The Bush administration touts the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 as a measure of the success of the war or terror, but they are missing the point. Where an American dies is irrelevant. Whether on the streets of Baghdad, Basra, Bali, London or New York, a death is a death.
We have now lost 3000 Americans since 9/11. How can anyone say with a straight face that we are safer? The war in Iraq has now almost eclipsed the duration of WWII against Japan. That war was akin to containing a wildfire with an endgame in sight throughout. The war in Iraq seems to get worse by the week and month and there has been no containment because there is no defined enemy.
There is nothing to cut and run from except hatred. There is no army or force to defeat. There is no discernible enemy to root out. We must leave Iraq in an orderly fashion and turn the nation over to the Iraqis. Whether the nation stays together as a loose federation or breaks up into distinct sectarian and ethnic regions, it is not our concern at this point. We have done all that we can do.
I don't believe either the democrats or the republicans have a definite plan. We will have to wait for the Baker report to be released after the election. While they may not have any new ideas, they may have formed an educated consensus rather than staying the flawed course.
So it really does not matter where Americans die. A death is a death to the family members left behind. Who is safer today? Only air passengers can truly feel safer.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
Election Reform
The nation's electoral system is broken. There were issues even before the Florida fiasco of the 2000 presidential election, but the reaction to those issues has created a more frightening scenario. At least after the hanging chad issue in Florida, a recount was possible with the confidence of knowing that each ballot had been inspected by a competent representative of the state and/or local election commission.
I fear there will be dozens if not hundreds of major issues in the upcoming mid term election because there will be so many close races nationwide. The new computerized touch screen voting machines will be the cause of delays in results, inability to carry out a recount, lawsuits and general havoc that will reach to the core of our system.
Former President Jimmy Carter has observed hundreds of elections worldwide. In all, if not most of those elections, a simple low tech paper ballot was used. Voting must be 1. easy to understand, 2. require few skills to complete, 3. allow for a recount, 4. have guards against fraud and 5. the registration system must be able to verify that those who vote are legal residents.
The touch screen voting systems fail on four out of five of these requirements. The few screens I have seen are fairly clean with little to confuse a first time user. Most people who have used touch screens in stores or banks will be able to follow the flow. Unfortunately, many voters over 60 years or so do not or have not used these types of screens in other tasks of their lives. These voters still go to the bank teller for withdrawals and do not use the self check out systems in stores. Touch screens will be foreign to this group for the most part. We take for granted that everyone can program a VCR or TIVO and that everyone knows what a back button is. For computer users, and that is most people under 60, answering "Yes" or "OK" to confirm an action on a screen is routine. For my mother , it is not. The lack of these basic computer skills will slow voting to a crawl and stress the undermanned and under trained voting station workers to the breaking point.
Numerous studies have shown that even a moderately skilled computer hacker can break into and either circumvent or manipulate the software in the voting machines. If this were to happen and the extent of it could not be isolated to one machine or polling station it would bring down the system in that district and force a re vote, an unheard of practice in this nation. In addition, with the close races expected next week, the importance of a recount will be greater than ever. There is no sure method of recounting touchscreen voting records. There are no paper ballots. The only prescribed technique is to pull the data again from the machines and compile the total. Unfortunately, the numbers will be identical if all of the data cards matched the original count. As long as the serial number tracked cards are handled properly and accounted for during the counting process, there should be no difference in the vote totals. I can imagine a scenario where some date cards or downloaded information get lost or becomes corrupted, damaged or wiped, but other than that the vote should not change. What happens in a recount situation where data is corrupted? Do those votes come off the totals? Unless paper records are kept at each stage of the original counting, how do we know what the totals from the cards were?
Ballot manipulation is nothing new and no matter what system we use, there will be tampering, but digital data can be manipulated and the tracks can be covered far easier than with paper. Without a recount possibility in a close race, the lawsuits will fly and our judiciary would begin to decide races. I don't think we want that no matter which side of the aisle you reside.
Of course, this is all moot if we can't even discern who can vote, where to vote, how many times and with what type of ballot. Absentee ballots are becoming the preferred method lately. What are the safeguards to keep someone from voting by absentee and on voting day. We have taken away most safeguards. You no longer have to vote in your precinct on national or state elections. Picture IDs are considered intrusions on our privacy and unfair to minorities. Has anyone ever heard of drivers licenses? If we can't control who votes and verify that the vote is legal how can any vote be trusted and what would be the point of a recount?
A Final Note: Why do we vote during the workday? Many millions of people do not vote because they are working. When they get off, the choice is whether to go home or stand in line to vote. Many of these people make the choice to go home instead. The argument is that employers give workers time to vote, but in practice, it doesn't happen that way. Hourly employees rarely leave work to vote.
A large proportion of nations cast their votes on weekends when more people can participate. Why don't we? American participate in voting less than almost any nation on earth. Why is that? Is it because they feel as if their votes do not matter? Is it because they don't feel any passion for the issues or candidates or is it because Americans simply don't care about what is happening beyond the privacy fence of their backyards? I don't know the answer to these questions, but our politicians need to know and need to make changes before only 10 % of those able to vote actually vote. Will that be a representative government?
I fear there will be dozens if not hundreds of major issues in the upcoming mid term election because there will be so many close races nationwide. The new computerized touch screen voting machines will be the cause of delays in results, inability to carry out a recount, lawsuits and general havoc that will reach to the core of our system.
Former President Jimmy Carter has observed hundreds of elections worldwide. In all, if not most of those elections, a simple low tech paper ballot was used. Voting must be 1. easy to understand, 2. require few skills to complete, 3. allow for a recount, 4. have guards against fraud and 5. the registration system must be able to verify that those who vote are legal residents.
The touch screen voting systems fail on four out of five of these requirements. The few screens I have seen are fairly clean with little to confuse a first time user. Most people who have used touch screens in stores or banks will be able to follow the flow. Unfortunately, many voters over 60 years or so do not or have not used these types of screens in other tasks of their lives. These voters still go to the bank teller for withdrawals and do not use the self check out systems in stores. Touch screens will be foreign to this group for the most part. We take for granted that everyone can program a VCR or TIVO and that everyone knows what a back button is. For computer users, and that is most people under 60, answering "Yes" or "OK" to confirm an action on a screen is routine. For my mother , it is not. The lack of these basic computer skills will slow voting to a crawl and stress the undermanned and under trained voting station workers to the breaking point.
