Let's just face it!

Many of my friends are depressed after the election of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the picking up of more seats in the Senate. I tell them to get over it, it was inevitable. They believe they didn't tell their story correctly, of the many successes they had. I say it had nothing to do with that. They ask me then, "What was the reason?" I tell them, it was their DNA! Let me explain.

Democrats traditionally have been the party against wars. They were against the Vietnam war, the Iraq war and more recently the Afghanistan war. They consider themselves Peace makers, non-violent activists, "for the people" and for the Middles Class and against the corruption of big business. They are compassionate for the situation of Illegal immigrants, because they see them as just trying to help their families survive. I think that's a fair assessment any, self respecting Democrat, would agree with.

Now let me describe the Republicans. They not only don't fear war, they embrace it. They are very good at the "language of war" and can convince people to vote against their own self interests, because it's "best for America!". They use well crafted language to create the dialogue and, through inference, the oppositions dialogue. For example, the use of the phrase, "Death Panels" was a label they used for late life counseling in the Healthcare debate. Democrats are left defending, they are "not Death panels," as an argument. They use language such as "2nd Amendment remedies", "take them out" and other language of war.

The object of war is to beat/destroy or conquer your enemy. The Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has defined President Obama as the enemy, and, therefore, any action taken that can do that is fair, because it is war. He got away with it and was actually rewarded for his stance, with the Republican election victory on Nov. 2nd and saying No to Democrats for every piece of legislation they put forward. Let's take a look at his enemy and make a comparison.

President Obama is an "intellectual" who uses positive language, and tone, to inspire others. He wrote the book, The Audacity of Hope" as an example of that view of life. He doesn't really want war and did get us out of Iraq and wants to get us out of Afghanistan too. But in order for Republicans to have a war against him they must first demonize him. That is why they have piled on to the claim he was not born here and therefore was elected President in error, and then they link the fact that according to the Constitution you must be born in the U.S. to be President. That last phrase is to get the ignorant and uneducated to believe therefore it must be so because they said he wasn't born here, even though he was born in Hawaii. He must not be a legitimate President. Of course what they don't say is, he's black and you know we don't like a black President because we are still fighting the Civil war here in the South against those yankees who should have just minded their own business in the first place. They still have their Confederate money saved for that moment when the South will rise again. That is why they have no concern that Fed Chairman, Bernanke, is destroying the U.S. Dollar's purchasing power. They don't care. They still have their Confederate money! Let me get back to my points as I have taken a detour that is sure to offend some.

Since our enemies of war have been defined as "Muslims" by the Republicans, not just "terrorists", we are to be at war with Muslims as that who attacked us. You could carry that logic to an even farther extreme by saying they were men not women and so we must be at war with all men. You see once they define the enemy all are expected to be against them. They used President Obama's middle name "Hussein" to demonize him further as an attempted link to Muslims and therefore terrorists, our enemy. You can see the absurdity of this linkage, but it fooled about 40% of the population into believing President Obama is Muslim.

So for the next 2 years you will hear we are at war with the President and his "Socialist agenda". The Democrats must master the language of war if they are going to get the upper hand here. You see for Republican leaders they really are at war and being a peace maker will get you killed when the other side wants to be in war with you. Let's just face it, they have been rewarded for being at war with this President. Let's see what Democrats have learned in the coming months and years. I think it is not in their DNA to be at war and therefore President Obama may be a one term President after all.

An Open Letter to President Obama and Senate Democrats.

I feel enraged at the lack of compassion the Republicans in the Senate have for the unemployed needing a hand in the form of unemployment benefits which have run out. Yet, these same Republican Senators passed every request by the Bush Administration, without providing the funds for them, including the lack of funding of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, unfunded Medicare benefits which they approved, as well as unfunded requirements from the No Child Left Behind legislation they also approved.

They want government destroyed by weighing it down with debt, while they blame Democrats under the Obama presidency for the debt problem. I am outraged that Republican voters allow them to get away with it. Is there no moral compass, where voters know the difference between right and wrong, moral and immoral behavior? The Republican Party used to be a great party. I have voted Republican in earlier years of my life. But the crazies have taken it over and pulled them so far right they are now extreme at their very center. It has caused the Democrats to also go more right and the Progressives are wondering where is the Barack Obama they elected?

The problem has been compounded only because President Obama and the elected Democrats in the Senate have tried to be "bipartisan". This is a character flaw of the leadership and of President Obama. I can forgive them for this up to now. Maybe President Obama needed sufficient data to convince him that the Republicans are serious in their pursuit to defeat him and Democrats. Maybe he needed more data to convince him that they would accept him eventually as President, being half black. Maybe he needed more data to be convinced it was just politics and not a grab for power. He was wrong. It has been a systematic war the Republican leadership has been waging. There has not been one single Republican vote to support your legislation. Isn't that enough data?

