ALITO’S WAY

Throughout his Supreme Court confirmation hearings nominee Judge Alito was asked for his opinions on matters both specific and general. His responses were often as long-winded as the questions and invariably non-substantive.

Two memes ran through the majority of Alito’s responses:
He would pay due respect to relevant Supreme Court precedence in future judgements.
He would look at only the facts of an actual case (nothing hypothetical)

In response to hypothetical cases he refused to be drawn and when asked about apparently inconsistent applications of "principle" in cases he had adjudged he protested that his judgements concerned technical legal issues in each case.

And THAT is problem with Alito; he is a pedant.

By all means the facts and individual merits of a case of ordinary law should be the primary considerations of a judge. But with regard to the constitutionality of a law, the actions taken to execute it and the arguments provided to sustain it or overturn it, surely contemporary social and societal concerns and indeed future public concerns should be included in the Supreme Court’s reckoning?

The Constitution is above all a document of principles which were and still are "activist".

Were it not for "activism" on the part the Supreme Court racial segregation (if not outright slavery) would still exist in the U.S. and everyone not native-born and non-white would still be living in a ghetto, women would have no voice and no property and so on.

I’d argue that a sense of "activism" is precisely what is required of a Supreme Court Justice because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were themselves the codification of "activism" at the time they were written, and continue to be so today. Surely the function of the Supreme Court is not only to uphold the Constitution but to expand it appropriately in accordance the legislature, but NEVER ever reduce it.

The Democrats pointed to Alito’s judicial record of overwhelmingly siding with authority and/or the administration and tried to paint him as a right-wing Republican ideologue.
The Republicans offered instances where Alito contrarily sided with the individual, thereby refuting the Democrats broad characterization.

Taken as a whole Alito appears philosophically more Republican than Democrat, but not wholly so. If neither his judicial nor his political philosophies place him solidly in either camp, who and what is Judge Alito? Who the hell knows? During the hearings he refused to be drawn into any philosophical argument.

Given the failure of the committee to get Alito to provide any insight of his own philosophies we can only go by his record.
Most of Alito’s rulings favored business and government at the expense of "the little guy" yet a minority of his rulings favored the "little guy" over business and government. He seems to have a prejudice, yet he doesn’t always exercise that prejudice ergo he is not entirely prejudiced, as Democrats would like to believe; but by his record he isn’t entirely Republican either.
Does that make Alito an "independent"? In a way it does. But not so "independent" as to scare the Republicans, nor "independent" enough for the Democrats to accept him.

Much has been made of Alito’s grasp and retention of detail—essential skills for lawyers and judges alike—and during the hearings regarding many and varied cases he demonstrated both.
Strange then that he could not recollect the details behind his CAP membership, nor whether his ultimate recusal from a case was propitiated from a computer glitch or (as he later explained) from the laxity of procedure afforded to the litigant’s self-representation as opposed to the more stringent procedures required of professionals.
Strange also that he could not recollect precisely why he had joined CAP other than to assume the reason involved the banishment of the ROTC from the Princeton Campus when CAP’s overriding concern was that the admittance of women, racial minorities and the physically disabled was detrimental to Princeton’s ethos and reputation.
Only after repeated questioning did he admit that the mention of CAP on his resume when applying for a job in the Reagan Administration was an expedient ploy and thus nothing to do with his professed passion for the rights of the ROTC on the Princeton campus. So he lied under oath in that regard—not a good start for any judge, let alone a Supreme Court nominee.

But the fact that Alito lied under oath is remarkably not the big issue. The big issue is WHY he lied. The reason he lied is because he didn’t want to admit that he included his CAP membership in his resume NOT because it added to his technical and academic qualifications but because it provided a political and philosophical qualification that would give him an advantage in getting the job he desired.

What this relatively small lie and subsequent admission reveal, in combination with his mostly conservative pro-business but occasionally pro-individual judicial record is that Alito’s main concern is not justice, nor the maintenance of the Constitution for the public good but what he is prepared to do to serve his own needs and philosophy.

Alito is a self serving opportunist and politically more "Libertarian" than anything else. He has worked his way diligently to align himself with privilege, money and power and his Supreme Court nomination places him one step away from his personal goal—to join the "club" and be given a lifetime membership of personal status, privilege and power.

