Those of us who watched the Condoleezza Rice confirmation hearing last week were literally astounded at the incredible disagreement over whether the actual number of trained Iraqis was 120,000 or 4000(3%). When Rice was asked for the truth she claimed she had to rely on the number she was given: 120,000. Sen. Biden said he was sure of his number based on first hand conversations with commanders in the field. If Sen Biden is right, and certainly his intelligence methodology seems 100% legitimate while Ms Rice takes no responsibility whatsoever for her intelligence but rather relies on plausible deniability, it means the administration probably has been lying to us on a monumental scale, and that the war is probably unwinable. If fact, General Casey, the Pentagon's top man in Iraq, said last night, "we may never be able to train enough Iraqis."
Not only are the lies familiar to those of us who lived through the Vietnam horror but they seem to be, incredibly, worse, when all swore at the time that they would never be stupid enough to let that nightmare repeat itself. For those who don't remember Vietnam, we were promised that there was a light at the end of the tunnel, that the Vietnamization of the war was going successfully, that American troops could withdraw very soon while turning the fight for freedom over to South Vietnamese Regulars. In 1973 American troops did leave and the South Vietnamese did promptly lose the war in 1975, but mostly because America did not honor its commitment to resupply the South Vietnamese Army and/or to bomb North Vietnam if they became too aggressive.
In Iraq there seemingly are no troops who want to be resupplied and no targets to bomb; so getting out with victory seems almost impossible. Unfortunately, victory is the only option short of turning the world's oil supply over to Muslim madmen and calling that victory. Ms Rice knows that, so despite her heartfelt protestations to the contrary, she simply lies, big time, but perhaps this is forgivable? After all, she works directly for the Commander-In-Chief who she has to mirror to a large extent, if not to a complete extent. She has to be positive, like any coach, and there is nothing too positive or encouraging to our troops in the field or citizens at home about telling them that we haven't trained anybody despite 2 years of trying. We are all asked to, and do, support the lies because we too have no other choice. The short term tactical truth is left to Sen Biden, the defeated, impotent, but loyal opposition, who closed one flurry by dramatically and violently admonishing Rice: "for God's sake don't listen to Rumsfeld, he doesn't know anything!" But , without a plan for victory; without a choice, everyone knew Biden's short term tactical truth was quite hypocritical and meaningless, save for whatever short term political advantage he may have squeezed out of it.
But then again, there are always other choices: from Senator Kennedy's insane choice to just withdraw, to more reasonable choices like bringing Saddam back for the blessed secular stability he brought to the region, getting out of the Sunni triangle to let them fester on their own while Kurd and Shia regions victoriously prosper economically and democratically, hire the Sunni Bathist Army to take over security, support a bicameral legislature so minority Sunni rights are fully protected and so they will want to a part of the new Iraq, promise the Sunni population transition assistance as they go from 90% majority dictators in the Arab world to a 20%, but legitimate, minority in Iraq.
These would be bold choices of course, some of which might reflect very badly on the 3% female and her Commander-In-Chief, but then again it seems the lies or the Sunni insurgents or both will eventually reflect badly on her anyway; so what has she really got to loose? Isn't it better to change course now rather than later when the 2006 and 2008 elections may well become a referendum on Republican Party lies?
1.28.2005
1.11.2005
"WHERE THE RIGHT WENT WRONG"-by Pat Buchanan
Buchanan is a great guy and has always been right about many things but this book is mostly just another restatement of what he has been saying for years. If you don't know what he has been saying then you might consider it for sure, otherwise I can't really recommend it. In short, Buchanan is a rightist or conservative who wants, 1) a more aggressively conservative social agenda, 2) less free trade, and 3) a much less aggressive foreign policy, particularly as regards Israel and Iraq.
The quality of the arguments is average I'd say; not so much because Buchanan is dumb, he certainly isn't, but more because the arguments are shaped to sound like campaign rhetoric, which probably he intended, rather than rational academic thought; so what you can learn is somewhat limited.
The social issues are open to endless debate anyway. Buchanan does not seem to advance the cause much, but then again that would be a problem for almost anyone. On the Middle East I think he is quite right in suggesting that if we had pushed Israel toward peace at the '67 borders, rather than toward war and expansion in the West Bank, the Middle East and Osama Bin Ladin never would have been a problem, and all those dead or wounded people would now be alive or well.
On free trade he is simple wrong with his logic that all of our manufacturing jobs are going to low wage China and India. Buchanan was a typical Republican free trader until someone in New Hampshire asked him, during a presidential campaign, "how are you going to save my job from going overseas?" At that point truth was cast out the window in search of votes. Richard Nixon stated the truth best when he said, "America must produce world class goods." He knew that the more protected an industry was from domestic or foreign competition, the more inferior its goods and its country would become. He also knew that with each new individual with whom you are allowed to trade, no matter what city, state, or country he lives in, the wealthier you will become. Indeed, poverty and trade are inversely proportional.
On free trade and foreign policy he's actually closer to Democrats than modern day Republicans. Ideally he would want to purge the Republican Party of the neo-conservatives who have engineered the Middle East and 9/11 disasters, the free traders who rely on decades of established economic wisdom, and the weaklings who won't fight for conservative social issues such as, traditional marriage. It seems a long shot at best, but in the wake of George Bush's ideologically very confused administration, the Middle East debacle, the emergence of China and India as huge new trading partners, and the current insane fiscal policy, who knows what might happen. comments: bje1000@aol.com
The quality of the arguments is average I'd say; not so much because Buchanan is dumb, he certainly isn't, but more because the arguments are shaped to sound like campaign rhetoric, which probably he intended, rather than rational academic thought; so what you can learn is somewhat limited.
