Impeaching the Vice-President

This article in the Washington Post by Dana Milbank is too funny pass by. The URL at for the entire article is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/....
article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402341_2.html

But, I provide an excerpt here:

"I do not stand alone," Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.

The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee.

A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.

"Have you talked to her today?" Kucinich shot back.

"Yes, I did," she replied.

Kucinich had not expected that answer. "Then I would say I have not talked to her," he acknowledged.

It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney.

War on Terror: Part II

In Part I, I began a discussion of the war on terror. This is a continuation of that discussion.

So, the war on terror has resulted in the elimination, at least temporarily of two major state sponsors of terror. We will never be able to declare victory in this war unless there are no state sponsors of terror.

State sponsorship of terror is the most illegitimate element of state craft. The basic modus operandi is the for state to engage in training, funding, and arming terror organizations and or terrorists. They use the protection of sovereign borders to project power and or chaos at their perceived enemies. They pass intelligence and give "recommendations" for operations and or targets. They fail to prosecute or extradite terrorists living within their borders. In the worst cases, they organize domestic shows of support and celebration for the terrorists' heinous acts.

In an earlier post on this Blog, I provided a series of URLs that outline Saddam Hussein's shameful support of terrorists and terrorist activities. We all know that bin Laden and his band were sheltered by the Taliban. What of Syria and Iran.

Syria is clearly linked to most, if not all, of the major Palestinian terrorist groups. Syria argues that these are freedom fighters. But when in world history have freedom fighters strapped explosives to their bodies and detonated on city buses, in discotheques, or in pizza parlors, carrying innocent women and children. The "leaders" of Hamas for example have long lived in Syria, in wealth and comfort denied their followers, under the protection of the Syrian government. The same government that has assassinated politicians in Lebanon, allowed terrorists to gather in their territory preparing for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, and supported Hezbollah.

Iran has conducted itself even more deplorably. Iran created Hezbollah, trains Hezbollah, arms them, feeds them, clothes them, etc. Hezbollah is poorly named, it is not an Army of God, it is the Iranian Army in Lebanon. Iran and Hezbollah have acted to disrupt the region and create chaos. Hezbollah has killed more Americans than any other terror organization except al Qaeda. Substract the 9-11 attacks and Hezbollah is leading terrorist killer of Americans.

It is most troublesome to recognize the points of contact between Hezbollah and al Qaeda. A little research on the web will show the interested surfer that Hezbollah had a hand in the Khobar tower bombing, that a suspected al Qaeda terror cell in Portland, Oregon had a Hezbollah member. That many of the IEDs killing our soldiers in Iraq are unmistakingly of Hezbollah design.

One terrible misunderstanding on the part of many people here in the States, is that the war on terror is really a war on al Qaeda. The Democrats' often use rhetoric to support this misunderstanding. They have concluded that it helps them politically. But the war on terror will never be over unless organizations like Hezbollah are rendered impotent. That begins and ends with their state sponsors.

In the run up to the 2004 general election, the Democrats and their nominee pressed relentlessly on a single view-- that Iraq was a diversion and or a distraction from the war on terror. In fact, my view of the 2004 DNC national convention was that it was a four day argument that Iraq was not part of the war on terror.

The Republican reply was impotent. In fact, there was really only one speech at the 2004 GOP national convention that attempted to rebut the Democrat critique (the GOP convention was held after the DNCs). That speech was given by Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The Bush campaign never found a credible voice to connect the two. Even after winning the election, President Bush was unable, despite several attempts, to convincingly tie Iraq to the war on terror.

This state of affairs continues to the present day. Congresswoman Nan Pelosi (D - California) has stated that she believes we need to pull troops out of Iraq for redeployment to Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden. The President and most Republicans have remained unyielding in the face of the withering Democratic attack, but have still not found a voice to explain to the public why Iraq is part of the war on terror. Why Iraq matters, and why our troops there matter.

This situation has become nearly untenable. If it continues for the next 18 months as it has the last 3 years, the Republicans will have no chance in the 2008 election and the Democrats will take power. Neither side has shown an adequate understanding of the situation. Neither side has shown as adequate grasp of strategy.

In Part III, I will give some recommendations for a way forward.

War on Terror: Part I

The war on terror is very badly named. It reminds one of the war on drugs. And fittingly, the major issue of contention between the democrat and republican elected officials is whether it is or isn't. The D's are trying their best to make it completely into a different version of the war on drugs, the R's are trying their best to keep it a hot war. What should the principled citizen think?