Libertarians have no political party of their own but they find common cause with the conservatives rather than liberals.
Alito’s public record demonstrates a Libertarian view- a minimalist law-and-order government presided over by an all-powerful executive that promulgates a pedantic world vies and rewards its supporters handsomely.

Alito is a pedant who uses the inherent pedantry of the legal system to further his own position in society and to satisfy his own ego. He doesn’t give a damn about philosophy, he doesn’t give a damn about political parties per se, he doesn’t gave a damn about the political, social or economic future of this country and he doesn’t give a damn about the intent or application of the Constitution that was designed to serve the public.

If he has an ideology or philosophy, it is anchored in his ego. For these reasons, Alito is unfit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.

Caring Spy-Kids Key to Capturing Killers

On January 5th President Bush addressed over one hundred College and University Presidents attending a two-day State Department conference.

Demonstrating the usual keen grasp of his audience and their issues he unveiled to them a new proposal to expand the number of foreign languages being taught in public schools—which quite by chance had nothing to do with the conference’s agenda (a discussion of foreign student enrollment and visa issues).


Bush explained his new proposal in language appropriate to his distinguished yet baffled guests:

"In order to convince people we care about them, we've got to understand their culture and show them we care about their culture. You know, when somebody comes to me and speaks Texan, I know they appreciate the Texas culture. When somebody takes time to figure out how to speak Arabic, it means they're interested in somebody else's culture."

Now who would know more about caring for people and understanding other cultures than President Bush? Who the heck doesn’t appreciate Texas? And who the heck doesn’t want to speak Texan for gosh sake? And you just gotta admire anyone who can figure out how to speak Arabic—it involves a lot of phlegm, like French, and when you do figure it out it means you are interested in somebody else’s culture.
For instance, if you were interested in the culture of Texas, well figuring out Arabic would be a good start because Texan and Arabic culture is all about oil and whose God is the One True God (I’ll leave you intellectual types to figure that one out but be careful, it’s a trick question!).

So what’s the title of this multicultural "caring" language program? Why, the "National Security Language Initiative" of course!

F’rinstance let’s say you got a message about an attack being planned on the United States. Well if you cared about something like that, but it was in Arabic you’d want to know what that message meant, wouldn’t you? You‘d want to care about a culture that wanted to attack you because it hated your freedom. So you’d want to recruit (according to Bush); "intelligence officers who, when somebody says something in Arabic or Farsi or Urdu, know what they're talking about."
As opposed to the other type of intelligence officer intercepting Arabic, Farsi or Urdu communications that only speaks Texan—even though they might be doing a heck of a job.

So who will be heading the National Security Language Initiative? Perhaps someone from the State Department or the DHS?
The decision hasn’t been made yet but the big money is on Margaret Spellings who has been doing a heck of a job as Education Secretary—and why not?

Spellings herself said in an interview that efforts to teach such languages as Chinese and Arabic to children as young as five were brand new, adding "We don't know how to do it. This whole notion is in its infancy (sic). But our hope is this is a start, and we can build on it."

So today’s five-year olds will join the ranks of the CIA, the NSA, the DoD and the FBI by 2023; using their ‘caring interest’ in other peoples’ cultures to ensure our continued national security. And god knows we’ll need them, because the evildoers will be training their five year-olds too (oh yes… evildoers have kids too). But even before then we’ll have begun training three-year olds and who knows…maybe even stem cells might one day become intelligence analysts?

By proposing this initiative President Bush has once again shown himself to be a visionary, a man of ideas and a man of action. A man who rises above mundane realities, looks to the horizon and if he squints real hard sees endless, fuzzy possibilities.

Thank you, and May God Be-Less American!

(Thanks to Michael Janofsky NY Times Online, January 6th for the basis of this article).

Entire US Army Shoots Self In Foot

.
This photo from the USMC official website shows how serving soldierss are complete suckers for cute unidentified Iraqi kids who presumably have brothers and fathers ( each household is legally allowed one AK47).

Of course this would be of no interest to a guerrilla army whatsoever, unlike perhaps the photos and information provided in increasingly censored "milblogs"



Here' a link to a semi-thorough article from Newsday, a reputable New York Newspaper. concerning the crackdown on "milbogs".

