Does Cheney REALLY have the power to declassify an agents’ identity? And where’s the documentation?

January 29, 2007 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

This past week saw the start of the trial phase of “Scooter” Libby’s perjury & obstruction of justice investigation. In fact, the trial started on the day of President Bush’s State of the Union Address. If the timing was a little awkward for President Bush, the press definitely gave the Commander-in-Chief a pass by not bringing the subject up that evening.

I’ll spare you the details, assuming that if you are reading this blog, you already know the back-story behind this crime. As reported here several times in the past, Cheney has implied that he is the person that declassified Ms. Plame’s identity and ordered Libby to reveal that fact to the press. But there is a bigger question that I’m still not hearing anyone in the media ask: Does Cheney REALLY have the power to declassify an agents’ identity? And if so, shouldn’t there be a dated documented record of that declassification? Cheney has made the dubious claim that the power is afforded him in the Constitution (don’t you just love how this Administration hides behind the Constitution when defending their crimes, and then dismisses it when it forbids them from engaging in others?), And in so revealing, put at risk not only every person that has ever done business or consorted with Ms. Plame in the past, but any other agent that also claimed to have worked for the same CIA “front” cover organization as her… a fictitious company called “Brewster/Jennings”. The damage done by Cheney’s zeal to discredit Joe Wilson is immeasurable. Oddly, the fact that Cheney is asserting a power that he probably doesn’t even have, hasn’t made much sway in the mainstream press. An investigation by the LA Times yesterday/Sunday (registration required) reveals that former CIA official Robert Grenier is the likely source that told Libby, who then told Cheney, that Wilson’s wife worked with him at the CIA. Since Libby had the proper security clearance, that was nothing illegal in Grenier’s revelation. And if the VP does indeed have the power he claims, then the subsequent release of that information to the press would likewise not be illegal (but note this this does NOTHING to affect the perjury & obstruction charges against Libby). But even if the VP *does* have the power he claims, this was certainly an abuse of that power which both endangered lives and cost the U.S. significant counter-terrorism intelligence assets around the world at a time when we so desperately need them.

The story broke this way: Ms. Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, exposed the Bush Administrations lies about Iraq seeking Uranium from Niger, and how they used those lies to justify the preemptive invasion of that country, Cheney went on the warpath, seeking to “discredit” the former ambassador.

Here are Cheney’s now-famous notes scrawled atop Wilson’s article in the New York Times:

(Click to enlarge)

Even enlarged, the VP’s handwriting is a tad difficult to read. It says:

“Have they done this sort of thing before?
Send our Amb[assador] to answer a question?
Do we ordinarily send people out
pro bono to work for us?

Or did his wife send him on a junket?”

Okay, ignoring the stupidity of anyone thinking of Nigeria as a good place for a “junket“, it stuck me right away that even at that early point, Cheney ALREADY knew the significance of Ambassador Wilson’s wife. Not, “Why did the CIA send him”, but rather “Did his WIFE send him”. Assuming Cheney didn’t already know who Plame-Wilson was at the time he read the story, he would of had to of declassified her identity in the time between when he wrote those words and when Libby first started phoning reporters around town looking for one that would print the sensitive material (Libby spoke to at least five reporters before partisan hack Robert Novak took the bait). That leaves a very small window of time for any declassification to take place, and one should wonder how much of a review on the impact such a revelation could possibly have taken place in such a short period of time. If there currently is no such procedure, there needs to be.

The suggestion in the LA Times story is that Cheney started asking around about Wilson, and Grenier told Libby who told Cheney. Maybe that’s how it went down, maybe not. It is doubtful we’ll ever know for sure. But remember, NONE OF THIS CHANGES THE CASE AGAINST LIBBY. He willfully obstructed justice and tried to mislead the investigation. Why would he do that if they truly believed they had done nothing wrong? OF COURSE they knew what they were doing was wrong. There’d be no point in their going to such lengths to hide the truth if they truly believed otherwise.

Former President Bush described spy-name-leakers as “the most insidious of traitors“.

I’m confident Vice President Cheney was so hellbent on finding a way to discredit Wilson, he didn’t consider… or in my opinion probably even care… about the consequences of outing an undercover CIA agent. EVEN IF you believe, that as Vice President he does indeed have the power to declassify something like the identity of an undercover CIA agent, the consequences should have prevented him from doing so. The fact that the Vice President went on a crusade to discredit a critic that exposed his administrations lies, should raise some serious questions that I just don’t hear anyone asking.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Bush’s SOTU Sales Pitch. A Brief Analysis.

January 24, 2007 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

SPECIAL EDITION:

---

Last night, President Bush delivered his 6th State of the Union address, but his first before a Democratically controlled Congress, and the lowest approval rating of any President since Nixon gave his 1974 speech at the height of Watergate. Once again, he made a point of reminding us how much safer he HASN’T made us since becoming president; pointed out the increase in corruption and abuses of power that flourished under the Republican controlled Congress; and his SIXTH warning about energy independence and the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (instead, under Bush, our dependence on foreign oil has GROWN from 58% in 2000 to 70% today).

