Democrats: Get over the authorization vote, point out repeated Administration incompetence

In Chicago last week, Cheney gave a speech in which he, among other things, ridiculed Senator Kerry for his flip-flopping over support for the Iraq conflict:

"Democrats and Republicans, obviously, are heavily engaged in the debate, as it should be. We've reached the point where a number of well known Democrats, including their most recent presidential nominee, talk about setting a firm deadline for withdrawal.

You might recall that Senator Kerry was for the war before he was against it. Somebody should do him a favor and tell him the election's over so he can stop flip-flopping."

Flip flopping on such an important issue is not a good thing. But obviously, that's not the whole story. Cheney and the Republicans continue to skewer the Democrats over the October 2002 Iraq authorization of force vote, and Democrats seem unable to mount a decent defense. What should Democrats do? Fight back with a two prong strategy that they should use in all their foreign policy speeches as well as rebuttals to Republican charges like Cheney's recent statement.

1. Explain they voted for use of force because of incorrect Administration evidence. Given only a goal of Iraqi democracy, who would have voted for the force authorization? The main reason Democrats seem unable to point out that they voted for something that was not true -- and therefore regret it -- is because of fear that such a stance will belittle the sacrifice of the troops and their families. However, Democrats and US citizens that initially supported the war need to face the facts that the conflict would not have happened when it did had the "mush room cloud" threat (see below) not been so compelling.
   
   
2. Highlight the Administration's record of mistakes and blunders. After talking about why they voted for the authorization of force, Democrats should immediately talk about how the Administration mismanaged the Iraq conflict. There's no need to make things up or interject opinion -- simply let the Administration's own word come back to haunt them.

Iraq mismanaged: Snippets of a clueless Administration

Why not start at the top, with the President. So what exactly was the Bush Administration saying in October of 2002 as they tried to convince the nation and Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq? Here's what the President said on October 7:

"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people."

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

"If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail."

And later in a speech on April 28, 2003, after the military operations had commenced, the President said:

"Day by day, hour by hour, life in Iraq is getting better for the citizens. Yet, much work remains to be done. I have directed Jay Garner and his team to help Iraq achieve specific long-term goals. And they're doing a superb job."

And of course, who can forget the infamous May 1, 2003 speech on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." 

And for extra credit, Democrats can use some comments made in February 2003 from former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz:

In response to troop requirements: "In short, we don't know what the requirements will be. But we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark."

In response to a question about the cost of reconstruction, perhaps in the $60 - $90 billion dollar range: "There is a lot of money there [in Iraq oil and escrow at the UN]. To assume that we are going to pay for it is just wrong."

"The notion that we are going to earn more enemies by going in and getting rid of what every Arab knows is one of the worst tyrants -- and they have many governing them--is just nonsense."

In the business world, incompetence gets you fired, or at least marginalized and ignored. So, why do we keep giving an Administration with a track record of incorrect estimates, faulty intelligence, and the inability to predict critical world events the benefit of the doubt? Why don't US citizens listening to Cheney mock instead of cheer his Kerry flip flopper comments?

At this point, the Administration should be assumed to be incorrect and misinformed until proven otherwise.

Echoes of Johnson's Vietnam arguments in Bush's Iraq justification

While the Bush Administration and its supporters dislike any comparison between the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi conflict, there are interesting comparisons between the presidential rhetoric used to support both efforts. While there are many differences between the wars -- for example, there is no single enemy to negotiate with in Iraq -- the language  and justification for continuing these two (increasingly) unpopular military conflicts is very similar.


1965: "... we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny."

Most people would argue that in hindsight, Vietnam, or at least the way the military campaign was conducted and the political support for the ever-changing South Vietnamese leadership was handled, was a disaster. In the end, over 58,249 US military personnel were killed.

President Johnson gave a speech in April, 1965 that is very familiar in terms of the rhetoric that we hear today on why we should remain committed to Iraq. In 1965, the US had just begun to deploy combat troops (there were plenty of "advisors" in country, but the first  combat troops, the Marines, arrived in March). With thousands of soldiers beginning to flow into Vietnam, the President said:

The reason for fighting 

"Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change. This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Vietnam."

"We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny. And only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure."

The conflict's brutality 

"And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to their government. And helpless villages are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities."

Keeping America's promise

"We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Vietnam. We have helped to build, and we have helped to defend. Thus, over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence."

