The true "State of the Union": What you won't be told.

President Bush is about to give his "State of the Union" speech tonight. He most likely will start his speech in the first 2 minutes with the following familiar line, "The State of our Union is strong!" He will not be telling us the truth. He will have to lie to us, because the real truth would panic the American people. In turn this would panic world markets unlike anything in our history or the history of the world.

Here are some truths that will scare you and will test your knowledge:

Q. What do you think is the size of our national Debt?
A. Our Official National Debt is $9 Trillion dollars?

Q. Do you believe that number is a true number and represents the total debt of our country?
A. It doesn't!

Q. What would you guess our real National Debt is?
A. At the precise moment of recording this here it is $55,203,538,766,087.00. However by the time I hit the Publish button at the bottom of this entry it will have increased by $1 million dollar for each 15 seconds.

Q. How long would it take to pay this amount off?
A. If we paid it off at a rate of $1 Million per day, it would take us 3,000 years to pay it off.

If you would like to check these facts out for yourself, go to the Institute for Truth in Accounting web site by clicking on the words:
Truth in 2008.Org and check the facts out for yourself. It will give you an education on the one hand and scare you on the other. It is one of the most informative web sites on the real financial health (or should I say sickness), of our country. We should ask all the Presidential candidates what they plan to do about the real debt.

Oh, and one last thing:

Q. Do you know your share of paying off this debt?
A. $182,000.00 per person for every man woman and child in this country.

Feel like you're holding your own? Think again!

Who's in control of Iraq? Gen. Petraeus or Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr? You'll know by April Fools day

The U.S. Military has decided to reduce the number of troops from the "surge" in Iraq, according to news reports. It is expected that 30,000 troops will come home by July of 2008 and leave a remaining force of about 145,000, which does not include contractors. What does this all mean? Will the gains claimed to be the result of the "surge" be won and not prove fleeting? Did the surge really result in the gains or was it the fact that Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr asked his Militia to stand down on Sept. 1st. We will find out the answers to these questions as the time the militia stood down is going to come to an end, coinciding with Troop withdrawal during the next 6 months. By April 1st (April Fools Day), if Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr continues to keep his Militia off the streets, there will continue to be less violence. If he chooses to stir up the ethnic battles with Sunni's, the violence will emerge quickly in April, which will be at least 3 months before the 30,000 troops are totally home.

Watch casualty numbers for the next 5 months, especially Aprils to reflect what choice has been made. Interestingly, it will coincide with the rhetoric leading up to the U.S. Presidential debates between both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee for President.

Republican and Democratic Presidents: We need both!

The world changes daily, some say for the best, but many say for the worst. It takes many years to reap the benefits and consequences of America's foreign policy acts of commission and omission. One thing is for sure, the President we have has a lot to do with what we reap. Just as a child, at times we need a Critical Parent, who watches over us, protects us, tells us of dangers and says “Be Careful”, warns us of danger and fights many battles for us with the bully's of the world. Other times we need the Nurturing Parent who inspires us to greatness, kisses our minor wounds and tells us we'll be OK, helps us develop the value of helping others of less means, comforts us when we are distressed, making peace with others for us when we've gotten into trouble.

Some of us had 2 parents and that each could provide either type of parenting when necessary. Some have only 1 parent that tries to provide each for us. Only whole parents can provide each types. Some have a dominant side they use most of the time. Well, as a country what we need today is not a Critical Parent President, but that is what we have and have had for the past 6 plus years. The Republican President of late, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are the Critical Parents of our time. George Bush's father was too, but was able to be a Nurturing Parent. Bill Clinton was more a Nurturing Parent type (I feel your pain) but was able to use force when necessary in Bosnia etc., so he had both, although many of the George Bush Critical Parent types said he didn’t do enough to go after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

The problem is that, as a society, we often bounce off the bumper guards of each extreme. As we watch the debates, what we need to do is to look for qualities of both in our Presidential candidates. We certainly don't need more fear mongering but do we need someone who can go out there and rebuild international relationships. The world needs this of us now. That means ending wars as our first reaction to international problems but not abandoning other means when all else fails. When you watch both Republican and Democratic debates going forward watch for the nurturing type and the bully and choose wisely. Something in between seems what would best serve America and the World.

What if the surge works? Contemplating the spin

So what are Democrats going to say if the surge works? Are they going to take credit for any part of this? Is President Bush going to get a reprieve from the critics? Is Cheney going to emerge a stronger figure, if that's possible, in this Administration and can say, "I told you so!"? This situation that has us focusing on the next few months and reports daily from Baghdad from such distinguished media anchors as Brian Williams, of NBC, has presented a situation where neither Republicans or Democrats know for sure the outcome. Hence, the politics of this is worth noting. I can see 2008 Presidential candidates more cautious in their pronouncements before the media and in their speeches. And my guess is that this period will be marked by all candidates and elected officials focusing on such things as Healthcare, Immigration reform, Medicare, Social Security and other domestic issues. Why, because they are safer to discuss in a period where the outcome is uncertain. But this is all good news because it means for the first time after the successful invasion of Iraq the American people can see the possibility of a glimmer of hope. No one wants to say that yet because somehow stating it might give cause to it disappearing. Dare we dream of a breather in Iraq. God I hope so.

I have found myself being pessimistic for far too long and anyone reading my Blog can site chapter and verse as to where to support their evidence. But anyone that truly knows me knows I hold out always a 1% possibility that maybe there is some hope of a change.

Then again maybe I’m feeling particularly in a good mood today and this too will pass.

Machiavelli and the upcoming political battle over Iraq

The upcoming battle for the hearts and minds of the American people, and ultimately their vote for their Presidential candidates, is taking shape in the House of Representatives, not in the Senate and that difference is going to take its toll on these Senatorial Presidential candidates:

Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator John McCain
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator Joe Biden
Senator Sam Brownback and
Senator Chuck Hagel

It will turn the voters away from Senatorial candidates and towards those not in Congress like:

Former Mayor Rudy Giulliani
Former Gov. Mitt Romney
Former VP. Al Gore

Because it is going to look like the Senate can't change anything with respect to this President's actions in Iraq and his threats to Iran.

Americans are going to be looking for candidates outside the Beltway as they are feeling frustrated at the impotence of the Senate and the lack of courage they are showing in this debate. Language is now being framed by Karl Rove and his minions to make this battle over direction in Iraq as one where Democrats are going to be characterized as "tying the hands of the President during war time" and "putting our troops in more danger and harms way," as reinforcements may need to be scaled back if funding is cut. It is classical Rove master manipulation of the guilty feelings for doing such and dividing the Democrats because they have been split as to what course of action they can support. So what to do, what to do?

If the Democrats allow themselves to be painted again in a corner by the rhetorical quips of the Rove machine, then they haven't learned a thing over the past 7 years. There is a reference Machiavelli used, in his book "The Prince", when faced with a decision, as to whether to strike back at an opponent. To paraphrase him: Never strike at an opponent unless you are willing to totally destroy them, their family and any offspring. The same is true here regarding facing up to Republican charges. The Democrats must now come together as one party and define the battle in terms that Americans can understand and support, so that in Nov. 2008, it's a slaughter of Republicans at the polls. It is better to stand up and lose the vote than to try to manipulate words in nuanced ways to garner limited support. The Congress was clear in the language in their Bill, which passed and gained 17 Republicans in support of the Bill.