Wanted: strong leader who can turn this country around

Front paged at Booman Tribune. Recommended at Daily Kos

It certainly is nice to see that there are a number of pretty strong Democratic candidates for the 2008 election. Even more so since this country is going to hell in a bucket (and I am not enjoying the ride nearly as much as the Grateful Dead made it out to be). And while I have no illusions that we are not going to find someone who can become a hero and save the day – I do expect a number of things from our President.

Of course, with the last six-plus years of the Bush administration and the last twelve years of the rubber stamp republican Congress, there are so many things that have gone unaddressed, and so many ways that this country is headed in the wrong direction. All of this, however, makes it even more imperative that our next President be a strong leader who can make significant strides towards righting this ship – both nationally and in the global community.

I will preface by saying that the two people who I think would be the best leaders for this country at this time in history have not thrown their hats in the ring, and the one who I am leaning towards supporting at this point may not even exhibit the most traits which I think would make the strongest leader. That all being said, I think that there are many traits that we must demand from our next President – or at least our next Democratic candidate. And while it is too early to focus on anyone in particular, I don’t think it is too early to formulate what we need in our next President.

I will keep this as objective as possible, and there will be some traits which will obviously lead to the thought that a particular candidate does not, can not or will not exhibit – but I don’t want to make this a “pro” or “anti” anyone diary. I would rather see what people’s thoughts on what we need and expect from our next President.

This is in no particular order, other than what comes to mind.

We need a leader who will be able to put forth a plan that will minimize the ongoing disaster that is occurring in Iraq. I think that there will not be 150,000 troops in Iraq by November 2008, however, even if there isn’t, there will be a humanitarian issue which could be a full blown genocide by then. We need someone who will be able to push a reasonable and manageable plan that will meet the approval of Congress as well as the international community.

A leader that isn’t afraid to put out a strong and concrete plan for Iraq. To redeploy our troops. To incorporate the other countries in the region. To be vocal about what is smart and what is right.

We need a leader who will be able to bridge the huge chasm that is the partisan divide in Congress as well as this country. This leader must be able to work with both sides of the aisle in order to do what is best for this country, and what is best for We the People. This is probably the most important trait – as it would apply to Iraq, the Middle East in general, Iran’s nuclear program, the global economy, the national economy, healthcare, the environment and the shrinking middle class.

We need a leader that will command the respect of the international community. Someone who doesn’t necessarily need to have decades of foreign policy experience, but someone who other countries will trust – or at least trust enough to want to negotiate with. This would be in areas such as trade agreements, international humanitarian issues (whether it be tsunami, earthquake, genocide, AIDS, or hunger).

We need a leader that will take a smart but tough approach to national security and “keeping us safer”. This should address our deteriorating infrastructure – power grid, power plants, railways, airports, ports, and other areas where we are vulnerable. This should also address sharing of international intelligence and smart law enforcement in order to reduce terrorism – in whatever form. Someone who knows that homeland security does not consist of torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, changing or breaking any of the FISA laws.

We need a leader that wants to be the President of the United States, not be “called the President of the United States”. A leader who works to earn the job – not one who thinks they deserve the job. Someone who, unlike our current President, is able to admit a mistake and adapt to changing circumstances.

We need a leader who will work to help the lower and middle class. Whether it is social security, Medicare, the AMT, tax relief, health insurance or just the cost of living. Someone who will take real action towards rebuilding the Gulf Coast. Someone who will be able to lower the tax burden while rolling back the most egregious of the Bush tax cuts.

Someone who can connect with the American people, and not in a “have a beer with” kind of way. Someone who understands that the average American deals with on an everyday basis. Someone who thinks of “We the People” instead of their high net worth supporters or corporate lobbyists.

Someone who will show over the next two years that he or she is willing to take a strong leadership role in fighting the administration and putting forth concrete ideas to move this country forward. This can be by introducing or sponsoring legislation in the House, the Senate, or by making high profile appearances in his or her home state.

Now, I know that none of the candidates will exhibit all of these traits. But it is something that we should expect from our President. There are nearly two years until the election. But since the campaigning is already underway, we should be holding our candidates’ feet to the fire.

Nobody “deserves” to be President – it is earned. And these traits and actions are even more warranted now with the extremely precarious situation that our country is in. This country demands strong leadership. It is screaming for such leadership.

So, candidates – show us what you got.

Invoking "9/11" is so pre-November 7

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing

I would have said that invoking 9/11 has jumped the shark, but frankly, the term “jump the shark” has jumped the shark already.

That being said, once again and right on cue, President Bush used the swearing in of Mike McConnell as National Intelligence Director to show off his own lack of intelligence. In his “remarks”, Bush once again pulled out the “9/11 card”, not realizing that his mere mentioning of the worst attack on American soil either gets people angry at the blatant pandering and fearmongering, makes them shake their head in annoyance or reinforces the complete ineptitude of what is already known as the worst presidency ever.

Yet, here is our on-the-verge-of-public-meltdown President trying as hard as he can to not find a way not to remind us all of how his administration failed to heed every warning while reminding us that is if we don’t watch it, the terrorists will get us again.

Mike's long experience gives him a unique understanding of the threats we face in this new century. He knows that the terrorists who struck America on September the 11th, 2001 are determined to strike our nation again. He understands that the enemy uses the tools of our modern economy -- from rapid transportation, to instant communications, to global finance -- to spread their extremist ideology, and facilitate new attacks.

Ugh....please. Spare me the histrionics (and to take a page out of Dear Leader’s book, that means “dramatic or hysterical behavior”). All that was missing was the revelation that Saddam and Osama watched the towers fall while enjoying a hearty lunch together.

And just as “9/11 changed everything” so did November 7. We all remember what happened on 9/11. And even if we forgot, we can’t watch one speech by either Bush or Cheney without being reminded – that is if we can even stomach watching another speech in general.

Americans woke up on November 7. Maybe not as much as some of us would have liked, but they woke up. And they are continuing to slowly wake from the 6 year trance that this country has been in. They feel less safe than five years ago. Nearly half knew back in 2003 that Iraq was making us less safe. Over half knew it by July 2005.

Americans haven’t trusted the administration on Iran for nearly a year now. They know that there was no link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks. Americans are finding out that by the administration’s cutting and running from Afghanistan, it allowed al Qaeda to have a banner year in 2006, whether it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or, well, everywhere else.

How overplayed is the “9/11 card”? Now, FauxNooz is downplaying the damage al Qaeda and a nuclear attack. Of course, it is in comparison to the millions of lives that would be destroyed by.......teachers unions. Yes, invoking the 9/11 attacks has even worn thin on foaming at the mouth talking meatsicks like Sean Hannity:

SEAN HANNITY: Alright, let me ask you. Because, you — when you said about the Department of Education — you want to abolish it — when you said that the teachers unions is more dangerous to this country in the long term –

NEAL BOORTZ: In the long term, yeah.

HANNITY: Than al Qaeda.

BOORTZ: Right. Look, Al Qaeda, they could bring in a nuke into this country and kill 100,000 people with a well-placed nuke somewhere. Ok. We would recover from that. It would be a terrible tragedy, but the teachers unions in this country can destroy a generation.

HANNITY: They are.

BOORTZ: Well, they are destroying a generation.

HANNITY: They are ruining our school system.

BOORTZ: They’re much more dangerous. We worry about al Qaeda and we should. But at the same time let’s not let the teachers union skate.

HANNITY: They destroyed our school system, and we don’t do anything. The parents — why there aren’t people rising up against it is unbelievable.

Congratulations, Preznit. You have managed to turn a national tragedy into a “SOTU drinking game”. Hell, when nearly 6 out of 10 just want you to pack up and go back to clearing fake brush on your fake ranch, it is time to stop to ponder your tremendous slide into irrelevancy from the days just after......you know, 9/11.

So, please. For the sake of us all – just stop invoking 9/11 every chance you get. We know it happened. On your watch. And we want a new direction in Iraq – out, not deeper in over our heads. Just like what the voters wanted with your policies when they voted on November 7. Out.

Just like your invoking 9/11, your administration is so pre-November 7.

Dare I say the Democrats are playing this smartly?