"And I intend to keep that promise. To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong."

The consequences of leaving

"To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, and even wider war."

"Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Vietnam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another."

The objective 

"Our objective is the independence of South Vietnam, and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves -- only that the people of South Vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way."

On escalation 

"In recent months attacks on South Vietnam were stepped up. Thus, it became necessary for us to increase our response and to make attacks by air. This is not a change of purpose. It is a change in what we believe that purpose requires."

America will not tire or be defeated 

"And we do this to convince the leaders of North Vietnam--and all who seek to share their conquest--of a very simple fact: We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired. We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement." 

1966: "... we will stay as long as aggression commands us to battle."

As the escalation in Vietnam continued, Johnson reiterated his stance that America could not retreat and that victory would be achieved. In his January, 1966 State of the Union speech, he stated that:

Staying the course 

"We will stay because a just nation cannot leave to the cruelties of its enemies a people who have staked their lives and independence on America's solemn pledge -- a pledge which has grown through the commitments of three American Presidents."

"To yield to force in Vietnam would weaken that confidence, would undermine the independence of many lands, and would whet the appetite of aggression. We would have to fight in one land, and then we would have to fight in another -- or abandon much of Asia to the domination of Communists."

The enemy is losing

"The enemy is no longer close to victory. Time is no longer on his side. There is no cause to doubt the American commitment."

Freedom is the goal 

"We seek neither territory nor bases, economic domination or military alliance in Vietnam. We fight for the principle of self-determination -- that the people of South Vietnam should be able to choose their own course, choose it in free elections without violence, without terror, and without fear."

Everything the troops need they will get 

"But we will give our fighting men what they must have: every gun, and every dollar, and every decision--whatever the cost or whatever the challenge."

America will never give up 

"And let me be absolutely clear: The days may become months, and the months may become years, but we will stay as long as aggression commands us to battle."

1967: "... the enemy can no longer succeed on the battlefield."

A year later, in his 1967 State of the Union address, the President said:

We will be worse off later if we back down now 

"We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war -- a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later."

The war will go on for some time 

"I wish I could report to you that the conflict is almost over. This I cannot do. We face more cost, more loss, and more agony. For the end is not yet. I cannot promise you that it will come this year -- or come next year. Our adversary still believes, I think, tonight, that he can go on fighting longer than we can, and longer than we and our allies will be prepared to stand up and resist."

The enemy can't win 

"General Westmoreland reports that the enemy can no longer succeed on the battlefield."

The Vietnamese have to eventually take over 

"And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks which kidnaped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels where they can be successfully controlled by the regular South Vietnamese security forces."

"We can help, but only they can win this part of the war. Their task is to build and protect a new life in each rural province."

We've already proven our point 

"One result of our stand in Vietnam is already clear. It is this: The peoples of Asia now know that the door to independence is not going to be slammed shut. They know that it is possible for them to choose their own national destinies -- without coercion."

America's will determine if we win

"How long it will take I cannot prophesy. I only know that the will of the American people, I think, is tonight being tested. Whether we can fight a war of limited objectives over a period of time, and keep alive the hope of independence and stability for people other than ourselves; whether we can continue to act with restraint when the temptation to 'get it over with' is inviting but dangerous; whether we can accept the necessity of choosing 'a great evil in order to ward off a greater'; whether we can do these without arousing the hatreds and the passions that are ordinarily loosed in time of war -- on all these questions so much turns."

1968: "Peace will come because Asians were willing to work for it -- and to sacrifice for it ..."

After the Tet offensive, America was shocked by the strength and resolve of the enemy. Even though Tet was actually a major military victory for the US, support for the war was falling and the country was violently divided. With the Great Society put on the backburner as more soldiers were killed and demonstrators marched, the President announced that he would not seek reelection. In a March, 1968 speech, he said:

We won Tet, but this war will not end soon

"Their attack--during the Tet holidays--failed to achieve its principal objectives."

"But tragically, this is also clear: Many men--on both sides of the struggle--will be lost. A nation that has already suffered 20 years of warfare will suffer once again. Armies on both sides will take new casualties. And the war will go on."

"So, tonight, in the hope that this action will lead to early talks, I am taking the first step to deescalate the conflict."