Numerous studies have shown that even a moderately skilled computer hacker can break into and either circumvent or manipulate the software in the voting machines. If this were to happen and the extent of it could not be isolated to one machine or polling station it would bring down the system in that district and force a re vote, an unheard of practice in this nation. In addition, with the close races expected next week, the importance of a recount will be greater than ever. There is no sure method of recounting touchscreen voting records. There are no paper ballots. The only prescribed technique is to pull the data again from the machines and compile the total. Unfortunately, the numbers will be identical if all of the data cards matched the original count. As long as the serial number tracked cards are handled properly and accounted for during the counting process, there should be no difference in the vote totals. I can imagine a scenario where some date cards or downloaded information get lost or becomes corrupted, damaged or wiped, but other than that the vote should not change. What happens in a recount situation where data is corrupted? Do those votes come off the totals? Unless paper records are kept at each stage of the original counting, how do we know what the totals from the cards were?
Ballot manipulation is nothing new and no matter what system we use, there will be tampering, but digital data can be manipulated and the tracks can be covered far easier than with paper. Without a recount possibility in a close race, the lawsuits will fly and our judiciary would begin to decide races. I don't think we want that no matter which side of the aisle you reside.
Of course, this is all moot if we can't even discern who can vote, where to vote, how many times and with what type of ballot. Absentee ballots are becoming the preferred method lately. What are the safeguards to keep someone from voting by absentee and on voting day. We have taken away most safeguards. You no longer have to vote in your precinct on national or state elections. Picture IDs are considered intrusions on our privacy and unfair to minorities. Has anyone ever heard of drivers licenses? If we can't control who votes and verify that the vote is legal how can any vote be trusted and what would be the point of a recount?
A Final Note: Why do we vote during the workday? Many millions of people do not vote because they are working. When they get off, the choice is whether to go home or stand in line to vote. Many of these people make the choice to go home instead. The argument is that employers give workers time to vote, but in practice, it doesn't happen that way. Hourly employees rarely leave work to vote.
A large proportion of nations cast their votes on weekends when more people can participate. Why don't we? American participate in voting less than almost any nation on earth. Why is that? Is it because they feel as if their votes do not matter? Is it because they don't feel any passion for the issues or candidates or is it because Americans simply don't care about what is happening beyond the privacy fence of their backyards? I don't know the answer to these questions, but our politicians need to know and need to make changes before only 10 % of those able to vote actually vote. Will that be a representative government?
Friday, October 27, 2006
Dear Mr. Rumsfeld
Sir, you seem to be a little upset at the legitimate questions from the esteemed members of the Pentagon press corps these days. In fact, yesterday, you became downright agitated and shrill. I have admired your intellect over the years and your handling of said press corps, but these days you seem to be simply defending, and I will take a phrase from your vice president, the last vestiges of a failed regime.
Our troops are indeed heroes for putting up with your failed Iraq policy and putting their lives on the line every day. We have now lost more of them then lives lost on 9/11. The truth is that I don't see how you can face mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and other family members of those lost in the war of choice. Your callous disregard for their welfare is downright negligent. If what you say is true about us changing tactics to adjust to the threats in Iraq, then your tactics are also failed. Are we simply driving down the left side of the roads of Baghdad instead of the right to get a different view of the IEDs before they blow up killing more soldiers?
Mr. Rumsfeld, your time is over. I have no doubt that Iraq will stabilize well after American troops have left the country and it may eventually join the UN under three different flags, but as long as we remain there to be targets of opportunity for whichever faction wants us dead at that moment, there will be no peace.
Make the plans now. Put as much pressure as possible on the Malaki government. Find some Saddam era generals to take control of the Iraqi army and give them marching orders to regain control of the streets. Do this and get our boys and girls home and you may save your legacy. If not, you will go down as the worst Defense Secretary in history.
Our troops are indeed heroes for putting up with your failed Iraq policy and putting their lives on the line every day. We have now lost more of them then lives lost on 9/11. The truth is that I don't see how you can face mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and other family members of those lost in the war of choice. Your callous disregard for their welfare is downright negligent. If what you say is true about us changing tactics to adjust to the threats in Iraq, then your tactics are also failed. Are we simply driving down the left side of the roads of Baghdad instead of the right to get a different view of the IEDs before they blow up killing more soldiers?
Mr. Rumsfeld, your time is over. I have no doubt that Iraq will stabilize well after American troops have left the country and it may eventually join the UN under three different flags, but as long as we remain there to be targets of opportunity for whichever faction wants us dead at that moment, there will be no peace.
Make the plans now. Put as much pressure as possible on the Malaki government. Find some Saddam era generals to take control of the Iraqi army and give them marching orders to regain control of the streets. Do this and get our boys and girls home and you may save your legacy. If not, you will go down as the worst Defense Secretary in history.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The War on Terror
Iraq is not now nor has ever been part of the war on terror. It was entirely the vision of the neo conservatives: Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. It was also a sidebar result of the Cheney Energy Commission. Iraq was to be the US puppet oil well in case the Saudi regime fell. With a fundamentalist controlled Saudi Arabia and a similar government in Iran, Saddam would have had too much leverage on the west. 9/11 and the false WMD intelligence from the Iraqi National Congress gave the Neocons the opening to invade Iraq. By linking Saddam to Bin Laden, President Bush had all he needed to shove this war of choice down the throats of Congress, the UN and the American people.
The war on terror is a war between the west, mainly America, and a warped version of Islam that preaches hatred and intolerance. After the US deployed to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, Osama Bin Laden was incensed at the idea of American soldiers on Islam's sacred soil. His Fatwah put us on a collision course with his new vision of the world. He teamed up with Dr. Zawahiri from Egypt and the rest is history. The highest levels of our government through two administrations did not heed the warnings from within the intelligence community to take Bin Laden as a serious threat.
