Most of the world has known, and accepted, that the Bush Administration “cooked the intel” with regards to Iraq and forced the United States into a war of choice that has cost far more in money and lives than we were expected to accept. In proving that they are only several years behind the curve, the U.S. Senate today issued a report that blames the Bush Administration of leading the nation into war under false pretenses.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration’s main cases for war — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists — were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

“The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia in written commentary on the report.

At the same time, a British newspaper is today reporting on a secret deal between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government that, if agreed to and signed, would keep the United States in Iraq indefinitely with more than 50 military bases, allow the US to conduct military campaigns against “terrorists” without Iraqi authority, keep control of Iraqi airspace, and offer immunity from Iraqi law for all Americans working in that country, whether employed by the US government directly or through one of its mercenary contractors.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

Of course, immediately on the heels of the article in The Independent, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq comes out with the denials. Which is why we know that this “secret plan” as revealed is more truth than not.

“I’m very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks, that, no indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing.

Translation: Yes, this is exactly what we’re trying to do, and if it weren’t for you darn kids and your stupid dog we’d have gotten away with it.

Iraqi politicians and Iraqi’s in general seem to be opposed to any such deal, and US officials fear that if the plan is put to a general referrendum it will fail.

Public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Iraqis also widely view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty. (msnbc.com)

Which could explain why the Iraqi government is being put under great pressure to finalize this deal in the coming months. With a signed accord in hand, Bush could not only claim (once again) Mission Accomplished, but he could tie the hands of the next president by agreeing to a long term treaty.

Or would he?

Although almost every precedent Bush has engaged in has been unsavory at best and un-American at worst, he has initiated a precedent for ignoring treaties signed by past US administrations that could be useful in this case. Clearly, following the lead set by Bush, our next President could duly bypass any Bush-signed treaties that would bind us to Iraq for several generations. We already know what McCain thinks-he’s happy to keep us embroiled in Iraq for another 100 years. But a President Obama might just decide that any Iraq treaty engineered by Team Bush and coerced through a reluctant Iraqi government isn’t worth the toilet paper its written on. He’d be right too.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In return for North Korea’s agreement to take further steps to eliminate that country’s nuclear program, the United States has indicated that it may remove North Korea from it’s official list of countries that sponsor terrorism, a sign that would surely also remove North Korea from the vaunted Axis of Evil club that President Bush created in 2001. If, as it appears likely, Kim Jong-Il follows the example set by Libya’s Moammar Qhaddafi and relinquishes his push for WMD programs, this would mark the second time a country has dropped out of the Axis Program. (The first would be Iraq, which did not leave the club voluntarily, but was bludgened out of it. Insiders in Iraq claim that many local populations say that there should have been a vote after the removal of Saddam on whether the remaining country wanted to discard their membership in the Axis Program or continue on with a new titular head. Unfortunately, at the time, the U.S. wasn’t accepting application into the program.)

Insiders at the White House and State Department say that in light of recent events in the North Korean negotiations, there is considerable concern that the Axis Program will fade away unless new members can be recruited. Of critical concern to the president is the possibility that a shrinking Axis of Evil Program may weaken his ability to lash out at his political detracators and that his pet project, The Global War On Terror (TM) would lose considerable backing among his own supporters without a full contingent of Axis partners.

Iran, the last active member of the original Axis of Evil, has reportedly responded to the Help Wanted Ad (seen above and printed in most of the world’s main newspapers) in a manner befitting their status as ranking Evil Nation. Iranian president Mahmoud Amedinejad was overheard saying that if he’s not consulted about potential new members that he would discontinue his hard-line rhetoric and consider withdrawing his country from the program altogether. Apparently, Amedinejad is concerned that future Axis Program members may be mere “shadows of great tyrants. There are too many despot-wannabe’s out there trying to claim a piece of the action. I want veto power over any new applicants or I will bring fire and death to the world. And then I’ll quit the club too. Praise Allah.”

President Bush is expected to announce that filling the vacant positions in the Axis Program is his new top priority. He has created a committee to provide him with a list of names of those tyrants best suited to the task. Vice-President Dick Cheney will lead that committee, in part because he has the experience in such matters. After all, he did a fantastic job in a similar situation when he compiled the short list of running mates for then-governor Bush, ultimately deciding upon himself as the best of the best. Insiders speculate that Cheney may decide on a repeat performance. An unidentified source in the VP’s office claims to have heard Cheney muttering something about needing a new job in a year or so.