It's up to the Vietnamese to win this war 

"Our presence there has always rested on this basic belief: The main burden of preserving their freedom must be carried out by them -- by the South Vietnamese themselves. We and our allies can only help to provide a shield behind which the people of South Vietnam can survive and can grow and develop. On their efforts -- on their determination and resourcefulness -- the outcome will ultimately depend."

The Vietnamese will be able to do it with our support

"I pay tribute once again tonight to the great courage and endurance of its people. South Vietnam supports armed forces tonight of almost 700,000 men -- and I call your attention to the fact that this is the equivalent of more than 10 million in our own population. Its people maintain their firm determination to be free of domination by the North."

"We shall accelerate the reequipment of South Vietnam's armed forces -- in order to meet the enemy's increased firepower. This will enable them progressively to undertake a larger share of combat operations against the Communist invaders."

"Peace will come because Asians were willing to work for it--and to sacrifice for it--and to die by the thousands for it. But let it never be forgotten: Peace will come also because America sent her sons to help secure it."

Despite backing off, this was a vital war

"Throughout this entire, long period, I have been sustained by a single principle: that what we are doing now, in Vietnam, is vital not only to the security of Southeast Asia, but it is vital to the security of every American."

"I believe that a peaceful Asia is far nearer to reality because of what America has done in Vietnam. I believe that the men who endure the dangers of battle -- fighting there for us tonight -- are helping the entire world avoid far greater conflicts, far wider wars, far more destruction, than this one."

It's too much -- no more for me

"With America's sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country. Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

1973: "... let us be proud of those who sacrificed, who gave their lives so that the people of South Vietnam might live in freedom ..."

In his January 23, 1973 speech announcing the end of the military portion of the Vietnam war, President Nixon said:

"Now that we have achieved an honorable agreement, let us be proud that America did not settle for a peace that would have betrayed our allies, that would have abandoned our prisoners of war, or that would have ended the war for us but would have continued the war for the 50 million people of Indochina."

"Let us be proud of the 2 1/2 million young Americans who served in Vietnam, who served with honor and distinction in one of the most selfless enterprises in the history of nations.

"And let us be proud of those who sacrificed, who gave their lives so that the people of South Vietnam might live in freedom and so that the world might live in peace."

Of course, the ultimate footnote to this post, is that America left and South Vietnam fell. According to the CIA World Fact Book:

"US economic and military aid to South Vietnam grew through the 1960s in an attempt to bolster the government, but US armed forces were withdrawn following a cease-fire agreement in 1973. Two years later, North Vietnamese forces overran the South reuniting the country under Communist rule."

Let's hope that we aren't repeating history, for everyone's sake, particularly our soldiers and their families who are bearing the greatest burden of this current effort to spread freedom.

Digital tapping is not wrong, it should just be done the right way

Two stories broke today that illustrate a major issue facing the US today: The government's desire to tap into and analyze digital communications and data.

Whether you support the specifics of how the President and his team have and continue to go about accessing and analyzing digital records, tapping into these feeds and databases is necessary to investigate and prosecute those planning on conducting terrorism, cyber-warfare, and other forms of national and global crime.

The issue is not the motivation, the acts themsleves, or the program details, but the need to ensure that digital tapping follows the law, that the program itself is monitored rigorously to avoid abuse by individuals and organizations like political parties, and that the US people understand -- at a high level -- what and why the government is doing these things.


Dipping into the financial stream to identify terrorist-related transactions

The New York Times had a lengthy article today on how the US has tapped into the SWIFT financial network databases since after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a Belgium-based organization. According to its Web site:

"SWIFT is the financial industry-owned co-operative supplying secure, standardised messaging services and interface software to 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries. SWIFT's worldwide community includes banks, broker/dealers and investment managers, as well as their market infrastructures in payments, securities, treasury and trade."

The Times article noted, among many other things, that:

"The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions."

"Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift."

"The program is separate from the National Security Agency's efforts to eavesdrop without warrants and collect domestic phone records..."

"In some instances, they said, the program has pointed them to new suspects, while in others it has buttressed cases already under investigation."

Faced with a PR nightmare, SWIFT came out with a quick press release. In the release, the organization stated:

"SWIFT negotiated with the U.S. Treasury over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas. Through this process, SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas. Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with."