And here are my musings:

Cindy Sheehan has been accused by various media pundidiots of "giving comfort to our enemies". Various politicians and reporters critical of the invasion of Iraq, its aftermath and its management have been often been accused of treason or at least "aiding and abetting the enemy". And lately some active duty soldiers have suffered the same criticism due to the content of their blogs.
Indeed the military has taken steps to shut down various "milblogs" it deems too detailed for fear that some of the information might be exploited by their military opposition and has insisted that any future blogs be reviewed for content before publication.

Reviewing and restricting the dissemination of information from a battlefront makes a lot of sense, in principle at least.
As a soldier on the front lines the last thing you would want to do is accidentally give the enemy useful intelligence because it could kill you. For the generals and politicians it could mean the difference between victory and defeat, tactically and strategically. For military families it could mean the difference between a joyful or sorrowful homecoming and for the taxpayer funding the war (whether pro or against) it could mean the cessation or continuation of taxation without real representation of hard-earned money that could be used elsewhere.

Here's another official USMC photo which IN NO WAY reveals any clues whatsoever about how an assault team might enter a building or what equipment they might carry.

For example one serving soldier’s blog was shut down and its author demoted because he had described his unit's flight route into Iraq and that information could thus help the enemy shoot down U.S. aircraft. The Army also said that this same soldier shouldn’t have disclosed that the last three bullets he loaded into his weapon's magazine were always tracers, because that could tip an enemy to time an attack just as an American soldier is reloading.

Marine Capt. Don Caetano of Mineola who was stationed in Fallujah where he ran the embedded journalist program and is now a recruiter in Garden City, NY offers this explanation of the increasingly instituted censorship:
"When you put your blog out there, you cannot forget that not only the good guys, but the bad guys are accessing it, especially for Techniques, Tactics and Procedures. If the bad guys take a piece from me, and a piece from you, and a piece from another guy, pretty soon they can gather some pretty good intel."

I have to admit that makes a lot of sense.

Except that Captain Caetano has of course just corroborated the information the Army objected to and negated his own argument for censorship. Thus he himself has "aided and abetted" the enemy—oops!

And here's the link to America's Army that apparently allows only the "good guys" with an internet connection to learn and practice the basics of both standard army and "special-ops" tactics.

But no matter, I’m sure the Army has now eliminated this particular use of tracers in US ammo clips, thereby preventing both the enemy and the US soldier of a clear notification in the middle of a firefight that it’s time to reload.

I’m sure the average soldier’s personal well-being and any mission objective will be henceforth better served by deploying hordes of army desk-jockeys to ensure every combat soldier’s ammo clips are without tracer rounds and instead insisting they quietly count the bullets they fire so that the enemy isn’t tipped-off about the soldier’s potential vulnerability. And I don’t suppose it has ever occurred to the stupid ragheads to designate just one of their group to function as a non-combatant first-hand observer in an attack against US military to better understand their tactics and procedures, rather than shoot first and "Google" later.

Two soldiers specifically have been demoted and fined respectively $1,000 and $1,640 for putting classified information on their blogs. Presumably then "aiding and abetting" or "giving comfort to the enemy" or revealing classified information no longer gets a soldier jailed or shot for treason but just a fine and a demotion; somehow the accusation and the penalty doesn’t quite fit. Perhaps the fact that said soldier might still be "in theater" whilst "security mom's" are beating up army recruiters in shopping malls has something to do with it.

An apparently life or death issue (not to mention the success or failure of a mission) is thus considered to be of national importance yet at the same time relegated to the level of a small-claims court.

The reasons given by Captain Caetano for the censorship of milblogs might actually be as injurious to the US military effort as the milblogs themselves.
His arguments and those of the Pentagon reveal a monolithic approach to the conduct of an "asymmetric" war, in the theater, in the media and at home. It is symptomatic of exactly the hidebound mentality that began the war and continues to mismanage it.
The "intel" provided by such blogs can indeed be used by the opposition as long as the U.S. military itself ignores it ands suppresses it. Information is just information, it’s how information is employed that matters. Rather than learning from those in the middle of the fight, the military (and its "Commander in Chief") would rather devote as much effort to attacking its own as it does to attacking its professed enemy.

There are plenty of good reasons for the military to be concerned about inadvertent release of "intel". But the fact is the US military as a whole is as guilty of providing such "intel" to a far greater degree than any single military blogger, or indeed of all of them. The excuses provided by the likes of Captain Caetano are fine in theory, but clearly lacking in practice. If the US military insists on "gagging" it's soldiers when it clearly can't gag itself, what then can we conclude? Are those in command stupid, incompetent or both?