There never was any connection between Bin Laden and Saddam. Iraq has always been a secular government. He despised the fundamentalists. He even had Muqtada al'sadr's father killed. He tolerated the Islamic clerics only to a point. He was our ally for most of the 80s and 90s, even nearly blowing up the USS Stark with and Exocet missile. His war against the fundamentalists was supported by the US. Even when he massacred the Kurds, we barely made a sound. He was the enemy of our enemy.
Once he was removed from power, Iraq became a vacuum. The only thing that held the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites together was Saddam. Once he was out of the picture, the borders opened wide to allow Iranian Shiites to infiltrate the south, Al Queda and Al Zarchawi joined forces with the insurgents to start a civil war and the Kurds began to work for total independence. With the army disbanded, the Baathists all fired, Iraq became a fertile ground for a deep rooted insurgency. With the growing sectarian violence, death squads, foreign suicide bombers, and American occupiers, it is no wonder that the Iraqi people began to blame the Americans for breaking up what was a functioning dictatorship.
There is nothing the US military can now do to solve the problems in Iraq. Contrary to what President Bush said in his news conference of the 25th of October, there is nothing to win. We are not fighting a war. We are not closing in on a defined force. The elected Iraqi government is impotent and infiltrated by the groups it is sworn to control, just as the army and police have been infiltrated. Only Iraqis can bring about peace in Iraq.
Whether peace comes about through a total all out civil war as a method of separating the different factions or whether a natural internal migration takes place, I can see not other alternative to a total break up of Iraq. T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) provided for these separate states back in the early part of the 1900s. He knew the history and deep mistrust and hatred between the three groups.
America must now begin the delicate and difficult task of leaving Iraq to Iraqis. There are times when parties must find their own path to a final equilibrium without any outside interference, even if that means pain and suffering along the way. Our own nation broke apart with nearly 500,000 dead before we found our final peace. We eventually came together as a stronger nation.
Iraq may do the same or simply break up and stay that way. Either way, we must leave and get out of the way. Our troops are simply caught in the crossfire and being killed because we are there. Dead Americans in Iraq are not saving lives back home, they are simply dying in Iraq. President Bush is either too stupid or has been brainwashed by the neocons to understand this. Pulling out now will put a little egg on our face, but will not endanger any more lives. The killing of Americans on foreign soil will simply and finally end and we will all be safer for it.
The war on terror is a war between the west, mainly America, and a warped version of Islam that preaches hatred and intolerance. After the US deployed to Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, Osama Bin Laden was incensed at the idea of American soldiers on Islam's sacred soil. His Fatwah put us on a collision course with his new vision of the world. He teamed up with Dr. Zawahiri from Egypt and the rest is history. The highest levels of our government through two administrations did not heed the warnings from within the intelligence community to take Bin Laden as a serious threat.
There never was any connection between Bin Laden and Saddam. Iraq has always been a secular government. He despised the fundamentalists. He even had Muqtada al'sadr's father killed. He tolerated the Islamic clerics only to a point. He was our ally for most of the 80s and 90s, even nearly blowing up the USS Stark with and Exocet missile. His war against the fundamentalists was supported by the US. Even when he massacred the Kurds, we barely made a sound. He was the enemy of our enemy.
Once he was removed from power, Iraq became a vacuum. The only thing that held the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites together was Saddam. Once he was out of the picture, the borders opened wide to allow Iranian Shiites to infiltrate the south, Al Queda and Al Zarchawi joined forces with the insurgents to start a civil war and the Kurds began to work for total independence. With the army disbanded, the Baathists all fired, Iraq became a fertile ground for a deep rooted insurgency. With the growing sectarian violence, death squads, foreign suicide bombers, and American occupiers, it is no wonder that the Iraqi people began to blame the Americans for breaking up what was a functioning dictatorship.
There is nothing the US military can now do to solve the problems in Iraq. Contrary to what President Bush said in his news conference of the 25th of October, there is nothing to win. We are not fighting a war. We are not closing in on a defined force. The elected Iraqi government is impotent and infiltrated by the groups it is sworn to control, just as the army and police have been infiltrated. Only Iraqis can bring about peace in Iraq.
Whether peace comes about through a total all out civil war as a method of separating the different factions or whether a natural internal migration takes place, I can see not other alternative to a total break up of Iraq. T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) provided for these separate states back in the early part of the 1900s. He knew the history and deep mistrust and hatred between the three groups.
America must now begin the delicate and difficult task of leaving Iraq to Iraqis. There are times when parties must find their own path to a final equilibrium without any outside interference, even if that means pain and suffering along the way. Our own nation broke apart with nearly 500,000 dead before we found our final peace. We eventually came together as a stronger nation.
Iraq may do the same or simply break up and stay that way. Either way, we must leave and get out of the way. Our troops are simply caught in the crossfire and being killed because we are there. Dead Americans in Iraq are not saving lives back home, they are simply dying in Iraq. President Bush is either too stupid or has been brainwashed by the neocons to understand this. Pulling out now will put a little egg on our face, but will not endanger any more lives. The killing of Americans on foreign soil will simply and finally end and we will all be safer for it.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Rush Limbaugh
I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh when Bill Clinton was the president and he actually made some sense back then, well before his admitted drug addiction and hearing loss which was caused by said drug addiction.
Lately though, he has become quite shrill and even desperate as he sees the Republican dream of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich falling deeper into the congressional pit of ill repute and bloated government.
Ronald Reagan was a hero to me and someone not afraid to veto a spending bill or admit a mistake. George Herbert Walker Bush was my Commander in Chief while I proudly served in the first Gulf War. These were the men that put conservatism on the map, who won the cold war and who refused to be pushed to the center. Rush Limbaugh rarely mentions their names now and can only be the mouthpiece for a disgraced Tom Delay, Denny Hastert and the shadow president, Dick Cheney.
Just as President George Bush has placed our nation in a war of attrition with our young men and women being used as cannon fodder for insurgents, Rush Limbaugh follows the president's lead right into the pit. He allows Rumsfeld to spew his pure fiction out to the unsuspecting and mindless dittoheads that Rush has brainwashed.