A band of US Al Qaida wannabes is arrested

The SWIFT spying program competed with the other front page news: The capture of seven men who planned domestic terrorist activities. Among there targets, was the Sears Tower in Chicago, the 110 story skyscraper that claims to be the tallest building in the US and the third tallest in the world. According to the FBI release:

"Seven Florida men have been arrested on charges that include conspiring to provide material support to the al Qaeda terrorist organization and conspiracy to levy war against the United States by discussing and planning attacks on targets in the United States, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building and other federal buildings in Florida..."

"The defendants – five U.S. citizens, one legal permanent resident, and one Haitian national in the country illegally..."

Attorney General Gonzales was quoted as saying: “The convergence of globalization and technology has created a new brand of terrorism. Homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al Qaeda."

Is this group as dangerous as it sounds? The men did not have explosives and were not ready to take out any building, let alone a huge skyscraper. But as we saw in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, local terrorists don't need elaborate, multiyear training and global support like the 9/11 attackers. So, even if they had given up their bombing goals, they might have simply decided to shoot up a local Miami mall. Either way, it is better that they are off the street. We will learn more details about how they were tracked, but undoubtedly it will involve the interception of digital transmissions and the accessing of digital records.


Looking, but no fishing for data allowed?

While no one wants a 1984, Orwellian Society in which an oppressive government snoops on our every move, the reality is that there are a variety of individuals and groups that want to harm the US and its citizens, including our soldiers, at home and abroad. Intercepting and analyzing digital feed and databases will help.

The press and some politicians focus on words like "trolling," which means sifting through digital records for something of interest, in order to say that so-called "fishing expeditions" should not be conducted. However, the reality of the situation is that the government will either have suspects, or it will find them through analyzing the database using techniques like sophisticated "trolling." This trolling practice is well-established in the business world, where it is often called data mining. Massive companies like Wal-Mart, with huge customer databases, continuously analyze their data to identify buying patterns, shopper preferences, and to generally understand how to make more money.

One of the most important efforts for businesses involves segmenting customers, essentially profiling them by characteristics and behaviors like age, gender, activity patterns, education levels, and Internet usage. Sometimes marketing people analyze data to validate or understand a preconceived notion. Other times, they use complicated statistical programs and other data analysis tools (often called business intelligence tools) to find something interesting from the digital soup. In the business world, trolling customer databses for trends is a good thing.

It is interesting to note that the government does not like the term trolling, dating mining, or fishing expedition, most likely due to the privacy connotations. However, these activities are helpful. If you have no lead, large scale trolling can be a good thing. Unfortunately, Treasury Secretary Snow harped on this topic today:

"Let me be clear what this [SWIFT data analysis] program is, and what it is not. It is an essential tool in the war on terror, based on appropriate legal authorities with effective oversight and safeguards. It is not 'data mining', or trolling through the private financial records of Americans. It is not a 'fishing expedition', but rather a sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity."

The US government needs to make new laws and a new privacy contract with its people

With its NSA communications monitoring program, called the Terrorist Surveillance Program by the White House after it became public, and the now-revealed SWIFT financial monitoring program, now called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, the government is doing many things it should, just not in the right way. What the Bush Administration -- or any administration, regardless of party -- needs to do is:

• Discuss the programs at a high level and talk about how trolling isn't necessarily a bad thing. Talking about the programs doesn't make the programs useless. Do the bad guys really think the NSA isn't tapping their phones?  Do they think the US won't look into what they bought at Amazon.com or examine their wire transfers? As part of this overall education effort, the government should explain why data mining, if that is the preferred word, can be extremely useful in tracking terrorists and other criminals.
  
  
• Make the programs legal. Cheney was recently quoted as saying that he thinks the executive branch (i.e., the President) needs more power. But Watergate reminds everyone how far some will abuse their power, and the dubious pre-Iraq War intelligence process, the release of the name of the CIA agent Plame, and the discovery of the original NSA program make many people wonder is there is any oversight and control in an Administration that is so loose with the law. Afterall, we have seen what happened to the US soldiers at Abu Ghraib when their superiors allowed them almost unlimited  reign. What about the temptations faced by an NSA or CIA analyst who can look at any financial or communication data?
  
  The President needs to work with Congress to revamp laws and the the overview process so that these programs do what they are intended to do, and no more. The digital world demands that we update our surveillance techniques, but we must update the relevant laws at the same time.
  