Here was President Bush’s first comment to catch my attention:

“Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience — and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that duty — and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this Chamber knows this to be true — yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act.”

“Somehow“? Up until now, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. If President Bush had put forth a plan that 51% of both Houses supported, his plan would of passed. But even the recent Republican Congress wasn’t fool enough to vote for President Bush’s absurd service-crippling scheme to privatize Social Security. President Bush hit the “campaign trail” in 2005 to push his unpopular plan, and the more he explained it, the more unpopular it became. And “somehow” his scheme hasn’t passed yet. Can’t imagine why. And if he’s expecting better results under a Democratic Congress, he’s sorely mistaken.

“In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate — they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice.”

Once again, President Bush remarks on the rampant abuse of power and fiscal irresponsibility of his own Party. And now he is suggesting it is the job of the Democratically controlled Congress to stop this unparalleled waste and abuse of power. Of course, the new Democratic Congress has already taken on this issue, enacting legislation that eliminates the anonymity of those who insert earmarks into legislation. You insert some enormous piece of pork into a bill, your name goes in with it.

“Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border — and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won’t have to try to sneak in — and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists.”

I spoke of finding ways to decriminalize illegal immigration last year. It is nice to hear President Bush address the issue, though I doubt anything will come of it, or that he will propose a solution I agree with.

‘…we must increase the supply of alternative fuels,”

If you’re keeping count at home, this is the sixth time in six speeches that President Bush has spoken of the need to promote “alternative energy”. As mentioned above, our dependence on foreign oil has only grown, with tax-cuts on gas-guzzling SUV’s as much as $100,000 encouraging automakers to produce and rely heavily on the sales of vehicles that fewer and fewer Americans want in the face of rising gas prices (a direct result of the Bush Administrations foreign policy), leaving the worlds largest automaker, GM, teetering on the brink of bankruptcy while fuel-efficient economy-car maker Toyota is poised to usurp GM’s throne sometime this year. ALL THREE major American automakers are headed for some form of financial restructuring this year, and all three have resorted to major layoffs and plant closing to cut costs. Once again, the rhetoric President Bush espouses in his SotU is not followed up by any serious action.

“We stopped an al-Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al-Qaida cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean.”

Here, President Bush refers to four “thwarted” terrorist plots that weren’t. The plot to “fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast” refers to a plot that was revealed more than a year ago… October of 2005… which occurred before his LAST State of the Union speech. However, the plot he speaks of was thwarted in 2002 and discovered by an unnamed Southeast Asian country (probably the Philippines). The “Southeast Asian terrorist cell” described in the next sentence refers to the EXACT SAME GROUP in the previous sentence.

I am unable to accurately deduce the source of President Bush’s “al-Qaida cell developing anthrax” reference, but a cursory Google search suggests every story regarding anthrax and terrorism all refer to the efforts of “Khalid Sheik Mohammad”, who has been in US custody since March of 2003. (While the source of the anthrax sent to members of Congress… including Sen Minority Leader Tom Daschel… was never found.)

And of course, the British bomb plot was uncovered and foiled by the British police and British intelligence, with minimal U.S. involvement… once again proving Kerry’s point that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement problem, not a military one.

“In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not.”

For the second year in a row, President Bush reminds us that his War on Terror has been a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE.

“In Iraq, al-Qaida and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia — and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.”

This has become a popular theme from the Bush Administration as of late: re-writing history to convince us that everything in Iraq was on the right track and getting better until al-Qaeda blew up the “Golden Mosque” last February in order to start a civil war. Certainly, the referred to attack didn’t make things in Iraq any better, but of course, Iraq was NOT improving before that point. It was November of 2005 when former hawk Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) called for Redeployment of American troops out of Iraq in the face of what he had finally concluded was “Civil War”. Any suggestion that the current level of violence is a “recent” event that can be nipped in the bud if we react quickly by sending more troops, is pure fantasy.

“If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaida and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country — and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario.”

Does it seem to anyone else that this is the kind of thing that should of been considered BEFORE we invaded Iraq nearly four years ago? “Nightmare scenario”? I can think of several.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Dying for a cupcake: Military risking soldiers’ lives to protect contractors delivering amenities to warzone.

January 22, 2007 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

I first heard about this before the 2004 election: U.S. soldiers being used to protect convoys delivering “non-essential” goods to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The story never got much traction and it was assumed by most that after the story was uncovered, “private security” contractors would be used instead. And for the most part, this is probably true when it comes to “commercial” goods sent into a warzone. But for those items produced by the Army itself, those goods are still “military issue” and receive the armed protection of American soldiers, risking their lives to ensure the delivery of those goods. At a time when President Bush is seeking to feed another 21,500 soldiers into this meat grinder called Iraq, and Congress asking what are these soldiers to be used for, I think it is important to look at how they’ve been used in the past and ask if this is why we need more now.