Well, the first principle that jumps to mind is this: Wars are fought between nation-states.

And this is really the crux of the issue. Any reading of recent history shows that the United States, her citizens, and interests have been the repeated targets of terror attacks and acts of war for most of the past thirty years. A good starting point is the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the illegal detention of United States citizens who were seized in the United States Embassy. This is technically an act of war, although most people probably connect the hostage episode with terror. Other acts of war perpetrated against the United States include the bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. During the period after the Iranian hostage crisis, the United States and other countries suffered a series of terror attacks including, but not limited to, the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland, the Achille Lauro Hijacking, the Khobar Towers bombing, the first World Trade Center Bombing, the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the bombing of embassies of other countries in Lebanon and Argentina, and of course the September 11th, 2001 attacks.

Through most of these attacks the United States basically turned the other cheek. Our responses are as few as they were feeble. President Reagan delivered one the most severe responses in bombing Libya after the Lockerbie incident. President Clinton launched cruise missiles at targets in Africa and Afghanistan. There seems to be some that believe we may have hit one chemical weapons facility in the Sudan, but there is evidence, and many people believe, that this was a dairy plant. Our attacks on Afghanistan are less controversial due to their minimal impact.

The question must be asked: did 9-11 really change the world?

Based on their advocated positions, the politicians have differing opinions. The democrats' argument seems, at least to this observer, to be the closest to a pre-9-11 mindset. Their intended course of action is strictly tactical with little bearing to over all strategy with respect to terror. The republicans have put forward psuedo-strategies like "we need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here." That is actually a decent principle for armed conflict, but it is not a strategy.

It occurs to this writer that the major goal of foreign policy in the post-9-11 world is to eliminate state sponsorship of terror. Our foreign policy, war policy, and tactical moves should give service to this goal. I see little evidence of this.

It is true that Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iraq under Hussein were both state sponsors of terror. Both were long-term residents on the list maintained by the U.S. State Department and figured prominently in the annual report. This reporting function is no longer with State, and the Homeland Security/Counter-terrorism office has taken a vastly different approach. Other long-time listees included Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Cuba. To some extent the elimination of Afghanistan and Iraq are collateral benefits of the Bush 43rd approach. The United States never explicitly demanded that either the Taliban or Hussein get out of the terror business. Instead, we demanded Afghanistan turn-over bin Laden and his gang and that Iraq credibly prove that it did not possess a meaningful WMD capability. Since both regimes failed to comply, hostilities ensued. In the more recent past, the administration has not pressed either Iran or Syria with respect to the sponsorship element.

go to War on Terror: Part II.

Modern Day Tribute

I begin with two quotes:

“It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none."
James Madison

The fifth way America will lead again is to invest in our common humanity - to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair.

I agree. But this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice.

Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter. It also requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy - a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force. It requires building the capacity of the world's weakest states and providing them what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth. And it requires states that have the capacity to fight terrorism, halt the proliferation of deadly weapons, and build the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat such deadly diseases as HIV/AIDS and malaria.

As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.

For the last twenty years, U.S. foreign aid funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. Doubling our foreign assistance spending by 2012 will help meet the challenge laid out by Tony Blair at the 2005 G-8 conference at Gleneagles, and it will help push the rest of the developed world to invest in security and opportunity. As we have seen recently with large increases in funding for our AIDS programs, we have the capacity to make sure this funding makes a real difference.

Part of this new funding will also establish a two billion dollar Global Education Fund that calls on the world to join together in eliminating the global education deficit, similar to what the 9/11 commission proposed. Because we cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy.

I know that many Americans are skeptical about the value of foreign aid today. But as the U.S. military made clear in Camp Lemonier, a relatively small investment in these fragile states up front can be one of the most effective ways to prevent the terror and strife that is far more costly - both in lives and treasure - down the road. In this way, $50 billion a year in foreign aid - which is less than one-half of one percent of our GDP - doesn't sound as costly when you consider that last year, the Pentagon spent nearly double that amount in Iraq alone.

One can't help but wonder what Madison would think of Senator Obama's solution to the problem of terrorism. For those of a more modern bent, I offer the following wisdom:

"Money can't buy me love"

Lennon, John and Paul McCartney (1964), “Can’t Buy Me Love,” A Hard Day’s Night. London, UK: Parlophone Records.

