The Blue State

Still no plan to win the peace

All across cyberspace, the headlines read, "Bush unveils new plan for Iraq."  I'm sorry, but what new plan?  All that the President acknowledged was we will simply "stay the course" in Iraq (AP):

"Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to`stay the course.'  If by `stay the course' they mean wewill not allow the terrorists to break our will, they're right. If by`stay the course' they mean we will not permit al Qaida to turn Iraqinto what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven forterrorists and a launching pad for attacks on America, they're right aswell. If by `stay the course' they mean that we're not learning fromour experience or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on theground, then they're flat wrong."

This rhetoric is not anything new -- and that is all it is.  Instead of focusing all his effort against his political opposition in Congress by using a major foreign policy speech to slam them, maybe he could have outlined a realistic and specific outline on how much longer American taxpayers will be footing the bill for this war.  Each week we are adding $1.5 billion to our national debt thanks to this operation.  This $1.5 billion tab is not part of the budget though; it was strategically removed to make the 2005 and 2006 budget deficits look smaller.  Well guess what?  My generation is going to be paying for this in the long run.  The President is mortgaging my future, the future of every young American around my age that is currently in school and the future of our kids as well.

Mr. Bush should know something about interest rates.  Didn't he earn a business degree?  When you take out a loan, you pay interest on that loan.  When we borrow money from banks in the Middle East and in China, the same rules apply.  Therefore, keep in mind that the $8.1 trillion national debt will also have interest.  When it is all said and done, if you add the cost of this war to our worsened reputation in the world, you come to the conclusion that this war was one giant leap backwards for America.

Because the Administration failed to prepare for an insurgency and has a Defense Secretary that does not even know what the word "insurgency" means, the American people, specifically military families, are paying the price.

Solid ratings for red state Democratic governors

The Survey USA approval ratings for all America's governors in the month of November are in.  Here are how the Democrats from red states are doing:

• Janet Napolitano (Arizona): Approve - 65%, Disapprove - 31%
• *Tom Vilsack (Iowa): Approve - 56%, Disapprove - 37%
• Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas): Approve - 57%, Disapprove - 34%
• Kathleen Blanco (Louisiana): Approve - 34%, Disapprove - 63%
• Brian Schweitzer (Montana): Approve - 68%, Disapprove - 27%
• *Bill Richardson (New Mexico): Approve - 63%, Disapprove - 34%
• Michael Easley (North Carolina): Approve - 56%, Disapprove - 38%
• Brad Henry (Oklahoma): Approve - 64%, Disapprove - 32%
• Phil Bredesen (Tennessee): Approve - 53%, Disapprove - 41%
• *Mark Warner (Virginia): Approve - 67%, Disapprove - 27%
• Joe Manchin (West Virginia): Approve - 66%, Disapprove - 26%
• Dave Freudenthal (Wyoming): Approve - 64%, Disapprove - 29%

Maybe those that hold the key to the Democratic Party's success are from this group.  They, not the radical interest groups, should be the ones influencing the Democrats in Washington.  A centrist-progressive approach is our ticket to a Democratic majority.

And just because most of you probably want to know, Ohio Republican Governor Bob Taft's approval rating stands at 18% (12% among those aged 55 and older), and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's approval rating is 35%.

(* The asterisk indicates the Democrats that are thinking about running for President in 2008)

Video: Will Ferrell as George W. Bush on global warming

The blog One Good Move always finds a way to get the best video clips.  This one is from last week -- but still, I got such a laugh out and I know that all of you would like to watch it.  Here is actor Will Ferrell as President Bush, discussing in an address to the nation the importance of making nature cooperate with us (as opposed to visa versa) on the issue of global warming:

Click to watch >>> (QuickTime)

Fact: President Bush broke a record previously set by Ronald Reagan for the most amount of days spent on vacation by a U.S. President.  Keep in mind that this record was broken with three years left in Bush's presidency.