This is an issue that has bothered me for a while now. Bush’s new “contractor-crazy cash cow conflicts” in the Middle East have a built-in incentive to be dragged out for as long as possible. In June 2005, PBS’s “Frontline” did an investigative story on all the private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hired to protect diplomats and high-ranking officials visiting Iraq, it’s not uncommon for private security contractors to be paid $1000 a day to do THE EXACT SAME JOB American soldiers do for $90 a day ($2700 a month)… except that private security contractors can quit and go home if they want.

But those are “security” contractors. Then there are the “delivery guys”.

A division of Halliburton, “Kellogg, Brown & Root” (KBR) handles most of the “rudimentary” chores of military life such as doing laundry and providing meals. They also deliver goods & materials requested by the army, such as fuel for Humvees and ammunition. The theory being that every soldier not wasting time “peeling potatoes while on K.P.” (kitchen patrol) is one more soldier freed up to fight in battle. But trucking in “necessities” is nowhere near as common as deliveries of UN-necessary items.

And just what are these goods that soldiers are risking their lives to protect? Would you believe hamburger meat, eggs, flour and… well, read on.

Certainly no one wants to deny our troops a few creature comforts to make being away from home for so long a little easier. But there is fine line… scratch that… a 300 mile “Highway of Death”… between “comfort” and “extravagance”.

I was reminded of this recently while reading my January 2007 issue of “Vanity Fair” (the standard-bearer of Pulitzer-worthy Liberal reporting. If you don’t subscribe, you should) and a story that had NeoCons howling when they posted a preview one day before the November mid-terms called “Neo-Culpa“… 12 famed neo-conservatives now recanting their support for invading Iraq and criticizing President Bush’s handling of the war.

Late in the article, former assistant Secretary of Defense and PNAC founding member Richard Perle, often called “the Architect of the Iraq War” (an “unfair” label according to Perle because “no one ever asked me how to do it“), recalls an event revealed to him:

[…] an Iraqi cabinet minister [told him about] a friend who was asked to lease a warehouse in Baghdad to a contractor for the Americans in the Green Zone. It turns out they were looking for someplace to store ice for their drinks. […] Weren’t the Americans making ice as and when they needed it? Then he learned the extraordinary truth: that the ice was trucked in from Kuwait, 300 miles away in regular convoys. The convoys, says Perle, “came under fire all the time. So we were sending American forces into harms way, with full combat capability to support them, helicopters overhead, to move g#d-damned ice from Kuwait to Baghdad.”

Back in ‘04 when I first heard about such frivolous risk to soldiers lives, I remember one video taken of a mess hall inside Iraq. Shown at one end of the serving line was a rotating refrigerated dessert “showcase” filled with frosted cakes and cream pies. The reporter asked, “Who risked their life to deliver the ingredients to make those cakes?” I don’t quite remember the convoluted military-jargon excuse he got in return… something about “nothing is too good for our men in uniform”… but the question was never sufficiently answered. For the most part, after such an embarrassment, I (and probably most people like me) just assumed that peoples’ lives were no longer being put at risk for something so petty. I… of course… was wrong.

Then last December, just before Christmas, one of the TV morning shows (”Good Morning America”? “Today”?) set up a video-conference between a soldier in Iraq and his girlfriend whom they brought into the studio. Early into the tearful reunion, the soldier proposed marriage and the morning shows’ hosts presented her with an engagement ring that the soldier had purchased in advance. The host asked the obvious question: “You’ve been in Iraq for nearly a year. Did you buy the ring a year ago and hold onto it all this time?” “Oh no,” he responded, “We’ve got jewelry stores here!”

Now, unless this soldier strayed off base, out of the Green Zone and into the streets of Iraq to find an open jewelry store, I’m fairly confident “here” referred to “Camp Victory”, where he was based. That means someone was risking their life to deliver jewelry into a warzone for soldiers to send back home to their loved ones. The person driving the delivery truck may be willingly assuming the risk, knowing what s/he is risking their life for, but soldiers the military sends out to guide and sometimes protect them… don’t. And as for the corporations providing these extravagant services? Well, the REAL money isn’t in the sales, it’s in the trucking and security provided to make those deliveries. The government is reimbursing Halliburton generously for laundry services, meals, and food deliveries. What is actually IN the trucks doesn’t matter. They get paid just the same, be it ammunition or cake frosting. Doesn’t matter to them. They get paid by the shipment.

Most of us have already seen the video of a KBR trucker that videotaped the ambush of his convoy in Iraq.

You also may have noticed the military vehicles escorting them. Apparently, risking soldiers’ lives to protect contractor convoys is still routine in Bush’s “No War-Profiteer Left Behind” escapade in Iraq. If you were to join the military “to fight for your country”, how would you feel if you were to die protecting a shipment of this:

or this…

or this…

Are these things worth risking our soldiers’ lives for?

---

(Side Note: I plan on doing another mid-week Special Edition following President Bush’s State of the Union address tomorrow/Tuesday. Check back on Wednesday for that update.)

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Why is ANYONE listening to this man?
Why ISN’T anyone listening to this man?

January 15, 2007 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

“Listen what the man says.” - song by Paul McCartney and Wings.