So we’re in the nation building game, and since we’re the ones who blew the hell out of the place, I suppose that we have some responsibility to at least get the place fixed up a bit before we go home. Or do we? I mean, if the nation we are helping build is supposed to be a democracy (of sorts) then it seems only right that our presence should be limited to the extent that the majority of that country’s citizens (or elected officials as the proxy of the citizens) wish us to remain. Once the balance tips from one side of the scale to the other, we need to acknowledge that decision, pack our bags, and promise to stay in touch.

Guess what? We’ve been asked, more or less, to start packing our bags. According to a story that isn’t getting any play in the American MSM, an Iraqi parliamentary vote on Tuesday had more than half of Iraq’s elected lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal. The non-binding petition will be presented to the speaker of parliament with the request for a vote on a formal binding resolution that adopts the petition’s demand for a withdrawal timetable.Hey- we asked for a democracy, and we’re getting one. Can’t cry foul when it doesn’t go your way.

Unless, of course, you are George Bush or Dick Cheney. The White House Wonder Twins seem to have an almost superhero ability to ignore reality. (And their ability to lie is almost as powerful, but that’s another story altogether.) See, the administration is taking a somewhat different approach than the Iraqi’s seem to want. Rather than prepare to disengage, they keep sending in more US troops. Instead of listening to what the Iraqi’s are saying, they are telling the Iraqi’s how it should be. I guess that 6 years of telling the American public what to do and how to feel, they think that everyone is as gullible. Sorry Dubya- the folks in Iraq live with the bombs of your nation building every day. They don’t seem too keen to wait for you to act anymore.

The Alternet article goes into some detail about the factional problems in Iraq and the barriers that are keeping them apart. Chief among them is the future of Iraq itself- specifically whether Iraq should remain as a strong single entity or as three separate and somewhat autonomous regions under nominal federal controls. Increasingly, Iraqi’s seem to be choosing the strong single entity model over the tripartite solution now favored by the US backed Iraqi government. One sticking point in that discussion has been the sharing of oil resources under each plan. Under the tripartite plan (favored by Team Bush remember), oil controls would be privatized and decentralized, leaving the door open for all sorts of great deals for Big Oil. Under the strong state model, the Iraqi oil fields become state property, meaning other nations will have to play nice to get access.

No matter how many times we go around the bend it always comes back to who gets the oil. With the oil comes the money. With the money comes the power. You know the drill.
The thing is, no matter how (or if) Iraqi lawmakers vote on demanding a timetable from the Bush Administration, they’re never going to get one. Not from Dubya at least. As far as he’s concerned, the U S of A ain’t going nowhere on his watch. And if the Iraqi’s have a problem with that, then they may just find themselves on a watchlist too. Iraq is a really dangerous place these days, despite what John McCain thinks. Dissidents of US desires may find themselves at risk, if you get my drift.

Even though many in Baghdad acknowledge that when US troops leave, the violence will likely get worse before it gets better, a majority of all ethnic groups want the US to get out. And the sad thing is that just about everybody knows it’s time to hand Iraqi’s the keys to their new house and let them get busy with the unpacking.

(Oh, and for those of you who decide to turn the comments section into a debate about “Yes there are terrorists in Iraq you idiot” I suggest you get a grip on reality. There are terrorists in America too but we haven’t bombed the hell out of our own towns. Anyone here think the Pocono’s need a good bombing? )

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

Highlighted in the report are the following:

There’s the $43.8 million spent on a temporary police training camp that has never even been used.

There’s the $36.4 million for armored vehicles, body armor, and weapons that no one seems able to account for.

There’s the $73 million facility built to train Iraqi security forces that has massive expansion cracks in the walls and trickling sewage from ceilings.

This does not even include all the billions stolen by shady civilian contractors who have been hired to perform certain services for the troops- there’s plenty of billions down the drain there too.

But of course, in the mind of the President, where all is well in Iraq (or at least was until around November 2006) and getting better by the day, what’s a few more billion unaccounted dollars between friends. After all, this Iraq war was all about generating massive corporate profits for the Military Industrial Complex and their derivatives, not about anything so noble as spreading democracy or making the world a safer place.

We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq….

