Truly Out With The Old

Here's your random political thought of the day. Assuming Uncle Dick decides to go home to Wyoming in 2008 to work on his shooting accuracy, the 2008 presidential election will be the first contest since 1952 where neither candidate for president will also be the incumbent president or vice-president. Yes, you have to go all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson to find one where no candidate took to the campaign trail on Air Force One or Two.

I think this bodes well for our nation. Few disagree with the thought that America longs for poltical change. This will be especially true if Democrats take Congress and we experience all those fun roadbumps of a divided government.

I don't know who will be on the ballot come November 2008. Hillary? McCain? Gore? Giuliani? Edwards? Romney? Obama? Biden? Not the most exciting bunch, at least for me right now. But 2008 has all the makings of a watershed election and it should be fun.

It's 4 weeks to Election Day and I'm already looking ahead to the following election! :-)

Smile, You've Been Fooled Yet Again!

This article is for those conservative or moderate readers who still plan to vote Republican in the forthcoming election. You've likely lost a lot of faith in the GOP White House after years of big government spending and foreign policy blunders. You've likely never had much faith in the GOP Senate packed with RINOs like Specter, Chaffee, Frist, and Snowe. However, your last bastion of faith in Republican leadership was probably the House of Represenatives -- the very body where Newt Gingrich's 1994 Republican Reveoltution was born.

Naturally, the news of the Mark Foley scandal bothers you. But you may feel that he's only 1 rotten apple in an otherwise decent bunch. Perhaps you can get beyond the recent disturbing news in order to focus on actual issues, like illegal immigration and homeland security, for example. And you see the House as the only place where conservatives voices have a chance to be heard. Afterall, it was the House leadership that finally took a stand (even against the will of President Bush) and last week won passage of a law that would construct a 700 mile security fence along our Mexican border. Chalk one up for the good guys, right? Something to take to the voters in November, right?

WRONG!!!

Don't believe the campaign soundbytes this fall, people. The article exposing this lie in today's Washington Post astounded me. Even I didn't think the Republican Congress was this shallow. Congress merely passed a bill that gave Homeland Security $1.2 billion (about the same amount we spend weekly in Iraq) to develop various security measures of its own choosing after consulting with world-renowned security experts like local Native American tribal chiefs.

And here's the real punchline: Bush's Homeland Security Department and its Secretary Michael Chertoff have already stated their opposition to the construction of any physical wall along the border with the money.

Read it and weep.

WASHINGTON, October 6, 2006 -- Shortly before recessing late Friday, the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects -- not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and "tactical infrastructure" to support the Department of Homeland Security's preferred option of a "virtual fence."

What's more, in a late-night concession to win over wavering Republicans, GOP congressional leaders pledged in writing that Native American tribes, members of Congress, governors and local leaders would get a say in "the exact placement" of any structure.

The office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison yesterday released a letter from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist promising to ensure that Secretary Chertoff has discretion over whether to build a fence or choose other options.

Blast From The Past

Today's Pearl of Wisdom:

"The notion that it will take several hundred thousand troops to provide security in a post-Saddam Iraq is wildly off the mark."

--Paul Wolfowitz in testimony before Congress, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, February 2003

Foley's Republican Folly

I continue to feel vindicated about going independent after seeing more of the folly from the Republican party I left. You see, we live in the heart of the Mark Foley mess. Since 1994 he has been the representative to Congress for our hometown of Charlotte County, Florida. Foley is a disgrace to his office and our state after the news of his chasing after vulnerable and underage male Congressional interns. Actually, it wouldn't matter if he went after little girls or little boys. But what does matter is when you hide your sexual identity and/or lie about it, I believe you increase the chances of behaving like a predator when given power as Mark Foley did.

Credibility matters. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of electing Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) as an openly-gay male in the Democratic party that states its support for gay rights than with the idea of a wolf in sheep's clothing like Mark Foley who gladly accepted the votes and money of evangelical Christians opposed to gay rights for the past 12 years.

