Iraq and Her Suiters.. Cheating on the US

When you take your eye off the ball chances are you are gonna get a pitch thrown right into your face. When the cat is away the mice will play. Ah... you get the point.

The United States is beginning to lose its grip.. in the past couple months we've seen that allover the world things are happening that wouldn't happen at any other time except Election season in the US. You think Mugabe would be beating up his rivals, Georgia could be invaded and then partially-occupied, Serbians would muscle their neighbors, or Iraq would be openly cavorting with Iran if the United States was at full strength in terms of foreign relations? Probably not.. or at least not as openly as they are doing it now. I've said it before.. I'll say it again, this President Bush has undone so much of what his father did its like one Bush wiped out his father's legacy and then dragged it through the mud. Sad.


Back to the issue at hand... Iraq... and China. Now what would China want with a bunch of sand and Arabs? Perhaps they want one-humped Arabian camels to complement their two-humped ones? No.. perhaps they want a bunch of goo that is beneath the sand and is one of the major supplies needed to run a regional or global superpower? Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! That's right!

Iraq signed a three billion dollar ($3B) oil contract with China to export crude and service one of their oil fields as a continuation of a deal made with Saddam Hussein in 1997. The Chinese national oil company will first import oil at a laughably low amount then eventually more than quadrupling that amount. China is the first country (besides the US) to sign a deal with Iraq on oil fields and exports since the Iraq War began. Scary. It seems the best way into the "loyal" Iraqi government's heart is a whole lotta green paper. The oil contract according to officials and sources on both sides is just the tip of the iceberg with China looking to drain every drop of oil out of Iraq as quickly as it can to feed its exploding demand for the stuff. China has turned up its foreign policy charm since 2005 in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia trying to get its hands on natural resources to keep the dragon at home satiated as it grows at a phenomenal rate - an average of 9.9% since 1978! China had approached the Iraqis before but the Iraqis backed off at the last moment about the oil issue because of problems with the oil revenue sharing plan and US pressure to keep all the oil contracts coming their way (or at least to Halliburton.. which is now Headquartered in Dubai). China, however, is relentless when it sees something it wants.. even if it means waiting until the perfect moment when the US have their sights all set at home instead of abroad.

If you've read this blog in the past you might accuse me of just repeatedly attacking the Iraqi government or perhaps the Chinese one.. this is not the case. The Chinese government has every right and logical reason to seek to secure resources as it vies to become stronger and perhaps a superpower... however it is the role of the United States to if not deter competition to keep up and stay far ahead for their own national interests. The Iraqi government deserve my complaints and ire because they are seemingly getting a free pass only because they were installed by a country that just happens to have 130,000 troops around and it would look really bad to throw them out after you hailed them as modern saviors to democracy and Thomas Jeffersons of the Middle East.... they are more like Benedict Arnolds, and even he had more honor and dignity.

Iraq has taken advantage of the loss of American focus to sign deals with Iran, Russia, China, and a withdrawal plan with the US. Sounds like someone is ready to move out.. and play with the big boys. Some call the US an empire and Iraq a colony but it looks like this colony is already cheating with our adversaries.. and all it has left for the US is a flirty "good bye!"

Links:
China hails three-billion-dollar oil deal with Iraq - AFP
China, Iraq reach $3 billion oil service deal - AP

Medvedev to World: I'm just imitating Bush!

One thing you might learn about in Law School is a little something called 'precedent.' According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "Precedent" is an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances and according to dictionary.com it is any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations. This isn't an English lesson though, its just a clarification. When you do something and declare that it is legitimate then in the future when someone copies you it is difficult to object without looking hypocritical. Case in point: Georgia/Russia and Iraq/US.



Both Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin are claiming that the invasion into Georgia and the subsequent bombing campaign are very much in line with the international precedent created by President Bush in Iraq because they claim they are only protecting the people of provinces South Ossetia and Abkhazia from "oppression and tyranny" of the Georgian government. Hmm... at least those two are sticking to that story instead of concocting some intelligence about a nuclear program. What can President Bush say to that? Not much.