Even yesterday Rush was ridiculing a man with a debilitating disease and then backing away from his position. When Rush first found out he was going deaf, we all prayed for his recovery and no one ridiculed him. Even when it was made known that Oxycontin was the culprit, we still wished him a speedy recovery, but he has gone too far and only a Republican miracle or October surprise will keep him afloat.
Rush has been on too long and needs to spend his last days with Tom Delay in either hiding or on some far away island. He is not a conservative, but is simply a Republican apologist. His only skill is to shout down dissenters and to ridicule all but his loyal followers.
Goodbye Rush
Lately though, he has become quite shrill and even desperate as he sees the Republican dream of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich falling deeper into the congressional pit of ill repute and bloated government.
Ronald Reagan was a hero to me and someone not afraid to veto a spending bill or admit a mistake. George Herbert Walker Bush was my Commander in Chief while I proudly served in the first Gulf War. These were the men that put conservatism on the map, who won the cold war and who refused to be pushed to the center. Rush Limbaugh rarely mentions their names now and can only be the mouthpiece for a disgraced Tom Delay, Denny Hastert and the shadow president, Dick Cheney.
Just as President George Bush has placed our nation in a war of attrition with our young men and women being used as cannon fodder for insurgents, Rush Limbaugh follows the president's lead right into the pit. He allows Rumsfeld to spew his pure fiction out to the unsuspecting and mindless dittoheads that Rush has brainwashed.
Even yesterday Rush was ridiculing a man with a debilitating disease and then backing away from his position. When Rush first found out he was going deaf, we all prayed for his recovery and no one ridiculed him. Even when it was made known that Oxycontin was the culprit, we still wished him a speedy recovery, but he has gone too far and only a Republican miracle or October surprise will keep him afloat.
Rush has been on too long and needs to spend his last days with Tom Delay in either hiding or on some far away island. He is not a conservative, but is simply a Republican apologist. His only skill is to shout down dissenters and to ridicule all but his loyal followers.
Goodbye Rush
Monday, October 23, 2006
Disgruntled Republicans
Reason 1. The war of choice in Iraq
Reason 2. The forgotten war in Afghanistan
Reason 3. Exploding budget deficits
Reason 4. Lost conservatism
Reason 5. Erosion of the Geneva Convention and our American Code of Conduct
Reason 6. Congress out of control
Reason 7. Lobbying scandals and Jack Abramoff
Reason 8. Congress meeting only 100 days a year
Reason 9. 3000 dead troops with over 25,000 injured
Reason 2. The forgotten war in Afghanistan
Reason 3. Exploding budget deficits
Reason 4. Lost conservatism
Reason 5. Erosion of the Geneva Convention and our American Code of Conduct
Reason 6. Congress out of control
Reason 7. Lobbying scandals and Jack Abramoff
Reason 8. Congress meeting only 100 days a year
Reason 9. 3000 dead troops with over 25,000 injured
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Talking to Our Enemies
The Bush administration is ignoring the best traditions of our history in dealing with the enemies of our nation. We spent decades negotiating with the USSR even though there were more than 5000 nuclear warheads aimed at this country. Can anyone imagine what this would would be like had we not negotiated throughout the Cold War?
Iran wants a nuclear weapon to have middle east bragging rights now that Saddam is out of power. A nuclear weapon for a third world nation gives that nation legitimacy in the neighborhood as a whole. In the case of India and Pakistan it is more of an ultimate threat similar, but on a smaller scale, to the Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD in our recent past. The nukes keep the peace so to speak.
It is folly for President Bush not to have direct talks with North Korea and Iran as well as the Non-Alqueda Iraqi insurgents. We cannot invade either North Korea, Iran or win a war with a determined insurgency without levelling the nations involved. By not talking, we doom ourselves to an endless struggle with nations determined to have Nukes and with continued loss of life in Iraq.
By talking, I do not advocate giving in to demands. We have a military as a last resort of diplomacy and a State Department as a means to resolve our differences in a peaceful manner. There are many examples of when force is needed. Afghanistan and the Taliban was one such case, but with the new nuke states, why not talk first? President Bush will not succeed by staying the course. The course is wrong and moving farther away from resolution with each passing day and with each American soldier killed.
Instead of the world becoming a more peaceful place, it is far more dangerous than at any time in the past 40 years. Not since the the darkest days of the Cold War with B-52s on flying nuclear alert, have we been so far from the peace we have sought throughout our history.
Iran wants a nuclear weapon to have middle east bragging rights now that Saddam is out of power. A nuclear weapon for a third world nation gives that nation legitimacy in the neighborhood as a whole. In the case of India and Pakistan it is more of an ultimate threat similar, but on a smaller scale, to the Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD in our recent past. The nukes keep the peace so to speak.
It is folly for President Bush not to have direct talks with North Korea and Iran as well as the Non-Alqueda Iraqi insurgents. We cannot invade either North Korea, Iran or win a war with a determined insurgency without levelling the nations involved. By not talking, we doom ourselves to an endless struggle with nations determined to have Nukes and with continued loss of life in Iraq.
By talking, I do not advocate giving in to demands. We have a military as a last resort of diplomacy and a State Department as a means to resolve our differences in a peaceful manner. There are many examples of when force is needed. Afghanistan and the Taliban was one such case, but with the new nuke states, why not talk first? President Bush will not succeed by staying the course. The course is wrong and moving farther away from resolution with each passing day and with each American soldier killed.
Instead of the world becoming a more peaceful place, it is far more dangerous than at any time in the past 40 years. Not since the the darkest days of the Cold War with B-52s on flying nuclear alert, have we been so far from the peace we have sought throughout our history.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Staying The Course
What will staying the course in Iraq give the American people?
1. We are already at 3000 dead since September 11th and 20,000 wounded, many horribly maimed and disfigured. Who is safer Mr. Bush? I'll grant you that we have not had Americans killed on American soil, but is that truly a measure of success?
2. The Iraqi deaths have been at least 10 if not 100 times that of Americans. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but that has never been a reason for the U.S. to go to war.
3. Our continued presence in Iraq will simply delay the inevitable. Once a dictator loses his hold on an artificial nation, it must break up. The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds lived together in peace only by decree and with the threat of force. We managed through our Civil War without outside interference, so too will Iraq.