Senator Obama's Double Vision

I recently read Senator Barack Obama's (D - Illinois) prepared remarks for his speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The Senator tries to communicate a sense of his vision for the U.S. and the World. To my reading, it is double-vision.

The senator starts off his speech with this:

Good morning. We all know that these are not the best of times for America's reputation in the world. We know what the war in Iraq has cost us in lives and treasure, in influence and respect. We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision.

Many around the world are disappointed with our actions. And many in our own country have come to doubt either our wisdom or our capacity to shape events beyond our borders. Some have even suggested that America's time has passed.

But he then commences to argue with himself (about five sentnces later) when he states:

And along the crowded streets of Kenya, I met throngs of children who asked if they'd ever get the chance to visit that magical place called America.

So which is it Senator? Is a America a reviled evil empire or a magical place that children dream about? The Senator's entire argument about America's standing in the world vaporizes by his own testimony of what he has seen and heard in Kenya.

The Senator's double vision continues with these quotes:

At a camp along the border of Chad and Darfur, refugees begged for America to step in and help stop the genocide that has taken their mothers and fathers, sons and daughters.

I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi'a factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement - a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008.

Well there it is again, that dreaded falsehood "there is no military solution in Iraq (see my post Sunday, April 15, 2007: The Military Solution in Iraq). But more to the point here, the Senator advocates intervening in a civil war in Darfur while extricating ourselves from Iraq. Come on Senator Obama, you know there is no military solution in Darfur.

More double vision from the Senator:

Of course, how we use our armed forces matters just as much as how they are prepared.

No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

Astounding. If we gain the "clear support and participation" of others we can attack whoever we want for whatever reason. But, you only go alone if it is self-defense. So Senator, do we need to have a coalition to go into Darfur? Is defense of others not reason to act immediately and unilaterally?

The Senator clearly has double-vision. The reason is that his policies and perspective are uninformed by well thought out principles. One principle the Senator should internalize: That which is legitimate when done by a group, cannot be illegitimate when done alone (my apologies the member of parliament in the U.K. whom I paraphrase). That is to say, an action is legitimate based on its merits, not based on the number of people participating in it.

Senator Reid: Emperor?

In what seems like a moment from Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - Nevada) today gave a speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Early in his speech he referred to the report of the Iraq Study Group and stated:

In that historic report, you and former Secretary of State Jim Baker - along with eight other Republicans and Democrats - said this:

"Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The President and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support."

In a mark of brazen self-admiration, Senator Reid then goes on to suggest that the President is now superfluous to U.S. foreign policy and the conduct of the war. When he stated that:

Only the President is the odd man out

But, then the majority leader, unwittingly perhaps, let on to the truth of the issue. He stated:

But he owes it to us to listen as we represent the American people.
Our timetable is fair and reasonable. We have put our plan on the table. If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative.

Thus, the picture is clear. It is he who has no intention of working with the President. The Senator has invoked the ISG report and the good name of Former Secretary of State James Baker as cover for his unconstitutional goal of a war and foreign policy takeover by the Senate. He demands the President do what he (Senator Reid) says he should do. He places responsibility for the executive to come to him (Senator Reid) with an alternative. He further states:

But he owes it to us to listen as we represent the American people.

But, in reality, it is the President who is elected by a national poll. Senator Reid only represents Nevada.

The truth of this matter is that a narrow majority in Congress is trying to inflict its will on another branch of government. This other the branch, the executive branch, is given specific duties by the constitution.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Senator Reid apparently disagrees with this section of the constitution. He would create a system where the Senator Majority Leader is defacto President of the United States. Would he appoint himself Emperor?

Governor Gilmore's Big Government Plan

The following quote on Energy Independence was lifted from former Governor James Gilmore (R - Virginia) campaign website which advertises the Governor this way: "Jim Gilmore is the leader Republicans can trust to stand for low taxes, secure borders, a strong national defense and the preservation of traditional family values."

Achieving Energy Independence
The United States today imports 60 percent of its oil, a situation that places our economy and our national security at risk. Jim Gilmore believes we can do better! As President, Jim Gilmore will launch a national energy independence project called American Energy Freedom, a NASA like effort to motivate and stimulate American ingenuity and technology using research and development tax incentives to help free our nation from its dependence on foreign oil within 25 years. In the meantime, Jim Gilmore will push for steady and dramatic increases in domestic energy production and an increase in the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Jim Gilmore also will support expanding our use of alternative fuels like ethanol, making dramatic improvements in battery technology for plug-in hybrid vehicles and the long-range development of hydrogen power for vehicles.