Bush’s plan was immediately rejected by a Democratically controlled Congress, a majority of the American public, a large contingent of world governments, former and current military commanders, most puppies and, of course, the baby Jesus. None the less, Bush stuck out his jaw and pressed forward. The surge was on, will of the people be damned.

In the 13 days that followed, Bush has made no indications that he is going to change his mind. Why should he? He is the Decider-in-Chief, after all. So, despite Congressional resolutions and pending legislation that would variously condemn, chastise, or curtail appropriations for new war outlay, Bush came forth in his State of the Union Address to reassert his administration’s plans for a broader Middle East conflict. Reiterating the themes he presented to the nation on January 10th, Bush told the assembled Congress and the American people that more troops were already being sent to Iraq…

“So we’re deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq.”

No more debate folks, they troops are on the way. Bring on the surge.

Americans have made it loud and clear to this president that they want American involvement in Iraq to come to an end. They have declared that ending the war in Iraq is at the top of their governmental “To Do” list. The president has told the American people to Shut The Fuck Up.

But the president didn’t stop with the war in Iraq in the SOTU adress. He also remembered to ratchet up the threats to Iran. In a thinly veiled attempt to deflect attention to his intentions, Bush reminded us all that his entry into Iraq was legal under a UN resolution…

“Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we’re not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations.”

And in the next breath he declared that:

“The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Taken together with the recent build up of American naval power in the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric of the January 10th speech, it becomes more clear every day that Bush will expand his Middle East initiatives at the first opportunity, all the while claiming to seek a diplomatic solution. Just like before Iraq. Yet it is hard to engage in diplomacy when you refuse to speak to your adversary.

Make no mistake. The surge is on. And it may well not stop in Baghdad.

Bush has finally and very overtly changed the game of American politics. He has unilaterally declared himself unstoppable. He has thrown off the constitutional shackles imposed upon the Executive Branch repeatedly over the years, but has managed to stay out ahead by obstinance and obfuscation. But now he has done something even more bold. He has denied the will of the people he professes to serve, he has ignored the masses who he purports to hold dear. He has donned the rosiest of all rose colored glasses. He is an island unto himself. And that, my friends, is not what the American president is supposed to be.

I support a surge of elected officials demanding investigations into this administration’s covert and extralegal shenanigans.

I support a surge in politicians jumping out of the president’s sinking lifeboat of a party and climbing onboard the USS Sanity.

I support a surge in honest, hard-working Americans protesting online and in the streets against this president and his attempts to embroil this country’s future generations in unending warfare based on fabricated evidence and historical mythology.

I support a surge in scientists condemning the president’s anti-science agenda’s and bringing forth widely accepted evidence to counteract the president’s hired pseudo-scientific spin doctors.

I support a surge in religious leaders condemning the very unChristian antics of this, the Born-Again, Evangelical President.

In short, I support an overwhelming surge against this president, his policies, and his administration hacks who perpetuate this assault on American integrity and security.

I’m supporting the surge. Just not the same one Bush is supporting. On second thought, maybe it’s a purge I should be supporting.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Despite the fact that he and his party suffered a sound defeat in the November elections, returning both houses of Congress to the opposing Democratic party; despite the fact that a clear majority of Americans have judged his policies (both domestically and) in Iraq to be abject failures; despite multiple assessments from military, intelligence, and diplomatic professional experts (who, by the way, have more experience collectively and individually than Bush will ever have) that say we need to be finding a way out of the Iraqi quagmire; despite the fact that Iraq is well past the smoldering stages of civil war; despite all these seemingly important hallmarks, the President has applied his hands to his ears and loudly proclaimed, “Lalalalalalala- I can’t hear you, I don’t care.”

Already surmised, Bush says he is increasing troop levels in Iraq, primarily in Baghdad (where the daily death count for Iraqi’s and Americans alike continues to increase) but also in Anbar province, the area he calls the al-Qaeda base in Iraq. At least 20,000 more American troops will be (re)deployed in pursuit of presidential folly. Adding more Americans troops will inflame the Iraqi population and keep providing excuses for the sectarian violence and death squad retributions that are increasingly out of control. American presence, widely viewed as an occupation force by Iraqi citizens, gives each side a reason to attack the other under the excuse of collaboration with America.