According to our "Commander in Chief" the "Iraq War" was initiated based upon the "best intelligence we had at the time". That's a lot of crap. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld's most constant refrain is "who knowS? You tell me!" Well the milblogs are telling their commanders what's going on and providing the US public who are funding the war with "intel" that above all informs those who are willing to listen and who are truly concerned with the soldiers' welfare as well as the professional and honorable completion of their mission.

It's hard to draw any other conclusion than that the gagging of milblogs is nothing more than an exercise in poltical propaganda which does nothing to serve the soldier, the mission or the nation. The Pentagon itself has done far more to provide the "enemy" with the intel it seeks, and to undermine morale in theater and at home though its incapacity to provide the troops with supplies and listen to their real-time field experience than any milblog ever has.

What's Under The Hat?

(AP Photo)


According to court papers "BlackJack" Abramoff the casino-profit loving Republican lobbyist, by his own admission is guilty (amongst other things) of defrauding his clients to the tune of at least $20 million between "early" 2001 and April 2004.

Recipients of his lobbying largesse are now disassociating themselves from the current and still-brewing scandal by returning the funds or else donating them to charity

Maybe I’m being stupid here, but surely if the money Abramoff provided was a) laundered and b) gained through fraud shouldn’t that money be a) held as evidence and b) returned to those who were defrauded? Therefore shouldn’t the politicians unloading the funds be placing the monies in an escrow account to be held until the conclusion of the criminal investigation rather than being shuffled off to charities? And how can charities accept these transferred funds when their source is clearly suspect?

The Washington Post touches briefly on these issues. Hopefully they will follow up.

Now, according to the above mentioned article: "Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign, making him an honorary Bush "Pioneer." But the campaign is giving up only $6,000, which came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes the lobbyist represented. The money will be donated to the American Heart Association."

Remember Abramoff has admitted guilt to defrauding his "clients" ($20 million) between 2001 and 2004. Abramoff "earned" over $11 million from one tribe between 2001 and 2003. Bush received $100,000 from Abramoff for his 2004 re-election campaign, less than 1% of his take from his scam.
Bush is now unloading $6000 of that contribution or 6% of a contribution that came from an illegal source. What are the odds that the $6,000 was lawfully gained when Abramoff had just scammed $11 million? What are the odds that the $100,000 was lawfully Abramoff’s to give? What was Abramoff’s source of income except the $11 million of tribal money---oh yes… the various other millions he has admitted to scamming since 2001? .

Of course Scott McClellan was there to explain it all to the troglodytes:
" If someone thinks that money is coming in with strings attached, it doesn't get in the door."

Well golly-gee Scott ("or should I say Doctor VON Scott!"), if there weren’t any strings attached, why give ANY MONEY AWAY AT ALL?!!! It’s all legit, right?

And of course Abramoff didn’t have any intention of asking favors of Bush because the real power lay with the Congress. Bush owed so many favors to industry and his own party Abramoff didn’t need a direct line to the President. The quid pro quo equation is simple: with Bush playing President Bush he could do what he wants as long as congressional Republicans could do what they wanted, which coincided with what the mega-rich oligarchy wanted which is to live even more fabulous lives.

The Abramoff scandal has yet to play out, but the big issue under the hat is not just the corruption of some politicians, it is the corruption of our whole system of government—what it is really for, who it benefits and what America and democracy are about.
The eventual jailing of Abramoff and any representatives or Senators that might be brought down should not be the end of the story. To be continued….

Non-Person Of The Year

Time Magazine has a tradition of recognizing (though not necessarily "honoring") a person or persons deemed most influential and significant in any given year.

In the spirit of fairness and balance, I humbly offer the distaff side of this "recognition"--the least significant and least influential person or persons of the last twelve months:


May I present "The Non-Person Of The Year"


For tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% and tax breaks for the wealthiest business that placed an $100 billion dollar a year immediate burden on the majority and added approximately $30,000 in future debt to every tax paying individual whilst social services and infrastructure investment were cut.
For the millions spent on a 60-day tour touting Social Security "reform" despite obvious public awareness that the scheme would cost more and deliver less.
For the administration’s continuing claims of ties between Hussein and Al Qaida and Iraq’s threat to the US despite a majority of the public finally recognizing that lies led to the war and occupation.
For the purely political and simply vindictive "outing" of a CIA NOC whose duty was specifically to prevent the acquisition of nuclear materials by terrorists who wish harm the US.
For the firing of government officials performing their public duty of ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
For the refusal to provide verifiable election results and the continued use of flawed purge lists.
For the planting of propaganda and the manipulation of the "free press"
For having personal religios beliefs used as a means of oppression and manipulation
For the preferential provision of flu-vaccine to Congress
For sending troops to battle in insufficient numbers, with insufficient armor, bullets and supplies
For refusing dead soldiers honor guards and shipping them as freight
For cutting veterans benefits and healthcare
For leaving Hurricane Katrina victims to their own devices
For spying on peace groups and labeling at least half of US citizens as treasonous, unpatriotic, un-American.
For reserving the right to incarcerate, convict and torture by presidential fiat, without due process, representation or appeal
For eviscerating the separation of powers, the separation of church and state and public representation in favor of ultimate executive power

For all these reasons ( and others that could be mentioned), for being ignored, manipulated, burdened and suppressed I nominate the average American Citizen the "Non-Person of the Year".

International Rice Skating

In the world of ice skating national champions compete for international recognition. They are judged on a combination of skills—the confluence of technical and interpretive skills that culminate in a memorable and worthy performance.

Condoleezza Rice is currently America’s ice skating champion, lifted into the international arena by overwhelming partisan support. But out on the ice she stands alone, save for an isolated partisan crowd, and faces European judges inherently critical and wiser and older than she.

As the music swells she begins her routine cautiously, defensively but then quickly builds up her energy. Starting with some easy but crowd pleasing double toe-loops and salkoes she gathers momentum before launching into a spin. The pace now quickened she proceeds to the footwork section, traversing the ice with dazzling changes of position and direction before finally lining up for a double-triple combination capped with a camel spin.

The scores are posted. On both technical merit and interpretation the European judges are less than impressed. Rice’s "Rendition Rhapsody", and her originality, though recognized counted against her.
With disappointing scores Rice’s response was to attack the judges—not a tactic that will turn them around any time soon.

Will she be back next year to finally clinch worldwide acclaim and financial nirvana? Or will she be relegated to the exclusively American professional ice-skating circuit, performing "oil’s Well That End Well on Ice" or "Rendition Rabbit Saves Christmas"? Only time and millions of wasted dollars will tell.

The (Military) Children Are Our Future

Apparently it’s not enough for President Bush and Dick Cheney to justify their Iraq policy to captive audiences of serving military personnel, now they have to appeal to their kids too.

But instead of the childlike POTUS or the scowling "VEEP" delivering the message, it is Mrs Cheney who has been tapped to explain to elementary school children at two Washington-area Marine Corps bases in Quantico and Fort Belvoir, Virginia how 21st Century Iraq is just like 18th Century America.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5476471,00.html

Who better to explain to these likely future recruits the historical importance of their parents’ mission than a woman best known for a novel about barely concealed lesbianism in the Wild West?
``Two hundred and seventeen years ago, we held our first vote under our Constitution,'' Vice President Dick Cheney's wife said. ``We started then on the path the Iraqis are walking now.''

Never mind that the new Americans didn’t have to risk their lives to cast their votes, that they weren’t under occupation, that the Constitution specifically rejected the role of religion in both government and law.
The new Iraqi Constitution does( in common with the US Constitution) allow for amendments—an aspect that Lynne Cheney said provides ``a very important historical parallel'' with America's early democratic struggle.

``We did much the same thing in terms of our Constitution,'' she said on CNN.
``Many were reluctant to ratify (it) until they were told there would be amendments. ... So there are indeed many parallels and I look forward to talking with kids about it.''

Well that much I suppose is true: the paths are parallel…meaning they don’t converge in any way whatsoever. But draw two horizontal parallel lines on a chalkboard and any elementary schoolchild will recognize it as "equal".

It seems we can no longer rely on the old adage "History is written by the winners". From today it seems it should be replaced by "History is written by those who write it first, and re-write it later". As the military kids grow up and stumble across another old chestnut "those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" which history will they remember? The history written after the fact or the history crafted before the fact?

The Iraqi Free Press (a $100 million value!)

Rumsfeld Praises Role of Free Press in U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan (23/04/2004)
"Washington -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the emergence of a free press in Iraq and Afghanistan is an important current event in both countries but one that is under-reported by the media."

