I got to wondering the other day; how would the Bush administration have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis if THEY instead of the Kennedy administration were in power in 1962? Would they have had the finesse, the patience and the credibility to pull off the confrontation peacefully? Or would be living in caves now?

What do you think?

Something seems terribly wrong to me in regards to the Senate hearing on and testimony of General Petaeus' and his report. There is a thorough and serious debate that NEEDS to happen in the realm of select and open congressional committees regarding the war in Iraq. Patraeus' report and appearance is NOT the right time to do this and it's counter productive. Here's why:

General Patraeus is a top notch leader, a PhD in history with his dissertation ironically pertaining to the Viet Nam War. He is the latest in a line of strong leaders (generals) that have been given a no-win job by political civilian leaders. With regards to this hearing, he is the messenger, not the political decider. He's been called to provide an expert military update on Iraq and we should listen to him, study his data and conclusions, as one data point among several. Some Senators from both parties seem bent on making their point rather than trying to get the maximum information and expertise from Petraeus.

Petraeus has been put in a tough situation by an incompetent Commander in Chief. His job is to make the best military effort given the circumstances he's been placed in to. We NEED good military men like Petraeus. What we DON'T NEED is incompetent, near-sighted, ideological civilian leaders that put our military in to a loosing proposition.

In the late 60's our general's and Secretary of Defense lied not only to the American people but to the president as well. If we want to avoid the same situation, we need to welcome Petraeus' report for what it is; his expert military opinion on Iraq.

The REAL debate needs to happen once Petraeus is done testifying and his report made public (I am pretty sure the White House isn't stupid enough to modify the report given the number of non-White House eye balls looking at it).

Our country and it's leaders need to listen to Petraeus, have an open debate, decide what to do, and measure progress. Let's not shoot the messenger.

All of that said, I am and always have been against our involvement in Iraq.

First let me say that I believe General Petreus is a top notch general, leader and student of history. He is an expert in the lessons from Viet Nam, receiving a PhD from Princeton on the subject. Like all good American generals, he is an expert in winning large shooting wars. But it is going to be difficult to evaluate General Petreus' upcoming report on Iraq without prejudice.

Perhaps the worst endorsement he could have received is that from President Bush. When the President says "trust me" he unfortunately puts Petreus in the same group as "Brownie", Alberto Gonzales, Dick Chenney, George "slam dunk" Tenent, Hariett Miers, and others receiving dubious support from a President who values loyalty over competence. It is an administration that is well known for spinning reports so that the facts are either obscured or removed. Petreus deserves better.

The Petreus status report on Iraq deserves proper national and congressional debate based on the facts. It is not the administration's report, it is a report to America. It should be viewed based on fact and the general's recommendations.

The difficulty comes from both sides (I admit to being against the war) who will use the report to support a predetermined case. Confusion already exists from the administration's mantra that Iraq represents the war on terrorists. Unless I am missing something, I don't believe we have ever been attacked in the US by Iraqis. Al Qaeda was not an Iraqi organization. Bin Laden continues to issue video from somewhere near the Afgan-Pakastani border and he, the father of Al-Qaeda is still on the loose. Those who want us to leave Iraq today will use the Petreus report to support that position.

The best way, in my opinion, to evaluate the report is to read it fully without agenda, then ask the question "what would we do now if we weren't reading this as a Democrat or Republican but as a non-aligned American". Since we are where we are in Iraq, the real question is how we should define "win", can we achieve that, at what price, and how to wrap up our involvement.

What I heard or saw tonight as I watched the debate on Fox:

- Huckabee saying that he "knows that Americans are divided (on the abortion issue)" and that therefore, based on his beliefs, he will make the decision to work to deny the right of choice.

- A lot of bellicose, saber rattling, posturing from several candidates on who we should fight or invade next. Brownbeck suggested that we'll need US ground troops to perform bomb damage estimates after a strike on Iran. Yikes, we haven't won this war yet.

-That no Republican candidate has a good plan for getting out of Iraq. The definition of "win" kept changing.

- No one except Ron Paul say that maybe there are other ways to avoid another war.