Also in the speech was the financial infusion Bush wants to send to Iraq in the form of untold and likely largely unaccounted for billions of dollars to rebuild what we have destroyed and to create Iraq jobs. The notion of a State Department oversight position to “ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq” is laughable considering this administrations (mis)handling of the billions spent so far. If Bush was serious about confronting or eliminating fraud and waste, he would have called for and created an independent (as in outside his administration and Congress) review panel. That he did not shows he still wants to keep real costs as close to the vest as possible as well as remaining able to control the flow of reconstruction information.

Those are the points we already expected to hear. But despite outward appearances, the President’s speech was less about restructuring the Iraq War and more about laying a long term, albeit subtle, escalation of warfare with the added benefit of further decimating the social compacts of America through the systematic squandering of American tax revenue on warfare and its associated costs. Also buried beneath the glossy exterior is the framework to further destabalize the Middle East, through the insistence that only through the adaption of American ideals can the world be safe.

Consider this from the President’s speech:

“We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century.”

Aside from the costs of continued warfare in the Middle East, Bush plans to call for an increase in the military overall. Already the US spends more on its military than most countries combined. That we can scarcely afford our domestic obligations in the process seems to matter not, and indeed, this is a core concept in the neo-con efforts to scale down (bankrupt) government. As military spending continues to increase, at some point it will be necessary to place the costs of this war on the books. Add to that an increased force size, the rebuilding of materiel and equipment depleted, and the Bush plan to create a new generation of American nuclear weapons, and it becomes clear to see that military spending will not only dwarf domestic spending, but completely overshadow it to the point of irrelevance. Such a shift in government spending will have serious effects on the public institutions of health, education, justice, and poverty assistance. And as the military wing of the US government expands at the same time that social programs contract or disappear, the breakdown of the American social system will become more apparent, creating domestic problems and strife not seen in generations. If this happens fast enough (i.e. before Bush leaves office) look for an increase in a domestic police state under the guise of keeping order. But remember, it is all part of the plan.

I mentioned a framework being built that maps out the further destabilization of the Middle East:

“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

and

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

These words, when combined with his calls for an increase in the military in general, seem clearly to point out where the tanks and planes are headed next. Make no mistake- Bush has every desire to extend the Iraqi War into these countries. He has been simply waiting for an opportunity. His rhetoric about Iranian nuclear intentions and capability have been consistently rebuffed by experts who say that Iraq is at least 7 years or more away froma viable nuclear weapon. In other words, plenty of time to try and work something out. But Bush, in classic ‘screw you’ form, has planted the seeds of war in those spoken words. By tying them in as material support for the foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq, Bush has laid down the gauntlet. If he goes forth as intended, expect to see border incursions and firefights at both the Syrian-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders, with an eventual crossing of one or both by US troops. Such an escalation would only make matters far worse as nations divide and join sides.

And I mentioned the concept that Bush holds dear- that only American might, followed by exported American ideals, can bring true democracy to the world:

“We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.”

No matter that much of the Middle East wants nothing to do with American culture and democracy, seeing how poorly it has been applied in Iraq and Afghanistan and watching how the vaunted American Rule of Law has been flaunted by our own elected eladers. Bush ignores all cultural reality and blindly surges ahead with the notion that the American way is the only way to go. What he really means though is that capitalism, controlled by the richest of the corporate giants and reaping trillions in profits off the backs of average human beings, is the only way to go. Unfortunately, a look at the capitalistic laissez-faire policies of the Bush administration has only served to expose the wicked underbelly of our way of life, showing the world that classic American values (values that were once respected and envied) like hard work, dedication, honesty, honor, trust, and fairness are no longer relevant in Bush’s America. What matters n
ow is money- get it, keep it, keep others from having it. The world, and inparticular the Islamic world, has seen that American export, and no amount of worldy advances are making them want to adopt our ever-corrupted way of life. No longer does the world see “a shining city on a hill” when they look to North America. Instead, they see a run down tenement with a seedy landlord at the door banging for the rent while the pipes drip endlessly on the floor.