Military Admits Planting News in Iraq (New York Times/Eric Schmitt 12/03/05)


From The Baghdad Bugle ( "All the news that fits" )
A Special Investigative Op-Ed by Daoud Rumsfaud.


As-salamu aleikum and al-hamdu lillah as we 100 per cent genuine Iraqis like to say.
And as I like to say; Is Allah great? You bet! Is Allah doing a terrific job? Absolutely!

But enough of my unimpeachable camel-jockey credentials. There has been a disturbing trend lately of only bad news coming out of our great sovereign colony of Iraq (may its oil supplies last for a hundred years!).

Saah? (Is this really true?) Indeed my friends it is true, yet such things that are said are clearly false! These lies are spread by snakes and dung beetles unfit to drink my camel’s pizzle! Who you ask is behind these lies and rumours?

Is it the Jews? Yistuwi (it could be), who knows?

Is it the liberal lefty, godless communist democrats who want nothing more than to steal our oil and build permanent theater workshops and giant tofu-outlets on our blessed land? Absolutely!

My friends, heed not these illegitimate sons of mosquito poop who would as soon sleep with a camel as steal it, or trade their donkey for an elephant and then complain about the bargain!

Ubashshirak (I have good news for you), al-kheir fi batin ash-sharr (good is in the belly of evil). Just consider these "known knowns" ( i.e. facts)

The number of our brothers and sisters who WEREN’T blown up, shot or kidnapped in the last few weeks (may god keep them safe) are numbered even as the stars in the sky.
By Allah’s will, pre-owned cars and car parts can be found on almost every street corner.
Schools and hospitals have been rebuilt, some of them every other week.
Public demand for medical care has shown rapid growth with no end in sight (here’s a hot stock tip; Al Faid Prosthetic Limbs LLC) .
Iranian, Syrian and Saudi tourists are crossing our borders in record numbers.
The electric companies now provide every Iraqi at least 110volts, just like in the US!
Iraqis have embraced the new legal system so wholeheartedly prosecutions have increased 125% in just the last year! If that isn't progress i don't know what is!
Iraqi industry produces almost no "greenhouse gases"—so who needs a "Kyoto treaty?" Take that, Tojo!
Oil production is back to pre-war UN sanction levels of 2 million barrels a day--to the extreme happiness of the guys who make those barrels .
The interim government now enjoys the same level of respect from the Iraqi public as the US government does from it’s own people. Truly freedom and democracy are on the march!

And of course Iraqis now finally have a well-financed press.

So remember my friends not only is Allah great, but so is Iraq! So don’t let the crazed followers of that Hollywood Babylon whore Barbra Streisand (who is Jewish, you know) tell you any different.

Allan Akbar!—I mean, Allah Akbar!

Disclosure: Allan Akbar contributed to this article and is not in any way willingly associated with the DoD, the Pentagon, the Office of Strategic Information or the Alberto Gonzalez Academy for Recalcitrant Ragheads. Daoud Rumsfaud has appeared in hundreds of Al Jazeera news reports and is the author of "Rumsfaud’s Rules"—a guide for minions).

THE STRATEGY BEHIND THE ‘STRATEGY’

Yesterday George Bush gave a speech at Annapolis Naval College in which he offered up the shiny new ‘National Strategy for Victory in Iraq’.

The partisan pundits and clueless commentators then exercised their jaws about the quality and content of Bush’s turgid performance instead of analyzing and discussing the strategy document itself—even though Bush himself invited everyone to do so. .

The fact that this ‘strategy’ now exists isn’t due to the administration’s initiative, but instead due to the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Congressman Murtha and the overwhelming and obvious truth that the White House was fiddling whilst Baghdad burned.

Nearly 3 years ago the Iraq Experts Group offered the White House a comprehensive strategy for the Iraq war plan which Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Rumsfeld, Rove and Rice pointedly ignored. Every dire prediction that the IEG made were its recommendations not followed has since come true.

So has the White House finally "wised-up"? No, of course not. Given the challenge of acting responsibly for once and diligently addressing the deadly serious issues of Iraq’s present and future (and thus that of the United Sates too) Bush and company have once again sacrificed policy for politics.