The social issues are open to endless debate anyway. Buchanan does not seem to advance the cause much, but then again that would be a problem for almost anyone. On the Middle East I think he is quite right in suggesting that if we had pushed Israel toward peace at the '67 borders, rather than toward war and expansion in the West Bank, the Middle East and Osama Bin Ladin never would have been a problem, and all those dead or wounded people would now be alive or well.
On free trade he is simple wrong with his logic that all of our manufacturing jobs are going to low wage China and India. Buchanan was a typical Republican free trader until someone in New Hampshire asked him, during a presidential campaign, "how are you going to save my job from going overseas?" At that point truth was cast out the window in search of votes. Richard Nixon stated the truth best when he said, "America must produce world class goods." He knew that the more protected an industry was from domestic or foreign competition, the more inferior its goods and its country would become. He also knew that with each new individual with whom you are allowed to trade, no matter what city, state, or country he lives in, the wealthier you will become. Indeed, poverty and trade are inversely proportional.
On free trade and foreign policy he's actually closer to Democrats than modern day Republicans. Ideally he would want to purge the Republican Party of the neo-conservatives who have engineered the Middle East and 9/11 disasters, the free traders who rely on decades of established economic wisdom, and the weaklings who won't fight for conservative social issues such as, traditional marriage. It seems a long shot at best, but in the wake of George Bush's ideologically very confused administration, the Middle East debacle, the emergence of China and India as huge new trading partners, and the current insane fiscal policy, who knows what might happen. comments: bje1000@aol.com
1.09.2005
Another Democrat Lies About Social Security
Dear Ms. Tyson,
Your 1/17/05 article in Business Week which said, "there is no crisis in Social Security" was a horrendous lie. I think you owe Business Week and your readers an apology, at the very least. If you had been honest you would have said, I'm a socialist New Deal liberal Democrat and I'll tell any lie to help keep Social Security in its present form." As President Clinton's national economic advisor we expect more from you.
The heart of your lie in contained in the following sentence, "the revenues into Social Security from the current level of payroll taxes will cover promised benefits for another 38 years." The lie is the assumption that because there is a separate Social Security Tax, the revenues from that tax are ear marked for Social Security recipients. You know this is not true. In point of fact there is no lock box or trust fund where Social Security revenues are segregated and held until mailed off to recipients.
100% of Social Security is paid to recipients out of general federal revenue. The problem, Ms. Tyson, is that the federal gov't collects $600 billion less revenue than it pays out each year and is $8 trillion in debt. Moreover, the Republicans, who have historically been far more responsible about balanced federal budgets, now seem as irresponsible as the Democrats always were, even despite ominous demographic trends and history making debt levels. So how in God's name can you say there is no crisis when Social Security recipients have to collect their money from a gov't like that? If you had to collect your income from a business or institution that was deeper in debt than at any time in its history and promised to get even deeper into debt, would you consider that a crisis?
To state the obvious, which seems to be necessary when talking to a Democrat, if Social Security revenue was held in a lock box or trust by a gov't with revenue surpluses and no debt, then, you could say "there is no crisis." Under the present circumstances you cannot say that.
comments: bje1000@aol.com
1.07.2005
O'Reilly Vs Scarborough: ratings anomaly
Both men have great Republican conservative talk shows on cable TV, but Scarborough is far more effective because he honestly admits he is a conservative Republican while O'Reilly pretends to be neutral. Not an educated soul on earth believes O'Reilly, but still he persists with his hugely deceptive, and apparently very profitable, strategy that severely limits what he can talk about. Yes, there is a lot of audience pleasing drama and shouting on his show but it is confined to a few relatively obscure issues that really are not very important, but on which O'Reilly does take the conservative position. On the broad Republican agenda he is largely committed to silence or irrelevancy by his "neutral" marketing strategy. Still, you would have to conclude that he is marginally useful to Republicans.
The saintly Scarborough, on the other hand, who is fully out of the closet, can talk about all the important issues of our time with complete Republican candor so long as he brings on noteworthy Democrats to defeat in open debate, which he dutifully and regularly does.
The sad thing here is that the O'Reilly audience is usually at least 10 times bigger than Scarborough's. This is because O'Reilly manages to show more aggression and passion than Scarborough. Wouldn't it be great if the Republicans could find someone with O'Reilly's passion and Scarborough's honesty? Or, wouldn't it be great if the electorate was smart enough to find its way to the better of the two shows.
comments: bje1000@aol.com
The saintly Scarborough, on the other hand, who is fully out of the closet, can talk about all the important issues of our time with complete Republican candor so long as he brings on noteworthy Democrats to defeat in open debate, which he dutifully and regularly does.
The sad thing here is that the O'Reilly audience is usually at least 10 times bigger than Scarborough's. This is because O'Reilly manages to show more aggression and passion than Scarborough. Wouldn't it be great if the Republicans could find someone with O'Reilly's passion and Scarborough's honesty? Or, wouldn't it be great if the electorate was smart enough to find its way to the better of the two shows.
comments: bje1000@aol.com
1.06.2005
WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE TO CHILDREN
To the kids who survived the 30's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's:
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, bread and butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, video games, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live in us forever.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!
Little league had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
And if you are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS! Please pass this on to others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the Democrats regulated our lives for our own good.
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.
As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, bread and butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, video games, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live in us forever.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!
Little league had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
And if you are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS! Please pass this on to others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the Democrats regulated our lives for our own good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)