For their part, the newly elected Democratic Congress is trying to put up road blocks to stop, or at least stall, some of the Bush proposals. Good for them. Frankly, this is why I voted for a federal Democratic ticket. I had no real illusions of them producing great reforms or legislation. I simply wanted them to slow down the Bush juggernaut. To what extent they intend to do so remains to be seen, but the Kennedy Bill in the Senate prohibiting increased funding for additional troops in Iraq is a start. For me, this Congress has a mandate, but it isn’t one of great social change. This congress must be a roadblock and holding effort until Bsh finally leaves town. If that is all they accomplish, I will consider them successful. If they manage to advance a progressive social domestic agenda as well, then it’s frosting on the cake.

Stripped of the rhetoric and flowery jargon, this has to be one of Bush’s scariest speeches to date. Not only does this speech continue to inflate the war in Iraq, it lays the groundwork for a militarized and financially strapped America and plants the seeds for wider military conflict, violence and death. It holds out scant promise for future generations of Americans if this path is followed, yet promises safety in the distant future. It catapults America towards a century of warfare and strife at a time when human endeavors should be better spent on finding new sources of energy, combatting preventable disease, and protecting our planet from our own excesses.

No doubt that the right side of the aisle will be bogged down in the patriotic nuances, the continued attempts to tie the Bush doctrine to the 9-11 attacks, and the overt and covert appeals to America’s narcisstic nature as greatest nation on Earth. No doubt that they will zero in on the mentions of Islamic terrorism connected to American security. But they will see little else in his words, hearing nothing but the words they are comfortable with. They will not dig past the shiny coating to see what lays beneath and the implications that lay ahead. And they will denounce those who write things like this essay as cowards or worse, as traitors. It is easier to denounce a critic than to reflect on ones own failures.

The President has set forth his goals and vision of the future of America, the Middle East, and perhaps the world. It is time now for the newly elected Congress to do the job they were put there to do. Slow down or stop the Bush juggernaut before its actions can cause any more havoc in the world. Bush’s ideas may look nice on paper, but in reality they may be pretty damn scary indeed.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

For a while now, we’ve heard Team Bush lubricate the public with the notion that more troops in Iraq are inevitable, this despite comments from top military folks who don’t think that sending more U.S. soldiers into a civil war is such a bright idea. Now, all of a sudden, those top brass are getting their wrists measured for that golden TImex, because they are out.

(from the link)

Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday.

Abizaid and Casey have at times sounded skeptical about increasing the size of the U.S. force in Iraq.

In November, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that boosting the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 would have a temporary impact, but he warned that the military’s ability to maintain in increase of that size “is simply not something that we have right now.”

Casey told reporters in Iraq last month that he is “not necessarily opposed to the idea” of sending in more troops, but said any increase would have to “help us progress to our strategic objectives.”

Shuffling in are two men who appear more inclined towards bending to the president’s foul wind. So part one of the plan is to toss out those who question and insert compliant tools.

More shuffling is happening with and old Bush family confidante, John Negroponte. His move from NID to 2nd at State is questionable, at least in terms of an “Iraq Policy” move. I’m no fan of Big John here…he has a history of being in just out in front of sectarian death squads in war torn third world countries…so don’t shed any tears at his leaving what should be an unbiased position. (A National Intelligence Director should tell a president what is real instead of fueling his boss’s fantasy filled worldviews.) This move smells more like political manuevering than anything else, tossed into the the “Iraq Plan” so as to not make waves of its own. Some are postulating that Negroponte move to State is a precursor to setting up Secretary Rice as a possible presidential candidate, the thinking going (I guess) that she could give Hillary a good run for the money. But I digress…

The President also wants to loosen the binds on descretionary funds “for reconstruction” that military commanders have control of. As if there hasn’t been enough misappropriations of funds so far. Other financial incentives Bush is pushing to convince Iraqi’s to “all just get along” include setting up a small business loan program. Perhaps that will be included in the new Balanced Budget Bush presents. (As an aside, I wonder what the budget has allotted for American small business assistance?) I guess this war just needs a little less accountability and ready cash to fix the problem.

Oh, and let’s not forget the sanest part of the plan- send in more troops! After all, if we don’t keep fighting them there (and making lots more of them by the way) they’ll be clammoring to our shores and attacking us here. Despite the fact that Bush told you he’s beefed up security around the borders and spending all that money on all that ‘security stuff.’ Funny, if we’re so much safer now, how could they even get here to fight us here? Kind of a paradox if you think about it. Oops…forgot…no thinking in the War Room.

Of course, all of this, though widely reported, is still speculative to a degree. And what the new Democratic Congress can do about any of it is still up in the air.