It's time, Mr. President and Senator Reid. It's time to get this. It is as real a war as was Iraq and Afghanistan is with its own type of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). These IEDs are placed in front of all legislation that you propose. It is called by a special name, the filibuster. It's time to play war too! It's time to change the Senate Rules and get the agenda passed you were elected to pass. It's time to take the gloves off and put a steel rod in that spine of yours and stand tall. You don't have much time left before you lose the people that got you elected, Mr. President and Sen. Reed. Change the Rules on the Filibuster and let them see you have the spine to do what they had threatened you with, when they were in power during the eight years of Bush/Cheney. It's time for that so called "Nuclear Option", ending the filibuster as we know it. 41 Republican Senators have held this country hostage over the will of most of the population of this country, as 57 Democratic Senators have voted for the will of the American people.

You haven't lost the middle because of the Republican tactics; you've lost more of the Independents because you haven't stood tall enough to keep their respect. You haven't shown them you deserve their support. You have turned the other cheek instead of metaphorically slapping their face. Mr. President, you can change the way Washington behaves, but first you must lead like you want people to follow. YOU must change your style and your tactics. So must Senator Reid.

So far, it isn't working like it should at this point in your Presidency. But you have had a moment of leadership with General McChrystal being removed from duty. And while I'm at it, you need to have another moment of leadership in the Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup. Admiral Thad Allan is a good guy, but he doesn't give the confidence of a "command and control" guy, like General Schwarzkopf has. Get a strong leader to seize control of this mess in no uncertain terms. We are at war in the Gulf too Mr. President. Don't make the error of trying to lead this yourself. You need someone else who has total authority to do what is necessary and understands logistics and has the skill set to manage this catastrophe. I recommend General Schwarzkopf. Now is time to lead!!!! God help us if you don't.

Update: I sent a first person email to the President at the White House with this letter.

Who should lead the Gulf Oil spill cleanup?

Well I don't know about you, but I am getting tired of this Gulf Oil well not being capped and not stopping the oil leaking into the gulf. I am also just sick watching those birds covered and barely breathing soaked in oil. Oh, and while I hate watching the oil leaking from those 24/7 robot cameras, I like being reminded what is going on here. I thought it was time for some reflection and dialogue on the subject and the leadership, or lack of it, that is responsible for getting this problem resolved.

Let me start with a question posed from the 2008 political campaigns between then candidates, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. "Who would you like answering the phone at 3:00am in the White House when there was a crisis? I can tell you one thing, it wouldn't be BP's CEO Tony Hayward! Have you ever seen such incompetence from a company and a CEO? I haven't! But let's get back to the question and apply it to all three Presidential candidates.

There is no doubt now, from what we have learned about John McCain, that we would NOT call on him. McCain, the father of the phrase, "Drill Baby, Drill!" has offered nothing on this problem or any problem since then. The Republicans seem to take pride in the fact they don't offer solutions. They like just saying "No" to everything.

Hillary Clinton, I must admit, has surprised me as Secretary of State. She has done a fairly good job and has learned how to support someone who was her rival and do that with grace. Considering the hole we have been in on the International scene with 2 wars and people hating us all over the world from the Bush/Cheney arrogant leadership style, it is remarkable how she and President Obama have turned this around in such a short time. She is doing a good job and could help this problem if she were in charge as President.

President Obama caught all of our hearts with his Audacity of Hope theme during the election, but many of us who voted for him, wanted more audacity and less hope from him, since being elected. He seems to be playing it safe on every issue, from healthcare to financial reform and now to include the Gulf Oil spill cleanup. No one holds him responsible for the catastrophic explosion which occurred and killed those 11 workers. Nor do we hold him responsible to cap and stop the leak, as the government doesn't have the experts capable to jump in and take that role over. But now we do hold him responsible for ensuring the cleanup is done more swiftly and effectively by ordering and commanding the Oil giants to bring their armada of tools, expertise and people to bear on this cleanup. The fact that he has never really managed in business in a command and control manner, like, for example, Mayor Bloomberg has or Lee Iacocca, formerly CEO of Chrysler, or Jack Welsh, former CEO of GE, is a disadvantage for any President.

Look, don't think I want to bash President Obama, I don't. I do however think his advisors are failing him terribly. And what we need now is some national figure of stature with Command and Control experience to handle this mess for the President. I have one suggestion of the type of individual who could do this, General Norman Schwarzkopf. He has the military experience to handle a crisis and also that added benefit of coordinating with the Navy, since this will involve naval forces. After all we have the largest Navy in the world. And he has the respect of the American people from his service and leadership in the War in Iraq.

He would be perfect for this role and it would take the heat off of President Obama who has his hands full trying to improve jobs and the economy and working with Congress on Financial reform and Cap and Trade. Let's draft the General. Start by promoting his name and send an email to the White House suggesting he be called back from retirement to lead this effort.