Front paged at Booman Tribune. Recommended at Daily Kos

Disclaimer: I want us out of Iraq as of yesterday. I want funding to be approved only for a smart and sane redeployment plan. This should include and address humanitarian issues to avoid full on genocide. I know the rest of the country is headed in that direction as well.

That all being said, Congress doesn’t move that fast. And there are tremendous forces against the Democrats with respect to getting us out of Iraq. This includes the right wing noise machine, the drumbeat about Iran, and even some Democrats who aren’t, shall we say, as “helpful” to the cause as can be. And in an age where there is so much information available immediately, we tend to want things to happen just as immediately.

However, it was only three months ago since the Democrats won the election – just over one month since the new Congress started. Sure, the country wants out of Iraq. Sure they want a withdrawal or redeployment by next year. And sure, the republicans aren’t going to go quietly, and are going to be kicking and screaming all the way through the 2008 elections (and quite possibly beyond). But a few relatively major things have happened since the New Year. And while some isn’t directly because of the Democrats, they should be given credit for playing their hand as smartly as they could be, given all that they are up against (that being the demands to get out of Iraq, the pushing of policy, the investigations, the pushback from the republicans, etc.)

Now, I think that Pelosi is doing a much better job than Reid, and a much better job than I originally thought she could. Not for any other reason than she is swimming against nasty media coverage, a stupid label of “San Francisco liberal”, a republican party that is gunning to do anything to under cut her and an absolute disaster that the prior 6 Congresses have left for her to clean up.

A few months ago, nobody (other than us) were talking about cutting funding for Iraq. Now, not only are the republicans in danger of being labeled with the dreaded “obstructionist” label on Iraq (in fact, now that I think about it I will start to use that label myself), but the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell is talking about the need to address the funding for troops. Regardless of whether he is trying to force a vote on Judd Gregg’s bill (which was the reason for both votes for cloture failed in the Senate), the important thing is that this is now being discussed.

I’ll walk over to the Overton Window now and give it a little shove to the left – by forcing debates, even on non-binding bills, the Democrats have accomplished a few very important things, which we should give them credit for.

For starters, they now have republicans on record as being in favor of the escalation. They also have republicans on record as talking about being in favor of “staying the course”. They have made the republicans look like obstructionists who won’t even vote on their own non-binding resolutions. They have kept the debate moving in Congress with respect to Iraq. They are looking as good as they can be – passing a resolution in the House, introducing a few others – while having the Senate be held up by republicans. And most importantly, they have gotten the idea of cutting funding out in the mainstream.

Just remember how huge this is – this would have been “unacceptable” or “radical” a few months ago, and now FOX News polls are (1) including a question about funding the escalation, and (2) 54% of the respondents are in favor of NOT funding the escalation .

It gets better – news coverage has the Democrats talking about seeking limits on Iraq. This is what We the People want, regardless of what some morans (heh) on the talking meatstick shows think. At first, I wasn’t for the non-binding resolution as I though that it would be the end of the line and a “moral victory”.

I no longer feel that way. I think that Pelosi has a plan. I think that she is playing this very smart. I think that it is tougher for Reid, given the makeup and the rules of the Senate. But you can bet that if the republicans are playing the “you need 60 votes” card, then it will be that much easier for the Dems to gain close to the magic number come 2008. They may not get there, but there will be republicans at that point who see the writing on the wall. Hell, there already are some that see it with respect to Iraq.

They can’t let up though, and they still have to play it smart. They can’t be painted as “anti war” because of this. And while I don’t think they will be painted as such, they need to be careful to avoid the labeling – because there will be many who try to label them this way. Here is where Obama can really stand out as a leader – here is where Democrats can take his speech opposing the Iraq invasion and adopt it as their own.

Not anti-war. Anti-dumb war. Anti-“this” war. Anti-“war without planning”.

If they really wanted to hit one out, they can tie energy independence to an Iraq exit strategy. Wouldn’t that be something.....

Since we are so quick to point fingers when things aren’t going the way we want, or as fast as we want, let’s stop and at least recognize that major strides have been made over the past few weeks. Even though too many troops have died or been injured over this time period. Even though many more bombs have gone off. Even though they are not home or redeployed yet.

They will be. And while we are still very far from that goal, we are a hell of a lot closer to that goal than we were just two months ago. And we can thank Pelosi and many of the Congressional Democrats for that.

Is thinking and planning too much to ask?

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

Remember al Qaeda? You know, the ones who took out the USS Cole, took down the World Trade Center and the ones who have a leader named Osama bin Laden. The ones we supposedly had “on the run” in Afghanistan. Well, they’re back (although they never really “left”), and are back with a vengeance.

Today’s New York Times has an article about the recent attacks on the US helicopters in Iraq. The article mentions a “carefully planned strategy” to focus on aircraft and documents which are purported to have been drafted by al Qaeda. At the same time, a CNN article from earlier this week references an “apparent al Qaeda video” posted on Islamic web sites that shows careful and meticulous planning for an attack on US and Afghan forces at a checkpoint in Afghanistan.

With respect to the planning that went into the effort to target and attack US helicopters in Iraq, Maj. Gen. James E. Simmons, a deputy commander of the American-led multinational force in Iraq and an Army aviator, had the following to say:

“We are engaged with a thinking enemy,” he added. “This enemy understands based on the reporting and everything else that we are in the process of executing the prime minister’s new plan for the security of Baghdad. And they understand the strategic implications of shooting down an aircraft.”

Too bad the same can’t be said for those who got the US and our troops into this disaster to begin with.

Antiaircraft attacks are up tremendously. More attacks have happened since late January than for all of 2006. A variety of weapons have been used – machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, surface to air missiles, etc. The documents recovered indicate that al Qaeda had been studying flight patterns in certain areas as part of the planning.

The video referenced in the CNN article talks about planning, reconnaissance, and the purported carrying out of an attack on a NATO post last year by upwards of 150 fighters. While the authenticity of the video was not yet confirmed (possibly because of the embarrassment that its authenticity would cause), the following passage from the article is worth pointing out:

The video is significant, said CNN Senior Arab Affairs Editor Octavia Nasr, because it is largely in Arabic -- the language of al Qaeda -- with only comments from local villagers in other languages.

While we are on the subject of al Qaeda, it is worth pointing out a few things while the “let’s kill Iran” drum keeps beating. For starters, both Cheney and Porter Goss have been saying since 2005 that bin Laden is presumed to be in Pakistan. During late 2006, John Negroponte basically accused Pakistan of not doing its part to crack down on al Qaeda and Taliban forces who were being allowed to cross in and out of Pakistan in order to plan and launch attacks against US forces in Afghanistan. Not to be outdone, an article in the Toronto Star from last December quoted an ultimatum to Pakistan with respect to the Taliban and al Qaeda:

"The sanctuary that Pakistan offers to the Taliban and the support they offer are both critical to the more robust nature of the insurgency this year, and its continued success," said Larry Goodson, who heads the U.S. Army War College's department of national security and strategy.

---snip---

And an independent Canadian military analyst, Sunil Ram, says "an endless flow of Taliban is being generated by an underground spring in Pakistan," adding the insurgents' buildup of weapons will lead to a massive spring offensive against Canadian and other NATO troops unless action is taken soon.

What about the Sunni al Qaeda attacks on helicopters? We all remember the threat made to Cheney by Saudi King Abdullah last year that Saudi Arabia would be “forced to” back the Sunnis (who, by the way, have committed most of the attacks on US forces) if the US were to withdraw from Iraq. We also remember page 29 of the Iraq Study Group report (warning: .pdf) that indicated the following:

Funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, even as those governments help facilitate U.S. military operations in Iraq by providing basing and overflight rights and by cooperating on intelligence issues.

And of course, there was the report that the funding was going for weapons including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Sounds like a lot of thinking and planning going on with respect to targeting and killing our troops. But it is going on (1) by Sunnis, (2) in Pakistan, (3) by the Taliban, and (4) funded by wealthy Saudis without the government cracking down. Hmmmmm....somehow I don’t see the word “Iran” or “Shiite” in there at all.

What about the planning and thinking going on from the US top brass? Sadly, that has been lacking since the very beginning. And it isn’t like many alarms didn’t go off immediately. In late 2003, the very conservative (to say the least) Washington Times ran an article titled US rushed post-Saddam planning, which cited a State Department report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that indicated:

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process to allow CentCom to effectively execute the mission. The extent of the planning required was underestimated. Insufficient U.S. government assets existed to accomplish the mission.