George W. Bush is not a bright man. Yes, he graduated from Yale University and earned his MBA at Harvard. But he got into Yale as a “legacy” (admitted because his father is a Yale graduate, not due to grades or achievement), and into Harvard though his father (again), who was a powerful US Senator. Neither was achieved through his own merit. And so has been his entire career as failed businessman, mediocre Texas Governor (in Texas, the governor has little power. All budgetary power in Texas is in the Lt. Governor… which at the time was a Democrat… the late great Bob Bullock), and now as a disastrous President.

…people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth.” - In a speech about interrogations at Gitmo, May 31, 2005

The word President Bush is reaching for here is probably “dissemble”, not “disassemble“. But the word was new to him, ergo, it must be new to us too, and therefore needs explaining. And is so often the case with him, he likes to try and explain things he himself doesn’t know, trying (and failing miserably) to appear smarter than he really is… a big flashing neon sign of insecurity over people finding out that he really isn’t smart… a poser that shouldn’t be in the position he’s in. Dubya is “the bosses son who comes in and fires you.” (Bill Maher)

And now as President, it has been painfully obvious that he relies heavily upon the decisions of the people under him, believing that they are more experienced and thus know better than he… which we learned long ago is quite evidently false. On the few occasions where they dare let Little George out of his box and speak publicly, when he strays off script… look out! Embarrassment and hilarity often ensue. This has occurred so often, they even have a name: Bushisms. But more than that, the truth has a tendency to leak out when he does.

Listed here are some of my favorite Bushisms over the past few years. On the surface, many are just plain dumb. But when you actually stop and actually THINK about the thought process that goes into some of Bush’s verbal acrobatics, we learn a lot about what he believes and just what he thinks of the rest of us:

For example, here is one EXTREMELY telling quote:

o As you know, these are open forums; you’re able to come and listen to what I have to say.” - Washington DC, Oct 28, 2003

At first read, it sounds like a simple feux-pas. But it’s not. In BushWorld, an “Open” forum is one that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, not a private meeting only a select few are permitted to attend. Allowing just anyone to not only attend, but actually speak is a novel concept in BushWorld. The General Public are “the rabble”, and only enjoy the rights given to them by those in authority. So if you were wondering why it seems so easy for Dubya to violate The Constitution and trample the rights of U.S. citizens, it’s because you only have those rights because THEY let you have them. Those rights are a privilege that they have the right to take away if they believe it serves a “greater good”.

You may of heard this one:

o “All in all, it’s been a fabulous year for Laura and me.” - Dec 21, 2001

Three months after 9/11, this seems incredibly insensitive. But consider how something like 3,000 Americans dying just three months earlier as a direct result of YOUR incompetence could just “slip your mind”. Now, I have no doubt that if you are a close personal friend of George W. Bush, he would be very sad over news of your demise. But if you’re not a “Social Equal”, he wouldn’t loose a moment’s sleep over it. He can not have empathy for anyone he does view as an equal. 3,000 people may have died, but you could have replaced those 3,000 with ANY 3,000 people plucked out of society at random and the balance of society would not have been affected because to him, those lives were no more consequential than 3,000 sanitation workers or 3,000 office managers. Just cogs in a machine. Remember, this is a man that used to stick firecrackers up frogs butts and blow them up for fun when he was a kid. “Empathy”: thy name is NOT George W. Bush.

Under normal circumstances, most people would consider it important for an employee to actually KNOW something about their job and their line of work. But not in BushWorld:

o “I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and legislative branch. […] and that difference is: they pass the laws and I execute them.” - Not-quite President-Elect Bush, Dec 18, 2000

Anyone that has ever taken a Junior High School level civics class knows that the Legislature WRITES the laws and the President passes them (unless the Congress overrides his veto). But before you think this is a simple error in wording, one month before, he had a DIFFERENT (and more revealing) interpretation:

o “The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the Executive Branch’s job to interpret law.” - Still not-quite President-Elect Bush, Austin, Nov 22, 2000

Okay, this is more disturbing. One month before, he correctly identified the Legislature’s job. But once again, his view of the Executive’s job as one where laws can selectively be enforced and open to interpretation remains. In BushWorld, “law” is not a hard and binding rule. “Law” is something “fluid” that may or may not need to be adhered to. So any law he regards as “an inconvenience” can be summarily dismissed. If the President has the power to “execute” laws, then ipso-facto, he has the power NOT to execute them for whatever reason. And if laws are “open to interpretation”, then the President has the power to read any law in a manner that suits his needs. We actually have real world evidence now to support this interpretation. It’s not just a matter of my opinion.

Freud called such misstatements “slips of the tongue that inadvertently revealed the most innermost thoughts that a person is actively trying to conceal.” In Freud’s honor, we call them “Freudian Slips”. Here’s an innocent, though equally revealing one:

o “One of the great things about books is, sometimes there are some fantastic pictures.” - Candidate Bush, Jan 3, 2000.