And while he is at it, we need to mobilize the population there and across the country to help. We could find things to do with the kids out of school for the summer and offer benefits for college tuition for any who help on a sustained basis. We can do tis as Americans. It can be managed and while it will take a long time to clean up, there is no better time to start than now!

On a side note today: This is my 1300th Blog post since I started this Blog in May of 2005 and a fitting topic. What started me blogging was the fact I was so angry with President Bush and VP Cheney's lack of good leadership by nominating John Bolton for U.N Ambassador and the problems with the use of the Filibuster by Congress

The Bush Legacy can be summed up in 5 phrases

It only took 8 years, and any one of these events would go down in history as the greatest malfeasance of any President in the history of this Country. And President Bush did it in only 8 short years. Bravo!

1. 911
2. Iraq War, a war of choice
3. Hurricane Katrina response
4. Collapse of Banking and Insurance industry
5. Approval of use of torture, elimination of habeas corpus, and wiretapping of Americans

Of course for us it all it has been an excruciatingly long time, hasn't it? I wonder what he can manage to add to this list. There is still 4 months before he and Cheney are finally gone.

McCain says he will cut government spending. See how he's penny wise and dollar foolish!

Let's face it, McCain has a good line for the part of the population that doesn't think much. He says he's going to cut the millions in Pork Barrel spending and make their supporters names public. Sounds good but what's the truth. The truth is the largest government spending going on is the war in Iraq, which is costing us about $12 Billion a month. Talk about wasteful spending. McCain wants to continue to spend this indefinitely, as he has said he wouldn't mind it if we stayed in Iraq for 100 years. How does he expect to pay for the war? It won't be by cutting back on what he calls "pork". One man's pork is another's important local project. The true cost cutter will be Barack Obama as he will get us out of Iraq responsibly and as soon as possible. That's savings you can count on!

Sen. Biden: Comments and appearances from 2005 to now documented here

Today is a historic one as Barack Obama has picked Sen. Joe Biden as his VP running mate. What follows here are some of Biden's best moments as noted here in past posts. For one example is the repost of a Poll which said Biden is the MOST TRUSTED DEMOCRAT ON FOREIGN POLICY. I had supported Biden in the Primary, contributed to his campaign and watched it not gain traction. But today I am very happy to see Joe on the ticket. Here are some previous posts and key phrases with links to the original posts:

Sept. 13, 2006 "Poll says Senator Joe Biden is Most Trusted Democrat on Foreign Policy"

"The poll, which samples key decision makers in Washington, DC, asked respondents: Who in your party do you trust most on foreign policy? Poll respondents overwhelmingly favored Senator Joe Biden, followed by former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)."

Mar. 19, 2006 Sen. Joe Biden and Sen. Lugar on CNN

"Sen. Joe Biden and Sen. Lugar were on CNN Late Edition this morning. As usual both Senators have it right on Iraq. Sen. Biden has given some really good suggestions over the past 3 years to this Administration. He has proposed a regional conference of neighbors to Iraq put together a comprehensive Peace plan for Iraq, Biden looks more and more Presidential and instead of just complaining about what is wrong with the Administration, he offers some worthwhile suggestions as to how to solve the problems in Iraq. He could have just remained silent but he hasn't. He has nothing to gain politically if the Bush Administration took his ideas seriously and implemented them. Joe would then not have much to run on in the 2008 elections except to say they were his ideas. But Sen. Biden wants to see a victory for the USA as it is too important to lose, as he has stated many times. This is the kind of unselfish advice I wish more would offer this President from the Republican side. Instead they seem to want to let the President and VP run this game without their two cents of advice included. That way, they can say it was a failure of the President and not theirs. Where's the accountability! We need more candidates like Senator Biden running for every available seat in Congress and the Senate. Notice I said candidates, not Democrats nor Republicans. This country needs true Patriots and unselfish non-politicians to help change this country back to where it once was; respected across the world!"

Mar. 24, 2006 Biden blasts Chertoff on Chemical Plant Security

"Sen. Joe Biden has put a much needed focus on Chemical Plant Security after Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, announced that safeguarding chemical plants will be the responsibility of the chemical industry, not Homeland Security.

Nov. 28, 2005 "Sen. Biden on Meet The Press (regarding Iraq war)"

"Senator Joe Biden was on Meet the Press again yesterday, Sunday Nov. 27th, and he was well prepared for the questions thrown at him by Tim Russett, moderator. It is the truth that for the past few years, Sen. Biden has tried to help this Administration win the war in Iraq. I have mentioned a number of times where Sen. Biden 's suggestions made good sense. But they went unheeded by President Bush and more importantly, by Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld, for whom I have lost a lot of admiration over the past few years. He seems to have become very stubborn and is not listening to good ideas. He too surrounds himself with idealogues so they all chant the same chorus. Now it seems that many Americans are starting to come to the same conclusion I did, back on my posting of August 5th, when I said we were at a turning point and that the war in Iraq felt more and more like Vietnam when we all knew that we weren't going to win that war either and it too was a turning point.