President Bush, along with political leaders and thinkers from the Right and Left, are very worried about this military strong-arming into the Caucuses Region by Russia. The problem paritally contributed to the fact that the United States has always been looked at as a progressive leader in Human Rights and International diplomacy (which was good) and then now it seems that even with diminishing global reach we have created a precedent in a world that we are less able to control. Twenty or even ten years ago when the US wanted something to be stopped.. I mean seriously wanted an international action to stop, it could have its magic hand and threaten beligerants with something that would really hurt. Nowadays the US is mired in two international conflicts, talking about a third one, has a housing/banking crisis, dealing with record high oil prices, and has seemingly lost its grip of international organizations. Reapetedly discrediting the UN in 2003, the Bush Administration unwittingly shot itself in the foot, losing one of the best legitimizers of American power and instruments of Western foreign policy.

While the US stagnates its power (and loses some as well) the rest of the world are racing to get just a little closer to the hegemonic level the US has achieved. Russia is resurgent, China is booming, India is growing, the EU is consolidating and expanding, but still there is no greater power than US foreign policy... unfortunetly we have set a terrible precedent and it will take at least five years to undo the damage.

Links:

Georgia-Russia: Medvedev speaks to the world - CNN
Overview of Georgian Conflict - Wikipedia

W decides maybe it is time to pull-out of Iraq

Folks, I gotta tell you, it is a confusing crazy world in politics. I guess that's just the nature of politics but keeps getting crazier and crazier.

There are just so many crazy stories today about Iraq, the Iraq War, and US foreign policy in the region that it almost boggles the mind that we have an administration that is so at odds with reality and itself that it seems to contradict and sabotage itself at every corner. It is as if the delusions of this Bush Administration have come to a head.. unsure of what to do or how to do it they have become desperate for some kind of action without regard to party platform, sane policy, responsibility, or ethics. (Although one could argue that they have never cared about the last three items)

Here are the Headlines that grabbed my attention.. and when you put them altogether you realize what kind of a desperate lame-duck sham we are being treated to:

1. Iraqis: Agreement near on US troop withdraws
2. Cleric al-Sadr may end cease fire if no US withdrawal timetable released Friday
3. McCain: Obama wants to 'forfeit' war
4. Former Bin Laden driver given lenient 66 month sentence
   

Ready? Here we go.

Let's start with the first two headlines. First, it may come as a surprise to you that the Bush Administration is about to complete something they call a "Security Agreement" (although it is quite the opposite) whereby the US promises to remove all Combat troops by October 2010 and the rest of all by 2013. Very, Very Surprising... That's not what you'd call a "time horizon" or a "series of benchmarks" that's what you call a strict TIME LINE. The pact also includes strict dates for the hand-over of the Green Zone (end of 2008) and the removal of all troops from cities (June 30, 2009). Talk about switching from full-speed ahead to full reverse! I know that some of you are jumping for joy at the sudden move to pull out entirely.. but it does come at a considerable cost to our long-term security, the stability of Iraq, and the balance of the Middle East. I felt like President Bush just threw up his hands and said "OK, fine! We'll do what the people want!" without really thinking it through. Even the most liberal and sane politicians who are experts on foreign policy and international relations (I'm not looking at you Kucinich! Biden step up, man, you deserve it) talk about creating time-lines without such strict dates, adding loads of benchmarks with conditional statements galore. This pact according to sources at the Baghdad Embassy and reports from the Iraqi Foreign Ministry has one big clause that basically says if the security situation changes much then the deal is off. Let me tell you: Iran, Iraqi PM Al-Maliki and various other Shi'ite politicians are going to swear everything is perfectly OK until the American Troops leave completely then they will decide to have their way with their own citizens a la Saddam. The fact that Cleric, political leader, and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is lobbying and threatening both Iraqi and American officials with violence should be a sure sign that something is a little rotten about the deal. If the Bush Administration does agree to this deal whoever the next President and his Secretaries of State and Defense should work to totally overhaul it within their first month in office.

Onto item #3, McCain calling out Obama on 'forfeit[ing]' the war through his timetable plan. Look McCain, if you should be scolding someone it should be the Dubya! He's the one who is saying one thing (for 5 years) and then doing the complete opposite! Then 'W' is stabbing you in the back by taking the decision right out of your hands.. its like he has absolutely no confidence in your winning the election! At least Obama's plan (which I've talked about before) includes talk of benchmarks and the security environment instead of the simple-minded rigidity of the current Security Pact. Oh, and Obama - you shouldn't be happy about this either. If both sides agree then you go in and change it or review it, it makes you look really petty unless you have a super-PR plan in place.