4. This fatal course started when Paul Bremer dissolved the Iraqi army and fired all members of the Baath party. The insurgency started soon after these mistakes. The de baathification was similar to denazification after WWII. We soon discovered that not all Nazis had blood on their hands and that most were simply Civil Servants trying to get more pay and better jobs. We ended up putting thousands back in their old jobs to the ire of the Russians. Didn't we learn anything here?
5. And finally, staying the course will cause even more Muslims to hate us worldwide and drive more out of work, forgotten, young Muslim men to join groups like Al Queda and other hate groups. We have to look at the sources of this hate.
The Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney way:
Shoot an insurgent and another takes his place
Rape a Muslim woman and 100 men and boys become insurgents
Remove a dictator and a functioning nation falls apart
Destroy an entire Civil Service corps and trained army and 300,000 armed men become insurgents
Force young American soldiers to drive through the streets of Baghdad and insurgents hone their skills our our men and women.
Forget about the promises made to Afghanistan and the Taliban gains a foothold
An Alternative Course for Iraq
Build a school and child can learn right from wrong
Improve a road and a farmer can get his crops to market
Restore electricity to cities and rural areas and people have access to information and basic necessities
Hire only locals for jobs in their nation and eliminate unemployment
Repair water and sewer systems to show the population that you truly care
Talk to your enemies. Silence gains nothing
1. We are already at 3000 dead since September 11th and 20,000 wounded, many horribly maimed and disfigured. Who is safer Mr. Bush? I'll grant you that we have not had Americans killed on American soil, but is that truly a measure of success?
2. The Iraqi deaths have been at least 10 if not 100 times that of Americans. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but that has never been a reason for the U.S. to go to war.
3. Our continued presence in Iraq will simply delay the inevitable. Once a dictator loses his hold on an artificial nation, it must break up. The Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds lived together in peace only by decree and with the threat of force. We managed through our Civil War without outside interference, so too will Iraq.
4. This fatal course started when Paul Bremer dissolved the Iraqi army and fired all members of the Baath party. The insurgency started soon after these mistakes. The de baathification was similar to denazification after WWII. We soon discovered that not all Nazis had blood on their hands and that most were simply Civil Servants trying to get more pay and better jobs. We ended up putting thousands back in their old jobs to the ire of the Russians. Didn't we learn anything here?
5. And finally, staying the course will cause even more Muslims to hate us worldwide and drive more out of work, forgotten, young Muslim men to join groups like Al Queda and other hate groups. We have to look at the sources of this hate.
The Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney way:
Shoot an insurgent and another takes his place
Rape a Muslim woman and 100 men and boys become insurgents
Remove a dictator and a functioning nation falls apart
Destroy an entire Civil Service corps and trained army and 300,000 armed men become insurgents
Force young American soldiers to drive through the streets of Baghdad and insurgents hone their skills our our men and women.
Forget about the promises made to Afghanistan and the Taliban gains a foothold
An Alternative Course for Iraq
Build a school and child can learn right from wrong
Improve a road and a farmer can get his crops to market
Restore electricity to cities and rural areas and people have access to information and basic necessities
Hire only locals for jobs in their nation and eliminate unemployment
Repair water and sewer systems to show the population that you truly care
Talk to your enemies. Silence gains nothing
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
On Conservation
I find it astonishing to see members of the current version of the Republican Party posing for pictures next to hybrid vehicles and touting the virtues of conservation. It is equally disturbing to hear the president talk of increasing the CAFÉ standards as a way of reducing demand. Where were these people six years ago? Do they only come out of their cave in a crisis and then try to fool the American people into believing they really care with an insulting $100 check?
I think everyone has forgotten what Vice President Cheney said about conservation nearly six years ago. He said that conservation was a nice virtue, but not part of a sound energy policy. Can any statement be more ignorant of the facts and documented science?
I am not and have never been a tree hugger, but politicians who dismiss conservation as part of a sound energy policy are as foolish as the conservationists who refuse to allow wind farms to be built for fear that migratory birds will be killed. One extreme is as bad as another. An energy policy must include, exploration, technology, government intervention via tax incentives and disincentives, as well as conservation and behavior modification.
A $100 bogus pandering by Senator Bill Frist aside, there is no short term fix to this issue. The crisis is not $3.00/gallon gas; it is our dependency on foreign oil and on oil itself. The high price of gas may, in the short term, help to curb waste and reduce demand as well as give the oil companies a pot of cash to use for exploration.
President Bush is only now talking about our dependency, but the issue goes back many decades. While Al Gore did not and does not have all the answers on this issue, nor does anyone else, he has been talking about it throughout his political life, as have others. While I don’t believe either President Bush or Vice President Cheney could be accused of collusion, they are simply old oil men who are dedicated to protecting the status quo. They believe only in finding additional supplies and ignore the science and behavioral virtues of conservation. They need only to look as far as the New York City water crisis of the late 80s and 90s where through conservation, the urgent need for a new pipeline was able to be delayed. Conservation is not a fad or pseudo science. It is or should be part of any real energy policy.
They tout ANWAR as the holy grail of their energy policy and blame the democrats for now allowing the drilling in this region. Both are wrong. We do need to continually find new sources of oil and I, for one, feel we can drill anywhere safely and with little disruption to the environment. Until we begin to flatten or reduce our demand for oil, we have to find new areas to drill.
If it were up to the tree huggers, we would never build a wind farm, a nuclear power plant, a new refinery or ever drill anywhere again. Even Edward Kennedy does not want a wind farm off shore form his home. I don’t know what form of energy they want us to use, but a compromise has to be part of a sound energy policy.
These two extremes must give way to a multi-faceted long term approach. We need a Manhattan Project of sorts. This nation needs to declare war on our dependency on foreign oil. We are at our best when at war, but it has to be a war that all Americans can relate to and see the need to wage it. The Brazilians have done it. Why can’t we? As the world’s largest consumer, we should have been way out in front of this issue instead of being well back in the pack. As the world’s technology leader, this is just an embarrassment and leads other nations to feel that we just don’t care until the problem blows up in our face.