Bush has 6 months maximum to turn this thing positive. I doubt he has the skill or competency or desire to take a risk and make a course change which is required to win this thing. I am afraid it was a bad idea to go in there and it was a bad idea not to have a plan to secure the peace. Everything promised there has gone bad. We don't use the Oil of the Iraqi's to pay for the war. We have no real allies there any more and we are the only ones dying there besides the Iraqi's. God help the people of that nation when we leave."

Aug. 14, 2005 Sen. Biden reaffirms he's a candidate for President

"Biden's comments on Meet the Press were spot on the sentiment of regarding where the country is regarding Iraq. He said the Administration and this President are not leveling with the American people. He said the American people know things aren't going well there, that it is incomprehensible that we still don't have the right body armor protection for our troops, as was described in the NY Times today. Senator Biden said he has no confidence in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and the President should fire him, because everything that could go wrong there has gone wrong there.

On another Sunday show, Sen. John McCain also said he has lost confidence in Rumsfeld.

On Chris Mathews NBC show this morning, NY Times correspondent, David Brookes, said, "Senator Biden and Sen. Clinton are the only Democrats that have given specifics as to how to improve the situation in Iraq" (I would say it is apparent that their suggestions have fallen on deaf ears).

Senator Biden reiterated his plans to seek nomination from his party to run for President in 2008 after visiting recently in the "Red States" and being encouraged to run.

Henry Kissinger when asked on Wolf Blitzer's The New Iraq this morning, about whether what is starting to happen in Iraq today is reminiscent of what happened in Vietnam. Kissinger in his response seemed to blame the anti-war movement for what happened rather than a failed policy of the Nixon Administation and previous Administrations. My question is this When are these current and former policy makers going to take responsibility for their failures? They want to blame the American people for what was wrong in Vietnam and now in Iraq, other than a failed policy and strategy. Why didn't Rumsfeld consider more troops when he was advised to, going into the war, from his top General? We should reinstate the General and have him get Iraq right. As Senator Biden said today, "If Donald Rumsfeld was a CEO he would have been fired long ago!!!"

Jun. 19, 2005 Sen. Biden announced his run for President today.

"Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, made news this morning announcing his intent to run for President in 2008, on "Face the Nation". His comments on what we need to do in Iraq shows why this Senator knows what he is talking about. From enlisting Nato to help guard the borders in Iraq, to accepting the Europeans offer to train more Iraqi's, I hope the President and the Administration listen to his suggestions to turn the Iraq situation around right now. Senator Biden, returning from a trip to Iraq, his 5th trip, reports US. Generals there tell a different story than what the Administration is touting now. VP Cheney even said the insurgents are in the last throws of being defeated in the past few days. Recent pronouncements by the Administration said we had turned a corner there. This was about the 6th time we had "turned a corner" there. Seems to me when you turn the corner so many times one could accurately conclude, we are going in circles. I think so. Don't you?

This is an email I sent to Senator Biden this morning after the "Face the Nation" broadcast:Wow! I am thrilled you will be a serious candidate for President in 2008. I saw the "Face the Nation" broadcast this morning and again realized what a plain speaking, intelligent, thoughtful and sincere person you are. I was particularly touched by your comments about wanting to help a family bring home the remains of their son from Iraq and you were turned away. I did a short summary of your comments, as well as a link to your web site on my Blog this morning at: http://cdiamico.blogspot.com/ Keep speaking out on what is needed in Iraq. It is too important to just let failure play out. I am encouraged by your comments on this Father's Day, that there is hope still. Thanks Senator.


Looking back Biden has been right on most things and not afraid to say what needs to be said. The Democrats now have a chance to win the Presidency with Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Thank God for the Country and our future. Change is coming from the failed policies and presidency of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Amen!

Are you ready to exert your power in this Election?

They say Barack Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place regarding the weekend comments by Rev. Wright at the NAACP meeting and other media events. They want us to believe that even though Barack has admonished his former pastor's comments, the American people will blur them together including each of their positions with no distinction. When they still haven't made up their mind who to vote for, they will acquiesce and vote for Hillary. If that is so, then the American people will get who they deserve for President.

It is my firm belief that there is at least 30% of the American people who don't think at all. Those are the ones who still approve of President Bush's policies in Iraq and here at home. They are not worth discussing any issue with as they have drunk the Kool-Aid and now are zombies. Then there are about another 15-17 % that will vote for John McCain because he is a Republican. That gets John McCain to 45-47%. The Democrats have given a majority vote for Barack which gives him about 28% and Hillary has about 24%, with Independents the final choosers in the Fall Election. Many Independents have joined with Barack, as they see a new hope not seen since John F. Kennedy.