- Huckabee said that the United States agreed before the war started that if they break Iraq, it must buy it. Actually, Mike, that is what Colin Powell said before the invasion on why we should be careful before we decide to invade Iraq.

- Ron Paul continue to step up to bat and ridicule the hawkish posture and retoric of the other candidates on Iraq. Best line of the night by Paul "Why should we trust anyone who voted for the war to make future decisions".

- It dawned on me that Mitt Romney may be more shallow than I thought, a little to slick and careless in his comments.

- Was reminded by one of the candidates that those who had military experience including the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell and others where suspect about invading Iraq and those without military experience were for it.

- John McCain deserves our thanks, all the medals he's earned our attention to what he has to say on war. But he and we are better off with him in the Senate that in the White House.

- Rudy G is indeed tough on crime and a good major city CEO but he really doesn't know much about foreign policy.

- That some of these guys are scary.

A new pariah has appeared in Fred Thompson. Thompson says that if elected he will push for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and work to overturn Roe v Wade.

Never the party of civil liberties, Thompson has gone so far to the right as to come across as totalitarian. The far right screams bloody hell when the subject of gun control or pollution control is raised but they have no problem limiting the civil liberties of others. Hey Fred, the president enforces the laws, not makes them. Perhaps you should ask yourself "what would Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln think of me?"

Thompson ought to scare the heck out of us. He will make George W look like an angel. Perhaps the more he speaks, the more he will scare others; let's hope.

President Bush is scheduled to have a routine colonoscopy tomorrow as part of his annual physical. Doctors said that they expect to find a head up his ass. VP Chenney will assume temporary presidential powers under the Constitution.

In other news, the Pentagon issued a statement regarding their plans to attack Iran, Pakistan, and China tomorrow.


.... sorry, I couldn't resist writing this.

President Bush is scheduled to have a routine colonoscopy tomorrow as part of his annual physical. Doctors said that they expect to find a head up his ass. VP Chenney will assume temporary presidential powers under the Constitution.

In other news, the Pentagon issued a statement regarding their plans to attack Iran, Pakistan, and China tomorrow.


.... sorry, I couldn't resist writing this.

There are some in Congress and many lobbyists that are arguing against raising the CAFE (Corporate Average Fleet Economy), the mpg minimums that auto manufactures have to average. The Chicago Tribune argues against raising CAFE. Here is my letter to the editor:

To the editor:

Today's editorial "All gassed up in the Senate" argues that the CAFE standards (Corporate Average Fuel economy) imposed by Congress have not achieved a reduction in overall gasoline usage. Assumptions like this are at best difficult to prove and most likely not a proper correlation. What is clear is that the price of gas has not yet risen to the point which would force us to significantly modify our driving habits. It would be better to ask the question, how much more gasoline would we be using without CAFE?

Fuel usage in our country is, as economists would say, semi-elastic. Price thus far has only had a minor effect on usage. Perhaps that is because we live in a culture that requires us to drive often and the price of gas has not yet become a significant factor in reducing "elective" driving; those extra, non-essential trips we take without considering the price of fuel.

It is true that fuel imports have nearly doubled since the CAFE laws were passed in 1975. However fuel usage and imports would be even higher if CAFE was not in effect. One loophole in the CAFE standards requires a much lower standard for SUV's, pick up trucks and other large vehicles, very popular until recently.

Fuel usage will only go down when the price of gas causes us to change our driving habits and higher CAFE standards ensure that we use less fuel than we would with lower standards. The current public discourse over energy, however, leaves me with hope.

Once again we see an example of the White House stifling EPA's efforts to do their job. This latest one is a clear example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

BP announced plans to expand their aging refinery in Whiting, Indiana. On face value, this is a good move. It has been 40 years since the last refinery was built in the US, the Whiting refinery is aged and in desperate need of upgrades and, let's face it, we need to increase the supply of gasoline. Building and refurbishing a refinery is an extremely capital intensive operation; certainly >$1 billion.