  
• Create a new privacy contract with US citizens. Given the choice, a majority of US citizens have said these programs make sense if they are designed to catch terrorists. But that doesn't mean they like how the programs are being run. For example, in a May 11 poll by the Washington Post, only 51% said they approved  "... of the way Bush is handling protecting Americans' privacy rights as the government investigates terrorism," but 65% said that the way the NSA analyzed phone calling patterns was an acceptable "... way for the federal government to investigate terrorism..."
  
  The government -- both the White House and Congress -- and both political parties need to hammer out a new resolution that: 1) Defines the threats inherent in the modern world; 2) Discusses the need to investigate those threats through large-scale "trolling" as well as focused analysis of digital communications and data; and 3) Demonstrates how the government will thoroughly oversee the programs and how it will severely punish individuals or organizations that abuse them.

Living in Cheney's world

Many people have speculated that the Bush Administration is largely directed by Vice President Cheney. He was strongly in favor of invading Iraq, he was central in trying to shoot down the anti-torture Congressional legislation, and his office is in the middle of the Plame CIA leak case. So what does Cheney, so critical to US foreign and domestic policy creation and execution, think these days? According to his comments at the the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize Luncheon on June 19, he thinks Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is doing a great job, Iraq has reached a turning point in favor of defeating the insurgency, and the President's power needed to be and has been restored. Oh, and he, and no one else in the Administration, knew Iraq would be so tough.


Cheney's comments 

During his brief speech and introduction for Rumsfeld, Cheney remarked:

"And our Secretary of Defense is one of the great public servants of our time ... I've heard it suggested on occasion that Don might even be the best Secretary of Defense we've ever had. Well, he's pretty close."

"... the United States of America is a stronger and safer nation thanks to the intellect, the judgment, and the character of Secretary Rumsfeld."

During the question and answer period, the VP was asked about such topics as the Iraq insurgency and the power of the Presidency. Here's what he said:

Question: About a year ago, you said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its final there throes. Do you still believe this?

"I do. What I was referring to was the series of events that took place in 1995. I think the key turning point, when we get back 10 years from now, say, and look back on this period of time, and with respect to the campaign in Iraq, will be that series of events when the Iraqis increasingly took over responsibility for their own affairs..."

"I think that will have been, from a historical turning point, the period that we'll be able to look at and say, that's when we turned the corner; that's when we began to get a handle on the long-term future of Iraq."

Question: Do you think that you underestimated the insurgency's strength?

"I think so. I guess if I look back on it now, I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered. I guess the other area that I look at, in terms of an area where I think we were faced with difficulties we didn't anticipate was the devastation that 30 years of Saddam's rule had wrought, if you will, on the psychology of the Iraqi people. Very, very hard to go from the way they were forced to live for a long period of time to a situation in which they have the opportunity for self-government, for setting up and operating their own free and democratically-elected society. That's a huge transition to make."

Question: Should there be any limits [to the power of the presidency], and if so, what? 

"But I clearly do believe, and have spoken directly about the importance of a strong presidency, and that I think there have been times in the past, oftentimes in response to events such as Watergate or the war in Vietnam, where Congress has begun to encroach upon the powers and responsibilities of the President; that it was important to go back and try to restore that balance."

"What are the limits? The limits are the Constitution. And, certainly, we need to and do adhere to those limitations. But I think if you look at things like the War Powers Act, for example, adopted in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, that that was an infringement on the President's ability to deploy troops. It's never really been tested. I think it's probably unconstitutional. There are a series of events like that that we believed needed to have the balance righted, if you will, and I think we've done that successfully."

Out of touch, ignorant, or both?

So what do we take from his comments? Let's analyze some of key points highlighted above:

• Is America is safer because of the judgement of Rumsfeld? It is very hard to make that case. Obviously, Rumsfeld could only be considered a great Secretary of Defense if he had a track record of excellent decisions. But the record is anything but stellar.
  
  For example, did the US go into Iraq with the right number of troops? In an April 2006 interview with ITV television, Colin Powell stated, "The President's military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate; they may still feel that years later. Some of us don't. I don't."
  
  Also in April of this year, a series of retired US generals called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Retired Major General Charles Swannack said, "Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there ... And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."
  
  Then there was the case, relatively early in the Iraq conflict, where Rumsfeld was found to be using a signature machine for signing letters to the families of those killed.
  