The only question that truly remains is the following: Are we going to let the media dictate the issues we talk about during the next 6 months? If so then we will decide the election based upon associations and distractions, rather than substantive issues like the war in Iraq, getting a better Energy policy that helps liberate us from the dependence on Middle East Oil and our own Oil companies, giving tax breaks for Middle and low income people and increasing the tax on the wealthiest, helping to solve the Social Security financial crisis by ensuring it is there for our next generation, paying down the National Debt, solving the home foreclosure and subprime loans problem for so many Americans, passing a GI Bill to help support the troops who have given so much for their country, and so many other issues on foreign policy to help restore America's greatness in the world. This is up to us, not someone else. Change the channel of your TV when you here anything that isn't real issue oriented, with the emphasis on the word REAL! When the media ratings drop, maybe they will do something better, like cover real issues. If you speak to others about the Primary, discuss issues, not distractions. Start speaking out about what you want this election to be about or we all lose. And when we lose, the rest of the world does too. Remember, only we can give power to Swift Boat ads when we listen to them and alter our positions as a result.

UPDATE:

I almost forgot this action. Anyone, in the remaining States to still hold their Primary, should help end this folly, by voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. That will at least stop the rhetoric till September.

Obama's 2002 speech: Good judgment when it mattered

In 2002 Barack Obama made a speech that many have not read or heard that helps distinguish the candidate from Hillary. Here is his speech from 2002. Remember this was only 1 year from being attacked on 9-11 while the mood in the country was fear.

"Against Going to War With Iraq," by Barack Obama, Oct. 2, 2002


“Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been
billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not
opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the
bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the
sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect
this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t
oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was
bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the

fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first
entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger
freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil,
and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction,
the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to
hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the
name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to
prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars.
And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of
patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash
war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and
Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this
administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our
throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships
borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove
to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty
rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate
scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst
month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A
dumb
war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on
principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no
illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A
man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has
repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams,
developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear
capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be
better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to
the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in
shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength,
and that in concert with the international community he can be
contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away
into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war
against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at
undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an
invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong
international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East,
and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab
world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not
opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our
children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You
want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden
and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a
shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a
homeland security program that involves more than color-coded
warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work,
and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that
former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and
ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that
nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons
already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own
country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the

Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and
suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and
mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without
education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of
terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to
wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that
doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the

battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we
willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance.
Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may
have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our
freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not —

travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who
would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the
full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful
sacrifice in vain.”


Barack Obama, Oct. 2, 2002

U.S. Fatalities significantly down for 2 consecutive months. Why?

I have been trying to figure out the main cause of the reduction in violence over the past several months. I can think of at least 3 contributing factors. First, there is the "surge" in U.S. forces. Secondly, there was the order that Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr asked his Militia to stand down for 6 months. Thirdly, there were the Sunni's deciding to work with U.S. forces to rid the area of Al Qaeda. Then there is the fact that President Bush seemed to get his way with the Congress on spending and legislation to support the troops. Lastly, the 3 leading Democratic PresidentiaL candidates, Hillary, Barack and Edwards, have sidestepped the issue of bringing home the troops and stated that they could not guarantee they could bring home the troops by 2013, the end of their first term if they were chosen as President.

Let's take a look at the timeline of these events. Which one or two fit the timeline best?

1. The "Surge"

Dec. 6th, 2006 Iraq Study Group report. Jan. 10th surge announcement by President Bush. Surge started by 82nd Airborne on Jan. 10th. June 17th surge complete. (These dates seem much earlier and one would have to assume it took 2 1/2 months to make things better after all the troops were there. This is possible)

2. Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr 's Militia stops fighting

Sept. 1st. (This seems to fit exactly withing the 2 months and would be a precipitous event. Highly likely)

3. Sunni's decide to work with U.S forces to rid themselves of Al Qaeda

May 1st was the first report of this story. 2nd major story appeared early June. (Again, these dates seem much earlier and one would have to assume it took 2 1/2 months to make things better after the decision was made. This is also possible.)

4. President Bush gets his way with Congress.

February 17th non-binding Iraq Warner/Levin amendment looses, Sept. 26th Kyl-Lieberman amendment with support from Hillary, passes, Oct 1st Senate vote unites Iraqi's in anger over Biden Amendment calling to creat a fedral system of 3 States of Iraq, as Iraqis see this as a threat to their sovereignty. (This might have an effect if Iraqis were watching our news and were united on how to play this to get us to leave. Possible but not probable)

5. Leading Democratic candidates say can't commit to bringing troops home.
August 19, debate in Des Moines, Iowa, then Oct.30th debate in Philadelphia, PA (Possible but not probable)