A Common Sense Energy Policy:
1. The government must lead the way through incentives and disincentives to both business and the people of this nation. There are some things so important that our government must intrude into both the marketplace and into our daily lives to bring about needed change. This is one of those times and issues that cannot be left up to the pure capitalism or the whim of the populace. The government can chart a new path for this nation. It will only take a president with a clear and persuasive vision and a congress to do the right thing for our nation and to have the strength to say no to special interests. You can bet that the special interests will be out in force from both ends of the political, business and environmental spectrum to wage their own war against any change to the status quo.
a. Tax incentives to the automotive industry to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. There must be additional incentives to individuals to buy those vehicles.
b. Agricultural incentives for farmers to grow “Energy Crops”. We pay farmers not to grow crops. Why not pay them to grow crops that can be used to make ethanol?
c. Tax incentive to power companies, business and individuals to use solar, wind, geothermal and other technologies to produce electricity. Every federal building should have solar panels to produce electricity and new construction could easily use Ground Source Geothermal heating and cooling.
d. Government grants to colleges and universities to explore new technologies and to improve on what we now use. As an example; my own car gets 40mpg on regular gas and it is 10 years old with 125,000 miles. There is not a single vehicle today aside from a few hybrids and diesels that have improved on this. Why Not? Every other product has been improved over the past 10 years and is barely recognizable from its decade old predecessor. I can’t believe the internal combustion engine can’t be improved.
I know the question will come up as to how to pay for these incentives and the politicians will laugh when I mention the word waste and earmarks, but each of those $100,000 chunks of pork and those $50,000,000 bridges and the like add up to billions of $$. Government has grown larger in the past six years than at any time since LBJ. From the Dept. of Homeland Security to the Directorate of Central Intelligence, from the Prescription Drug Plan to the war in Iraq, and finally to the recently approved Transportation spending bill, I think we can all find enough in just a few years to fund an explosion of new technologies and incentives.
Ronald Reagan would turn over in is grave to see what the Republican Party has turned into. The national treasury has become the play money piggy bank for every wasteful project anyone can think of to buy votes back home. The lobbyists buy the politicians, not with envelopes, but it is damn close to it. (Duke Cunningham aside) The politicians find wasteful earmarks to buy votes with and place them in major spending bills at 2am. Why fix the thousands of bridges that need repair when you can build a new one to nowhere? Reagan vetoed a bill with only a handful of earmarks. Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like. It must be like a sugar high. The more you eat, the more you want. I know I digress, but it just makes me sick to see conservatism disappear.
The republicans and democrats used to be different coins with completely different ideals and visions. As of 2006, neither has a vision for the future of this nation and they are simply different sides of the same coin, lacking in ethics, vision, dedication and conscience.
4. There must be a national campaign for conservation. We don’t want to restrict freedoms, but we do need to change behavior. Every other developed nation as well as many developing nations attempts to change behavior when it is in the best interest of the nation. Just a small drop in demand will have a huge impact on the price of oil/gas. We know based on the ever increasing demands of the major developing nations, namely China and India, that unless we do something revolutionary, our world supply of oil will tip to a critical point. Depending on which expert you talk to, may have peaked or be close. Even with increased exploration and production, we can only hope to keep pace with demand. Conservation must have a place at the table. It all adds up.
5. Finally, we do have to continue to find new sources of oil for many years to come until we can flatter and later reduce our demand from current levels and we have to untie the hands of the fuel distribution network by reducing the dozens of regional blends of gasoline.
a. Develop the untapped Gulf of Mexico, ANWAR, Oil Shale, Tar Sands, etc. As the price goes up, the alternative sources become cost effective.
b. There is a two-fold benefit to higher oil prices: The energy companies will have the needed capital to find and develop new oil fields as well as to explore new technologies for producing oil synthetically. Additionally, behavior will shift as Americans switch to higher efficiency vehicles and use less fuel.
c. There are so many blend of gasoline that when there is a regional shortage, we can’t simply ship more to the affected area as we do with the power grid. It has to be refined locally. Reducing blends will reduce costs and ease the supply shortfalls.
d. A renewed push for public transportation. We could have high speed rail lines between many major urban areas, but we don’t. Only the government can do this. Again, every other developed nation has.
We have been spoiled and complacent about energy, but as the price of gas goes up, our awareness of the remedies available will increase also. Politicians are feeling the heat when they should have been looking out for our interests all along. Keep the $100 bucks Senator Frist. Try having a “Unique for Washington” vision for America. Instead of wasting time trying to keep the Delays of the world in power, do what is right. I know it takes courage to stand alone, and few have what it takes these days, but there are some visionaries out inside the Beltway. Speak Up.
I think everyone has forgotten what Vice President Cheney said about conservation nearly six years ago. He said that conservation was a nice virtue, but not part of a sound energy policy. Can any statement be more ignorant of the facts and documented science?
I am not and have never been a tree hugger, but politicians who dismiss conservation as part of a sound energy policy are as foolish as the conservationists who refuse to allow wind farms to be built for fear that migratory birds will be killed. One extreme is as bad as another. An energy policy must include, exploration, technology, government intervention via tax incentives and disincentives, as well as conservation and behavior modification.
A $100 bogus pandering by Senator Bill Frist aside, there is no short term fix to this issue. The crisis is not $3.00/gallon gas; it is our dependency on foreign oil and on oil itself. The high price of gas may, in the short term, help to curb waste and reduce demand as well as give the oil companies a pot of cash to use for exploration.
President Bush is only now talking about our dependency, but the issue goes back many decades. While Al Gore did not and does not have all the answers on this issue, nor does anyone else, he has been talking about it throughout his political life, as have others. While I don’t believe either President Bush or Vice President Cheney could be accused of collusion, they are simply old oil men who are dedicated to protecting the status quo. They believe only in finding additional supplies and ignore the science and behavioral virtues of conservation. They need only to look as far as the New York City water crisis of the late 80s and 90s where through conservation, the urgent need for a new pipeline was able to be delayed. Conservation is not a fad or pseudo science. It is or should be part of any real energy policy.