Now we discover, thanks to the Chicago Tribune, that the state regulators in Indiana and the US EPA have given BP an exemption allowing them to dump significantly higher amounts of ammonia (nitrogen)and industrial sludge in to Lake Michigan. The EPA has been completely silent on this subject when in fact, this is exactly their domain. This is an clear example of the EPA being asked to back off.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have spent years and $billions to clean up Lake Michigan. Now, at least in part, that work is about to be undone.

EPA employs very good people and very good scientists. But they are hampered and controlled by politically appointed hacks. This has to stop and a new Democratic administration has to commit to changing politicizing science.

Here is a link to the Tribune article: Link

Does anyone think that the current government in Iraq has done its job and held up its end of the bargain? Even the most fundamental responsibilities of the government of Iraq have not been established. They may or may not want to accomplish these things but I think it's more likely that they CANNOT accomplish their charter. After 4 years there is not one, as in none, regiments of the Iraqi security forces that can hold ground gained by our troops, let alone gain ground on their own.

So that begs the questions; why are we still there and what positive outcome can we expect? Will we need to be occupiers forever?

History's lesson is that occupiers NEVER win. Staying in Iraq, or as some would say "not to cut and run" presumes that a favorable outcome is even possible. The war isn't being lost, it was lost after the initial military victory over Saddam.

We can't fire the duly elected Iraqi government. We supported free and open elections. The Bush administration had no idea or experience in dealing with the kind of fractured, tribal, thousand-year-old hatreds among the local parties.

So that leaves two choices: A) Declare that the current situation is as far as we can take it and simply defend the status-quo in Iraq, or B) stop spending American lives in Iraq to defend a losing position.

Unfortunately neither of these choices seem to be on the table. It seems likely that Bush will support the status-quo until either Congress pulls the plug or a new president is elected.

Yes, the president is the commander in chief but no president has the right to ruin our international standing or damage our sense that Americans take the moral high road. Ironically the more morality our current government tries to impose, the more immoral we appear to the rest of the world.

Mr Bush is likely a decent guy standing firm on his beliefs. The problem is his beliefs, or at least the way in which they are implemented have been almost completely wrong. One problem has been created solely by the White House; the American public by in large no longer trusts the behind-closed-doors activities in the White House. I blame Chenney and Rove for this. Chenney's incredible arrogance and contempt for legitimate questions leaves us to wonder who is really in charge. Conversations and decisions made by the vice president and others in the White House are presumably made on behalf of the American people. We have the right, and I do not use that term lightly, to know how and by whom decisions are made. Chenney appears not to care.

As voters we should demand that politicians operate in a sunshine, open door decision environment, decisions affecting state secrets or national security aside. There is no way that the appointment of federal attorneys falls under those exceptions. Neither does political influence over science or secret meetings with industry representatives (al la Chenney's meetings with industry representatives on energy policy).

As voters we should speak with our ballots to ensure that future presidents, regardless of party affiliation, operate in a more open environment. Maybe denying a future president a second term will send a message. After all, we are the government; it serves us, not the other way around. That one concept is what separates American from all other countries.

What say you?

Mr Bush should remember that executive privilege is only a privilege, not a right. While some court decisions support this privilege, it is not all encompassing. Richard Nixon lost his executive privilege during the Water Gate probes and ended up handing over the famous tapes to Congress. The supreme court ruled that in the face of evidence of wrong doing, executive privilege only extends to matters of national security.

I wonder if Mr Bush reads history? If Congress holds evidence of wrong doing, even a conservative court may be reluctant to side with him. Will we have another Saturday Night Massacre? Hand over the goods, Mr President, cover ups are always far worse than the truth.

Leaving politics aside, I am bothered by President Bush's commutation and possible pardon of Scooter Libby. At a time when we are facing the word on the street in our cities and by some rappers that it's "not cool to snitch", meaning cooperating with law enforcement, the President sends the wrong message. Mr. Libby decided it was not cool to snitch.

Mr. Libby was tried and convicted of perjury in front of a grand jury. His perjury involved falsehoods related to questions about what he knew about the outing of CIA covert agent Valerie Plane. Libby made a personal decision to "do the time" rather than reveal what he knew about the leak and about who else in the White House might have been involved. In other words, it's not cool to snitch.