Finally, item #4. In the AP report and their headline "Stunningly lenient sentence for former bin Laden driver" it gives the impression to the reader that the bin Laden driver, Salim Hamed, is getting off easy. He isn't. The tribunal convicted him of supporting terror by driving Osama around and occasionally acting as his body guard and found him innocent of planning anything or purposefully harming the United States. Given that, he does need to be punished. It is never enough to say "Oops, I didn't know my boss was a bad guy." Ignorance does not equal innocence however, given the fact that this man has been held without his human rights, tortured, and treated as though he is sub-human I consider this man to have already served his time. His sentence according to the judge was 66 months, the defendant then received permission to speak and apologized to the court and the American people claiming he had no idea whatsoever that Bin Laden was planning something like that. The Judge then said that the sentence could be completed in as little as 5 months if the defendant is cooperative. Of course, that set the extreme right-wingers right off their rockers... but let's face it, lets say someone is held without bail or being notified of their rights or what they are being charged with for say... SIX YEARS and then a trial finally occurs and that someone is then told they are guilty.. but not as bad as previously thought... then sentenced for 5 and a half years. If it was anywhere in the US we'd be asking at the very least how this guy can get those extra 6 months of his life that were robbed of him back. Oh yeah.. and don't forget, even after this fella finishes his sentence he probably won't be released! Shame.. Shame on us. Remember, this nation was built on the promises of Liberty and Justice... not Revenge or Vindictefullness.

Strong Moderate (with a little help from Flaming Moderate)



Links
Iraqis: Agreement near on US troop withdraws - AP
Cleric may end cease fire if no US withdrawal timetable released Friday - AP
Stunningly lenient sentence for former bin Laden driver - AP
McCain: Obama wants to 'forfeit' Iraq war - AP

Hagel to Keynote Democratic Convention?

Back to some news for Nebraska.. which has been very politically predictable.


This is from Meet the Press on NBC, August 3rd, 2008:

MR. BROKAW: Who's going to be the keynoter at the Democratic convention?

MR. TODD: Oh, my money's on Chuck Hagel. And I, I think it would be a Republican. That's the message that Obama wants to send. I mean, the whole idea of the Democratic convention, I think, is going to be two parts. One is you are going to see them be more aggressive on McCain than John Kerry was on Bush. I mean, I talked to an Obama person, and I asked them what they thought of that 2004 convention as a whole, was it too soft on Bush? And immediately said, "Oh, absolutely." So expect--in fact, don't be surprised if Obama starts ratcheting up rhetoric against McCain this week. Forget the convention. But I've always--my money's always been on Chuck Hagel as the, as the keynote. But it's not--you know, technically Hillary Clinton may dominate that night because she's, she's the, she's the big speaker that night. But you send a message with your keynote, and I think we may have seen the other keynote on this, at this desk.

Wait.. what did you just say? Chuck Hagel.. keynoting the Democratic Convention?! Isn't that slightly.. you know.. insane?

Chuck Todd is an analyst for NBC and a former writer for the National Journal. He brought up Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as a possible keynote for the Democratic Convention. The idea of bringing someone from the opposite party to keynote is nothing strange... the Republicans did it with Zel Miller in 2004. The big question mark is of course Chuck Hagel. There have been rumors of a want (or need) to bring in someone from across the aisle or an independent to do the keynote to boost the chances of Obama capturing important swing votes. More than a few big names that have come up such as Hagel, Colin Powell, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg, or former Sen. Sam Nunn.

Chuck Todd thinks that Hagel has the inside track to keynote but a lot of problems exist.... First thing is, when you pick a keynote speaker it is generally a good idea to be sure that the speaker can go on for quite awhile and really articulate the message you want to send. If the Convention is pretty much geared towards having a War Hero talk about the blunders in Iraq then they have their man otherwise.. they are really asking the wrong guy. Hagel owns one of the highest conservative ratings from any thinktank asked according to his votes on everything but the War in Iraq. Seeing how the economy is shaping up to be the big issue of this election (and the failure of promise of 2006 Democrats to end the War in Iraq) maybe using Hagel to hammer the facts home wouldn't be such a bright idea.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Trip Report Card (Part One)

Of course we couldn't let the Obama-thon World Tour go without analyzing just a little bit... So we officially present to you:

The Obama World Tour Report Card

In the interest of not re-hashing everything that has been on every cable-news channel and news report for the past two weeks this will be a quick strike report card. Quick, clear, and fair. What did Senator Barack Obama want out of his destination, what he got, where that got him, and a Grade. An overall grade is given at the end.