---snip---

WMD elimination/exploitation on a large scale was a new mission area. Division of responsibility for planning and execution was not clear. As a result planning occurred on an ad hoc basis and late in the process. Additionally, there were insufficient assets available to accomplish the mission. Existing assets were tasked to perform multiple, competing missions

A Congressional Budget Office report issued that same week raised concerns about the cost, feasibility and sustainability of an occupation in Iraq from a troop level standpoint. A State Department memorandum from February 2003 (warning: .pdf) indicated that there could be “serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance”. The memo went on to indicate that these issues were also raised with “top CentCom officials”.

Just this past week, original Iraq war plan documents were declassified which projected only 5,000 troops in Iraq by December 2006. While we think this is scary but laughable, it was called “completely unrealistic” and “delusional” by the Executive Director of the National Security Archives:

"Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans," said National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton. "First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions."

I will say, you gotta hand it to the Decider – he did get something right. When he signed the Defense Bill in mid 2004, he had tremendous foresight:

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

Maybe a little planning and thinking would have done us good.

Fund the escalation? Even a Fox News poll says "NO"

So much for taking the day off from posting....But I will keep this relatively short. I only do so because I consider this little nugget extremely important as we move closer to our goal of getting our troops out of Iraq (but NOT into Iran) and hopefully moving towards a phase of international humanitarian efforts and true reconstruction.

As much as the debate or passing of a non-binding resolution against the escalation is a very good start (even if it is mocked mercilessly), this is only a first step towards ending this occupation in Iraq. We know that Feingold has a bill ready to go in the Senate that will redeploy our troops, and we know that Murtha is ready to introduce a new bill in the House that will set realistic (but not likely reachable due to their realistic nature) goals for training and equipping the troops before deployment.

What is shocking here are the results of a (warning, .pdf) just released Fox News poll that touches on many of the usual issues, but has a few surprises regarding the escalation plan for Iraq.

Why is this important? Well if 54% of those polled by Fox News say that if they were in Congress, they would vote against funding the escalation, does that make them hate the troops? What if you also knew that 55% of respondents, including nearly 45% of republicans, indicated that it is not indicative of a “lack of courage” for members of Congress to vote against the escalation but still vote to fund the escalation.

I’ll say that again – 54% of FOX poll respondents would not vote to fund the escalation and 55% think that it isn’t “un-American™” to fund the troops but oppose the escalation. Chew on that Hannity. Choke on that, Rush. Stick that in your loofah and smoke it, O’Reilly.

And for those Democrats in Congress – ESPECIALLY those with Presidential aspirations – listen up and listen good: America wants out of Iraq. America would vote to cut funds for Bush’s escalation plan. And they told Fox News they would do it NOW.

While we are at it, a 42%-31% spread is IN FAVOR of a binding resolution. So please, no more “emboldening the terrorists”. No more, “demoralize the troops”. By doing the right thing, we are EMBOLDENING THE TROOPS.

Take a stand against the ill-fated escalation. You owe it to the troops. America wants it. Hell, even people that would take a call and answer nearly 50 questions from FOX News want it. It is the next step towards bringing our troops home.

And this is how you can support the troops.

Unhinged and unfit for office

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

It’s time to start talking seriously about the imminent and immediate danger that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other prominent members of this administration pose to the future of this country, as well as the already-disastrous Middle East. Yes, we talk about it here, and yes we all wish that they would just up and leave. But the fact is, not only is that not gonna happen, but every new day brings another example of how delusional, unhinged, aggressive and detached from reality these people are.

Now, I’m not going to try and debate the merits or feasibility of impeaching Cheney (yes, it should be done) or removing Bush either via impeachment or via the 25th Amendment (which won’t be done but his ability to perform his duties as President and Commander in Chief is eroding on a daily basis). However, a serious discussion as to the relative fitness that these people have for the offices they hold – at a time in history where we need strong, honest, bold, decisive (and not in a “Decider” kind of way) and forward looking leaders - needs to be initiated and make its way into public consciousness.

These people have already shown that they will lie, cheat, steal, and threaten national security – even under oath. They have repeatedly shown a horrific lack of judgment, morals, compassion for their fellow Americans and for other countries whose citizens have sacrificed lives and dollars for a cause that was falsely billed as “just and right”.

Whether it is justifying or authorizing torture, conspiring to leak classified information and destroying out ability to track proliferation nuclear weapons, threatening and bullying others around the world, turning down offer after offer by Iran to negotiate (and then lying about it as Condoleezza Rice did), bankrupting our economy, dumbing down our schools, willfully neglecting hundreds of thousands of people stranded in the Gulf Coast or using illegal and banned chemical weapons – it just keeps getting worse.

I refused to watch Bush’s press conference from yesterday, but the snippets I read about and the comments from fellow kossacks made me even more concerned. Yes, Bush is a dolt. Yes, he is impatient. Yes, he is a stubborn prick. But he is now talking in circles – repeating points that don’t make sense and barely constitute coherent sentences.

Yes, I know that is not new. But when we have an ever increasing civil war which is getting bloodier by the minute in Iraq and the President is still in relative (if not out-and-out) denial about the situation, there is a big fucking problem. When the same fake evidence is produced by the same liars that lied to us about Iraq and nobody has actually seen proof, there is a big fucking problem. When the evidence - even if true is not even close to being worth pursuing military action, there is a big fucking problem. When even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Advisor don’t think the evidence links Iran’s government – there is a big fucking problem.

Our troops are stuck in a horrible situation which is only going to become miserable in a short time. There is a lack of the proper armor. There is no strategy other than “to win”, which is as big a disservice to the troops as the lies that sent them there in the first place. This country’s infrastructure is being ignored. Roads, railways, power grids, power plants, airports are all being ignored as far as safety and upkeep goes. Millions are without jobs. Millions more are without healthcare.

Iran’s people and their powerful are NOT happy with Ahmadinejad. Bush knows this. Cheney knows this. Rice knows this. Iran could be on the cusp of reform – as it was before Ahmadinejad took office. But any military action will likely radicalize the masses and will ensure another generation – if not more – of hostility and another “Cold War” type situation. At every turn, these so-called “leaders” of ours have led us to the brink of disaster – even over the line into “disaster territory” on more than one occasion.

A few things are true:

Iran is NOT an imminent threat to our national security. Yet, even if they were, this administrations stunning lack of foresight (even if their goal was to implement the PNAC plan, it would take more planning than they did) has put us in a position where we can’t even deal with Iran.

The complete lack of credibility that America has as a result of lie after lie after lie has resulted in a situation where, even if there was evidence of Iran pointing nukes directly at the United States, nobody would believe it. The trust and goodwill that the US had in the international community has been willfully squandered. We have become a laughingstock to the world – the punch line of a bad joke.

This country is in a very precarious situation – in Iraq, from an economic and debt standpoint, its policies on the environment, on healthcare, on national security, on homeland security, education, jobs, housing and scores of other areas. Pretty much all of this deterioration has occurred over the past six years. Pretty much all of it was from the active policies of this administration.

A house of cards can only stand for so long. This is the case for the Bush administration. The Libby trial has shed a light on the depth and extent that these criminals would go to cover up their lies and intimidate those who dare criticize. It also showed the depth of the evil that is Vice President Cheney. More recently, Congressional hearings and testimony have shed a light on the stovepiping of bad intelligence to sell a war. This same stovepiping - by the same people is happening right now. Lies are being exposed. Fingers are being pointed.

And we are watching the very high profile, very public meltdown of a United States President. A so-called “Commander in Chief” who can’t even handle a few pointed and necessary questions from a compliant and deferential press corps. We are watching our Vice President present as “absolute” statements that are long on innuendo, threats and manipulation but even shorter on truth and evidence. We are watching a combative Secretary of State outright lie about negotiation proposals from Iran. The same Secretary of State that nobody in the Middle East wants to talk to.

The administration has become the Land of the Broken Toys. Except for the fact that we all felt sorry for those toys. We shouldn’t feel sorry for these people. They are willfully endangering our country and future every single day. They are unfit for office. They are unhinged, angry, delusional, out of the mainstream.