You have to read it for yourself but here are some highlights that I have gleaned and would like to share:

Firstly, this document was clearly cobbled together purely in response to recent public pressure. Nice to know that the futures of two nations and the "global war on terror" can be organized in just a few weeks.
Secondly, this "strategy paper" has no author! NOT ONE! No attribution whatsoever. Shouldn’t Rumsfeld’s name be there? Or Rice’s? Bueller? Anyone? Ah ha! With no attribution there is no responsibility, no accountability, nor is there any authority.
Thirdly, the document begins with a couple of lies (actually by default because it opens with a quote from George Bush speaking a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq) :
"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected." (February 26 2003)
Every country requires a leader if not a government. Chalabi was hand-picked by the US to replace Saddam Hussein and form a new US funded government.
As for citizens’ rights, need I mention Abu Ghraib?

And then the lies and bullshit continue:
"Our strategy is working" (Infrastructure, services and even oil production are still behind pre-war conditions)
"Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including…restoration of full sovereignty" (except that the Iraqi economy is being subsidized by the US, the police force was once again placed under the control of the US army just a few weeks ago and the Iraqi "Army" is just one battalion)
"Coalition troop levels, for example, will increase where necessary to defeat the enemy or provide additional security for key events like the referendum and elections". (The Spanish quit, the Poles, Italians and British are drawing-down and the rest of the coalition have no plans of increasing their troop commitments).

How about some "fun facts"?
"Hundreds of judges have been trained since the fall of Saddam Hussein. These judges are now working and resolving cases under Iraqi law. In 2003, approximately 4,000 felony cases were resolved in Iraqi courts. In 2004, they resolved more than twice that number. This year, Iraqi courts are on track to resolve more than 10,000 felony cases."
Actually Iraqi law hasn’t been codified; it doesn’t exist. Bremer’s statutes are still on the books but the legal system remains undefined because the constitution hasn’t been ratified.
As far as the processing of felony cases is concerned are the courts now more efficient or have the number of felonies increased? And how exactly are these cases being ‘resolved"?

One of my favorite sections is entitled "Progress On The Economic Track".
Here’s a typical example:
"Since April 2003, Iraq has registered more than 30,000 new businesses, and its stock market (established in April 2004) currently lists nearly 90 companies with an average daily trading volume over $100 million (from January to May 2005), up from an average of $86 million in 2004."
Note the benchmark date of 2003, specifically April which closely approximates the end of the invasion that destroyed the Iraqi government and its economy. With whom have these businesses been registered? What types of businesses are they? How many Iraqis do they employ?

I’ll spare you the rest.

This strategy paper is nothing more than a cut and paste collection of meaningless verbiage and promotional pieces crafted by political advisers collated by anonymous interns as a pathetic sop to public outrage in a desperate attempt to shore up a failed presidency.

This isn’t a strategy for "Victory In Iraq" it’s the same old strategy of hanging on to domestic power through lies, obfuscation, manipulation and misdirection.

As an alternative to this highly polished turd, here’s my strategy for "victory" in Iraq:

Remove the President and his political cronies from policy-making and set up a bi-partisan task force to address the realities of this particular issue and arrive at a policy based on intelligent consensus.

Unfortunately for our troops, Iraqis, the American public and the world there’s little chance of that happening before the 2006 elections.
Bush and the Neocons have three more years to go and their strategy is clear--to ignore their moral and might I add legal and constitutional responsibilities and instead use their current power and position solely for their own ends. And that's the strategy behind the 'strategy'.

I Declare a Dumb War!

According to John Gibson and Bill O’Reilly but most especially John Gibson the US is engaged in a WAR ON CHRISTMAS
Apparently this WAR ON CHRISTMAS threatens the US like no other war the US has ever known because the WAR ON CHRISTMAS is being fought from WITHIN!
On the front lines of this war stand O’Reilly and Gibson. Actually O’Reilly isn’t so much on the front lines as back in HQ, issuing orders such as "boycott Sears!" and "buy my mugs and loofahs!"
Gibson however has decided on a more active approach in warning us all of a vast lefty liberal secularist army intent on destroying Christmasâ and thus America, simply because that’s what liberals want, more than anything else in the world.
Channeling the spirit of a perverted Paul Revere, Gibson has mounted his high horse and galloped off into the night yelling "THE SECULARISTS ARE COMING, THE SECULARISTS ARE COMING!" to all who will listen by writing a book called ( approximately) "The War On Christmas And Why It Is Worse Than You Think".

