themselves to you as potentially successful avenues for accomplishing the chosen goals you are articulating, then you can determine if they are permissible to be implemented. If they are still viable after consideration of applicable laws and still acceptable to you based on your morality and ethics, proceed to paragraph 6. If not, proceed to paragraph 8 (because at this point you have in essence concurred in a choice to leave rather than stay.)

6. Assuming any of the proposed benefits are genuinely likely, what are they worth? Values must be assigned. Assigning value will be tough. For instance, how much is a live trained solider worth versus a dead one? Be sure to count all the future earnings and children and happiness they could create if not killed or mangled in Iraq carrying out the President’s current policy. It is tough, but not impossible to assign dollar values to human suffering. Courts and juries do it all the time. For the moment, ignore the dead Iraqi citizens, even the women and children being constantly killed. That is a moral/legal question unless we are paying money to the relatives of the dead civilians as we do when it is a “friendly fire” situation. For the most part though, at the moment, we are only discussing direct costs to American citizens either as treasury expenditures or lost opportunity costs. The bottom line is you are trying to decide the potential costs to achieve the stated goals and whether we can afford it. In addition to the obvious increase in deaths and wounds to our soldiers and treasury dollars going to Iraq, what about the costs to the active duty military in terms of morale, recruiting and readiness to respond to other crisis? What about such costs to the National Guard and the Reserves, not to mention equipment replacement and re-training? What about the costs to our economy, social programs, oil energy independence, global warming? What about the costs to civil liberties elsewhere? Civil liberties here? Those are a bit more intangible, but still quantifiable to a certain extent in terms of dollars. Same for the adverse effect on our international credibility, prestige, trust and respect. Those affect whether or not other nations contribute to this and future causes and whether they agree to future proposed treaties such as NAFTA. Equally important, although again hard to put an exact dollar figure on, what will be the effect internally concerning credibility, prestige, trust and respect for American institutions such as the three branches of government and our two party system? What will it do to our national morale and stalemates? How about our willingness to remain involved in international affairs? Will corruption and its fallout increase? Will prices go up? An atmosphere of hypocrisy, lack of honor or morals, might tend to increase government spending losses and waste due to corruption for instance. Worse yet, are we increasing the number of those inclined to be terrorists? Will we further destabilize friendly or former friendly regimes in the area or elsewhere? Will moderation in tactics disappear? Will it make nuclear proliferation more likely or more likely for their use against us? Are the increased number of spawned terrorists likely to ultimately attack the US or just our offices and people abroad? What will be the costs of future 9/11s? How many can we afford? Ask the insurance industry. Ask the municipalities. Can we actually make our borders impregnable? How and at what expense? Again the effort should be to analyze all costs and consequences including the intangible ones. The analysis should be a sober one based on hard facts and figures to the extent possible, but add in some extra amounts as a contingency for the unknowns that usually are discovered too late and the unintended consequences that so often occur. Proceed to paragraph 7.

7. What would happen if we are precipitously kicked out of town and opposed to an orderly withdrawal? Review the history books for a starting point. This step is to insure “Plan Bs” exist and that they too are analyzed. For instance, do we want to leave behind a large stock pile of modern weapons in the hands of those who don’t like us as we did in Vietnam? Look what happened when we merely left Saddam’s ammo dumps unguarded and that was relatively low tech outdated stuff that could be used against us. What if our modern tank and smart bomb arsenals are seized or left behind? Now, proceed to paragraph 9.

8. If you believe leaving is the necessary or desired route, you must decide between a quick and a fast pullout. For each, you need to apply the same analysis as above regarding what are the potential benefits and their individual likelihood. The same for what are the respective costs and their respective likelihood. Presumably, pulling out earlier would result in less troop loss and less money spent than pulling out later. It is also presumed that pulling out would “embolden” the enemy and increase bombing here. These are all mere presumptions though for discussion purposes and more in depth determinations should be made to see if it actually does make a difference. Neither the dreaded “dominos falling” nor increased terrorist attacks occurred here after the fall of South Vietnam. The Viet Cong certainly had the terrorist know-how to do so, but the end of the war was the end of aggression toward us. They were apparently too busy in other things. Would that be true of Iraq? Is the mere sight of our uniforms in Iraq inflammatory? Would they bother to travel to this country to continue blowing themselves up out of pure revenge or would they tend to be more occupied with rebuilding in a best case scenario or destroying each other in a worse case scenario? From the casualty counts, it is sure looking like they like to blow each other up more than us, at least at the moment. Perhaps some investigation should be made into whether even the 9/11 attack was truly an attack on our “values” or merely to get us to “butt out” of an internal dispute in Saudi Arabia in which a rival faction wanted to diminish the ruling family’s protector. (Don’t forget the nationalities of Osama and most of the hijackers. Forgetting things like that can distort analysis.) We probably would have stayed in Saudi Arabia anyway, but the issue is the real motivation. After the same sort of analysis to determine first benefits of leaving and then costs, proceed to paragraph 9.