They are a threat to all of us and to the world at large. They must be removed. And this country deserves nothing less than a debate on their fitness for office, especially at this time in history.

Everyone is calling bullshit on Iran "evidence"

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing

Coincidentally, my internet radio is playing “Won’t get fooled again” as I write this. As it is also in my sig, I think more and more people are starting to realize that if enough of us don’t speak up and vociferously call bullshit on this all-hat-no-cattle bloviating about Iran’s “meddling” in Iraq then the psychotic lunatics who have hijacked our foreign policy and crashed it into Iraq are going to back that car up and head straight for Iran.

And maybe, just maybe, we are seeing a forceful enough pushback that, if kept up, we can actually avoid having Iran replace Iraq as the “ most dangerous foreign policy blunder” in nearly half a century.

Sure, there are some who are the cheerleaders, since war sells. But since there is no shortage of dumb war decisions over the past five years, how many more are needed anyway? With a growing number of high level military officials, and even some in the Bush administration who had orgasmic fantasies about making Saddam the United States’ bitch (disclaimer: please don’t take that as a personal attack against female dogs or anything other than a colorful description of the asininity of the US Iraq policy. And yes, asininity is a word) speaking out on this Iran “evidence”, we may not be hurtling towards Armageddon after all.

Talk about a potential Constitutional crisis – what would happen if Cheney and his minions continue to press for military action on Iran based on evidence that is simply not believable, or even if it is, doesn’t warrant air strikes or mass bombings? And what happens if the military doesn’t believe this evidence is credible or warranted? And what happens if US opinion is overwhelmingly against such action (or doesn’t necessarily believe the validity of such evidence)? Would the top military finally refuse to follow the insane orders of the unhinged Executive Branch? What if they don’t refuse, even though they don’t think it is credible or justified?

We know that earlier in the week, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace expressed his concern over this evidence:

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government per se knows about this," Pace replied. "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it is clear that materials from Iran are involved. But I would not say based on what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

Not exactly a vote of confidence in this evidence. And we know that while Tony Snow is stumbling and fumbling his way around these comments, a member of Pace’s staff has indicated that Pace stands by his comments.

We also heard National Security Advisor (whose fingers were all over the Iraq disaster) Stephen Hadley call the evidence “overstated”.

Just today, Pace was joined by CentCom Commander William Fallon joined in on the “bullshit calling”:

Today on CNN, CentCom Commander William Fallon, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, was asked about the administration’s claim. Fallon said, “I have no idea who may be actually with hands-on in this stuff.”

A late January article from the LA Times not only indicated that the evidence is “scant” but also alluded to a “grasping at straws” by the Bush administration:

Some U.S. officials have also suggested that Iran, a Shiite theocracy, has provided aid to the Sunni insurgents, who have led most of the attacks against U.S. forces. Private analysts and other U.S. officials doubt that.

Iran helping the Sunnis. Yeah, right. But we do know who is financing the Sunnis and it ain’t Iran.

Even the ultra-conservative (or ultra-neoconish) US News & World Report is reporting this with the headline Another Blow to Bush’s Credibility? The article cites NBC Nightly News, CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, McClatchy, the Washington Post and even Fox News as reporting about the lack of credibility of this Administration.

Even Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s office (who should be at least a bit of an ally to the US) is doubting the evidence. According to this week’s TIME:

But an official in the Prime Minister's office questioned the credibility of U.S. intelligence, pointing to recent reports of evidence-fudging at the Pentagon in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "They need a scapegoat, so they conveniently point to their old enemy, Iran," said the official, who asked not to be named because he is not authorized to talk to the media. "But these days American intelligence is a discredited commodity. Who can believe them?"

No doubt that as the push to beat the war drum grows louder, more people will start to focus on Iran and this supposed “evidence”. But this time, many more are starting to ask questions. Even some in the press are calling bullshit on these assertions.

We know that Cheney and his insane followers aren’t going to let up. And we can’t either. We are pushing the Overton Window back into sanity range. We need to keep pushing, and keep pushing hard. It is working.

Nobody thinks this is a good idea. That is, nobody except the lunatics that gave us the Iraq disaster. We aren’t getting fooled again.

How do we know?

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing

So now the “evidence” of Iran’s supposed meddling in Iraq has been “presented” to a select number of people and is being used as further reason to bomb the country back to the Stone Age. Well, sorry for not being whipped into a feverish bloodthirsty frenzy, but it seems an awful lot like “been there, done that”.

And since this “evidence” was only presented to certain people in the military and we are supposed to trust those who are telling us “no really, this time we are serious, there really is evidence”, I still have a few questions. Excuse me for being the skeptic, but I think We the People are owed an explanation and just a wee bit more detail.

How do we know that this evidence actually exists? If all we are seeing are pictures of purported evidence, how do we know that these pictures aren’t the same “cheap forgeries” that related to another country a few short years ago?

How do we know that this information has anything at all to do with Iran’s government when even General Pace doesn’t think there is a link? How do we know that the source of this evidence is any more credible than my sister’s husband’s cousin’s uncle’s grandchild’s babysitter? How do we know that, even if this “weapons cache” was used in Iraq that it wasn’t specifically planted by Sunni insurgents as a false flag?

How do we know that the US isn’t being played (just as it was by Ahmad Chalabi) by Sunnis in order to divert attention towards Iran and the Shiites in Iraq? How do we know that the intelligence community is in agreement about this supposed evidence, especially when National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley recently called it “overstated”? How do we know that this evidence, which was also recently called “scant” actually even exists?

How do we know that this evidence didn’t come from sources other than the ever-credible “sources” like discredited arms dealers who were involved with Iran-Contra? How do we know that this evidence isn’t being “stovepiped” like the evidence on Iraq? How do we know that Office of Special Plans evidence manipulator Abram Shulsky isn’t manipulating evidence again?

How do we know that, even if this “evidence” is accurate, that it is being used in attacks against our troops? How do we know that Saudi Arabia ISN’T at least as involved or even more involved in the financing for weapons that are shooting down our helicopters? How do we know that Pakistan isn’t harboring terrorists and turning a blind eye towards attacks by the Taliban against our troops in Afghanistan?

How do we know that you aren’t lying once again? How do we know that you aren’t going to lie this country into war again? How do we know that the pre-dawn raid in December that led to the detaining of Iranian diplomats wasn’t specifically meant as an act of aggression? How do we know that your intentions are any different you’re your intentions on Iraq, where war was predetermined regardless of the facts?

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but this world already got suckered once. You fooled us once. And before you fool us twice, just know that, um, you can’t get fooled again.

We've ignited a regional holy war in Iraq

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

Chalk it up to the law of unintended consequences. I would say to chalk it up to the law of "intended" consequences, except for the fact that there were many in our government, including Bush himself who didn't know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis.

Over the past few months, the United States is finally realizing that Iraq is in the midst of a bloody civil war. One that was predicted by many for years now. And more recently, the talk is being ratcheted up about the scant, um, "overstated", um, "pretty good" evidence of Iran's "meddling" in Iraq.

What is being missed here, is that we shouldn't even be talking about a "civil war" in Iraq - but rather a regional holy war between Sunnis and Shiites. And oh-by-the-way, while this battle was previously largely confined to Lebanon and some other areas, and whose face was mainly terrorist groups such as Hizbullah or Hamas, Iraq is rapidly becoming "ground zero" for this holy war for dominance in the region.

Not to say that this outcome wasn't something that could have been predicted, given the volatile state of the region in general, as well as the numerous wars and conflicts that have been fought over the past, oh, countless number of years. Up until now, however, the US troops were not in the midst of this holy war. And up until the ill-fated invasion of Iraq, the US had little hand (other than its role as background aggressor) in these battles.

However, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has done way more damage than "creating a haven for terrorists". The bigger horrific long term impact is that Iraq, with its largely Shiite population but formerly Sunni government is now viewed as "up for grabs" in a battle to shift the regional power to Shiite-dominated.

In doing research over the past few weeks for my book, I have been gathering a lot of information on Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And in piecing together the mess that has been made in or by each of these countries over the past few years, I came across an excellent article from last December's UK Guardian, titled Iran v Saudis in battle of Beirut. While it relates to the struggle in Lebanon, developments over the past two months not only supplement this article, but also put the entire region into context.