  Another infamous Rumsfeld moment was during a December 2004 "town meeting" in Kuwait. A soldier asked about the lack of armored vehicles in Iraq. The Secretary made the comment, "And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.  And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Now that's some spin!
  
  Rumsfeld was also in charge of the military during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Despite the massive PR black eye and the subsequent danger the scandal causes our troops, Rumsfeld remains on the job.
  
  However, not to be completely unfair, unlike Cheney (the Vietnam deferment king) and Bush (who didn't even finish up his National Guard service), Rumsfeld "served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor."
  
  
• Is the insurgency in its "last throes" for real this time? Cheney is right that history will be a better judge on the overall Iraq situation than those caught up in its daily events, but it's hard to believe we are in the final stages of the insurgency today. The DOD just announced the names of four Marines killed in Iraq on June 20. If the insurgency was dying down, security should be getting better and the need for troops reduced. However, soldiers, including those from the the Guard and Reserve, are still required in huge numbers. For example, the Guard and Reserve continue to be heavily relied on for manpower. A recent DOD press release stated, "This brings the total National Guard and Reserve personnel, who have been mobilized, to 100,776, including both units and individual augmentees."
  
  Certainly the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi helps. But does that mean that US soldiers will be safer, that casualties will decline, and that our troops can start returning home in large numbers without replacements taking their place? It would be nice to think so for the sake of the soldiers and their families, but it is hard to believe Cheney's assessment. After all, he made his infamous initial claim about the insurgency -- "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- over a year ago, and his boss Bush claimed way back in May of 2003 that, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
  
  
• Should the Administration have known Iraq wouldn't be easy to transform? Cheney's comment, "I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we've encountered," if true, is scary. Was the US government incapable of planning or at least thinking of a worst case scenario? This statement is similar to the one Secretary of State Rice made when Hamas won the Palestinian election. Then, she said, "Well, I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas' strong showing."
  
  Why is it that our government leaders seem so clueless? Did they really believe that after decades of of brutal oppression under Saddam Hussein, where the minority Sunni Muslims received special treatment, that the diverse Iraqi people (Sunni, Shia, Kurds, etc.) would suddenly come together, embrace democracy, and live happily ever after? Let's hope all this talk of not being able to anticipate world events is just some form of spin, because the only other option is to believe that the current administration is completely incompetent.
  
  Military commanders are taught to predict the likely way an enemy will react in an engagement but also plan for worse case scenarios. So, why can't our leaders do the same? In the business world, an executive would most likely be fired for being so bad at predicting the market time after time.
  
  
• Should the Presidency be more powerful than it's been? Bush and Cheney have certainly been trying to gain more power for the executive branch of the federal government. While Cheney stated that the Constitution imposes the correct presidential limits, the Administration's actions seem to ignore the Constitution.
  
  For example, the Administration believes it can avoid legal and established court processes for wire tapping, and although Congress is meant to make the laws, the use of presidential signing statements is all about ignoring the portions of a law the Administration does not feel like following.

From examining Cheney's statements, it appears he is either in his own dream world and ignorant of the facts, or he is just saying these things for political reasons despite knowing they are incorrect. The end result is that it is hard to take the VP at his word. Like the boy who cried wolf, will we believe Cheney when he actually says something true?

Vietnam vets face renewed stress, while Iraq vets get proactive

While the life of a surviving combat veteran goes on, they don't ever forget what they experienced. When watching HBO's excellent World War II miniseries, Band of Brothers, it's amazing to hear veterans say how their memories of combat and the death of friends are crystal clear some 50 years later. And watching HBO's recent Iraq War documentary, Baghdad ER, it is clear how combat and the trauma it creates, will effect not only the soldiers, but the doctors, nurses, clergy, and support personnel who treat the physically and mentally wounded. Of course, the families of casualties have their own issues, as they will have to deal with their changed loved ones who return from extended tours as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF; the Afghanistan theater).

Time does not heal mental wounds

In an article in today's Washington Post, writer Donna George tells of how the images and media reports of our current conflict are causing serious reactions by other veterans, in particular those form the Vietnam War. While the following survey results are not representative, look what one informal poll of vets found:

"PTSD researcher John P. Wilson, who oversaw a small recent survey of 70 veterans -- nearly all from Vietnam -- at Cleveland State University, said 57 percent reported flashbacks after watching reports about the war on television, and almost 46 percent said their sleep was disrupted. Nearly 44 percent said they had fallen into a depression since the war began, and nearly 30 percent said they had sought counseling since combat started in Iraq."