How can we teach our children that cooperating with law enforcement IS cool when the President is saying that the penalty for lying is too harsh. We can't have it both ways.

USA TODAY Article:
Link

Leaving politics aside, I am bothered by President Bush's commutation and possible pardon of Scooter Libby. At a time when we are facing the word on the street in our cities and by some rappers that it's "not cool to snitch", meaning cooperating with law enforcement, the President sends the wrong message. Mr. Libby decided it was not cool to snitch.

Mr. Libby was tried and convicted of perjury in front of a grand jury. His perjury involved falsehoods related to questions about what he knew about the outing of CIA covert agent Valerie Plane. Libby made a personal decision to "do the time" rather than reveal what he knew about the leak and about who else in the White House might have been involved. In other words, it's not cool to snitch.

How can we teach our children that cooperating with law enforcement IS cool when the President is saying that the penalty for lying is too harsh. We can't have it both ways.

Take a moment to cue up an angry protest song from the 60's or 70's; Dylan, CSN&Y, Fogarty... Let's take the 4th of July to do that; to remember the revolutionary spirit that formed our country.

The majority of legislators in Congress are now baby boomers like me. Those who grew up in the 60's and 70's helped change the world. We went from a Victorian country that questioned nothing to a country that questioned everything. We helped stop a war that was bring down our country and destroying America's moral high ground. We stopped tolerating politicians and presidents who stopped listening or who thought they were above the law. We were patriots and we did it for the good of America.

What's happened to us? Why are our politicians behaving like it's the 50's, not 2007? What happened to "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"? Why aren't my contemporaries in Congress feeling like I do; that we won't take it any more?

Music reminds us of the time when we first heard the song; some good times, some not so good times. Maybe our politicians need to stop and listen to the music.

Take a moment to cue up a protest song. We can do it again, America.

What we can learn from Coulter is that the likes of Joseph Goebels can existing in America; nothing but vitriol and harmful propaganda. We learn nothing else. Her response to discourse is simply to attack. I will defend her right to speak out, but I will not patronize her. She is irrelevant, even causing conservatives to distance themselves from her.

There has been much ado among conservative talk show ideologists regarding recent federal court decisions affecting non-combatant detainees in Guantanamo. In many of these cases judges have ruled that current law does not provide relief for habeas corpus, access to a lawyer, etc. Further, released detainees must be returned to a country of origin or another country will to accept them. In a couple of cases, errors by the prosecution (military) has resulted in retrial or release. This has outraged the conservative right.

These outraged people are the same ones that constantly complain about activist judges. What they really mean is "judges that don't agree with us". When a judge rules that current law does not provide for the arbitrary behavior the Presidents rules on detainees, that is activist. When a judge rules that the President has the power to ignore the Constitution then those judges are strict interpreters.

This kind of right-wing discourse does substantial damage to respect for the judicial system. The appeals process is part of our rights specifically to provide a double, or triple check of judicial rulings.

The enemy of the right, defense lawyers, serve a specific purpose; they ensure that proper due process is being followed by the prosecution. Errors in due process are the fault of the prosecution who has the burden of proof. That's a key tenet of the Constitution.

Some day, when they come for you, my right wing friends, you will be glad that judges follow the law the defense attorneys force due process.

There was an excellent interview with Chief Justice Roberts in Atlantic Magazine earlier this year after taking office. In it he spoke extensively about returning to the style of the John Marshall court, believed by many to be the best organized and fair court in US history. He spoke of the need for uninamity on the court for the good of the country and for the good of the court as an institution. The idea of urging a unanimous decision to remove any doubt in the decision. Closely split decisions hurt the credibility of the court.

Contrary to this philosophy almost all of the decisions by the Roberts court have been split decisions with seemingly no justice giving on ideology for the good of the court. NOT ONCE HAS ROBERTS VOTED WITH THE SO-CALLED LIBERAL SIDE OF THE COURT FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

The lack of moderate judges on the court has lead to a struggle of ideology, not constitutional interpretation. So much for cohesiveness.

There are some people out there that feel that Dick Chenney has contributed positive things to America as VP. From those that do, I am curious what those things are.