9. As always should be done, compare the costs to the achievable benefits. Be liberal on the side of costs and conservative on the side of potential benefits. The goal is to achieve a cost/benefit ratio greater than 1. If the value of the benefits does not exceed the costs, don’t do it. Try another route. If all the choices generate a negative ratio result, proceed, with a heavy sigh, to paragraph 10.

10. At one point in time, we had many options including to not invade Iraq at all. We are long past that point. Blame should be assigned and punishment enacted for any grossly incompetent or even criminal decisions that got us to where we are, BUT merely because the only decisions left are excruciatingly painful ones does not excuse us from making a new decision, albeit one literally a “Hobbsian Choice.” In any event, if the costs will exceed the potential benefits under every single alternative, then the last issue is comparing the various cost/benefit ratios to each other. If leaving is even marginally less a disaster than the disaster of staying, you are relegated to choosing the lesser of the two evils. Could have beens, would have beens, no longer have a place. Reality must trump desire.

The foregoing is what is known as a “decision tree,” albeit one with regretfully fewer and fewer branches available regarding Iraq. Utilization of decision trees is a common technique in business (and for many life choices as well whether recognized as such officially or not). The method is designed to maximize the return on the minimum investment or, in this case, to minimize the maximum losses, sometimes referred to as the MiniMax Principle.

What is not clear whether any official presently in the White House has bothered to employ it regarding the thorny problem of Iraq. If they won’t, you should. And, if you can’t get those in charge to adopt the least costly alternative, then you need to consider how to best truncate those in charge and bud in their place someone who will. That decision too is amenable to scaling the branches of yet another decision tree.

"PHOTO OPS"

Or, Bush Should Picture the Opportunities for Even Worse Disaster in Iraq

Prior to invading Iraq, apparently all Bush could visualize in his mind’s eye was a photo op like the iconic one of Marines planting the flag on Mt. Suribachi. To insure a prominent place in the history books, he staged his own with the pretentious flight suit speech aboard a carrier while backdropped by the infamous (and ultimately ironic) “Mission Accomplished” banner. One wonders if he regrets now at least that particular bit of over the top arrogance and delusion.

Unfortunately, Bush proved incapable of visualizing the other potent photo opportunities that would start surfacing from the botched attempt at subjugating a now increasingly hostile populace. Flag draped row upon row of coffins, shrouded infant bodies awaiting burial in shallow dirt graves, crumpled headless bodies, blood splattered and dust covered soldiers gripping shattered limbs in agony, choking dust and crumpled car parts littering the landscape in aftermath of roadside explosions, handsome young boys and girls in silent slide shows of the deceased on PBS news, grieving mothers camped outside Bush’s fortress in Crawford, Texas - all unending and multiplying daily. That’s what happens when you only plan for the initial conquering and not the subsequent pacifying. That’s what happens when you put party hacks in charge who wish instead of plan. There are consequences from incompetence including plenty of photographs that will make it seem even worse. Now days, with a camera in almost every cell phone and lots of outlets to circulate them, the spreading images are uncontrollable.

True, there were “feel good” photos taken of newly rebuilt schools, but they are not as newsworthy the third time the same school must be rebuilt, especially when the photographers are afraid to attend the ceremony fearing it a likely suicide bomber target. Yeah, there was the interesting picture of purple fingered voters who promptly proceeded to, democratically, vote for replacing the nasty Sunni minority with the equally nasty Shiite majority. The Sunnis then sought for a recount with mortar shot at mosques. None of those resulting shots, either digital or explosive, were ones Bush was hoping would appear in the news. Similarly, there were the traditional and innumerable photos of grinning US troops tossing gum and candy to the clutching fingers of local children trooping around. Invariably cute. Heart warming even. Now though, the receding image as the trucks roll on past is, as often as not, of the same kids with suddenly upraised middle fingers pointing at the camo covered backs of our men. In a way, the young Iraqi too are voting with their fingers and it’s all caught on camera.

Since Bush seems Hell bent on continuing without real hope of success at accomplishing any of his stated goals, let’s hope he doesn’t forget that one even more unsettling famous photo, the one showing hundreds of desperate people climbing a shaky rooftop ladder scrambling to be on the last helicopter out of Saigon. Since Bush did not plan for the “peace,” it’s unlikely he has planned for the possibility of defeat either. Secretary of State Rice admitted as much by stating they were not even considering a “Plan B” to the new“surge” initiative that is supposed to “win” for us.

Must we repeat every aspect of the fiasco we went through in Vietnam? Will we witness brand new photos of perilous rooftop rescues?