As a practicing secular liberal I must say I’m a bit miffed at not having been clued-in on the WAR ON CHRISTMAS . I regularly get e-mails from "Friends of Hillary" and "Move-On" and even Michael Moore once in a while but apparently all that doesn’t even qualify me as a simple camp-follower to the vast lefty liberal progressive secular army that has been amassed to destroy Christmas . Despite my adoration of Janeanne Garofolo I guess I’m just not that hard-core.
Yet despite this obvious snub from the lefty intellectual elite, I’m still keen to join this vast army of anti-Christmasites so that together we can crush the dangerous notion of "peace on earth and goodwill to all men" once and for all.
Perhaps my being overlooked as a potential stormtrooper in the WAR ON CHRISTMAS is simply a result of the inherent lefty-liberal fault of bad organization; it is entirely possible that someone forgot to mail my invitation.

In order to shake off my obviously clerical error-driven 4F rating and to prove myself worthy as a frontline liberal elitist secular America-hating defeatist, I chose to go independently behind enemy lines and infiltrate the ranks of the Pro-Christmasites in the hope of gaining valuable intelligence to serve our WAR ON CHRISTMAS.
Cleverly disguised as an Internet "user" I penetrated a target-rich environment which I will call "Amazon" and acquired my subject, codenamed "Review". What I uncovered raises more answers than questions.

In reviewing John Gibson’s book about the "War On Christmas", Julie Wood of DeatsVille Alabama (boasting approximately TWELVE streets, half of which are dead-ends, yet still having Internet connectivity) offered the following:
Quote: " How very sad that people feel they must bash this book due to what they perceive to be grammatical errors, yet their (sic) very own review contained spelling and/or grammar errors! The point is NOT to find grammatical errors, it IS to see that in America, there is a great falling away from what our wonderful country was founded upon - belief in the God who made us. Although this falling away was predicted in the Bible millions of years ago (emphasis added), it is comforting to know that there are those of us, like Mr. Gibson, who are not afraid to stand up for the tradition of celebrating the birth of Christ. I commend Mr. Gibson for taking a stand, and I pray that others will follow his lead".

Oh Julie! How very sad that you can’t tell the difference between "perceived" grammatical errors and actual grammatical errors, such as you yourself have provided. And FYI Julie, America WASN’T founded on a belief in God, but rather in rejecting the imposition of intransigent religion on public life.
As to the Bible predicting a "falling away" MILLIONS of years ago, you’d have a hard time explaining that particular belief to your fundamentalist leaders whose calendars begin 4004 B.C. The term "millions" simply isn’t in their vocabulary, and it shouldn’t be in yours either. Methinks you are a false Christian and a blasphemer!

With a "review " entitled "Get a life, losers", reviewer ‘Freethinker’—"not afraid of diversity of political thought" writes:
Quote: "Here's a revolutionary thought-how about all you hate-filled, closed-minded intolerant liberals quit writing reviews for a book you haven't even read???? Go to Michael Moore's website if you want to spew hate. This forum is for people who READ!!! Is this how you form your beliefs, through blind ideology, without even examining the evidence???

Whereas "riceburner117" with a review entitled "whats wrong with all you liberals" offers the following
Quote: "Ok, let me start off by saying that I'm 15 and probably have more sense than most liberals out there. Any one who says that this book doesn't preach the truth is blind. Have you noticed how Coca-Cola didn't put Santa on their cans this year? Have you noticed that most stores aren't allowed to say "Merry Christmas" because it might offend some minority that no one has ever heard of? People dont understand that we are the silent majority. We dont stick up for ourselves. Even our schools marquee's don't say Merry Christmas, it's "have a happy holiday" or "have fun on winter break". That I know of, we have one Jewish kid in our school. I talked to him, and he said that he's even part Christian. It makes me sick, and the Liberals who are so blind by their own ego's, beleive that it's propaganda set out their by the Republicans. We should start sticking up for ourselves, and if you dont like it, you can move over with your French buddies and riot in the streets".

What can I say? If these are the defenders of Christmas then our lefty-liberal progressive tree-hugging fag-embracing godless treasonous communist forces are assured of victory in our glorious WAR ON CHRISTMAS!

I just have a few questions: Who is in charge? When do we charge? How much can we charge? And once we succeed in destroying Christmas, do we still get presents?