And let me tell you, it isn't pretty.

Before I get into the context as it relates to Iraq, I'll at least lay out who is on whose side.

Sunnis

Most Muslims are Sunni. While Iraq was overwhelmingly Shiite, Saddam's regime was a Sunni regime. Therefore, while the country itself was majority Shiite, the Sunni government (and Saddam's heavy hand) kept the Shiites from exerting its authority in the country. The combination of the Shiite majority and the Sunni minority rulers made the potential for an exploding powder keg if the Sunnis were driven from power. Another way to say this is that anyone with even a cursory amount of knowledge knew that a civil war in Iraq was not only possible but likely if Saddam's regime were to be toppled.

On the "Sunni side" are countries that are our "friends" in the WarOnTerrah™. Countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt as well as countries like Jordan and much of the Palestinian Muslims are Sunni, or largely identify themselves with the Sunnis. While there may be Shiite elements or struggles for power in these countries (like the one in Pakistan), by and large, they are and have been Sunni.

Additionally, our enemies such as the Taliban (who the US and Pakistan had a large hand in helping form), Hamas and Osama himself are Sunni.

Shiite

On the "Shiite team" are our sworn enemies such as the card-carrying "Axis of Evil" member Iran, Syria as well as Lebanon. Terrorist group Hezbollah is also a Shiite organization.

********************

So what is going on now? Well, if you remember, we helped Saddam's Sunni regime against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. We have always been aligned with Saudi Arabia and, when it suits our cause, Pakistan. Iran and Syria have generally been "evil" in the eyes of the United States. So, it would seem that historically, we would be more sympathetic to the countries that are Sunni over those who are Shiite.

The problem here? Well, in Iraq, the "insurgency" has historically been Sunni. And from 2004 - 2005, there were roughly 60,000 attacks against US and coalition forces in Iraq. Since this was the period before a full blown civil war was occurring, it is safe to say that these attacks were largely by the Sunni "insurgency".

Makes sense so far. However, when you look at the events of the past two months, we are in a situation where we are supporting countries who are backing (1) Sunni insurgents against American troops (Saudi Arabia), (2) countries that are looking the other way while the Taliban are launching attacks against US troops in Afghanistan (Pakistan) and (3) are not doing enough to capture bin Laden, who is assumed to be hiding in the country (Pakistan).

We know that there have been a number of instances over the past three weeks where US helicopters have been shot down in Iraq. The week after the UK Guardian article was released, there were wealthy Saudis funding the Sunni insurgents. What was the funding being used for?

Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

We also know that Vice President Cheney was "summoned" to Saudi Arabia around the same time. According to a top Saudi official, the meeting wasn't too pleasant:

sked about the meeting, a senior Saudi official -- who spoke on condition he not be named -- ruled out using terminology such as "warning" or "threatening." He said, "I believe the Saudi position was clear, that things might deteriorate or drift in Iraq, and then the kingdom will find itself forced to interfere."

The official also added: "This is not only expected from Saudi Arabia, but also Jordan and a lot of other Arab countries can't stand still and see things going that direction."

Over recent months, there has also been much finger pointing between Afghan President Karzai and Pakistan regarding the Taliban. Even John Negroponte pointed the finger at Pakistan last month, alleging that it a refuge for top terror leaders and is not doing enough to stop al Qaeda and the Taliban from launching attacks on US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.

At the same time, we are refusing to talk to countries like Iran and Syria, whose influence will only grow if Iraq falls to the Shiite majority and its leaders such as al Sadr. Not only that, but we are threatening action against Iran for tenuous links to IED parts that were used to in attacks on US troops in Iraq.

The article cited above from the UK Guardian notes the following with respect to the fighting in Labanon over the past year:

A Hizbullah political success would plainly complement the group's self-proclaimed military successes of August. And like Israel, the US and Britain see the potential "loss" of Lebanon as a direct gain not only for Syria and its favourite militia, but more worryingly, for Iran. This places the battle for Beirut squarely in the wider context of a regional power struggle with an increasingly confident Tehran.

While Lebanon may have seemed like the place where this regional struggle was taking place by proxy, the past two months have seen some significant developments in Iraq. Not just in the civil war - not just with the "supposed" evidence about Iran. But about the battle for regional domination among countries that back Sunnis and countries that back Shiites.

This battle is now actively being waged in Iraq. And not only did the United States ignite this with the invasion and occupation, but now appears to be taking sides.

And it is worth mentioning that we are taking sides with countries that have been funding the Sunni insurgency, as well as countries that are backing the Taliban, al Qaeda and those who attacked us back in 2001.

Is it worth it?

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing

Every Congressman, Congresswoman, talking meatstick, member of the press and American should be asking this question. Certainly, we can look back at the complete disaster that is Iraq and ask “WAS it worth it?”. In fact, many people have asked themselves that question, and even NewsMax reported last year that nearly 60% of Americans think the answer to that is “No”.

This time, as the drumbeat for raining fire and brimstone over Iran is getting louder and louder, the question should be asked as to whether an attack on Iran will be worth it. Worth the cost. Worth the consequences. Worth the casualties. Worth the complete decimation of our already strained military.

LithiumCola has one of the best comments that I have read as it relates to the “evidence” about Iran’s supposed meddling in Iraq. And it should be used as a litmus test for any potential military action. It is a simple question. Even if all of the supposed evidence (whose most favorable description was “pretty good”) is true, is it worth bombing Iran over?

The whole “nuclear bomb is imminent” meme has been thoroughly shot down on so many occasions that even this crew of lying liars can’t sell that one to the most gullible of Yellow Elephants (add this to your blogroll…). However, the Bush administration is hell bent on using its own catastrophic failures in Iraq as a means to try and provoke Iran into war.

Thing is, Iran isn’t stupid. Despite the fact that they are the ones with UN sanctions, and despite the fact that the IAEA has indicated that Iran is running afoul of their obligations, it is Iran that will come out looking better in a battle with the US. It is Iran that will be defending itself. It is Iran that has the upper hand.

As far back as two years ago, Iran was preparing for a US or Israeli attack. Over two years ago, Iran was already winning the war of words – indicating that it would retaliate if attacked but never mentioning that it would be an aggressor.

As recently as this past December, Iran was talking – not about “pre-emptive strikes” but about “retaliation”:

Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi: "The Americans are sunk in the quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is no way for them [to move either] forward or backward. Assuming they attack Iran, [then] their 200,000 troops, in their 33 bases, are highly vulnerable. American politicians and military commanders both know this.

"They can start a war, but [the decision to] end [the war] will not be in their hands.

---snip---

Iranian Navy Commander: American Warships Are Heavy... And Easily Sunk: On November 27, 2006, the Iranian news agency Mehr reported that IRGC Navy Commander Admiral Sejad Kouchaki had said, "We are fully monitoring the route taken by the American [warships in the Gulf], and because American warships are heavy, they have no maneuverability, and are easily sunk."

---snip---

Iranian Suicide Bomber Organization Threatens Suicide Operations Against U.S. Targets in Gulf: On November 20, 2006, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai reported: "An extremist Iranian group is threatening to carry out suicide operations in the Gulf countries that are allies of the U.S., in the event that the U.S. uses its own bases in these countries to attack Iran."

This is what we will be looking at if we attack Iran. Hell, Vice President Cheney has been saying that bin Laden is in Pakistan for two years now. There are new allegations by John Negroponte that Pakistan is harboring terrorists and is assisting the Taliban in its attacks against forces in Afghanistan. Yet, here is evidence which is questionable at best about Iran being trumpeted using the same liars that strong-armed their way into an invasion of Iraq.

The United States is hardly in a good position here. We barely have the resources to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone Iran. The repercussions will be swift. They will be strong. If anyone thinks this country and its economy are in bad shape now, just wait until an attack on Iran.

For those who say that “we haven’t been attacked again here in the US”, get ready for a few attacks if we start bombing Iran. For those who think that Iran will just roll over and give us that cheap oil we were promised by the neocon war criminals before “Shock and Awe”, you got another thing coming.

There are so many things that will backfire from an attack on Iran. There will be such a strong backlash from the international community. In a word, this country will be fucked. Even more than now.

Even if the supposed evidence against Iran is true, is it worth the ramifications of bombing the country?