As for a possible cover-up, I think there is a strong chance Foley was protected by GOP leadership. And I hope the media stays after this story. I don't know why Dennis Hastert would help Foley stay out of trouble because the 16th district should be a "safe" Republican seat. But how could members of Congress close to Mark Foley not have known about all this? And shame on them for then allowing Foley to chair a House committee desgined to protect exploited children.

BTW, here's a quick check of my own 2006 Outbox. I knew this much and I'm a nobody. I wonder what and when others "in the know" knew?

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:37:01 -0700 (PDT)

BDJ: "However, I feel I'm a different type of conservative. Afterall, I'm the one planning to vote Democrat in November in both of my congressional elections for the first time in my life. For me, that means voting against Katherine Harris and Mark Foley. Can you really blame me? Harris is unelectable and probably unqualified. The latter is a very moderate Republican from the Palm Beach area who is a strong supporter of gay rights."

Sat, 2 Sep 2006 00:46:03 -0700 (PDT)

BDJ: "I have decided I cannot vote for Mark Foley. I'm serious about this, but it appears he is actually a Log Cabin Republican. He was "outed" last year by a gay magazine and called a press conference to denounce the story (not deny the story) and say that sexual preferences have no bearing on one's politics. Then this past year he was a leading GOP opponent of the same sex marriage ban ammendment. Hmmm. Guess what? He's also a life-long bachelor in his mid 50s and from posh and artsy Palm Beach."

With Friends Like This...

Back to Iraq. It seems to generate more interest, which is understandable because it is a war. Sometimes we forget that. Anyway, these poll numbers from our new "partner" in the war on terror need to be seen.

WASHINGTON - 61% of Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S. led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country.

The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150. More than half, 57 percent, further disapprove of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, also found that almost 4 in 5 Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

61% of Iraqis support the continuing slaughter of American troops as they try to police their country to prevent bloodshed. Nice to know. No wonder the insurgency still isn't in its "final throes" as Dick Cheney said well over a year ago.

Furthermore, in spite of the popular support for violence targetting U.S. troops, note how Osama Bin Laden is not a popular figure in Iraq. Perhaps the "war on terror" isn't as homogenous as the administration leads us to believe? Hmmm. And perhaps Osama did not have an ally in Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people afterall? Who would've thunk that?

Finally, note how Iran's President Ahmadinejad also carries a low approval rating amongst the Iraqi people. Too bad the new U.S. backed government doesn't share these feelings. Prime Minister Maliki can't get enough hugs from Mr. Ahmadinejad, that is when he's not busy bonding with Sheik Nassrallah over in Lebanon, of course.

This stuff keeps getting worse. I suppose we could look at this more optimistically, like Bush, and say that our 2,700 dead, 20,000 wounded, and $450 billion spent has led to a 39% of the Iraqi people opposing the killing of American troops?!? At that rate, we just might win this war on terror in a few centuries.

My Iraq Plan

Let it not be said that I criticize our Iraq policies without offering alternative suggestions. Here they are:

Set a timetable, firstly. From the military experts I have heard, the military is used to working with timetables. Not having them actually hurts morale. I would let Maliki know that the US military presence in Iraq will be reduced to 25,000 by 1/1/08. He knows he has plenty of time to drag his feet and placate his radical Shi'a base because of the "stay the course" attitude. Let him know otherwise.

Then let's stop playing sides. The Sunnis attack us because they know we have the Shi'a govt's back. Recognize there is a low-level civil war underway. We can't afford to play sides or else we become a proxy target. So many US troops are dying for that very reason.

Use the forces we do keep in Iraq to work more on intelligence and special ops rather than the general policing and checkpointing that has been the focus of US troops in Baghdad and beyond.

Demand Maliki (and the Kurks) share the oil wealth with disenfranchised Sunnis. A true social program here could go a long way to quell uprisings. This is not happening now at all.

Acknowledge that mistakes have been made. New leadership is needed at the Pentagon. That means bye-bye Rummy. Nominate a moderate Dem for Sec of Def to reach out to the other side and the rest of America. Sam Nunn comes to mind, if interested. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Double our forces in Afghanistan. Let a strong showing of American force there start to rebuild our lost credibility in the Middle East.