I suspect here that Dubya was trying to encourage those young people that don’t like to read (like him), that they can find something interesting in books too. But who encourages a person to pick up a book based upon it having pictures? No encouragement to dare attempt “War and Peace” here. George is obviously speaking from experience. As a child, he did not like to read. To a kid, the books that are the most difficult to read are those with no pictures in them. They are usually long, 300 page tomes like “Catcher in the Rye” or “To Kill a Mockingbird”… any of a number of classic novels assigned to us in high school. But every once in a while, we find a book like “Huckleberry Finn”, with a few illustrations thrown in between the pages “to break up the monotony”. Those were obviously the type of books young George sought out.

I’ve barely scratched the surface here, and I’m forced to omit many many more quotes that I feel equally reveal to us the innermost thoughts of our Commander in Chief. But armed with the knowledge that every verbal feux-pas should been examined for hidden truth, hopefully you will now listen a bit more closely when he says something “off the cuff” for hidden truth. For a plethora of additional “Bushisms”… far more than I have room to cover here, I highly recommend DubyaSpeak.com, with literally hundreds of quotes, many of them with the audio attached so you can hear for yourself.

---

PS: Today, in remembrance of MLK Day, please take a moment to listen to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. giving his “Beyond Vietnam” speech at Riverside Baptist Church in New York on April 4, 1967.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Bush Extends Conscription of a National Guard that Has No Business Being in Iraq.

January 12, 2007 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

SPECIAL EDITION:

---

On Friday (1/12/07) the Bush Administration eliminated the 24 month limit on how long National Guard troops can be conscripted into “Active Duty”:

The Pentagon has lifted the limit on how long the Guard and reservists can be required to serve on active duty.
 
Until now, cumulative active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That limit is now lifted. The limit on 24 consecutive months remains.

In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson described use of the National Guard as:

“…a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them.“

Title 10 of the U.S. Constitution permits the President to Federalize the National Guard under the following conditions:

Whenever—

(1) the United States, or any of the Territories, Commonwealths, or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
 
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
 
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

In 2002, the Neo-Conservative think tank, “The Heritage Foundation“, explained the Presidents’ power to Federalize the National Guard after 9/11 on the following grounds:

This role, however, will require further definition. Given the reality that the homeland is a theater of war, as well as the imminent threat of terrorism and the increasing likelihood that U.S. civilians may be targeted at home in future conflicts…

Clearly, this is not the case with the war in Iraq. Our National Guard was Federalized into full-time active duty after 9/11/2001 in order to supplement the military to go after Al Qaeda and defend the U.S. from another attack. In 2003, that mission was extended to Iraq on the VERY shaky grounds that Saddam Hussein was “an Imminent Threat” to the United States with his Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to al Qaeda. When those justifications fell flat, the justification was changed to “Liberate the Iraqi people”.

“Liberating the Iraqi people” is NOT a justified use of the National Guard. No “WMD’s” or “ties to al Qaeda” instantly eliminated any threat of “invasion” by Iraq or its supposed sympathizers. Regardless of whether or not you believe Iraq was ever a threat to the United States, the moment Saddam Hussein was pulled from that “Spider Hole“ in December of 2003, that threat was eliminated and our NG troops should of come home.

President Bush’s 21,500 troop “augmentation” will depend heavily on the National Guard and Reservists. You may be asking yourself: “Why 21,500? Why not 22,000 or 25,000?” Because that is the absolute maximum they can scrounge up, pulling troops from other vital interests around the world (the Korean DMZ for example), and now holding Guard troops for more than 24 months, the military has been maxed out. The Bush Administration has tipped its hand. Insurgents in Iraq now know that we can’t send in any more troops. That’s it. So, if they just hold out long enough, they know there is no “Plan B”. And all this saber-rattling against Iran & Syria, they now know is just that.

We have had as many as 165,000 troops in Iraq at one time, and the country could not be brought under control. We presently have 145,000 troops in Iraq. This “surge” will up that number to 166,500. Is the Pentagon SO incompetent that “all we needed was just 1,500 more troops” and the war could of been “won” three years ago? I don’t think so. 166,500 troops in the midsts of a civil war are not going to be able to achieve anything 165,000 troops could not achieve fighting an insurgency.

Our Reservists and National Guard troops have no business Nation Building or refereeing a Civil War in Iraq. As described in “Title 10″, the Governors of each state have the power to recall those National Guard troops back to the United States. It is past time for them to exercise that right.

Photo snapped of National Guard troops THREE YEARS AGO:

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Fighting Yesterdays’ Battles Today: More troops warranted once, but no longer.

January 8, 2007 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

Before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State and former Commander of coalition forces in “Gulf War I”, Colin Powell, when suggesting the number of troops needed to invade Iraq, invoked what he called The Pottery Barn Rule: “You break it; you own it.” Famously, head of the United States Army General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress that he believed the invasion of Iraq would require “several hundred thousand troops“. Secretary of Defense at the time Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the very idea, calling the number “far from the mark“, finding it difficult to believe it would require “more troops to secure the country than it took to invade it”, followed by prematurely announcing Shinseki’s retirement as a way of diminishing the Generals opinion, suggesting the General was being “overly cautious” in his final days of command.