It appears that Governor Gilmore is a conservative in the President G. W. Bush (43rd) mode. Cut taxes and enlarge government. Here we have a plan to build a federal agency modeled after NASA, which spends billions (nearly 17 in the FY 08 budget) but has trouble making one launch per billion. Gov. Gilmore's American Energy Freedom Agency (AEFA?) would duplicate NASA's model with the goal of putting itself out of business in 25 years. Sounds Attractive. But when was the last time you saw a Federal Agency go out of existence? Once created they hard to kill.

If Governor Gilmore really wants energy independence he should think about a market based solution. If he can't come up with one on his own, he could log on to the Cato Institute or some other think tank.

I have had enough of big government conservatism the past eight years.

Tommy Thompson's Health Care Plan

The following is Former Governor Tommy Thompson's (R - Wisconsin) Health Care Plan which I found on his website under the heading "HEALTHCARE: Common Sense Solutions"

Governor Thompson believes we must build a system that is affordable and accessible for everyone. And we can do this without a government-run health care program that includes the worst aspects of socialized medicine while robbing our great nation of its ingenuity in developing new cures and treatments for deadly illnesses....
1. We must build a system centered on preventive medicine, rather than curative. ...
2. We must use information technology to cut costs, reduce medical errors and create a more efficient health care system. ...
3. Third, we must use the private sector and public sector to provide health insurance for all. ...Governor Thompson proposes requiring states to organize purchasing pools among the uninsured. Such an arrangement would provide health insurance for families, while allowing the purchasing pools to negotiate better prices for care.
4. We must, once and for all, make sure health care and longterm care is affordable. ...

I would like to applaud Gov. Thompson's preamble which properly rejects government run universal health care/insurance systems and socialism. But, the devil is in the details and Gov. Thompson's plan falls short on #4.

Health care is the only area of a consumer's life in which the consumer is completely uninformed about the prices. While, I probably wouldn't stop on my way into the emergency room to check the price.... price information for most preventive and routine care should be known. So Governor... would you pledge to get us a little transparency on medical service pricing? How about requiring hospitals, clinics, HMOs, Lab's etc. to post pricing information on the internet?

Mitt Romney's Do-Next-to-Nothing Policy

Two days ago I took the Flat Tax Twins to tax for being non-specific about their flat tax proposals.

HOWEVER, compared to Former Governor Mitt Romney (R - Massachusetts) they are tax fighters extraordinaire. Here is what I read on Gov. Romney's campaign website.

Excerpted from a campaign press release dated Sunday, Apr 15, 2007

Governor Romney's Initiative To Protect American Taxpayers:

To Protect American Taxpayers, Governor Mitt Romney Calls On Congress To Re-Impose A Three-Fifths (60%) Supermajority Requirement To Raise Taxes. ....

Governor Romney's Lower Taxes Agenda:

... - Governor Romney Will Make The Bush Tax Cuts Permanent. ... - Governor Romney Proposes Lower Tax Rates For All Americans. ... - Governor Romney Will Fight To Abolish The Death Tax. ... - Governor Romney Proposes A Savings Incentive Plan. ... - Governor Romney Believes Our Corporate Tax Rate Must Be Competitive With The Rest Of The World. ... - Governor Romney Has A Record Of Fighting For Lower Taxes.

So the corner stone of the Governor's plan is to have a 3/5ths majority to pass increases to the income tax. But, this isn't really very much is it? Assuming Gov. Romney is elected, he may veto any proposed income tax increase. This requires a 2/3 majority to override. So, the governor either intends to use the 3/5th rule as cover to not veto or just wants somethings that sounds good but would have little practical application. (The 3/5th rule made sense for the Republican Majority in the 90's, which was always a slim majority, given that then President Clinton would likely sign any income tax increase coming out of the congress).

Other than what do have: Keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, including the Death Tax? This is like doing next to nothing since these are already in effect. Sure, it would be nice to make them permanent. But this is hardly bold action on taxes.