Many of these dates do coincide with the very significant reduction in U.S. Fatalities for September and October with Oct being the most impressive reductione. But to ascribe a highly proable cause, it is important to understand the chartacter of the war and what was going on in Iraq. Most would agree, both Republican and Democrats alike, that ther fighting in Iraq was mostly between Sunni and Shia's and that it was a Civil War that was going on in Iraq. Therefore this coiupled with the dates leads me to conclude that the standing down of Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr Militia is the most probable of reasons that thee has benn a significant reduction in U.S. AND Iraqi casualties. It amkes sense and the dates are closer in proximity than any other dates as one would have to estiamte at how long the effect took to be seen. This would be the case for the Surge and it wouldn't have as much of an effect as one side choosing to stand down in the conflict. That's what I would bet on. How about you? Waht do you think mnakes sense? It could be a single action or one in combination. It doesn't hurt having the troops there trying to keep the peace and it doesn't hurt to have the Militia stand down. That's a win-win.

Bush's ultimate legacy: Draining the U.S. Treasury

Yes, it's true. This is our President. Take a good look at the picture so you can remember who created this mess we are in on so many fronts. I am told Republican Conservatives are supposed to be the politicians most concerned and able to manage money, since many have ties and experience in Corporate America. Well I guess that myth has been debunked with the latest figures about the cost of the Iraq war and that it was going to cost $2 Trillion dollars, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said that Bush would "go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible president ever. The fact is that the nation's debt has exploded on his watch -- rising by $3 trillion since 2001, to $9 trillion today."

We need to consider this issue as more important the the Iraq war itself. This will affect not only our generation but our children's generation and their children's generation. We are now the leading debtor nation in the world and that sets the stage for the second, so called, Fall of the Roman Empire, us!

There are only a few Presidential candidates that can deal with this issue. It's not Hillary, Obama Rudi, McCain, nor Fred Thompson. It is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and he is by far the best Presidential candidate with expertise in this area as Governor of Massachusetts, and having also managed the U.S. Olympics and his tenure as head of Bain Capital. Another might be Gov. Huckabee (R) who has experience as a Governor. On the Democratic side possibly Gov. Bill Richardson who has managed the smaller state of New Mexico. He is the only candidate with the experience being an Executive officer of a large entity like a State. This may be the first election in our history where the issues we face as a Nation can't be resolved by any of the Presidential candidates and the ideal solution would be to combine the best in each.

What Presidential ticket would that look like to me? It would be Senator Joe Biden (D), as expert on Foreign relations and the only candidate who could help solve the Iraq Civil War, and Mitt Romney, as the best candidate for resolving the financial debt issues we will face. But we don't have the consciousness to consider ideas outside of our traditional box of electing a President. But wouldn't that be a good ticket!

As the title of this Blog says, "Bush's ultimate legacy: Draining the U.S. Treasury", he has made the country as bankrupt as he did with his own Oil company. This time instead of the Saudi's bailing him out, it is China, as they own most of our debt.

U.S. Fatalities for the first 3 weeks of October, 2007

For the 3 week in October there were 27 fatalities. The first 2 weeks there were 22, so that is an additional 5 for this past week. In October of 2006 we had 106 U.S. Fatalities in Iraq. This continues to be a major story and does show that the violence is down in Iraq. It is a substantial reduction from the 106 last year.

This is one of my most positive feelings about this terrible war. I pray that this continues going forward without consideration to the rhetoric on both sides of the Iraq war debate.

There are now 3,835 U.S. Fatalities, as of the reporting this evening.

Inevitability of Democratic and Republican Presidential Nominees

Everyone has been saying Hillary is the one to beat and that no one can touch her lead over the field of Democrats. The same can't be said for the Republicans, as they had their debate tonight on Fox News. So the question is this, without a single vote, your choice has been made null and void by the media. Can and will the American people take charge of this process and be willing to give a fair look at all the candidates for the good of America? What would that look like?

Well for one thing one would have to first focus on which of the issues they feel strongest about. For many it's the Iraq war, ending it and bringing the troops home. For others, it's about the economy while for others in a related issue, it's the high price of gasoline. For still others, it's about healthcare and whether we should have Universal Healthcare coverage and a system run by the U.S Government.

On the issue of the Iraq war, there is only one candidate that has a position to solve the problem and that is Senator Joe Biden, as he stated today on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He is clearly the most experienced on Foreign Affairs as he is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the most trusted Senator by his colleagues in the area of Foreign Affairs. He said this morning that many have said he would make a great Secretary of State. His reply, don't we need the next President to excel in this area and if so, he is the most qualified. He is right on the money on this.

If your issue is healthcare, Hillary has probably the most intimate knowledge about the system and what's wrong with it and could most likely have learned from her previous attempt to change the system.

If your issue is we need to be strong as a country and not tolerating pandering or negotiating with the likes of Amadenajad of Iran or Putin of Russia, you might want the fiery Rudy Giuliani.