For literally years, the public was urging President Bush to send more troops into Iraq before it was too late and the insurgency swelled out of control. But President Bush refused, citing that he was following the lead of his generals on the ground. “If the General’s on the ground ask for more troops, they’ll get more troops” he assured us. In fact, the Generals WERE asking for more troops, but an escalation of the war in Iraq at a time when President Bush was running for re-election by telling us how well things were going there would have tanked his campaign.

More widely reported online than in the mainstream media (MSM), former Viceroy in Iraq “L. Paul Bremer” asked President Bush to send additional troops back in 2004 (while publicly denying the need for more troops) to help secure the country, but President Bush, running for re-election, refused.

In 2005, the “more troops” question was more a matter of debate (would it help, would it hurt?). 3,700 additional troops were sent into Baghdad last July in a futile attempt to restore order to Iraq’s most out-of-control city (where nearly a 1/4 of the country’s population lives). Instead, the insertion of more troops had the OPPOSITE effect, resulting in the “rising insurgency” that we hear about today and fatalities increasing 20%. The question as to whether sending more troops was a “good or bad idea” seemed to be closed. The Generals, whom President Bush told us didn’t want more troops when they really did, are now telling him “No, do NOT send more troops. Additional troops at this point won’t help and may even make things worse.” Or perhaps I should say TOLD him, because when the Generals started to publicly oppose him, he simply swaped them out for Generals that didn’t: Lieutenant Gen. David Petraeus and Admiral William Fallon of the Navy to lead the ground war in Iraq. Yes, you read that right.

We no longer have the 20-40 thousand troops President Bush is asking for with this surge. In fact, the actual number may be as small as “9.000 additional troops“. The ONLY way President Bush can INCREASE the number of troops in Iraq over what is there now is to ONCE AGAIN EXTEND THE TOURS OF DUTY FOR EXISTING TROOPS AND CONTINUE TO HOLD THEM THERE LONG AFTER THEIR TOURS HAVE ENDED. Every troop that comes home is one more service man/woman you must replace. If 2,000 troops were allowed to come home, the size of your “surge” is diminished by that number. As such, some troops will continue to be held in involuntary servitude, enduring their THIRD or even FOURTH tours of duty. (Hope you’re not expecting Daddy or Mommy home before 2009). President Bush is just waiting out the clock, leaving it up to the next President to withdraw the troops and lay the blame of Iraq’s failure at the next President’s feet. With his approval rating at yet another all-time low of just 30%, that successor is more than likely to be a Democrat… upon whom the Republicans will unfairly savage for “loosing the war”.

I want to take a second to tell you a little “lesson story” I learned as a kid and have remembered my entire life:

A young boy went to the circus. There, he sees a huge elephant held in place with just a small chain. He asked the elephant’s handler, “How do you keep that big elephant from running away with such a tiny little chain?” “Well,” said the handler, “when the elephant was very young, that tiny chain was all we needed. The young elephant pulled and pulled at the chain all day long, but was unable to break free. Eventually, he stopped trying. And now, even though the elephant is very big, he no longer tries to break free.”

What this little proverb explains is that the time to ensure order is BEFORE things get out of control. The time to secure Iraq by sending in more troops has passed. It only takes a tiny puff to blow out a candle, but once the house catches fire, the blaze has the potential to rage out of control to the point where no number of firemen can stop it.

This is a lesson that President Bush and his stanchest believers have yet to learn. They are always trying to win YESTERDAYS’ battle TODAY, “locking the barn door after the horse gets out” (a Southern parlance the President might better understand). Bush’s invasion of Iraq is a misguided over-reaction to his failure to prevent the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, trying to prevent the NEXT 9/11, using the blood of our soldiers to take out a family enemy. Now he’s trying to “win” the invasion of Iraq by sending in troops today that he should have sent in yesterday. That “small chain” or “puff of air” he could of used yesterday won’t be enough today. A LOT of people are about to die. If history has taught us anything, most likely around the time President Bush goes on his month long vacation in August (see: ”9/11″ and “Katrina”).

PS: Photos of the Week:

#1: Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, rather than pass the gavel to incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (as is the tradition), instead sits in the back, looking on, pouting like a child.

#2: I don’t think it is a coincidence that the price of oil plummeted to its lowest level in 18 months the same day the new Democratic Congress took over.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Predictions for 2007.

January 1, 2007 by mugsy.

(NOTE: Register to receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!)

The close of 2006 saw the deaths of two Presidents, one with great reverence, the other disgrace. I speak of course about Gerald Ford and Saddam Hussein.

And to top things off, the 3,000th troop died on the last day of 2006.