Rate cuts for individuals and Corporations? Always a nice idea. But in the end it just implies that Governor Romney appreciates the tax code the way it is. That is, a graduated tax scheme with high marginal rates seems to work for the former Governor. And, like his competitors, he has no specifics. How would he cut rates? Would he close loopholes? How does the Governor feel about the AMT since he ran one of the highest income tax states in the nation?

If the Governor doesn't push hard with a real vision on our federal tax scheme, he will have no real chance at his party's nomination.

John Edwards' Intolerance

Here is some excerpted language from John Edwards' ( former Senator D - North Carolina) prepared comments April 18, 2007:

Excerpts Of Remarks As Prepared For Delivery At The National Action Network Convention "Keepers of the Dream Dinner."

Tonight, I want to talk about intolerance and inequality and the insidious way they feed on each other, hurting not only the people and groups they target, but all of us and the future of our country. ... There can be no question of how much intolerance this country can tolerate; we have already tolerated its effects for far too long.
And let's be crystal clear: Intolerance affects everything, starting with our economy and ending with our ability to lead at a time of massive global change and new threats to our security.
I don't just talk about these issues here—racial intolerance, the two Americas that still exists—I talk about them everywhere I go, because it's silence that allows them to survive and even thrive. {emphasis added}

It is nice when you can give a speech on intolerance while being intolerant.

Look, I generally find it easy to counter-argue racist views. However, we get nowhere by condemning them or by creating an environment where they are intimidated from expressing their views.

The heart of the first amendment is tolerance. Tolerance for allowing others to speak their piece, no matter how much we disagree with it. We can debate the merits of their position, but we should never circumscribe their privilege.

One cannot help but suspect that Senator Edwards doesn't have an intellectual reply to racist language (He was referring, of course, to Don Imus' remarks). His response is to simply to condemn intolerance by being intolerant.

So, Senator Edwards, how about a little tolerance?

The Flat Taxers

Well, today I have been checking out the websites of Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R - Arkansas) and Senator Sam Brownback (R - Kansas).

Gov. Huckabee's site has the URL www.explorehuckabee.com (which sounds more like a proctology exam than a campaign for President) and proclaims that "I will promote pro-growth tax policies, perhaps even the idea of true flat tax."

A little less doubt for Sen. Brownback who states "I support a flat tax concept that simplifies tax preparation, applies a low tax rate to all Americans, and respects the special financial burden carried by American families raising children." The last phrase implying something less than flatness.

Tax policy is admirable, but like all the candidate websites I have visited so far (with the notable exception of Sen. H.R. Clinton} these are short on details and specifics. A flat tax proposal is something that really needs specificity. The much reviled Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is a flat tax. It is reviled not for its flatness but for the fact it doesn't allow individuals in states with high personal income taxes to deduct their paid-to-state taxes. Once a taxpayer is kicked over to the AMT it is essentially a 26% flat tax on taxable income (deduct $62,550 married; $42,500 single) up to $175,000; 28% over $175,000 with only mortgage interest on a primary residence allowed as a deduction. Do these flat-tax twins support the AMT? Or do they have another flat tax proposal?

The first principle of government tax policy is: If you want less of something, tax it; if you more of something, subsidize it (my apologies to whoever said this first).

All flat tax proposal share the common characteristics of 1) having at least two tax tiers (the AMT has three) and 2) punishing efforts that create wealth (a property of all income taxes). What are the tax policy goals of the flat-tax twins?

Senator Reid's Double Speak

Mr. President, the White House has been telling America that Democrats are doing the wrong thing by calling for a change in course in Iraq. They say holding the Iraqi government accountable is wrong. They say finding a political solution in Iraq is wrong and they say redeploying our troops out of a civil war is wrong. They have said that even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous and many Senate Republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to debate this issue on the Senate floor.

The American people want us to debate the war. They want us to change course. Listen to what the president's own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates said recently: "The debate in Congress . . . has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably have had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - Nevada) claiming the Administration is and is not attempting to hold the Iraqi government accountable.

But How, Rudy? How?

I found this item on the Rudy Giuliani campaign website:

Rudy Giuliani believes winning the war on terror is the great responsibility of our generation. America cannot afford to go back to the days of playing defense, with inconsistent responses to terrorist attacks, because weakness only encourages aggression. Americans want peace. We’re at war not because we want to be, but because the terrorists declared war on us - well before the attacks of September 11th. Rudy understands that freedom is going to win this war of ideas. America will win the war on terror.