But don’t be fooled into thinking this is a grand new plan for ‘success’ folks. It’s just another shell game.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

But suppose the Democrats do win enough seats to become the majority party again? Will they finally tackle some of the core problems that have led to one of the most corrupt governments in our nation’s history? Will they have the sense of duty and stewardship and character to attack and end some of the most perverse aspects of ‘business as usual’ politics? Will they muster the courage to enact real ethics reform, reestablish real oversight, and reclaim their own political independence from the executive branch of government?

I can only hope that they will. K Street, on the other hand, and its plethora of lobbyists are hoping not. Long an established money changing operation between corporations and the Republican party machine, clients of K Street Lobbyist Firms are increasingly showing up at fundraisers for Democrats and are increasing their financial contributions to those running on the Democratic ticket. And while this does strengthen the idea that Democrats are in a viable position to win in November, it also shows how quickly the sharks move from one food source to another. Big Business loves the Republican party, especially in it’s current incarnation, but they also know to hedge their bets, and are gearing up to grease the hands of the other side. The question is whether or not the Democrats really want to change the way Congress is malfunctioning or whether they just want to hold the reins of power for a while.

In spite of the fact that I despise the current Republican agenda, it’s associated hypocritical politicians and their scandals, and the ruinous effects their party ‘s administration has had on American prestige, when I vote for a Democrat this November, I expect them to buck the status quo with an enlarged sense of duty, courage, and stewardship. I expect them to change the disasterous course we’ve been set upon, to enact real ethics reform, to reestablish real accountability, and to reclaim their independence from the executive branch.

I expect a changed plan of action in Iraq through new legislation revising the AUMF orders that began the Iraqi debacle.

I expect a national clean elections act similar to those in Arizona and Maine, to permanently reduce the influence of K Street and it’s spawns.

I expect enactment of the Read The Bills Act, The One Bill At A Time Act, and The Write The Laws Act which will mandate that elected officials actually read what they vote on, write the laws up for a vote (as opposed to an aide or a corporate employee), and limit all laws to single topics, making it impossible for unrelated legislation to be inserted at the last minute.

I expect a plan to address a universal health care system, a plan to decrease the trade and federal deficits, and a plan to restore the American job market through increased educational opportunities or reformations.

I expect a mature approach to international problems instead of posturing, pouting, and pre-emptive warring.

I expect a Congress that will perform rigorous oversight on public policy and international relations while investigating the failures borne out of a decade of looking the other way. I expect them to hold responsible any and all parties who have broken laws or behaved in an unethical manner without creating a circus atmosphere.

And finally, I expect a Congress that is not steeped in partisanship or religious pandering or machismo. I expect rationality, critical thinking, and progressive problem solving.

Maybe I expect too much, but I don’t expect anything we don’t deserve from our government. And I won’t be giving a Democratically controlled Congress any slack if they fail to live up to my expectations. I’ll be voting to change the direction. I damn well expect the rudder to move.

While it becomes increasingly clear that Bush’s war of choice in Iraq only produces more terrorists and does nothing to address the real problems associated with international terrorism, in Italy, we are once again shown that diligent, competant law enforcement can and does dismantle terror cells without any kind of ‘collateral damage.’

Hard to believe, eh? After all, aren’t those just the kind of tactics laid out by John Kerry during the 2004 election? Didn’t he note that fighting terrorists was as much, if not more, a law enforcement measure than one for the military? Do we need the military to stop terrorists? Sure, they were doing a great job in Afghanistan before Team Bush pulled a “Cut and Run” strategy that now has that country falling back into the hands of the Taliban. But do we need to blow up entire countries to isolate, track, and arrest the terrorists in the world?

Of course we don’t. But it will take better leadership than we have now to actually figure that out. Sadly, we’re still working with the government we have, not the government we want.

Spying On Americans-Good. Reading Convicted Terrorist Mail- Bad?

Ask yourself a simple question.

Which is more likely to uncover future terror plots and reveal terror operatives?

(A) Intercepting, recording, monitoring, storing, or listening to communications in America between Americans

or

(B) Monitoring and reading mail sent and received by convicted terrorists sitting in U.S. Federal Prisons

If you answered A, congratulations. You are the president of the United States or an elected legislator. But if you answered B then you have a brain.