That dichotomy sums up 2006 quite well. A mixed-bag politically, violence swelled to a crescendo in Iraq, which in turn helped drive both “Bush’s poll numbers into the toilet” and “voters to the polls” to turn control of BOTH the House AND Senate over to the Democrats. It’s a shame things in Iraq had to get SO incredibly bad before *just enough* people could bring themselves to not vote Republican for a change. The GOP has done a masterful PR job of turning “Democrat” and “Liberal” into slurs that… despite the Republican Party demonstrating the most mind-boggling incompetence AND A TOTAL LACK OF ADHERENCE TO THE VERY PRINCIPLES THEY CLAIM TO STAND FOR (”fiscal responsibility”, “smaller government”, “opposition to nation building”, etc)… many Americans still recoil with almost reflexive abhorrence to the very words “Democrat” and “Liberal”. So the political reversal this past November is no small feat indeed. But now it is time to look ahead to the coming new year and attempt to divine what it has in store for us. By category, first…

Iraq and War in the Middle East

Before the November election, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld blamed the “recent” escalation of violence in Iraq on the Insurgency’s attempt to influence our upcoming elections. Few moments in history provide the “they just don’t get it” clarity that those comments gave the American public at that moment. If the goal of the Insurgency was to influence our November elections, someone should have told them not to start their surge back in July, and that they could stop after November 7th. Despite what the Neo-Cons would like us to think, the insurgency in Iraq couldn’t give a rats ass which political party is in charge of Congress here in the U.S.. They don’t waste their four hours of electricity a day watching CNN or reading USA Today. And almost as if to underscore the ignorance of their proclamation, the insurgency has remained in overdrive, with December closing out 2006 as the third deadliest months since the war began back in early 2003. In response to this recent uptick in violence, President Bush wants to send thousands of additional troops against the wishes of his generals on the ground… the very people he claimed to take his cue from in deciding how to proceed in Iraq.

Prediction #1: The recent surge in violence towards our troops will not only continue, but escalate with the addition of more troops. Increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will only give the insurgency more targets to attack, and the recent rise in the troop death/casualty rate will continue. It took just over 12 months (from mid-March 2003 thru March 2004) to pass 600 troop deaths (605, or 1.6 deaths per day)… and that includes the initial invasion against Saddam’s Army targeting exclusively Coalition soldiers as opposed to each other in a civil war. Over 900 (929) additional troops were killed the following twelve months (from April 2004 to March 2005 - 2.5 deaths per day). The next twelve months saw another 800 troop deaths (794 - 2.1 DpD), and in the 8 months since then (from April 2006 to the present), 672 more fatalities (2.45 DpD). In the last 6 months alone, the rate has climbed 20% to more than 3 troop deaths per day (466 troops in 152 days).

Whereas the previous thousand deaths took 14 months to accumulate, the 4,000th troop fatality will likely occur on or around the November 2007 off-year elections… the official start of the 2008 Presidential primaries. The number of troops still in Iraq at that time will be equal to or greater than the the number there now (150,000). Public anger over a war we were promised might take “six days, six weeks, I doubt six months” and paid for in Iraqi oil revenues, costing “no more than $1.7 Billion dollars” will become more strident, and any candidate… Republican or Democrat… unwilling to admit publicly that going into Iraq was not only incredibly stupid, but even borderline criminal, won’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell come 2008.

Prediction #2: Bush’s cavalier saber-rattling with Iran will draw us into a short “accidental” conflict. I say “accidental” because all of Bush’s provocations will force Iran to counter at a time when the Bush Administration is unprepared to respond. Caught off-guard and not ready to expand an already increasingly unpopular war, the conflict will be short, fought mainly through air-power, and “end” within days of beginning… that is, U.S. bombing raids will subside, but Iran will respond surreptitiously by increasing the violence against our troops in Iraq. Iran knows it can not defeat even an emaciated U.S. military in a direct conflict. They know their greatest strength is our greatest weakness… influencing events in Iraq. They will continue to exploit that weakness to great success.

Prediction #3: Afghanistan will continue to worsen. The Taliban will publicly declare it has re-seized control over most of the country. The distraction of Iraq has only allowed the violence in Afghanistan to worsen over the past four years. Despite a “quick success” with the overthrow of the Taliban and the installment of a new government favorable to the U.S., the American-backed government of Harmed Karzai has steadily lost power and influence to a resurgent Taliban. With American forces stretched to its breaking point by “Bush’s Folly” in Iraq, there are no American troops left over to quell a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. Though there is a greater international presence in Afghanistan than in Iraq, that “Coalition of the Willing” has shrunk ever smaller as international support for anything that appears to be aiding Bush or the U.S. have become increasingly unpopular and more isolated.

Campaign ‘08

Prediction #4: …following on that theme, a major resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, will become an increasingly enormous political problem for the GOP in the run-up to the ‘08 campaign.

Prediction #5: Cheney resigns. Bush successor to be named VP. Increasingly despondent over the ouster of his good friend Rumsfeld, and coming under increasing scrutiny for past remarks about the Iraq war, the strength of the insurgency, and his fear-mongering as a means of manipulating public opinion, Vice President Cheney will resign sometime this year, citing “health reasons”. Cheney has had no desire to run for President, and with an approval rating half that of President Bush’s gutter-dredging poll numbers, couldn’t win even if he did, leaving no “obvious” successor candidate for President since LBJ said he would not run again in 1968.

As such, the Bush Administration will name *their* choice as to who should receive the GOP nomination to the office of VP, making that person almost an absolute lock for their Party’s nomination in ‘08. That person will be John McCain.