2,110 deaths into the war, and our Secretary of Defense does not know the definition of "insurgency"

I try not to put myself into situations on this web site where I am forced to assess the intelligence of someone else, usually just to set the precedent of debating subjective political issues rather than using ad hominem attacks to smear an individual.  But, if I may, this blog entry will break that precedent because what Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday about the opposition in Iraq was probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard any Administration member say these last five years.  It demonstrates a lack of understanding about a war his own Pentagon is in charge of fighting.  In a Defense Department press conference, Secretary Rumsfeld insisted that there is not an insurgency in Iraq (DoD):

"These people aren't trying to promote something other than disorder andto take over that country and turn it into a caliphate, and then spreadit around the world.  This is a group of people who don't merit theword 'insurgency,' I think.  But I'll look it up.  You look it up forme, too.  I'm sure you will."

Again, I am sorry to question our Defense Secretary's intelligence.  Think about it though: how could our own Secretary of Defense not know what an insurgency is, especially if it is being argued by almost all that we have been fighting one for the past two and a half years?  Furthermore, how could Rumsfeld claim that we are not fighting an insurgency when he does not even know what the term means?

So why does Rumsfeld think this?  Here was what he said a few seconds earlier that helped him get to his obtuse conclusion (DoD):

"I don't know why.  I'vethought about it, and over the weekend, I thought to myself, 'You know,that gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit.'  Why doyou -- why would you call Zarqawi and his people insurgents against alegitimate Iraqi government with their own constitution?  It just -- dothey have broad popular support in that country?  No.  You think of an-- I think of an insurgency slightly different.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I'llhave to go to the dictionary."

Am I the only person here that thinks this lack of intelligence regarding war vocabulary obviously underscores the incompetent management of this war?  Honestly now, I can't believe that Rumsfeld would conclude that insurgents are not those who fight against a government that considers itself legitimate?  He needs to take some political science courses.  The definition of "insurgency" that I have been taught at the University of Washington, over and over again might I add, has been this: "An always political, usually violent, attempt by a domestic opposition to overthrow, through the use of military tactics, a government that is deemed by the opposition as illegitimate."

Let's see if the dictionary agrees with my definition:

• (Wordnet) "an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict."

So, if this is not an insurgency, as Rumsfeld concludes, then what is it?  According to Rumsfeld, we are facing "a long hard slog."  Oh, okay.  Here is the definition of slog:

• (Wordnet) "strike heavily, especially with the fist or a bat."

Let that speak for itself.  Maybe it's just me, but we should probably call the conflict in Iraq an insurgency, as opposed to a slog.

It is clear -- here comes the ad hominem attack -- that Donald Rumsfeld is by far the least intellectual Defense Secretary we have ever had.  Another way of saying that would be he is certainly not the Ace of Spades in Bush's deck of cards.  Then again, if Bush's deck of cards represents his entire cabinet, then that isn't much of an insult.

Housing slowdown causing slow economic growth

The New York Times is reporting Wednesday that while things might be looking upbeat when it comes to gas prices, the economy is projected to grow at a slower rate in 2006 than it has this year:

Indeed, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developmentsaid yesterday that 2005 growth would most likely settle at 3.6percent, down from 4.2 percent in 2004. The organization also forecast2006 growth at 3.5 percent, but other economists think that may be toooptimistic.

"The two major concerns are the extent of slowdownin housing and how it can feed into growth and consumer spending," saidJoshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at Maria Fiorini RamirezInc., a research firm in New York.

Many analysts, including Mr.Shapiro, say a housing slowdown is already under way. Along with risinginterest rates and anemic job growth, any such drop-off could sap theeconomy next year - by just how much is still subject to debate.

Americanshave taken advantage of historically low mortgage rates to buy homes,refinance existing loans and borrow money for renovations or otherhousehold needs, all of them important and substantial spurs tospending, Mr. Shapiro said. 00

While neither he nor others expectthat activity to dry up, even a modest tapering off could knock growthdown a peg or two. Mr. Shapiro, for one, says growth could drop from3.5 percent in 2005 to 3.2 percent in 2006.

What they did not mention in their report were the staggering U.S. trade deficit results; the number of Americans that continue to fall into poverty, while at the same time working 40 hours per week; and finally the continuous increase in the cost of living.