I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone that will say yes to this question. Unless they are lying, delusional or criminal.

Trust

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

We are now being told that Iran is meddling in Iraq and is “helping insurgents”. While the government doesn’t know whether it should release the information, it wants us to trust them. Trust them about evidence that National Security Advisor Steven Hadley said is “overstated”. That we should trust new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, because he says the evidence is “pretty good”.

This, from the same man who was under investigation for lying about the Iran-contra crimes.

We are being told that there is solid and credible evidence against Iran. Vice President Cheney says that he has seen proof. But the “proof” is coming from private briefings by the Pentagon’s Iranian directorate. A man named Abram Shulksy. Shulksy was the former head of the Office of Special Plans. The same Office of Special Plans that this week was found to have manipulated evidence about Iraq.

This, from the same men who lied about Iraq. From the same Vice President that was right in the center of the leaking of classified information for revenge. Classified information that led to the end of a counterproliferation program investigating Iran.

We are supposed to trust that the evidence being presented to the Vice President’s office by Iranian exiles and a discredited arms dealer who was involved in the Iran-contra scandal. Just like we were supposed to trust evidence from an Iraqi defector who was widely discredited as unreliable and a drunk. Evidence that was also refuted directly by Germany and other sources. Evidence that the Vice President’s office knew was unreliable but didn’t disclose that the evidence was dubious.

Just like Ahmad Chalabi, whose relationship with this administration provided the information that would lead this country to invade Iraq. The same man who was later deemed to be passing information along to Iran.

We were told to trust you then. To trust that the evidence was a slam-dunk. Only that it wasn’t. But it was worse. The evidence was already known to be manufactured and false. Not the “slam-dunk”. Just lies.

Yet, here we – second verse, same as the first. We are supposed to trust you that the evidence is there. Evidence that was described as “scant” just two weeks ago. Evidence that last week was described as something that “can’t be proven”. Evidence of a link that just one week ago, Secretary of Defense Gates said was “something he didn’t know the answer to”.

The Bush administration says that there is evidence and that it merits us to drop bombs all throughout Iran. Evidence whose release to the public is still being delayed. Evidence that Congress hasn’t even seen. But we should trust them that it is there.

Just like we trusted when we were told that that Iraq had WMDs. Just like we trusted when we were told that we don’t want to wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Just like we were told to trust that New Orleans would be rebuilt. Or that we should be trusted that the bankruptcy bill would make things fairer and strengthen the economy. But things aren’t getting better in New Orleans. And article after article after article after article show increases in bankruptcies over the past few years.

We trusted you when you said that no one could have anticipated an increase in violence in Iraq. Or when you said that no one could have anticipated a breach of the levees. Or when you said that nobody could have predicted that they would fly planes into our buildings. But all of those happened. And you knew that all of those could or would happen, yet we were still told to trust you.

But we should trust you now. With no evidence. And the same lies and liars that were used before. The thing is – trust is earned, betrayed and lost.

We gave our trust. You betrayed our trust, and therefore lost it. A long time ago. “Trust us” just doesn’t cut it.

If they can't have nukes, why should we?

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing

Not really an unfair question at all. To be honest, if the US wants to set a good example in its dealings (and threats) to Iran, North Korea and any other country that wants to be part of the “nuclear club”, then a pretty good first step would be to take the lead and show that the “do as I say, not as I do” doesn’t apply yet again.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have already proven that we can blow up enough shit to level entire cities with conventional weapons. It is also, in my estimation, extremely unlikely that a country would be willing to use a nuclear weapon in pretty much any situation. Why do I say that? Well, there is obviously the immediate repercussions of the death and destruction and ostracizing of the “offending” country by the international community.

I also don’t think that there is any “regime”, even Ahmadinejad (since the real power in Iran isn’t too keen on his rhetoric) or North Korea is crazy enough to preemptively use a nuclear weapon. Of course, that does exclude the current US administration, because I wouldn’t put anything past them. Besides, why else would Bush be modernize its nuclear arsenal instead of taking steps to destroy it? Sure, I can be wrong here, but if India and Pakistan didn’t use them on each other, then I would think that is a good indication of the ability to exercise the most basic judgment in the most heated of battles.

There has been much made of John Edwards’ recent comments in a “nuclear” Iran. And while everyone is rattling cages on Iran, and while obviously it is not a good thing to have a nuclear Iran, isn’t it also not a good thing for any country to have nuclear weapons? Aren’t conventional bombs good enough to level houses and neighborhoods? Can’t “bunker busters” get deep into the ground? Aren’t rocket-propelled grenades doing just a find and dandy job at shooting down helicopters?

The debate needs to shift back towards the “no nukes is good nukes” campaign of the last generation. Wouldn’t the most appropriate response to “would you tolerate a nuclear Iran?” (or North Korea, or any other country for that matter) be that it is unacceptable for any country to have a nuclear weapon? Shouldn’t we want, nay, DEMAND that our leaders and Presidential candidates stand up and address the matter in an overall comprehensive manner? Don’t we deserve to have our leaders make bold statements like:

Yes, it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Yes, I would not tolerate North Korea building nuclear weapons. But on that same note, every country should be held to those standards, regardless of whether the United States deems them to be “rogue” regimes or not.

And I believe that if the United States is to be a leader in the world, and if the United States is demanding that other countries end their nuclear programs, then we should take the lead on this initiative. By taking the lead, I mean that we should NOT look to “modernize” our nuclear arsenal – we should be actively reducing it.

Pretty simple. Pretty logical as well. And for all of those who just want to blow shit up, there are still plenty of ways that our military can do that. But why should these incidents even be occurring?

Nastya, from Belarus was only three years old when she was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs. According to local doctors the region has seen a huge increase in childhood cancer cases since the Chernobyl disaster.

Why does the US need close to 10,000 nuclear warheads? Do we really need to live under the threat of “mutually assured destruction”?

Our Presidential candidates should be speaking out in this area. The debate should shift to include talks about taking the lead to reduce OUR weapons cache. The debate should shift to include the absolute lunacy of any country, including ours of having and ever threatening the use of such weapons.

Senator Clinton should be saying this. Senator Obama should be saying this. Senator Christopher Dodd should be saying this. John Edwards should be saying this. As should Governor Richardson, Congressman Kucinich and former Governor Vilsack. Of course, if there are others that I have forgotten (noting that Clark and Gore haven’t announced yet) then they should be saying this too.

The links above will let you remind them of their responsibility to show just how the United States can set an example for the rest of the world. It really isn’t even a reach. It’s common sense. And it won’t put this country at a greater risk – it will make us safer.

We can’t afford NOT to take these steps.

Why did Sharpe James change the effective date on his own bill?

Front paged at Blue Jersey

The legislation in the NJ legislature with respect to a ban on dual-office holding has taken some steps forward over the past few days.

While the Assembly passed a similar version last month - the effective date on the legislation was February 1, 2008. Up until very recently, the Senate version had a similar effective date. That is, until State Senator Sharpe James changed the effective date on his own proposal from February 1, 2008 to an "effective immediately" date. In addition to holding up the process, which now requires the Senate to vote on the new proposal, send it to the Assembly and see if the Assembly will vote on the same effective date, it raises a question as to why James made the change to his own bill.

Of course, there is the matter of James being a long-time dual office holder himself (in addition to State Senator he was Mayor of Newark), which makes the following quote more ironic:

"New Jersey, the Garden State, the second wealthiest state in America, is not brain-damaged to the point that we need one person to hold two elected offices. Hello!"

This part was covered in jmelli's post from yesterday. But the other interesting point to note is that the Assembly Bill's effective date was taken from the original Senate bill James introduced. So, why did James make the change to the bill?

Well, in the article noted above, there is a hint of what the motivation may have been here. At first glance, it would clearly help Senate Majority Leader Bernard Kenny against a potential challenge from dual-office holder Brian Stack (who is both Union City Mayor as well as an Assemblyman). However, as mentioned briefly in the article, the "new" effective date of the legislation may have two more direct beneficiaries - one Sharpe James and his former deputy-Mayor Ron Rice:

But James initial proposal, with the Feb. 1, 2008 started date, would have allowed all dual-officeholders to keep their jobs through the November elections.

James' new proposed ban passed Monday night could thwart off potential Senate challengers in November.