Kuwait

What was the objective: Land the plane somewhere "safe", Visit the troops, feign watchers into thinking he was going to Iraq
What actually happened: Visited troops, didn't play basketball because he was hurt
Problems: Low media reporting (in part due to clamping down on information about his next destination), not a lot of coverage of him with the troops (besides the picture above and a few more)
Grade: C-, people barely even know he was there.. or that he visited the troops there.

Afghanistan

What was the objective: Face time with President Hamid Karzai; Talk about importance of "original" War on Terror
What actually happened: Superb photo-op of Obama (walking with Karzai) looking presidential (above); Obama appears to be brave arriving days after 9 US troops are killed in Afghanistan; visits Bagram Airbase
Problems: Not a lot of face time with troops or commanders; only stays in safest part of Kabul; email about his alleged disrespect on his visit to Bagram sets the blogosphere on fire
Grade: B+/A-, First real coverage and pictures broadcast in the US show a confident Obama, followed by Sen. Hagel (R-NE) and Sen. Reed (D-R.I.) talking with President Karzai and looking very much at home

Iraq

What was the objective: Prove his plan on Iraq is based on facts on the ground, meet with US Generals, meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister (and have him agree with the 16-month plan); battle McCain ads bringing up his two-year absence from Iraq
What actually happened: Picture perfect. Another Superb Photo of Obama, Gen. Petraeus , and Hagel in a copter over Baghdad; Iraqi PM al-Maliki basically endorsed Obama again.. (this time accompanied by a press conference)
Problems: Sticks around the Green Zone
Grade: A-/A, sticks to his message and seems genuinely Presidential while chatting with Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi PM

Jordan

What was the objective: Visit an Arab Ally in the region, Meet with the King of Jordan - Abdullah II, Talk about Mid-East Peace
What actually happened: Met with the King (another great Photo-Op), got Chauffeured by the King (in his Mercedes S600 S-Guard), got lectured on the history and imperatives of Middle-East Peace, visited the ancient Amman Citadel (pictured above - Hagel on right, Reed on Left)
Problems: Getting told what to do by a King without actually being President sort-of hurt, talking about democracy and then visiting and commending a Monarchy is a bit ironic
Grade: B+, not very high-publicity visit but looked very comfortable in the Royal setting and fluent in Middle-East concerns.

Israel

What was the objective: Calm American Jewish concerns that he is not Pro-Israel enough, appear interested in solving the Israeli-Palestinian question
What actually happened: Met with PM Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak (pictured above - on left), and FM Tzipi Livini(pictured above - on right); visits a Holocaust Museum (and looks moved); goes to the West Wall wearing a Yarmulke
Problems: Had conflicting messages about his view for Jerusalem, his youth creates the impression that he is not fully aware of the long painful history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Grade: C, meh.. he didn't do too bad but it seemed too formulaic without much real substance.


To be continued...

Please leave comments! Part II is coming withing a couple days.

When The Wrong People Like You...

This friend is nothing to boast about...


I am talking of course about Senator Obama's recent semi-endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki this week in Der Speigel, a German Newspaper.

You may hear from the Obama campaign that a semi-endorsement by al-Maliki is a true triumph of Obama's international appeal and a show of his foreign policy prowess.. those statements are wrong. Flat out wrong. The withdrawal plan Obama has been talking about for the past.. year or two seems like a pretty good idea.. until you get an endorsement on it from al-Maliki. Why my change of opinion on the plan? The endorsement.

Which leads to the question: Is Al-Maliki really that bad?

Simple Answer: Yes.

More complicated answer: Propping up and promoting PM Nour Al-Maliki is perhaps the one of the biggest mistakes of this Bush Administration. Now it seems natural for the Bush Administration in their simple-mindedness to take a Shi'ite to head the government.. but obviously beyond that fact they didn't do any vetting or research. This man LIVES for Iran and a united Shi'ite front of Persians (Iranians) and Arabs (Iraqis). He is only glad to see US troops getting out of the country because it will mean he will have more latitude and freedom in the targeted killing of Sunnis all in the name of the War on Terror and battling Al-Qaeda.

His power base comes mostly from Shi'ite clerics like Moqtada al-Sadr and al-Sistani who are very clear that they wish Iraq to be a nation for Shi'ites and Shi'ites ONLY. This kind of political alignment is hardly a testament to good will, political reconciliation or national unity.