America's seasonal affluency disorder

(Courtesy of Andrew Wahl, OffTheWahl.com, The Wenatchee World)

Here is Andrew's weekly commentary:

Yeah,Americans consume too much. No surprise there. We like our stuff, plainand simple. And the problem only gets worse when we have an excuse toshop, such as Christmas. But the numbers are quite staggering when youreally stop to think about them.
    According to one survey, conducted by the National RetailFederation, U.S. shoppers were on pace to spend a staggering $27.8billion over the Thanksgiving weekend. As my latest cartoon, “SeasonalPerspective” [Archive No. 0546], points out, that’s more than the grossdomestic product of at least 119 nations. Even if you take a moreconservative estimate — say ShopperTrak’s combined $13.41 billion for“Black Friday” and “Black Saturday” — we still spent more than the GDPof 97 nations.
    On crap.
    Staggering, no?
    Of course, I’m no innocent here. I was out there, too, though Ispent most of the day after Thanksgiving crawling through used book andCDs stores in Seattle, searching for loot for myself. Christmasshopping will wait for another day, though I’m going to feel at least alittle guilty about it now.

Great points Andrew.  I feel the same way whenever I consume.  This realization alone probably will not stop myself from doing it like everyone else -- mainly since my generation has been programmed to consume.  If you think about it though, the rate of consumption by 1st world countries coupled with the skyrocketing birth rates from third world countries makes -- or so it can at least be argued -- the biggest worldwide struggle less about east vs west than north vs south.  We should keep this in mind when dealing with issues such as AIDS in African and global warming.

Video: Funny mindsets about timetable for withdrawal from Iraq

On last night's Colbert Report, host Steven Colbert satirized the Bush Administration's lack of exit strategy in Iraq (One Good Move):

Click to watch >>> (QuickTime)

It's fascinating how Bush is against setting a timetable for withdrawal, yet plans to do basically just that in tomorrow's speech.  If a timetable is so bad, then are we just to expected to wake up one day and randomly noticed that all the troops have left?  I don't think so.  There will be a timetable for withdrawal -- every war has one!

Complete story about Cheney's meeting with oil executives remains under lid

The Senate now knows that Vice President Dick Cheney met with key industry executives to help him write the Bush energy policy.  These were the same executives that faced a Senate panel earlier this month and should have testified under oath about their meetings with Cheney, but instead were relieved of having to take that oath because the GOP legislative majority voted against forcing them to do so.  As you probably could have guessed, without being under oath the executives did not have any incentive to tell the truth.

Well, guess what?  One week later, a document surfaced that disproved the claim by executives that they did not meet with Cheney -- so yes, they did sit there and lie to our Senators. 

Now, the Office of the Vice President is trying to keep a lid on how much money was spent when he and his staff traveled to meet with these executives, funded by none other than Joe and Jane taxpayer (Washington Post):

In a report this month, the nonpartisan Center for PublicIntegrity said Cheney and his staff have sidestepped regulations thatrequire annual reporting of travel expenses of more than $250 receivedfrom outside groups. The center, which focuses on ethics and publicservice issues, said previous vice presidents routinely disclosed suchpayments for lodging, travel and food when the veep and his staff madeappearances at colleges, think tanks and trade associations.

"Theprivate sector reimburses elected officials and bureaucrats for suchtrips, but laws require officials to disclose where they went, how muchit costs and who paid for it," the report said, citing provisions foundin Section 1353 of Title 13 of the U.S. Code.

Cheney'soffice says nothing is amiss. In three letters since 2002 to the Officeof Government Ethics, which collects the travel reports, David S.Addington, then Cheney's general counsel, noted that the reportingrequirement applies to the "head of each agency of the executivebranch."

"The Office of the Vice President is not an'agency of the executive branch,' and hence the reporting requirementdoes not apply," wrote Addington, who this month replaced I. Lewis"Scooter" Libby as Cheney's chief of staff.

Since2003, President Bush's office has reported hundreds of thousands ofdollars in such travel, the center noted. And all but one office withinthe Executive Office of the President -- the President's ForeignIntelligence Advisory Board -- has done so.

Itdoesn't matter, according to Addington. In a Feb. 25 letter to MarilynGlynn, acting director of the ethics office, he wrote that "none of theVice President's employees . . . accepted payments under Section 1353."