They tout ANWAR as the holy grail of their energy policy and blame the democrats for now allowing the drilling in this region. Both are wrong. We do need to continually find new sources of oil and I, for one, feel we can drill anywhere safely and with little disruption to the environment. Until we begin to flatten or reduce our demand for oil, we have to find new areas to drill.
If it were up to the tree huggers, we would never build a wind farm, a nuclear power plant, a new refinery or ever drill anywhere again. Even Edward Kennedy does not want a wind farm off shore form his home. I don’t know what form of energy they want us to use, but a compromise has to be part of a sound energy policy.
These two extremes must give way to a multi-faceted long term approach. We need a Manhattan Project of sorts. This nation needs to declare war on our dependency on foreign oil. We are at our best when at war, but it has to be a war that all Americans can relate to and see the need to wage it. The Brazilians have done it. Why can’t we? As the world’s largest consumer, we should have been way out in front of this issue instead of being well back in the pack. As the world’s technology leader, this is just an embarrassment and leads other nations to feel that we just don’t care until the problem blows up in our face.
A Common Sense Energy Policy:
1. The government must lead the way through incentives and disincentives to both business and the people of this nation. There are some things so important that our government must intrude into both the marketplace and into our daily lives to bring about needed change. This is one of those times and issues that cannot be left up to the pure capitalism or the whim of the populace. The government can chart a new path for this nation. It will only take a president with a clear and persuasive vision and a congress to do the right thing for our nation and to have the strength to say no to special interests. You can bet that the special interests will be out in force from both ends of the political, business and environmental spectrum to wage their own war against any change to the status quo.
a. Tax incentives to the automotive industry to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. There must be additional incentives to individuals to buy those vehicles.
b. Agricultural incentives for farmers to grow “Energy Crops”. We pay farmers not to grow crops. Why not pay them to grow crops that can be used to make ethanol?
c. Tax incentive to power companies, business and individuals to use solar, wind, geothermal and other technologies to produce electricity. Every federal building should have solar panels to produce electricity and new construction could easily use Ground Source Geothermal heating and cooling.
d. Government grants to colleges and universities to explore new technologies and to improve on what we now use. As an example; my own car gets 40mpg on regular gas and it is 10 years old with 125,000 miles. There is not a single vehicle today aside from a few hybrids and diesels that have improved on this. Why Not? Every other product has been improved over the past 10 years and is barely recognizable from its decade old predecessor. I can’t believe the internal combustion engine can’t be improved.
I know the question will come up as to how to pay for these incentives and the politicians will laugh when I mention the word waste and earmarks, but each of those $100,000 chunks of pork and those $50,000,000 bridges and the like add up to billions of $$. Government has grown larger in the past six years than at any time since LBJ. From the Dept. of Homeland Security to the Directorate of Central Intelligence, from the Prescription Drug Plan to the war in Iraq, and finally to the recently approved Transportation spending bill, I think we can all find enough in just a few years to fund an explosion of new technologies and incentives.
Ronald Reagan would turn over in is grave to see what the Republican Party has turned into. The national treasury has become the play money piggy bank for every wasteful project anyone can think of to buy votes back home. The lobbyists buy the politicians, not with envelopes, but it is damn close to it. (Duke Cunningham aside) The politicians find wasteful earmarks to buy votes with and place them in major spending bills at 2am. Why fix the thousands of bridges that need repair when you can build a new one to nowhere? Reagan vetoed a bill with only a handful of earmarks. Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like. It must be like a sugar high. The more you eat, the more you want. I know I digress, but it just makes me sick to see conservatism disappear.
The republicans and democrats used to be different coins with completely different ideals and visions. As of 2006, neither has a vision for the future of this nation and they are simply different sides of the same coin, lacking in ethics, vision, dedication and conscience.
4. There must be a national campaign for conservation. We don’t want to restrict freedoms, but we do need to change behavior. Every other developed nation as well as many developing nations attempts to change behavior when it is in the best interest of the nation. Just a small drop in demand will have a huge impact on the price of oil/gas. We know based on the ever increasing demands of the major developing nations, namely China and India, that unless we do something revolutionary, our world supply of oil will tip to a critical point. Depending on which expert you talk to, may have peaked or be close. Even with increased exploration and production, we can only hope to keep pace with demand. Conservation must have a place at the table. It all adds up.
5. Finally, we do have to continue to find new sources of oil for many years to come until we can flatter and later reduce our demand from current levels and we have to untie the hands of the fuel distribution network by reducing the dozens of regional blends of gasoline.
a. Develop the untapped Gulf of Mexico, ANWAR, Oil Shale, Tar Sands, etc. As the price goes up, the alternative sources become cost effective.
b. There is a two-fold benefit to higher oil prices: The energy companies will have the needed capital to find and develop new oil fields as well as to explore new technologies for producing oil synthetically. Additionally, behavior will shift as Americans switch to higher efficiency vehicles and use less fuel.
c. There are so many blend of gasoline that when there is a regional shortage, we can’t simply ship more to the affected area as we do with the power grid. It has to be refined locally. Reducing blends will reduce costs and ease the supply shortfalls.
d. A renewed push for public transportation. We could have high speed rail lines between many major urban areas, but we don’t. Only the government can do this. Again, every other developed nation has.
We have been spoiled and complacent about energy, but as the price of gas goes up, our awareness of the remedies available will increase also. Politicians are feeling the heat when they should have been looking out for our interests all along. Keep the $100 bucks Senator Frist. Try having a “Unique for Washington” vision for America. Instead of wasting time trying to keep the Delays of the world in power, do what is right. I know it takes courage to stand alone, and few have what it takes these days, but there are some visionaries out inside the Beltway. Speak Up.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
The Bush Mistake
I was in the military during Gulf War I and proud to be there. I served in the middle east and fully supported our mission at that time as spelled out by President George Herbert Walker Bush.
President George W. Bush started this war on the wrong foot and has not found his balance yet.
1. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress convinced us otherwise.
2. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside of his own country. Our no-fly zones were working to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.