More importantly, in Vietnam, that precipitous exodus left a vast store of our military equipment in that civil war torn Southeast Asian country. Some contemporary estimates said it automatically made communist Vietnam the fourth best equipped military in the world. What will an even better equipped hostile Iraq be or do?

Has Bush thought about the consequences of being forced to suddenly abandon the vast inventory of sophisticated, “state of the art” night vision tanks and depleted uranium tipped ammunition for instance? You can’t move it all in a day. If that enormous arsenal dump in Iraq is ever left in the control of a country tilting toward Iran, Syria and/or Palestine and if it is used against Israel, wouldn’t that be an incredible irony? Imagine the resulting photo shot of a former US Abrahams tank emblazoned with a freshly painted Crescent and parked atop the rubble of the Israeli Knesset?

It is obvious that Bush does not care much for laws, but perhaps he should at least study up on the Law of Unintended Consequences before there is the last photo of Bush skulking or, worse yet (from his perspective at least), being hauled out of the White House.

“POPULATION CONTROL”

Or, How to Solve the Illegal Immigrant and Indolent Aristocracy Problem at the Same Time

Ya know, as I listen to all the facile “solutions” debated by office seeking politicians and spittle spewing pundits in their 30-second unilateral sound bites regarding what they term the “illegal immigration problem,” it occurs to me that there is potential alternative that can actually address the concerns of both camps in this controversy.

The “keep ‘em out” crowd says there are too many immigrants taking up jobs, costing the government money for health care, etc. In fact, many of this persuasion insist there are too many people in this country period. They claim we should make it even more difficult to enter by building a huge fence and obstacle course blocking their way.

The other side claims that anyone who unstoppably goes through such hurdles, barriers and difficulties is exactly what this county needs. Dedicated, hard working, family oriented people willing to do anything to get here and do whatever is necessary to stay.

When contemplating the dilemma, I can’t help but remember the obstacle courses from my army basic training days. They made us run them to turn us into better, stronger soldiers and it worked.

So, let’s go ahead and build a spectacularly difficult obstacle course to get into this country that must be surmounted before you can hold a job or be a citizen. While we are at it though, let’s also impose a 100% estate tax and transport every teenager outside our borders on their 21st birthday. Or, maybe just tell them they can’t come back from the Budweiser “Girls Gone Wild” Spring Break in Matzatlan.

Allot them food for a couple of days and, say, $20. Tell them that if they want to return, they must prove their future worth by running the gauntlet. They don’t get in otherwise and we live it to the smart tenacious ones to figure it out. The concept is that they don’t automatically get to have welfare or rely on inheritance or any other free ride merely because of where a sperm happened to fertilize an egg. Let everyone independently prove their worth by successfully scaling the obstacle course.

Since that would be merely a physical test of endurance and skill, maybe once they make it back here, they also should be required to pass the same basic knowledge tests as “legal” immigrants must do now before they can be full citizens and vote. If some one does not know, for instance, that there are three equal branches of government or that kings do not occupy the White House, then why should they be entrusted to figure out a voting machine?

It’s going to be tough on pampered rich kids likes the Bushes or the Kennedys who grew up feeling entitled suddenly being equalized. But, if they pass all the tests and obstacles, then even they deserve to be citizens.

“POLAR OPPOSITES”

Or, a Comparison of Molly Ivins and George Bush

The Wit	The Halfwit
Sexy Female	Former college Cheerleader
Genuine Texan (i.e. one who wear boots on which the only sh*t is found on the outside)	Erzatz Texan who likes to play dress up with cowboy hat and boot costumes
Spoke Texan whirling words like a whip	Flunked English and can’t even speak Texan
Drank with the Boys	Former drunk
Compassionate Liberal	Not even a real Conservative
Believed in the Golden Rule	Took gold in exchange for getting to rule
Proved that we ought to be eternally embarrassed for voting for most politicians	An eternal embarrassment
Brilliant humorist	Punch line of jokes
Made reading fun	Has trouble reading from a children’s book
Essence of wicked wisdom	As Molly said, “doesn’t have the wisdom God gave a duck” but indulges in wickedness
Knew how to curse	Deserved to be cursed
Proved not every Texan is a cartoon	World’s greatest inspiration for cartoons
The very definition of a true Patriot (the kind the Founding Fathers and Mothers were in 1176)	Puzzled as to what actual patriotism means
Not afraid of either combat or the press	Hides out from even questions and only knows about combat from sending others to die
Says what she means and means what she says	We only need to remember how his bills are titled and what they are really designed to accomplish
Disarms even enemies	Recruits and arms future enemies
Big hearted and friendly of all	Fair weather friend (just ask Scooter Libby)
Honest about politics	Dishonest politician
Insights so sharp they could cut saddle leather	Can’t tell an armadillo from his a**hole
Proves investigative journalism is never dull	Dullard
Always known for taking on “bidnez”	Always lost money for his businesses
Should have been President	Stole the Presidency
National Treasure	Robs the National Treasury
Akin to a Suarro Cactus	Barely a shrub
Was a hero to the end	Played one on TV
Sadly deceased in her early 60's	Sadly still Prez in his early 60's
Mourned by one and all	What would Molly say?