Furthermore, you cannot trust this man any further than you can throw a dozen used car salesmen. He'll say anything to stay in power and keep international aid money coming his way. That aid money.. mostly goes to pad his and his cronies pockets and as much as 70% of arms bought "for the Iraqi National Army" in fact find their ways to militias run by his Shi'ite thug friends. Sure, he puts on a show every now and then to prove he's actually 'tough' on these militia criminals but in fact every time the outcome is the same, a 'truce' is announced and back to the status quo they go!

Well, I would hate to just rant and demolsih on al-Maliki, as I just did, for too long.. I should probably conserve some energy to spend on offering solutions. (I know, I know.. typical political bloggers and pundits are just suppose to whine without giving alternatives or solutions.. but I'm not your typical political enthusiast)

Solution(s): According to the Obama website, Sen. Obama's plan is basically two movements at once: combat troops out in 16 months, political pressure up to push progress. Instead Obama should focus on a series of benchmarks and goals to remove troops at varying speeds from differing areas depending on the political progress of his "diplomatic surge." The quick removal of troops is not exactly going to ratchet up the pressure on a government whose Interior Ministry basically exists to send out death squads and then protect them as government employees. It is Barack Obama's goal to "end the war" as soon as he is elected but instead taking a page out of this Bush Administration's book by blindly trying to do that, he should direct the military leaders on the ground there of his intentions to begin the removal of all non-essential combat troops and reserves and then listen to where from and when to remove them. The US needs to have a strong presence in the Iraq in order to at least slow down the total influence of Iranian politics on the Iraqi government.

Remember Barack, what this nation needs is a change of politics not just a change of policy.



Link: Original Article about Al-Maliki's Endorsement of the Obama plan - Der Speigel

Link: Analysis of Al-Maliki's Comments to Der Speigel - CNN

The Economy: Not a Tax Cut problem but a Spending problem

{[ Warning: This is an economic rant, beware. ]}

Sometimes I can't help myself and get into intense debates with coffee shop liberals who think they've got all the answers. In one such discussion recently I found myself in the topic was the reason for the slumping economy. There were two major topics debated: the Bush Tax cuts and the role of the Federal Reserve.

The Bush Tax Cuts

More money in an economy will stimulate it. That's just a simple truth.

To argue that the Bush Tax Cuts are the reason for the enormous deficits is just ridiculous. Now whether the richest 10% should have been the largest target of the tax cuts is debatable but a tax cut is never a cause for deficits. (over)SPENDING your resources IS the cause of deficits. Let's reduce this to a more simple model for a moment. You've got a great job at Company XYZ that pays 100,000 dollars and every year you spend 75,00 dollars - everything is just fine and dandy. Then your company comes around and lets you know that you've been fired and you land yourself a job at Company ABC where you make 60,000 dollars, you would like any rational human being change your spending habits not continue spending much more than you make and blame the company XYZ for your losses and you sure as heck wouldn't start spending MORE! That is what the Bush Administration has done to us, first the economic forecasts for 2000 on were pretty good, so "we" got a tax cut, hooray! Then when things started turning for the worst we found ourselves in a quandary because we are spending millions of dollars on unwanted, unneeded projects and military adventures.

If you want to pay for a BMW then you either go work overtime or you reduce spending everywhere else so you can afford one, right? If the Bush Administration was handling your finances they would be buying it all on credit then passing the debt on to your kids when you die. That is wrong. What happened to Fiscal Responsibility and Fiscal Conservatism? I thought we elected Republicans to control the White House and Congress between 2000 and 2006, shouldn't we be running high on surpluses and tax cuts and low on wasteful spending, social programs and unsustainable programs? It seems as though just the opposite is happening but the blame should go on the way the Bush Administration is spending! No tax increase alone is going to cover the enormous deficits that we are running, if you blame the Tax Cuts then you stipulate that undoing them would undo the situation, which is patently false.

So Liberals, remember this: Over-Spending = Bad, Tax Cut = Good, Bush Administration = a stab in the back for Fiscal Conservatives (and common sense folks)

Next, the Federal Reserve

[If you believe the Federal Reserve is in fact a part of a banking elite conspiracy - GO AWAY NOW!]

The number one priority of the Federal Reserve is to ensure the Dollar stays strong and that the American economy stays relatively stable. It is not the Federal Reserve's responsibility to ensure economic growth, combat housing bubbles bursting, regulate the economy outside the interest rates, or bailing out private securities companies. The Federal Reserve is made up of one chief appointed by the President along with the heads of huge banking entities allover the country, these people are not elected with the best interests of citizens at heart - they care about the interests of the banking community not you or me, directly. In fact, take a moment - name at least one of the twelve federal reserve chiefs... nope, didn't think you could.