Yet,according to the center's research, Cheney has given 23 speeches tothink tanks and trade organizations and 16 at academic institutionssince 2001 -- apparently all at taxpayers' expense.

"[I]tappears that his office labels them 'official travel,' " the centersaid. "As a result . . . the public is kept largely unaware of where heand his staff are traveling, with whom they are meeting and how much itcosts, even though tax dollars are covering the bill."

This is sure a nice little trick!  Just make sure that the Office of the Vice President foots the bill, and then they will not have to report anything.  Very clever!  But if the Senate subpoenaed those documents, then we might discover the real amount of taxpayer money was spent on meetings that allowed wealthy oil executives write our disfigured energy policy.

Tuesday Editorial: Immigration pandering at its most obvious

No matter how the White House tries to spin it, Bush is getting himself into hot water over the immigration mess.  On one hand he wants to crack down on illegal immigration, and on the other he intends on giving those same illegals temporary work status.

I know both sides of this issue, and see validity in each of them.  But what President Bush is doing is political suicide.  Hispanic Americans, who so far have approved of Bush's work visa policy, are smart enough to notice that the President is now all of a sudden trying to take the opposite approach.  So which is it going to be Mr. President?  Pick a side on the immigration debate and go for it.  No flip-flopping!

If you look at the President's rhetoric yesterday, he is trying to have it both ways (NYT):

''The American people should not have to choose between a welcomingsociety and a lawful society.  We can have both atthe same time.''

Honestly, this quote is oozing with political pandering.  As a political science major, I have been taught on numerous occasions how to write in code (meaning that you spin rhetoric to conceal a message so that it appeals to two different political philosophies in a way that only they will understand, but at the same time not realize that it is also pandering to their opposite).  But the kind of political pandering that happened yesterday was rather obvious.  Bush is attempting to be the best buddies of both the "Minute Men" and first and second generation Hispanic Americans all at the same time.  It cannot work.  If it does, then I will be shocked.

Please, by all means, do not listen to the pundits on this issue.  In a nut-shell, President Bush is saying that the only way to get tough on immigration is by creating a guest worker program.  The problem is that he is attempting to sell this plan to the anti-immigration crowd, which will not work.  The only way it can is if the White House crafts its rhetoric in political code so that the two polar opposite sides in this debate do not know that the President is having it both ways.  With the White House's sloppiness as of late, I would be literally amazed if they pulled this one off.

Wilkerson: Bush was manipulated by his own cabinet in run-up to war

Late yesterday, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff slammed hawkish elements of the White House for how they conducted business in the run-up to war in Iraq.  This is pretty revealing:

In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff LawrenceWilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from thedetails" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachmentand made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.

Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must havesincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terrorassaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot ora nefarious bastard."

On the question of detaineespicked up in Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terror,Wilkerson said Bush heard two sides of an impassioned argument withinhis administration. Abuse of prisoners, and even the deaths of some whohad been interrogated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, have bruised theU.S. image abroad and undermined support for the Iraq war.

Cheney'soffice, Rumsfeld aides and others argued "that the president of theUnited States is all-powerful, that as commander in chief the presidentof the United States can do anything he damn well pleases," Wilkersonsaid.

On the other side were Powell, others at theState Department and top military brass, and occasionally CondoleezzaRice, who was then national security adviser, Wilkerson said.

Powellraised frequent and loud objections, his former aide said, once yellinginto a telephone at Rumsfeld: "Donald, don't you understand what youare doing to our image?"

I hate to say, "I told you so," but this pretty much confirms what I had thought all along about how things went before the war began.  Bush was an outsider to the inner circle that wanted to get rid of Saddam even before 9/11.  The President also was manipulated by this group, and he did little to verify the prewar intelligence that was supplied to him by the most hawkish faction of the Administration.  Call it his fault or not, this is likely what happened.

Lastly, Wilkerson alluded to the rift between Powell and Rumsfeld that -- if you have ever read about the relationship between the two over the years -- was fueled by the Vietnam Veteran's perception that Rumsfeld thought our reputation with the international community is always a moot issue because we are the number one super power.  The ongoing situation abroad is now feeling the effects of a policy that downgraded the importance of the political side of war.