Unfortunately, while the first option is being carried out with great vigor, and being touted as one of the best, most important tools to keep America safe, the second option, the one that could actually provide clues to terror operations, is barely being done at all.

According to a review of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, undertaken by the DOJ, letters are being written by convicted terrorists to other terrorists, including a letter sent to one of the Madrid bombing terrorists. That letter was being used to recruit more terrorists to the cause of jihad.

“The threat remains that terrorist and other high-risk inmates can use mail and verbal communications to conduct terrorist or criminal activities while incarcerated,” concluded the report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

So what exactly is being done to close this gaping hole in terror monitoring? Apparently not much. After all, we’ve got a bogus war and the surveillance of American citizens to conduct, and there’s only so much money to go around.

U.S. Won’t Attack North Korea? Why The Hell Not?

Remember the Axis of Evil? That nefarious threesome that our president targeted as the biggest threats to civilization as we know it? Remember the tough talking rhetoric that told us that no nation would be allowed to harbor terrorists or pursue WMD’s so long as George W. Bush was on the job?

Guess what? It turns out that George W. Bush is full of shit. In a recent speech, Bush told reporters that although North Korea (one of the fearsome triumverate of evil) was a “threat to international peace” and that “serious repercussions” would ensue following North Korea’s purported nuclear test, he asserted that no military response is planned to thwart this looming menace.

No military response? Why the hell not? After all, when it came to dealing with a non-nuclear member of the axis of evil (Iraq), Bush went in guns a-blazing, creating a whole world of hurt in that part of the world. In fact, military action against Iraq was always plan one for Bush, regardless of whether they had WMD’s, including a nuclear capability. But he used the false notion of an “imminent mushroom cloud” as an excuse to invade a country ruled by a horrific tyrant, not to go after al-Qaeda, not to bring democracy to the Middle East, but rather to settle family sleights and gain control of the Iraqi oil fields for his corporate minders. (Go ahead and argue these points, my conservative friends. I’m not here to offer proof beyond what we’ve rehashed time and again. The proof, if you ask me, is in the pudding so nastily laid out before us.) In fact, I’ll even submit that the Bush Administration was fairly certain, based on the evidence that existed but they excluded, that Iraq was nowhere near ‘going nuclear’ and that was a prime factor in targeting them when they did. It is easy to tear down a paper tiger you have built yourself.

But Bush is just engaging in classic Bully Behavior, so there’s nothing remotely surprising about his stance on North Korea. The bully always targets the weakest foes (or faux-foes as the case sometimes is) to dominate while slewing threats at those who might be able to offer a real challenge. We see the same thign happening right now regarding Iran.

Iran is also on the nuclear path, but experts warn they are at least 5-8 years away from any meaningful weapons program. Yet the Bush administration has overstated the Iranian nuclear capabilities and hyped up the threat as imminent. Again, what we have in Iran is an oil rich country and a competing religious ideology. Clearly, in the Bush declared War on Terror, where all bad guys are Islamic Terrorists, the countries you invade are the ones who can do your country the least physical harm. Iran not only doesn’t have nukes, they don’t have a system to get nukes to the US mainland. But they pray towards Mecca, so let’s target those bastards. By all accounts, US war plans are already far past the planning stages regarding Iran.

Yet curiously, North Korea, the only non-Muslim member of Club Evil, not only has nuclear capability, they have a missle system that could (potentially reach the US west coast. Yet where Iraq and Iran are to be dealt with militarily (after all diplomacy has failed) North Korea is not on the path to war with America. Again, why the hell not?

No oil in North Korea?

I’m not advocating for an invasion of North Korea, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I have to wonder why Mr. Bring ‘Em On isn’t being consistent. If ever there was a case against one of the three harbingers of world evil, North Korea is it. If ever there was a fulfillment of the reasons for pre-emptive war against a rogue nation that had no democracy, tortured it’s people, and sought WMD’s, North Korea is the proverbial “slam dunk.” If ever there was a case of “with us or against us” this is it, isn’t it?

Before the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, there was no real race for countries to get nuclear weapons for themselves. In that sense, the world was a safer place. Thanks to George W. Bush, rogue nations are scrambling to join the nuclear club as fast as they can. And clearly, if you want to remain unscarred by American military destruction, going nuclear may be the best way to go. In that sense, the world is immeasurably less safe. Thanks Bush.

Time to change the direction.