So, don't go around blaming the Fed for the current economic problems folks. I know it is easy, the Federal Reserve is a secretive group of very rich people... but their mission is just to keep the American economy stable - not in growth so this isn't their fault. It is the role of Congress and the President to try to foster an environment that is conducive to a growing economy. Our economy like any other has its phases in the cycles of growth and decline, it is the role of the Fed to make sure declines don't turn into bank panics and growth doesn't turn into wild inflation. Also, they are NOT perfect - they do make mistakes... so sometimes they get it wrong or work too slow to fully blunt the effects of a decline (this happens a lot when they are under heavy political pressure).

The Federal Reserve should also NOT be given any more power as Secretary of the Treasury Paulson would like. The Federal Reserve is an organ of the government that is run by outsiders, private citizens, and Banking Holding companies and is NOT a part of our Department of the Treasury. So giving it more power is not going to help ordinary citizens like me or you, they have relatively no oversight and report to Congress only if they oblige a request. (If you haven't realized yet, I love using metaphors.. but there is no easy metaphor with which I can simplify this situation.)

A Few Conclusions..

In conclusion, who are we going to blame for the economy which is in recession? (Yup, I used the r-word!) We should be blaming 1)The Bush Administration ,for overspending and not being Fiscally responsible, 2)the Bush Administration, again, for putting too much political pressure on the Federal Reserve hence impeding a rate cut earlier which could have lessened the blow, 3)Congress, for advocating bio-fuels and driving up food costs (this will be discussed soon in another post), 4) Simple Economics, for having up and down cycles, 5) both Subprime loan companies and the people who took those loans, don't be sneaky and don't be stupid, respectively.

Anyone I forgot to add? Comment Below!

New GI Bill Needs to be passed

Salute our Soldiers, Pass the New GI Bill

The New GI Bill must be passed. It is the only right thing to do.

The New GI Bill as developed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) (and supported by John Warner (R-VA) and so many more) is being discussed right now in the Senate and I believe after taking a look at it that passage of this bill would really benefit our fighting men and women in uniform. It sets out to revamp the benefits that military members get after they leave the service. When the first GI Bill was passed to help the veterans of World War Two, the GI Bill gave these brave veterans a shot at a higher education that was completely paid for - a real boost to our economy no doubt as these people moved up the pay scale and had their minds opened to new ideas.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) however (along with Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC) ) disagree with that position. They say by offering more money for our brave veterans' education we are discouraging them from re-enlisting. This position is ridiculous! Are we not proud of their service? We should allow them to do with their time as they please considering they volunteered to put their lives on the line! In the McCain version of a new GI Bill (although it is difficult to not call it an anti-GI Bill) the military would slowly give the soldier more money based on the number of deployments and years they put in. Is one tour of duty in Iraq not enough? Senator McCain thinks so.

I believe I stand with many veterans and common sense decent Americans in saying, let the reward fit the service, Pass the New GI Bill.

---

Links:

The Carpetbagger Report - Webb calls McCain out on the GI Bill
CNN Story - Here

Something Strange in Syria... and Suspicous in the US

Today the Pentagon, White House and CIA all came out with their report about the Israeli air strike on Syria. They now claim that the building bombed was probably a nuclear reactor meant for "non-peaceful purposes" that was mere weeks away from being operational. Something about the
whole situation is a little fishy.

First of all, it is illegal and an act of war to violate the airspace of a sovereign country (and bomb it, incidentally) but of course legality and such things are of no real concern for the Israeli government so we move on...

The real issue at hand here however is "why now?" Eight months after the "Operation Orchard" bombing why would the CIA and others suddenly come forward with this information, especially since the White House and others response to it at the time was "No Comment"? Is the White House trying to: 1) ramp up support for some kind of military mis-adventure, 2) try to sabotage their own 6-party talks with North Korea, whom they allege were the technicians behind the nuclear facilities, 3) or perhaps trying to sabotage any hopes of Syria and their neighbor, Iraq, having any positive relations (because obviously Syria is waaay worse then Iraq's cozying up to Iran). All the options seem quiet depressing and just stupid, strange, and/or suspicious.