James and fellow Newark Democratic Sen. Ron Rice may face primary challenges from officeholders -- James from Newark Councilman Luis Quintana, and Rice from Essex County Freeholder Bilal Beasley, who is also an Irvington councilman.

Quintana, as Councilman and Beasley, as Freeholder would both have to give up one of their offices if they were to win and this may discourage them from mounting a primary challenge. Another angle here that is important to note deals more with Rice than it does James. Since Newark Mayor Cory Booker is also against dual officeholding and Quintana is a supporter of Booker's, he would likely resign even if there was no requirement for him to do so. And with all that is on Booker's plate, he probably doesn't want to have a mid term election added to that. So that leaves other potential challengers to James, including Teresa Ruiz who has some pretty powerful backers.

So, what is it then? For someone who was a dual-officeholder for nearly a decade (and who has been in elected office for over 35 years), is it a sudden change of heart and a "new and improved" reformist?

Or is it about looking out for himself and his former deputy mayor?

It remains to be seen, but there is a reason why the saying "a tiger doesn't change his stripes" is such a widely used term.

Congrats, Republicans. Iraq is Now Your Albatross.

Front paged at Booman Tribune, ePluribus Media and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

Regardless of what ultimately comes out of the Senate with respect to a non-binding resolution on the escalation on Iraq, or on Iraq in general, the republicans have handed the Democrats a gift in what can be called the smallest of consolations in the illegal occupation of Iraq.

And regardless of whether American voters wanted change or wanted bi-partisanship (as many of the republicans who refuse to accept the reality of an ass-whooping like to say), the bi-partisanship that Americans wanted was “Iraq Study Group”-style. Certainly NOT more of the same tired failed policies in Iraq with a shiny new label.

So, with the vote in the Senate yesterday to block the debate on two specific proposals on Iraq – it doesn’t matter how the republicans are spinning this vote. They have been branded as “blocking debate on troop increases”. And with this, they are now saddled with the impression that they are once again banding together to put party over country – to deny the American public what they wanted when they voted overwhelmingly in November, and at a time when poll after poll indicates that an exit strategy from Iraq is what is wanted more than anything else.

We know that first impressions are very difficult to overcome – witness the “flip flop” meme, even though this was nonsense. But if you take a look at the roundup from today’s major newspapers, it doesn’t look too good for the republicans.

LA Times: GOP bats down resolution debate. The most serious congressional challenge to President Bush's Iraq war strategy stalled Monday when Senate Republicans blocked consideration of a resolution criticizing his plan to boost troop levels.

That was the first paragraph. What about the Washington Post?

GOP Stalls Debate on Troop Increase. A long-awaited Senate showdown on the war in Iraq was shut down before it even started yesterday, when nearly all Republicans voted to stop the Senate from considering a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional combat troops into battle.

That isn’t going to play well with the roughly 60% who are against the escalation. And the WaPo story was on Page A1.

As for the NY Times:

GOP Senators Block Debate on Iraq Policy. Republicans on Monday blocked Senate debate on a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, leaving in doubt whether the Senate would render a judgment on what lawmakers of both parties described as the paramount issue of the day.

But it doesn’t stop there. Every business traveler and vacationing American will find the following in their USA Today outside their hotel door when they wake up:

Vote on Iraq is blocked by GOP. Republicans blocked the Senate from delivering a politically embarrassing rebuke of President Bush's Iraq policy Monday in a maneuver that could have implications for the conduct of the war and for next year's elections.

Even in places like Kentucky and Utah, the headlines or opening paragraph of the stories talk of republicans blocking a vote and debate on Iraq.

I may be mistaken here, but it would seem to me that this is something that Americans won’t soon forget. If there is to be any meaningful legislation, then it will be “despite republican efforts to block it”. If there is not anything meaningful, or if there is further bickering, it will now fall under the cloud of “GOP in favor of ‘more of the same’ in Iraq”. Any republicans up for reelection in 2008 now are saddled with more than just the “rubber stamp” of the prior 6 years. They now will have the “supporting party over country in blocking change of direction in Iraq”.

Of course, I hope that any efforts and actions taken will not result in additional death and can help bring some form of stability long enough to get our troops redeployed safely. However, with the details of the events unfolding and military leaders inclucing the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicating that they are not only against this escalation, but even if there was to be an escalation it would need way way way more than 25,000 troops I am not hopeful.

In that case, I unfortunately can not think that things will turn around for the better over the next two years. In that case, an even more pissed off public will resent the fact that even the Democratic efforts that we here deem to fall way short of meaningful were being blocked by republicans will come back to haunt them and bite them in the ass. And any thoughts or dreams by the republicans to make the Iraq debacle a “Democratic” or even a “bi-partisan” responsibility have taken a serious body blow with their actions yesterday.

But hey, if there is a small silver lining in this horrific cloud of blood and violence, it is the fact that the republicans took a giant step yesterday towards making themselves a minority party for many more years.

"If they bomb Iran, we'll remove them from office"

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

I want to hear those words Actually, I need to hear those words.

This should be coming out of every Senator’s mouths. That includes you, Specter, Brownback, Warner and Hagel. And it includes you too, Kennedy, Biden, Boxer, Obama and yes, Clinton. This should be the only discussion when it comes to Iran.

They fucked up Afghanistan in less than a year. They fucked up Iraq before they even went in. They fucked up the Israel/Palestine situation. They fucked up North Korea and Iran already.

Neoconservatives who are forcing the dialogue on how dangerous Iran is and why “nothing is off the table” have not only been wrong on every single prediction and count, but they have been wrong on such a tremendous level on every single thing for so long that it would be laughable if lives weren’t at stake.

This administration, as well as the revolving door of sycophants, war criminals recycled from the Ford administration, looters, polluters and just plain greedy bastards that it has consistently surrounded itself with will not stop in their quest for whatever the hell their quest is.

These people do not deserve the responsibility of wiping their own ass (sorry for the visual), let alone wiping entire cities off the face of the earth. And we are to “trust them” that they won’t go ahead and just do it? The reasons why we “have to keep all options on the table” are word for fucking word the same as the dubious, twisted, incorrect, misleading and bullshit reasons why we “had to bomb Iraq NOW”.

The evidence? In the words of the LA Times, “scant”. The proof if Iran meddling in Iraq? Can’t be proven. But don’t trust the LA Times. Ask National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley:

"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.

Not good enough? How about new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.

"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.

Game over. No evidence. Unsure of any connection. But let’s try to move the Overton Window while we are at it.

This is absurd. How the hell is this happening? How are these madmen (and women – need to be equal opportunity) not being told point blank that their ideas on bombing Iran are nothing more than delusional fantasies? Where is all the screaming about the fact that Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a blowhard figurehead (kind of like some of our Senators)?

Where is the absolute dismissive mocking laughter about the complete insanity of this “plan”? I want to hear, “An attack on Iran? With what Army?”

These criminals should have been removed from office long ago. With their backs up against the wall, they will be more brazen. They need to go. The world community deserves to know that these insane so called leaders who are hell bent on bringing on the end of civilization will be removed from office if they take this one step further. And the future of the United States of America demands nothing less.

Listen up, Congress - it's time to show us what you are made of

Front paged at Booman Tribune and My Left Wing. Recommended at Daily Kos

Forget the talk about wanting Bush to withdraw from Iraq by 2009. Forget the self congratulating with respect to a (warning: .pdf) toothless and meaningless but symbolic vote. Hell, even something like censure is barely sufficient as far as action.

Here is the plain fact. America wants out of Iraq. As soon as possible. Period.

If you want to have any chance of gaining the public’s confidence, and as a nice little side benefit, control of Congress for a generation as well as the next few presidencies, listen and listen good. Get us the hell out. Get our troops home. No more of this “talk pretty and do little. The country can not afford to wait. Our troops can not afford to wait. We should not be there any longer. The Iraqi people and government want us OUT.

Even last February, 72% of Americans wanted the troops out in 12 months. SEVENTY-TWO goddamn percent! And guess what? It has been 12 months, and we still want out. America elected a Democratic Congress to get us out of Iraq. To have a sane foreign policy. To not waste nearly ten billion dollars every month in this sinkhole.