In the 2004 campaign, both sides courted McCain’s endorsement. Fellow Vietnam vet and partner in numerous POW/MIA investigations in the Senate, John Kerry was said to even consider the senator from the opposing Party as a potential running mate. Bush, after having savaged McCain in the 2000 campaign, slandering his wife, criticizing his service to his country, and being a Vietnam draft dodger who McCain had already publicly criticized Bush for being, must of had to pull out all the stops to win McCain’s endorsement in ‘04. Appealing to “Party loyalty” would not have been enough for the former candidate that tried to play up an image of being “a maverick” and “an independent thinker” that could not be bought. The obvious answer is that Bush promised to put the mighty Bush political machine behind him, almost assuring him the nomination in ‘08. The powerful friends and high-dollar campaign contributors. The “wiles” of Karl Rove, his own personal endorsement (which is worth crap now), the backing of the Evangelical Right that McCain so desperately needs and currently opposes him. Plus, he was able to get potential competitors to vow not to run… with Sherman-esque promises from Condi Rice and his brother Jeb in Florida… two notable high-profile potential competitors that have already said they have no intention to run, thus clearing the path for McCain.

Prediction #6: Hillary loses Iowa. Campaign crumbles early. While this is “technically” a 2008 prediction, the start of her downfall will come in ‘07. The Media has played up a potential Hillary Clinton Presidency since before she won her first Senatorial bid in 2002. To listen to the polls, for months, Hillary has had all but a lock on the DNC nomination. Yet public opinion where it matters most… the politically active online community… has been far less enamored with her.

Believing in her own inevitability, Senator Clinton has, for the most part, taken “support from Democrats” as a given, and has instead concentrated heavily on courting and winning over Conservative voters that wouldn’t vote for her if Jesus himself came down and endorsed her. In the process, alienating Democrats in a futile bid to attract an unwindable constituency. Those chinks in her armor have begun to appear with the groundswell of support for a possible Barak Obama candidacy, and poll-tying challenges by returning candidate John Edwards.

Still unwilling to recant her vote for the Iraq War even at this late date, and having come to President Bush’s defense on several occasions, unless something stupendously campaign transforming happens before then, Hillary’s star will continue to fall as the Iowa caucus approaches… especially if former VP Gore decides to enter the race. The public will be reminded that there has not been a Presidential election without a “Bush” on Clinton” on the top ticket since 1976 and will express its desire for change at the polls.

Prediction #7: Gas prices will surpass their “$3/gal” peak early last year to over $3.50/gal for the national average. This is especially true if the incident with Iran that I predict above comes to pass. However, if no such incident occurs, with the ‘08 primaries looming, the Bush Administration will put the sabers away just long enough to bring gas prices back down in time to help VP McCain out in the Primaries. If however, the aforementioned incident DOES occur, $4/gal gas is not out of the question sometime late this year. Doubly so if there is another disastrous hurricane season like we saw in 2005.

Prediction #8: The crisis in Darfur will start to concern more Americans, but because of Iraq, the U.S. has been unable to act for too long, finally forcing the International community to step in, with an international coalition that does NOT include the U.S. or has the U.S. coming in later with a much more subservient role, damaging American prestige throughout what is left of our supporters in the rest of the world.

Prediction #9: More Global Warming related catastrophes and transformative events will take place, impacting almost every major issue in the ‘08 campaign. From pressure to support cleaner fuels and more fuel efficient automobiles that reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern oil, to weather anomalies like Hurricane Katrina or the Canadian ice shelf the size of Manhattan that broke off in 2005 and discovered only this past week, public concern over Global Warming will even strike inroads into Conservatives’ political campaigns. This is even more so should several events occur:

• Al Gore wins the Oscar for Best Documentary with “An Inconvenient Truth“.
• Evangelicals that have started to see “concern for God’s creation” and “caring for the Earth” as a moral issue they should have been supporting all along rather than fighting.
• Al Gore enters the 2008 Presidential race.

Prediction #10: Inflation will rise significantly as the Bush Administration continues to devalue the dollar to make U.S. goods more attractive overseas. But their usual answer of cutting interest rates to quell inflation and promote spending will not be an option this time around as other countries like China and Japan become increasingly reluctant to add to George Bush’s $8 Trillion+ national debt, even holding back investment in protest over the war in Iraq and saber-rattling with Chinese ally Iran. The Bush Administration will be left with no option but to fall back on its reliance on Saudi Arabia, making the nation even more indebted to them.

I know my predictions paint a bleak picture of 2007. But bright-spots include a Democratically controlled Congress that will finally serve as a check on Bush’s abuses of Presidential power. Public support for “alternative energy”/”energy independence”, and concern over global warming, will all grow. Clarity over the failures of Conservativism will become increasingly clear to the American public and help ensure that another disastrous “Neo-Conservative resurgence” never takes place again. Trials for detainees in Guantanamo are likely to start taking place under the new Congress, and investigations into the misuse and manipulation of intelligence to incite public support for the war in Iraq will finally be investigated. All good things.

Here’s to a WISER 2007 than we had in 2006!

Posted in Political News | No Comments »