Another question that should be posed is why, if the US Intelligence system could pinpoint a "WMD-lab truck" in Iraq back in 2003 did our intelligence services not catch this allegedly nearly finished nuclear facility until the Israelis informed us they were going to bomb it. The CIA states that they have been tracking this facility since 1997 when North Korean and Syrian officials met near the site of the nuclear facility which means this site should have been under surveillance for the past eleven years. Doesn't this mean that Syria probably would have been a better candidate for invasion in 2003? They at least had a facility supposedly being built that was almost capable of creating nuclear materials, which is much further along than Saddam ever got. I guess this just goes to prove that these neo-conservatives have been obsessed with invading Iraq ever since their 1998 letter to President Clinton asking him to intervene with troops into Iraq.

Once again we are forced to sigh and ponder how an administration could become so obsessed with their own fantasy of democratic triumph and American victory that they forgot to truly weigh the matter...

Links:

CNN Story Here

UPDATE
CNN Story on reaction to the story Here

Sadr clarifies his call for "open war"

"Does this make me look menacing.. dangerous, even?"

In a case of "the-enemy-of-my-friend-is-my-enemy-but-actually-he-likes-my-friend-and-hates-me" Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr clarified his threat of war. He proclaimed that his war would only be on the "occupiers" of Iraq (pretty much the Americans at this point). He told his supporters, through a letter read by a top aide, during a Friday prayer in Sadr City, Baghdad that his 'war' would not be directed towards "our Iraqi brothers -- no matter what their nationality, race or sect. The blood of Iraqis are forbidden on you."

So, you see the surge IS working. It is allowing the Iraqi sects and factions to all come together.. in hate of the US occupation force. Not exactly what we were looking for, but a victory is a victory, take it as it comes. Let us not forget that it was the Mehdi Army militia that provided security and bodyguards for current Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki.

Politically al-Maliki has been trying to aid al-Sadr as much as possible in their plan for Shi'ite dominance and close ties to Iran while also trying to seem like a "good guy" for the Bush Administration. The Prime Minister has also been quoted as telling a group of Senators off-the-record that he is working to "kill all these damn troublemakers.. the Sunnis, of course", sounds like a real fair-minded guy.

Something tells me this al-Sadr fellow isn't going to go away under US pressure alone especially with such strong support within the Iraqi government (his movement is backed by about 30% of its legislators and has influence over the Interior and Transport Ministries), the Iranian government (material and spiritual support.. by the boatload), and huge support from Shi'ites allover Iraq who view him as a People's Hero.

Well.. Let's hope his "open war" plan never comes to fruition, because if last weeks skirmishes between the Mehdi Army and US-backed Iraqi troops (before a few hundred of them surrendered their weapons and joined the Mehdi Army) was a preview, it won't go too well for US troops.

Links:
CNN Here

MIlitary lowers Entrance Requirements.. Again.

The United States Military Service is quickly turning from the pride of the US to a rehabilitation service for felons and delinquents.

Today it was revealed that the Army and Marines would give even more waivers to those who want to enlist for felonies. This after they brought down the requirements for physical discipline, brought up the age at which a person could enlist, and had earlier given waivers for other crimes. Felonies, though? Really? COME ON! Shame!

If it were just some crazy felonies like.. I dunno.. Whale Hunting in Nebraska or something, I'd be cool with it but here are a few of the felonies that were waived so scum could join the military: assault, drug possession, sexual assault, and making terrorist threats. Hmm... Assault - maybe not so bad - I mean they are going to be trained to assault people anyways but maybe having a big temper isn't a good thing for someone who will be equipped with a weapon and interacting with some of the most powerful military machines in the world. Second, Drug Possession - Do you really want people who were on drugs and possibly still are to be in the Army, again equipped with a weapon, in Countries which have A LOT of drugs? I'm talking of course about Afghanistan, Iraq, and the US. Third, Sexual Assault? Is this possibly the reason that there are at least 527 investigations of Sexual Assault and Rape in Iraq alone? Just sayin'... Lastly and most ironically, Making Terroristic Threats, isn't that what we are sending them to FIGHT? I mean if they are making terroristic threats the Army should be sending them to be tortured "interrogated" at Gitmo, don't ya think?!