Finding it pretty hard to disagree with... and that is the problem. The big issue is how to win, which you can't tell from Mayor Giuliani's website. Now maybe the candidate has creative and fresh ideas on to pursue victory, but I haven't heard it yet.

I do want to recognize the former Mayor of New York for getting one thing right. It is important to recognize that the American people are a peaceful people. We desire neither war nor empire. War was declared on us. And yes it was well before the 9-11 attacks. But we need to finish this war which requires three things: 1) a definition, 2) a set of objectives and 3) a strategy for obtaining those objectives.

I hope the current crop of candidates will take this challenge.

Senator Obama's Sunk Cost Problem

"As many of you know, I opposed this war from the beginning - in part because I believed that giving this President the open-ended authority to invade Iraq would lead to the open-ended occupation we find ourselves in today. Now our soldiers find themselves in the crossfire of someone else's civil war. More than 3,100 have given the last full measure of devotion to their country. This war has fueled terrorism and helped galvanize terrorist organizations. And it has made the world less safe.
That is why I advocate a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq to begin no later than May first with the goal of removing all combat forces from Iraq by March 2008. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability."

Barrack Obama in a Speech delivered March 2, 2007 to the AIPAC Policy Forum

One of the fundamental principles of decision making is that sunk costs should not be considered. That is, decisions about the future should depend on the current situation and anticipated events. Senator Barrack Obama (D - Illinois) illogically uses sunk costs to justify his position on the situation in Iraq. Whether one agrees with the Senator's position or not, the stated rationale is based on the past. Is this type of reasoning we desire for our President? Shouldn't the Illinois' Junior Senator and current candidate for the Democrat's nomination for President focus his decision making on the strategic goals he would like this country to achieve?

Senator Clinton's Ten Point Plan

The following is excerpted from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D - New York) campaign speech given April 13, 2006 at the Institute of Politics at St. Anselm in New Hampshire. It is posted on the campaign (oops... exploratory committee} web site. The campaign speech is on government reform. According to the speech, the goal is a government that is competent, not corrupt, and devoted to the public interest.

But it if you read it carefully, you'll find little about competence or corruption. Instead, you'll find at least four new government programs, including a service academy to produce bureaucrats (is there a shortage of bureaucrats? -- Oh! just well trained ones, I see!)and a propaganda agency to tell "us what to believe". In addition we will eliminate government contracting disapproved of by Senator Clinton, and open contracts for infotech experts to revolutionize government by creating government information systems (any takers that the first grads of Clinton Public Service Academy will be GIS majors? 50$ ?). Does this imply that all of those liberal northeastern universities (like Yale and Wellesley?) are not producing qualified candidates for careers in public service?

This isn't about better government, it is about more government. Senator Clinton's idea is that if we only watch government (esp. through whistleblowers) and big corporations (through a government agency to track tax subsidies granted by congress!) more closely everything will be better. New York's Junior Senator suggests the way to do this is by creating more government and staffing them (and her cabinet) with the finest graduates the Clinton Public Service Academy has to offer.

The implied principle is: Better Government = MORE Government.

I smell a campaign (oops, exploratory committee} in free fall.

EXCERPT:

"We can re-establish the competence of government, the confidence of citizens in government, and the capacity of our government to set goals and achieve them. Today I want lay out a ten point agenda to do just that – an agenda for government reform. .....

First, we need to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists. ...and I'll start by permanently banning any of my cabinet officials from lobbying my Administration once they've left office....

Second, we're going to strengthen whistleblower protections so we can root out corruption and cronyism, wherever it may lie. ...

Third, when I'm President, I will once again appoint the most qualified, dedicated, public-minded people to serve in government. ...

And in order to attract the best people to government, I have joined on a bi-partisan basis with some of my colleagues in both the Senate and the House to propose a U.S. Public Service Academy – an undergraduate school modeled after our military service academies that will cultivate a new generation of leaders dedicated to public service. The Academy would provide a four-year, subsidized college education in exchange for a five-year commitment to public service after graduation. ...

Fourth, we're going to stop outsourcing our government and put an end to the abuse of no-bid contracts. ...I propose that we eliminate 500,000 government contracting positions, saving our government between $10 and $18 billion a year. And that we insist on competitive bidding for the remaining contracts, so we get the most value for every taxpayer dollar. ...