If you want someone to run the country and the economy maximizing efficiency's and effectiveness, you might want to consider Mitt Romney.

If you want to ensure Christian Values are front and center as the basis for deciding who should get your support then Mike Huckabee, the Baptist minister and Gov. of Arkansas, would certainly be at the top of that list of current candidates from both parties.

What's clear here is that focusing on the single issue that stirs you the most and then pick the candidate with the most experience and track record. You choose, not the media. Start thinking more deeply as this will be your most important decision for President in your lifetime. Much rides on you choosing wisely and not being swayed by the polls and the media. You need to stick with your choice and let it play out while you are constantly focused on the issue that is most important to you and seeing exactly where the candidates stand. Are they clear or deliberately confusing the boundaries of their decisions and trying to have it all ways to include the most voters. I don’t need that kind of candidate and neither do you. Not this time, not this election for President!

Project Iraq reflections: Looking back at the incompetency

Back on April 23, 2003, Ted Koppel of ABC News interviewed USAID Administrator for Iraq, Andrew Natsios, about rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and the costs associated with it. This ties the previous blog entry on Oil prices back to 2003. Here is a brief exchange between Koppel and Natsios as background:

"Koppel:... I think you'll agree, this is a much bigger project than any that's been talked about. Indeed, I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.

ANDREW NATSIOS
No, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

So according to the Administration represented by Andrew Natsios, the entire rebuilding of Iraq was going to cost $20 Billion dollars, most of which was going to be paid with Oil Revenue and the only amount American taxpayers were going to spend was $1.7 Billion dollars! Remember that was with Oil prices at $30/barrel, not the current $90/barrel. Have you ever imagined such incompetence on this grand a scale? Unimaginable! I want our money back! And yet, no one, especially this President and Vice President has ever been held to account to us. These are also IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.

To read the transcript of the entire interview click here.

"Values Voters" for Pro Life but also for the Iraq War. Is this hypocrisy?

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, said in a CNN interview this morning that Value Voters, presumably of the Christian Right of the Republican Party, can't support a candidate that isn't Pro Life. Well Mr. Perkins, can't you see the hypocrisy of your stand when you and others of the Christian Right are also Pro War by supporting this Iraq war and this President. It's time to take a look at your standards under the light of day. The media has given all of you a free ride, just as they did with President Bush and the Administration in the lead up to the war in Iraq.

The media is afraid of you and your power. But when you or your supporters come out as being Pro Life, someone needs to challenge you and the hypocrisy of your position. If you were people of peace, I wouldn't be so alarmed. There's no free ride here. I call it like I see it.

Why is Bush talking about Iran as cause of a potential WWIII?

Many are asking why President Bush used this language today as it was hyping fears around the Globe. Add to that, yesterday, Russia's President Putin warning the U.S. about Military action against Iran. Also why wouldn't Bush discuss why he wouldn't comment on Israel bombing a Nuclear Reactor site in Syria, in his news conference yesterday? Fears are ratcheting up on the World stage. So the question is why, especially since Bush has only one year yet in office. He did say today he was "going to sprint to the finish line" of his term in office as he had "unfinished business".

Do you want to guess why he said these things today? Let me take a stab at it and put this picture in a larger context and tie up all the loose ends. First, Alan Greenspan was asked recently and had written in his most recent book, that the Iraq war is all about Oil. He's not the only one to make that statement recently. But to emphasize the point again, it's all about the Oil!

Bush and Cheney are Oil men. Their blood is black not red. Both have been in the business themselves with VP Cheney as the CEO of Haliburton, while the President had his own small Oil company that went bankrupt and was bailed out by the Saudi Royal family.

Remember, when we went into Iraq we were told that the war would be paid for with Iraqi Oil. Did that happen? No! And that was when the price of Oil in 2003 was $30/barrell.

With each progression in raising the stakes in Iraq with more troops and add extending the length of this war, Oil prices continue to rise. Also, comments from the Bush Administration that Iran is trying to develop a Nuclear weapon and must be stopped at all costs, has one and only one effect, Oil prices continued to rise.

As the chart above shows, both this President Bush and his father have had one thing in common. Both created the highest price of Oil than in previous years to their terms and it will be shown that when President Bush leaves office, Oil prices will come down significantly. Why? Because whomever in the next President they won't be trying to create the conditions to increase Oil prices. They will be calming fears in the World.

And let me see if you can guess how the Oil companies have prospered during this time when their Raw materials have tripled in price? Do you think like other businesses that when their raw material costs went up they made less profit? Hmmmmm amazing isn't it?!

By the way, this chart only goes to $70/barrel, not $90, which you can estimate where that would extend if drawn on this page. Today's closing price of Oil was $89/barrell, three times the amount at the start of the Iraq war and we still can't get the war paid for with Iraqi Oil. That is why the Congress and Senate should pass a Windfall Profit tax on Oil companies. Oh, I almost forgot, that won't happen either, as most of the candidates running for President are getting some nice fundraising from Oil company interests, as are those running for office next year. I guess that's one piece of legislation that won't see the light of day.