Who will hold the mirror up to the naked Emperor now?

“DON’T JUST COMPLAIN ABOUT ETHICS, FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT”

Or, How to Create Do-It-Yourself Ethics Filings to Attack the Licenses to Practice Law held by Bush Administration Attorneys

Distressed that the Democratic National leadership has chosen to take impeachment “off the table?” Don’t want to wait until January 2009 to finally show the door to some of the current Administration’s flunkies? You don’t have to.

For one example, consider filing an ethics complaint against, say, the chief torture researcher for the Prez - Attorney General Roberto Gonzales. You can do it on your own.

You should file it with whatever agency in your particular state licenses attorneys which could be a committee or office within either the state bar association or state supreme court.

A sample is set forth below. While you’re at it, send a copy to the newspapers when it is filed.

In addition to Gonzales, consider filing against the White House Counsel and other licensed attorneys who drafted Bush’s various pro-torture, anti-Constitution legal opinions if you believe that they are illegal or unethical.

If nothing else, defending themselves might keep the defendants and their bosses so busy they can’t get up to much mischief the next couple of years.


Proposed possible wording, but feel free to use your own:

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

I respectfully request that the State [insert here the title of the appropriate Grievance, Disciplinary and/or Professional Responsibility Committee or Board] initiate an investigation of US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales for the purpose of determining whether he is fit to practice law in this State.

From his public statements, his published writings, his testimony before Congress and other evidence, it strongly appears that Mr. Gonzales has (1) violated ethics, (2) committed, authorized, encouraged, participated in or directed acts which may constitute criminal conduct as well as (3) violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.

If it is determined that he has violated ethics, it is requested that he be banned from entering our State to conduct any acts which might be deemed the practice of law, banned from supervising, hiring or firing licensed attorneys who are employees of the Justice Department regardless of his own physical location at the time, banned from participating in any way in any cases that take place in this state, and disbarred if he happens to be licensed here.

If it is determined he has committed, authorized, encouraged, participated in or directed acts which may constitute criminal conduct, it is further requested that the information be forwarded to the appropriate legal authorities for criminal investigation and possible arrest.

If it is determined that he violated his oath of office, it is requested that the information be forwarded to the Congressional delegation for our state so that he may be impeached to determine whether he should be removed from office and/or censured.

Among the most serious charges, the currently available evidence strongly suggests that Mr. Gonzales has repeatedly violated the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and laws enacted by Congress such as PISA, not to mention our own State Constitution by having searches conducted without probable cause, without warrants, without court supervision of any sort and in defiance of the proposition that any court supervision or jurisdiction is required. Moreover, he has clearly indicated he plans to continue doing so in the future.

Mr. Gonzales has also apparently admitted to repeatedly counseling clients such as the President of the United States that it is permissible to ignore the separation of powers and other clauses of the Constitution, that it is permissible to ignore duly enacted US laws as well as international laws and treaties to which the US has agreed, all because it was unilaterally proclaimed by his client to be "war time." It should be noted that, even if armed conflict involving the US was occurring, that does not make a difference to the wording of the Constitution. No declaration of war has been formally passed since the current President took power and the so-called “force resolution” did not amount to one. Legal opinions by attorneys can be wrong or even stupid, but in court, truly frivolous arguments are not a defense to misconduct by attorneys.

Of more immediate consequence, Mr. Gonzales, by his own admissions, has consistently sought to deny many individuals in US custody access to attorneys, the courts and other fundamental human rights under both US and international law. Far worse, although he has chosen to call it something else, he apparently has conspired to actually torture some of them, at least as that term is commonly understood, not to mention as defined in specific laws. Even if one or more those laws have now been amended to permit such repugnant practices, nevertheless, the violations seem to have knowingly taken place prior to any applicable amendment.

Moreover, for a licensed attorney, regardless of his appointed office, to counsel someone on how to avoid punishment for past crimes of, say, robbing a bank, that is vastly different from counseling them on how to conduct bank robberies in the future. It is the latter which Mr. Gonzales appears to have done, not to mention it being utterly reprehensible for an officer of the court to condone such tactics.

Even if Congress passes a brand new law proclaiming all the foregoing is currently “legal” and even the Congress has chosen for the moment to take impeachment proceedings against any Administration official “off the table,” that does not prevent our State from independently pursuing the ethics violations. For that matter, merely because Congress passes a law declaring something "constitutional" does not necessarily make it so, especially when it contradicts unambiguous wording in and intent of the Constitution or its framers.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and whatever assistance you might provide in investigating this matter.


_________________________
[Name, Address, and Phone]