There is a bill in the House to redeploy troops from Iraq by John Murtha. There is a bill in the House to bring our troops home within six months by Lynn Woolsey. There was a bill introduced in the Senate this week by Senator Feingold that will fund the redeployment of our troops from Iraq within six months.

America wants these bills to pass. America wants its troops to come home.

Now is not the time for weak “nonbonding” measures. Now is not the time to debate how long this escalation (that EVERYONE is against) should last. Now is not the time to discuss how many more troops will be sent. And for chrissakes, ANY talk about Iran should be met with derision and outright threats of impeachment or physical removal from office (and immediate commitment to a mental health institution).

I don’t need to spell out the fact that the public is watching, judging you by your actions, imploring for you to take strong action. Those who are seeking the Presidency in 2008 – your actions NOW will determine whether you can be taken seriously as a candidate. And, no this isn’t a threat, but don’t think that the netroots doesn’t have a much larger voice now in terms of getting information out.

If you don’t take action to bring our troops home as soon as possible and bring this occupation to an end, you can kiss any hope of becoming the next President goodbye. Especially if you are a Democrat. You can talk all you want about “if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn’t have voted to invade”. Well, guess what, you DO know what you know now, and you have an opportunity to make amends.

The best part? You don’t even have to be the one to introduce legislation – it is already there for you to support, whether you are in the House or in the Senate. But this is where you take a stand. This is where you lay your cards on the table. This is where you show the country and the world what you stand for.

Stop talking. Start DOING. The world can’t wait.

Not one day longer.

How Bush's health care plan hurts the Social Security system

There is already a debate on whether the health care “plan” that Bush has recently offered will “level the playing field” for low-income workers and self employed individuals or if it is so bad that it is “dead on arrival”. While this is certainly a good thing, many of the arguments are focusing on whether this will expand coverage to more people in need, whether this is feasible, what the overall cost impact would be and other similar items.

However, there is another level here which is largely overlooked which would adversely impact the very people that it purports to help the most – the lower income families. Not only that, but it will add two layers of additional strain to the very social program that Bush already tried to dismantle – social security. Not only will there be less in tax receipts from the Bush proposal, but the proposal would also have the effect of reducing future social security benefits for nearly all workers.

While I don’t really want this to end up as a debate over whether there will be any benefits left to collect in 20, 30 or 40 years – I do want to point out how, intentionally or not, this plan will end up hurting workers (or more accurately, retirees) in a way that has received little press to date.

A small but important article in the most recent Newsweek called Don’t Forget to Fix Social Security sheds light on how the Bush medical plan will accomplish both the reduction in tax receipts and the reduction in benefit payments. And while the reduction in social security benefits won’t really mean that much to higher wage earners, those who aren’t quite so lucky would feel an even bigger pinch.

The Bush plan focuses on “employer-paid health insurance” which is currently not taxable income to employees. But the plan would make this a taxable item to employees, while allowing for a deduction of either $7,500 (single) or $15,000 (family) from income –this amount would not be subject to Social Security or Medicare tax (commonly known collectively as our friend “FICA”).

Net-net, if you are employed and your employer pays less than $7,500 (or $15,000 if a family) in health insurance for you, then you, the employee, would pay less in social security tax. While I don’t pretend to know how much employer paid health insurance is around the country, I will assume for now (because I haven’t seen much about this number being absurdly low) that it is a relatively fair number.

Now, everyone likes to pay LESS tax, especially with all of the questions surrounding the social security system and how much in future benefits today’s employees will actually see. However, the way to address the social security issues that exist is most certainly NOT to have LESS in revenues.

While I specialize in payroll tax issues (at my day job....) and picked up on this part of the Bush plan, I didn’t even make the connection that the author, Allan Sloan did with respect to social security benefits.

There is a basic calculation regarding social security benefits. The formula, which is not important now, calculates benefits based on the social security wages paid to an individual over the course of their career. The lower the wages, the lower the benefit. That part is fairly straightforward.

But, as Sloan indicates, the reduction in ultimate social security benefits for lower income families (for example, those whose income is around $30,000 as opposed to those who hit the social security wage limit which is currently around $97,000) would be hit harder as far as benefits go. For starters, these are the families who are more likely to depend on social security for their income. And the reduction to their benefits would be a larger percentage than for those who earn two to three times more.

Sloan describes it well:

The way the formula works, someone who pays Social Security tax to the max each year—for 2007, it's on $97,500 of income—would see his benefit shrink by less than 15 percent if he excluded $15,000 from Social Security tax. But low-paid people—who get much more in benefits per dollar of Social Security tax than maxed-out folks do—would see benefits shrink by a far higher percentage. "A family earning $30,000 a year could see its retirement benefit cut in half," says Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center in Washington. That would be an especially serious blow, because $30,000 families tend to rely almost entirely on Social Security for retirement income, whereas high-income families typically supplement Social Security with retirement accounts, pensions and savings.

You gotta hand it to Bush and those who came up with this “plan” – and I am NOT giving them the benefit of the doubt here. Since dismantling social security was a non-starter, they have figured out a way to negatively impact the system through a half-hearted attempt to “address” the healthcare issues facing out country.

Senator Stabenow better be right – this plan should be DOA in Congress, as should any plan that resembles this one. For many reasons – even the ones that aren’t immediately identified.

Murdered in his own home

I never knew anyone personally who was murdered. That is, until last night.

The phone rang around 9:30PM, which isn’t completely unusual, but not really a common occurrence. For some reason, there was no number on the caller ID but on the other end of the phone was my mother. “Hey, what’s up?” I asked, since we talked the day before and don’t usually talk every day anymore.

“Well, things are pretty shitty.” I knew there were some things on my mom’s mind over the past few months, but my parents had some longtime friends visiting so I wasn’t really expecting that answer. “Harold was murdered today. I don’t know much more, but he was home and there may have been a break in – he was shot. I don’t know the details but Marcia found him”

I still have a pit in my stomach. Harold and Marcia lived across the street from me when I was growing up. They had 2 children who were around the same age as me and my sister. The older child – the daughter, was two years younger than me and two years older than my sister. The younger brother was a year younger than my sister. Needless to say, we spent a lot of time at their house when we were growing up. Car pools to Hebrew school, playing after school, or even before we were old enough to go to school. Marcia used to tease me and her daughter because she once found us (we couldn’t have been older than 6 and 4) in the bathroom together.....

They were always “Marcia and Harold” to me. Not “Mr. and Mrs. [O]” (I’m leaving out the last name for now. And while I had many friends whose parents were “cool” and I got to know pretty well, Harold was the first and probably the one who I liked the most. He was kind, funny, smart. At one time, he owned a Carvel ice cream store in the neighborhood, and I remember eating dinner at their house many times and being excited for whatever dessert he brought home from the store for us.

In the early 80s, he and my dad went into business together – a fur delivery business in Manhattan (furs were still “en vogue” at the time). While my dad left after a few years, I remember seeing Harold driving the delivery van around the city now and again when I started to work in Manhattan.

I moved into Manhattan in the early 90s, and my parents moved out of our hometown in the mid 90s. Harold and Marcia moved to Texas a few years ago, and I probably haven’t seen them in close to 10 years. Hell, I probably haven’t thought about them for a few years – maybe when I found out that their daughter or son got married or got a new job. My parents didn’t really keep in touch with them as much as they used to, but it was more because of distance than anything else. I did know that they moved into a new community and were pretty happy (I think their daughter moved down there a few years earlier).

But when I got that call last night, I was, needless to say, floored. And am still in disbelief. Here was someone – someone who didn’t have a mean bone in his body, someone who was always a “straight up” kind of guy, someone who I never heard anyone ever say anything remotely negative about – gone. And for what?

Obviously, I’ve known people who have passed away “before their time”. Whether it was a car accident, a disease or something else. But not this. And how do you make sense of it? Why? How do you process something like this? How can Marcia go back into that house after finding him?

My wife didn’t realize why I was so bothered by this – after all, we have heard of other friends or acquaintances of my parents passing away, even suddenly sometimes. But this was different to me. Even though I wasn’t always close with the family or the children, they were a staple of my childhood.

And this man was the last man that I could think of (if I had to make a list) that deserved this. Which is sad and aggravating all at once.

Good bye, Harold. Even though we haven’t spoken in years, you had a big impact on me. May you rest in peace.