Fifth, we're going to stop substituting ideology for science and evidence, and we're going to start giving the American people again the facts on the issues that matter to them and their families. Way back in the 1990s, the White House had an Office of Technology Assessment that was charged with just one task: telling us the truth about science. Sorting out the competing claims and to the best of the scientists' abilities, telling us what to believe. For decades, they cut through the myths and the spin on everything from Star Wars to AIDS prevention to solar technology. It's time we put this office back in business, because our citizens should have the information they need about the issues that affect them. {emphasis added}

Sixth, we're going to open up our government's balance sheets so you can see exactly where your tax dollars are going – and the results they're getting. As tax day approaches, you probably find yourself wondering just where all your hard-earned money is going. Well, I propose that we require government agencies to publish their budgets and their government contracts online for all to see. ...We also need to go back to doing what was done during the Clinton Administration with the Reinventing Government initiative, known as REGO, which Bill started and asked Vice President Gore to head-up. ...And so, why don't we get back to doing that again if we're serious about having a government that works, we should be constantly asking ourselves the hard questions about why we're paying for something, and whether we should continue to do so. I also want to establish a new Corporate Subsidy Information Service. This watchdog agency will track every tax subsidy that Congress gives to big corporations. ...

Seventh, we're going to make sure our government pays its bills and lives within its means again – just like our families. That's what we did during my husband's Administration, when we balanced the budget and turned record deficits into surpluses. It took discipline and determination, a lot of hard work, but again, the results speak for themselves. Twenty-two million new jobs. The longest peacetime economic expansion in history. And the savings rate was reflected in our attaining leverage once again in the world. We've moved from the largest debtor nation to a creditor nation. Well, we're back in to the larger debtor nation again. That undermines our capacity to exercise leadership on important issues like trade and other strategic concerns. So, we need to return to the fundamental principle of pay-as-you-go.

Eighth, I want to make government more user friendly across the board – and that starts with bringing more government services online. ...it's time that our government went fully online as well. ...

In order to do that, however, we're going to have to move to the ninth point of my reform agenda. We have to have government take the lead in modernizing its record keeping systems and take the lead in areas that really can change the market and behaviors to the benefit of us all.

... We need to bring in private sector partners. We need to cut through red tape, and we need to begin to do what it takes to get our government to have information as readily available as we have in the rest of our lives. ...

Tenth and finally, we have to reform our election system. ... I've introduced legislation called the Count Every Vote Act, which is a comprehensive voting reform bill. It will make our voting systems more accountable and accessible. It will expand the right to vote of most of our citizens. It will create more opportunities for people to register to vote, and it will give greater assurances through paper-verified ballots that those votes will be counted. We need more oversight in our electoral system to discourage manipulation and deception. ..."

The Military Solution in Iraq

Well, there it was again. The infamous phrase uttered daily by Democrats... this time by Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) on Fox News Sunday. Senator Levin argues that "There is no military solution in Iraq."

This is of course completely illogical. For there to be no military solution in Iraq, there must be no military solution for both sides. There is clearly a military solution in Iraq, and we if only pulled out all of our troops we'd get to see it. I doubt anyone would like it, except for bin Laden, Zawahiri, Al-Sadr, Ahmedi-nejad, etc.

The reality is that the political solution so desperately sought after by all Americans, requires the preemption of the military solution so desperately sought by those opposed to a political solution.

So let's call the Senator Levin and the other Democrats to account: There is a military solution in Iraq.

Saddam and Terror

It still amazes that all liberals, most libertarians, many "centrists," and even some conservatives continue to question the connect between Saddam and Terror. I recently was in a heated debate with a friend, someone I view as politically informed but not ideological, regarding this issue. He remains unconvinced. So I begin this blog with some guidance for those who would like to better acquaint themselves with the subject. I know, it is history. Maybe to some it is ancient history. But history is fundamental, ask some of those of morons who can't answer the questions on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader".

For a short read, with nice pictures try http://www.husseinandterror.com/
or without the pictures: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp

Saddam and Abu Nidal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr114.xml
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16863
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002160
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml

Saddam and Abu Abbas:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200403101426.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/16/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Abbas

Saddam, Zawahiri, and Al-Zarqawi:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18178
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200410%5CSPE20041004a.html

Saddam's Incentive's for Palestinian Suicides:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/15/sprj.irq.saddam.palestinians/index.html

Saddam and Suicide Bombers:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030412-centcom05.htm

More to come later.....