This is really despicable and the only lame excuse the Army and Marines could come up with is that it is there are fewer recruits today meet their standards. So that means we lower the standards? This is an insult to those who entered the service before these Waivers were issued and a slap in the face to anyone who believes in the honor and service of the US Military. That proud honorable people who joined the military service because of their patriotism and love for service have to serve in the same Army or Marine unit as convicted criminals is a slap in the face of every current and former person in the US Army and Marines. These criminals will sully the reputation of our military and our image worldwide. Do you want to be represented by some criminal? It will be no small wonder that our reputation around the world will keep plummeting around the world when the first thing face-to-face interaction with an American could be one of these convicts.

Certainly a few of these criminals who received waivers just made a mistake during their youth or something and are now better people.. however it is safe to assume that not 100 percent of them are and even one such person is a disgrace to our Department of Defense, after all these men and women are suppose to reflect our volunteer "patriot" soldier Army.

The only good thing that I can say concerning this topic is kudos to the US Air Force who did not give a single waiver in 2006 or 2007 and I am less disgusted with the Navy who reduced their waivers from 48 in '06 to 42 in '07.

Link to CNN story here

Congressional Name-Calling: Shameful Words

If there is one thing that the late and great David Brinkely taught us it is that you don't have to be disagreeable in order to disagree. The act of name-calling, however, goes beyond being just disagreeable into the realm of infantile stupidity. That is why a few a few news stories caught my eye(s) today.

First, Senator Lieberman (I-CT)...

He insinuated on FOX news radio that Senator Obama was a Marxist as Bill Kristol claims. Shame on Lieberman for that kind of name calling and disrespect! I know they both don't agree on a the war among other things but as colleagues in the United States Senate he should at the very least respect his fellow Senator and not engage in name-calling with goes well beyond the realm of common decency.

Next comes Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY)...

Well.. Rep. Davis didn't claim that Sen. Obama is a Communist.. nope, he first decided go with stating that Obama was 'weak-kneed' because he "couldn't be the guy to push the button", referring to National Security exercises they both partook in. Now that comment is up for debate, I suppose it is possible that he in fact was a little apprehensive pushing the button in a nuclear terrorism situation which I don't think is particularly bad thing.

Rep. Davis however.. couldn't just limit his comments to something that would matter like National Security... he also decided to go the RACIST route calling the Senator a "boy". Now I know a lot of people say well.. maybe he was being condescending but not racist, but let's face it folks the Representative is from Kentucky which means that he would know that calling a black man a "boy" is going to be viewed as racist. So after few hours of silence and squirming he sent a letter to the Obama campaign apologizing for his comments which I respect, but the point is he should have just limited his attacks to Issue attacks instead of belittling the person (and possibly showing a little racist edge).

Well.. that's all for now, I'm sure there's more craziness in Politics coming right around the corner, so I'll be there with ya! Good Day!

Hagel's New Book: [[America: Our Next Chapter: Tough Questions, Straight Answers]]

Leave it to an active Senator to write a book in which he takes no prisoners but doing just that is definitely one of the strengths of maverick Senator Hagel. His new book "America: Our Next Chapter: Tough Questions, Straight Answers" hits stores on March 25th and will be in Nebraska a few days later to sign books.

This book will certainly be exciting if for just the thrill of reading what the maverick Republican is going to say about the Bush Administration, Iraq War, and how he sees the War on Terror(ism) going into the future. He comments on what he considers to be the true blunder of the Iraq War and why Washington's polarization is leading towards the creation of a new (and possibly viable) third party.

I know a lot of NE republicans may not like the guy for his views on those things but no one can call him a coward. Sen. Hagel is the kind of person who doesn't mask his words or play a game of semantics.. he says it like it is, and in that sense should has the original Straight Talk Express stashed away somewhere. Speaking of of which, after much whining about the lack of a clear endorsement in the Presidential race from Hagel, there are a few mentions of them (outside of that context) in his book. Sen. Hagel refers to Sen. Obama once in a chapter about the importance of dealing with nations directly when there is a crisis, however the mention is only connected to a bill Hagel and Obama co-authored strengthening the security of nuclear plants and fuels. As for Sen. McCain he gets heaps of praise in a larger section of his book dedicated to a vision of independent leadership and vision. (Also mentioned in that section is his colleague and former opponent in his victorious 1996 election, Sen. Ben Nelson (D) )

I am definitely going out to buy this book the first minute I can and think that anyone (no matter their political ideology) could benefit from reading it. The price is about 26 dollars and is available at a local bookstore near you or you can buy it at Amazon for about 17 dollars (and if you buy another 8 dollars worth of stuff shipping is free).

Amazon Listing