Year Oil Price
1973 $20/Barrel
1979 $40/Barrel
1993-2000 $18.53 Clinton Presidency

Still a non-believer?

Supporting the Iraq War- The "Draft Politician's Children" movement

Dear Senator Mitch McConnell:

We are pleased to inform you, that we, representing the very Silent Majority of 72% of the American people opposed to this Iraq war, are proud to nominate your 3 daughters, Elly, Claire and Porter to serve their first 15 month tour of duty in Iraq. It is a patriotic thing to do for those supporting the war and we know the depths of your Patriotism. They will need to put their lives on hold, inform friends and family and employers that their return after the 15 months tour is not a guarantee but you being a willing supporter of the Bush strategy, will not object. We admire that you stand for your principles and are a man of high integrity.

Additional letters will be sent to the Republican Senators and Congressmen supporting the Iraq War and so it is indeed a patriotic group that will be serving together. These new members of the military will make it possible for some others to return home to join their families. We know you more than support this strategy and they will be in good company because the Bush twins, Jenna and Laura will be leading the group in battle. Vice President Cheney's daughter, Mary, will be exempt from serving, as she is a lesbian and a new mother. However, waiting in the wings to serve when their time comes, are the Vice President's 6 grandchildren. Elizabeth Cheney, his other daughter, who is straight, will be required to serve also. After all, the "plan" is to keep this war going for decades to come, so I know, given the war's projected length, you won't mind picking up the slack for the lower enlistments that are sure to follow. It is one small step that we appreciate you and your family taking.


We thank you for their service.

Signed,

We The People

Any additional members of the public wishing to add their support, may sign the comment list.

An Open Letter to the people of Iowa

My fellow Americans, in your hands is the opportunity to influence the rest of America. The media has already done a good job for you of selecting your Democratic choice for president. It is all but a slam dunk for Hillary to be the candidate for President and to end this idea of the people's choice in just a few months. Unfortunately, there are many good candidates who won't have a chance. You can change that by shaking up this coronation by how you vote in your Caucuses.

Ask yourself the following questions:

If I didn't vote for Hillary who would I vote for?
Who do I trust more on Foreign Policy decisions when it comes to Iraq?
What message do I want to send to the rest of America with my vote?

If you would be willing to share your answers here, I would be most interested in reading them. I watched the ABC debate today and had some refreshing insights into some of these leaders , especially the conversation about Iraq and ending the war and also on the issue of Education and teachers. Let's hope that Iowans were watching as well. This is the most important election in the past 50 years. Our very survival and standing in the world depends on all of us making the best decision to preserve our Constitution and restore our image across the world, as a country that indeed is one of compassion, peace, and wisdom.

The same problem resurfaces for President Bush.

Here's a quiz: How do the current conditions on the ground in Iraq have a connection to other problems this President has had in his life?

Yes, they are connected and can be traced back to a problem with alcohol. Many know that when someone has a problem with alcohol, they often go to AA (Alcoholics Anonymous). They are a organization for helping people learn to manage the disease using the famous 12 Step process. The first step of that process is confronting the state of denial an alcoholic first experiences when being confronted by family and/or friends, that they are an alcoholic. It is unfortunate for this President and our country that he never passed the first step of denial. And unfortunately for us, his enablers are VP Dick Cheney and the Republican Senate leadership. Heck, there was even a book written about his "State of Denial" and he still is in denial

We don't have an organization for our Presidents to go to, like AA. The only help they get is every 4 years, when we get to vote them out. But, as we are finding out now, four years seems like eternity, doesn't it.

Iraq War assessment: Waiting for Sept? Try November!

News this morning that states don't wait for September for the assessment as to whether the surge is working, try November! That was reported in comments by Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno. To quote the article, "In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November," said Odierno, a deputy to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq."

This Administration will push to extend the date as long as possible so that we remain in Iraq until the end of President Bush's term at the end of 2008. There is no other explanation. He would love to hand it off to Democrats or anyone else so that he can say, "they lost his war." This is the most disgraceful President in U.S. history. His father must hang his head in shame as when he tried to bail him out with the idea of the Iraq Study Group, his son even didn't catch the safety line thrown to him.

To read the entire article above, click here.

U.S. Fatalities for the first week in May

U.S. Military fatalities for the Iraq war in the first week in May totaled 27. April had 28 fatalities for the same period. This is at a pace equal for a month of over 100 fatalities again, to be exact a pace of 108 for the month.

For the entire month of May 2006 there was a total of 69 fatalities, again showing the increase in fatalities, while the supposed "surge" is touted by Bush as the answer to the situation we find ourselves in Iraq.