3. There was no doubt that Saddam was a bad man and had committed atrocities on his people, but Iraq was not a failed state such as Ethiopia or Afghanistan. The citizens got up each day, went to work and came home going about their lives in relative safety. Now they are moving by the thousands out of their homes in the cities to the country. Sectarian violence is rampant. Civil war is imminent. Baghdad is an armed camp with concrete walls for sidewalks. Bodies are found daily. Women's rights have moved backwards as Islamic law begins to spread. As Ronald Reagan used to ask, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Ask the average Iraqi who is just trying to make a living and who knows little of politics.
4. Where there were once no terrorists, now there are thousands using the Iraqi people and U.S. troops as cannon fodder.
5. There was no 911 connection. Saddam was a despot, but not crazy. He did not want to invite another attack.
6. Our troops are on a brave and gallant mission doing their best to protect themselves from the relentless roadside attacks. The fault is in the strategic mission not in our troops who are only following and trusting in the orders of the officers and civilian authority giving those orders.
90 percent of the fatalities in the past two years have been IEDs. The poor young men and women are getting picked off like ducks in a shooting gallery while the terrorists are honing their skills with each attack.
Iraq has become the Harvard of terrorist training camps with a ready supply of targets.
When will it end?
When enough people begin to protest vocally and when active duty generals begin to resign in protest, the slaughter will end. America needs to become angry. 2350 deaths make me angry, but I guess we need more for the nation to wake up. The presidents approval ratings are down, but we only know this from polls. Americans need to take to the streets and let their views be known.
Everyone needs to watch the movie "Network".
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.
Can you all say that?
President George W. Bush started this war on the wrong foot and has not found his balance yet.
1. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress convinced us otherwise.
2. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside of his own country. Our no-fly zones were working to protect the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south.
3. There was no doubt that Saddam was a bad man and had committed atrocities on his people, but Iraq was not a failed state such as Ethiopia or Afghanistan. The citizens got up each day, went to work and came home going about their lives in relative safety. Now they are moving by the thousands out of their homes in the cities to the country. Sectarian violence is rampant. Civil war is imminent. Baghdad is an armed camp with concrete walls for sidewalks. Bodies are found daily. Women's rights have moved backwards as Islamic law begins to spread. As Ronald Reagan used to ask, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Ask the average Iraqi who is just trying to make a living and who knows little of politics.
4. Where there were once no terrorists, now there are thousands using the Iraqi people and U.S. troops as cannon fodder.
5. There was no 911 connection. Saddam was a despot, but not crazy. He did not want to invite another attack.
6. Our troops are on a brave and gallant mission doing their best to protect themselves from the relentless roadside attacks. The fault is in the strategic mission not in our troops who are only following and trusting in the orders of the officers and civilian authority giving those orders.
90 percent of the fatalities in the past two years have been IEDs. The poor young men and women are getting picked off like ducks in a shooting gallery while the terrorists are honing their skills with each attack.
Iraq has become the Harvard of terrorist training camps with a ready supply of targets.
When will it end?
When enough people begin to protest vocally and when active duty generals begin to resign in protest, the slaughter will end. America needs to become angry. 2350 deaths make me angry, but I guess we need more for the nation to wake up. The presidents approval ratings are down, but we only know this from polls. Americans need to take to the streets and let their views be known.
Everyone needs to watch the movie "Network".
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.
Can you all say that?
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Failure to Reform
It amazes me that the congress does not appear to have what it takes to institute genuine and far reaching reform in the face of repeated scandals and revelations from pure bribery to the veiled version in the form of campaign donations for favorable legislation.
One Senator, David Dreier, the mouthpiece of what looks to be a weak effort, claims the Republicans are the party of reform now that it is in vogue. My question is, where have they been and what have they done over the past six years of the Republican Congress? Federal spending has increased more under George Bush than under any recent president. Does K Street run the country? The party of limited government and Ronald Reagan is now the party of huge new government programs and gifts to big business.
Only a few brave and forward thinking senators have been pushing reform throughout their time as elected officials. John McCain is looking more and more like the man in the right place at the right time. Rather than being on the outside with an unpopular issue, barely getting an audience with Cheney on campaign finance reform six years ago, he is now in the middle with the issue everyone wants to talk about. Tom Coburn is also now the man on the inside with a hot issue. He has correctly tied the plague of Earmarks as one of the root issues in lobbying reform.
If these two senators and their supporter can push through a package of real reform that breaks the back of the shadow government, a.k.a. Lobbyists, and puts a halt to the latenight insertion of illegal amendments to previously approved bills, then we may see a slowing or even reversal of federal spending.
Until our elected officials quit treating the federal treasury as a grab bag, and learn the meaning of ethics, there will not be any reason for the American people to vote for them or vote at all. Is it any mystery that we have some of the lowest voter turnout in the world because the two parties are simply two sides of the same coin?
Wake up Congress. The time has come to do the right thing and say no to special interests and get back to the ideals of the Republican party of years past.
One Senator, David Dreier, the mouthpiece of what looks to be a weak effort, claims the Republicans are the party of reform now that it is in vogue. My question is, where have they been and what have they done over the past six years of the Republican Congress? Federal spending has increased more under George Bush than under any recent president. Does K Street run the country? The party of limited government and Ronald Reagan is now the party of huge new government programs and gifts to big business.
Only a few brave and forward thinking senators have been pushing reform throughout their time as elected officials. John McCain is looking more and more like the man in the right place at the right time. Rather than being on the outside with an unpopular issue, barely getting an audience with Cheney on campaign finance reform six years ago, he is now in the middle with the issue everyone wants to talk about. Tom Coburn is also now the man on the inside with a hot issue. He has correctly tied the plague of Earmarks as one of the root issues in lobbying reform.
If these two senators and their supporter can push through a package of real reform that breaks the back of the shadow government, a.k.a. Lobbyists, and puts a halt to the latenight insertion of illegal amendments to previously approved bills, then we may see a slowing or even reversal of federal spending.
Until our elected officials quit treating the federal treasury as a grab bag, and learn the meaning of ethics, there will not be any reason for the American people to vote for them or vote at all. Is it any mystery that we have some of the lowest voter turnout in the world because the two parties are simply two sides of the same coin?
Wake up Congress. The time has come to do the right thing and say no to special interests and get back to the ideals of the Republican party of years past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)