Demand Pakistan get back on our side in the "war on terror." They have not arrested a single Al Queda suspect since 2001. We know Pakistan is an informal ally of the Taliban. Do something about it diplomatically.

This is just a beginning. I hope to see some of this before Jan 2009 because it would be so much more effective now.

In Defense of George Allen

With 2,700 dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq, mounting loses from the War in Afghanistan, legitimate questions of national security, a senile Secretary of Defense, a border being overrun by invaders, record federal budget deficits, corruption in Congress, and no national energy or health care policies....apparently the #1 issue in American politics is still race. Senator George Allen's re-election campaign is on the ropes. And I admit that if I lived in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I might be tempted to vote for challenger Jim Webb myself. Afterall, I respect the man's credentials and agree with his position on Iraq.

However, Allen's detractors don't want to focus on that. Instead, after a series of incidents beginning with the "macaca" story, the vultures are circling overhead of the Senator's fallen body. And it seems now they're going in for the kill after digging up an unsubstantiated allegations that he used the word "nigger" in college 30 years ago.

I'm so tired of this. Not only is there a double standard concerning the use of that word (we sure do love that rap music), but its use can be alleged without any credible evidence. And then everyone will stop and take note in order to prove that they care, that they're above this sort of thing. Heck, I'm even doing it here! Chris Matthews - who I respect more than most of his peers - spent a full 30 minutes on this topic today. And history has proven that it can indeed swing a close election.

I sure hope the Webb campaign isn't fueling the fires here. I'd like to think the former Reagan aide is above that. I saw an interview with Allen's old "buddy" from the UVA football team who felt the voters of his state needed to learn of Allen's supposedly racist past. And so he talked and alleged some pretty mean stuff. And yet when asked why he hadn't come forth sooner, this buffoon responded that he had been hoping Allen would go away and he wouldn't have to do this.

Let's see: the man serves 4 years as Governor, another 6 as Senator, and there have been longtime rumors of a forthcoming presidential campaign. But none of that mattered. What counted was that Allen's politcal blood was in the water. And someone thought it was time to use every bullet in the gun. Even if doing so was the wrong thing to do. More of the typical sad state of American politics.

I don't know if George Allen said the "n" word or not. Unlike most, I don't care. I do care about his position on Iraq where Americans of all colors are dying. And I would care about his legislative record if there was a history of prejudice. But apparently those things just aren't as sexy as a two-syllable unsubstantiated remark supposively uttered 30 years ago.

What a country! We literally give 2nd and 3rd and 4th chances to criminals (that was actually my job for awhile). We literally re-elect politicans who lie, cheat, and steal. And Ted Kennedy literally has a job for life no matter what he does - rabble rouse at best, murder at worst. But don't you dare say a bad word. Especially that one. Snoop Dogg for president!

Ahmadinejad

I don't have it in me to editorialize more thoroughly because my thoughts on the matter of Iran are still developing. The main comment that I can offer is that of all the lessons learned from Iraq, I hope our president (and America) resists the notion that this is a black-and-white issue. It's so tempting to say "we're good" and "they're bad."

But that doesn't make it right. If nothing else, Ahmadinejad's words remind me that the same old-school Cold War attitude that hurt us in Iraq still doesn't apply to this latest of the new 21st century struggles. New ideas and new directions are needed -- quickly.

Emphatically, no, I do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb. And I would rejoice if the people of Iran showed their religious dictators the boot and returned that nation to acting once again like the jewel of a culture it has historically been since the time of Alexander the Great. But I also know we cannot impose a government on them that they do not want. And I realize it's a precarious position to be the world's largest nuclear state and then dictate to others that they cannot use that same nuclear power.

Ahmadinejad is not a fool. His words indicate to me that he's sharper than Saddam Hussein ever dreamed of being while he played dictator for 3 decades. We're in a tough spot here, especially after Iraq. I genuinely hope President Bush can navigate it better this time. Even the most bitter of this administration's critics should not want to see him mess up on this one. There's way too much at stake.