The new generation of vets gets proactive and leverages the media and Net to get support now

While Republican and Democratic politicians display their flag lapel pins and try and prove that they are more supportive of the troops than their political rivals, the veterans themselves know that making it out of a war zone is just the start. Reintegrating with a society after combat is difficult, and it is particularly hard in the US today where most non-military people seem oblivious to the war on days where there is no extreme violence or major loss of American life. But as the casualties continue to mount and the Bush Administration continues to be unable to answer the question of when American troops can come home in large numbers, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans will find it harder to believe that their sacrifice was worth it. They need help and support, and they need to work together to get it.

In the age of the Internet, one of the benefits of technology is the ability to bring together geographically diverse groups of people, such as OIF and OEF veterans living all over the US. One organization out to proactively help veterans was created by veterans. IAVA, or the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, was founded by Paul Rieckhoff, a New York Army National Guard platoon commander who was in Baghdad for almost a year. His new book, Chasing Ghosts, offers a first-hand account of what one particular platoon faced in Iraq. It is not about how the military is infallible and how the soldiers all support the mission of Iraqi democracy and blindly follow the President. But it is not about making love and not war. These are soldiers. They want to do the job right and be supported and appreciated after the fact. The book is about the reality of the mess that is Iraq, and how the experience of being there changed the platoon commander and his men.

Besides being often amazed about what the platoon experienced, such as the lack of batteries for critical equipment, a shortage of vehicles, incompetent or self-absorbed superiors, and the obvious lack of enough troops to effectively control an increasingly out-of-control city, the reader learns about what it was like for Rieckhoff when he finally made it home. Whether it was trying to tackle a mugger in broad daylight when everyone else ignored the criminal, having no one even seem to care there was a war going on, or getting no respect from either of the 2004 Presidential candidates, Rieckhoff paints a bleak story of what a veteran faces from an emotional standpoint.

The good news is that he and many of his fellow vets (and other concerned non-vets) decided to start IAVA. And in a couple of recounted feel good moments, Rieckhoff and the group manage to help some veterans who can't cope on their own -- and who the system is not helping.


Check out IAVA for some more grit on the veteran's situation and mindset 

There's a section on IAVA Web site that everyone should peruse. It lists the top issues the group is trying to address, from the underfunding of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to the impact of depleted uranium munitions on our soldiers to the issue of honoring those killed as part of OIF and OEF. You would think that this list would be seen as an important, no-brainer to do for the Congress and President. Yet, according to these vets, there is a lot more the country should be doing for its returning soldiers.

Biden illustrates why people think Democrats have no spine

On this Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, made a comment that illustrated why Democrats are unable to effectively counter the President and the Republicans and capture the enthusiastic support of the American public. Details from Biden's own biography demonstrate his role and influence in the Senate and the Democratic Party:

" . . . was first elected to the United States Senate in 1972 at the age of twenty-nine and is recognized as one of the nation’s most powerful and influential voices on foreign relations, terrorism, drug policy, and crime prevention."

"As the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee . . ."

Given those credentials, what he says about the President and the Administration's policies says a lot about how Democrats view, or at least how they want to be publicly seen, on various issues. On the show, host Bob Schieffer asked Biden, "Some Democrats are saying that every Democrat has to say that this war was a mistake. Do you think it was a mistake? If they're going to run for president." Biden's response, according to the transcript, was:

"No. No, I don't think every Democrat has to say it was a mistake. It was right to give the president the authority we gave him. It was wrong to assume that he was going to know how to handle it. Look, there's nobody out there, including the president now, that talks about having conducted this war properly."

And that is really the problem with the Democrat's position. Saying it was correct to authorize the President to take action on Iraq, without even a comment about how the voting was influenced by pre-war intelligence that was bad and/or purposely filtered for a pro-War slant, demonstrates that Biden, a leading Democrat, seems afraid to take a real stand.

With hindsight and knowledge of the accuracy of the pre-war intelligence, Congressional authorization would most likely have failed to pass, or at least would have been much more watered down in its final form. And the American public, when fed continuous mental images of mushroom clouds on US soil by Cheney and Rice, among others, would not have initially supported the war in the way they did.

Until leading Democrats offer an aggressive alternative vision and until they are willing to take the heat for that position -- for example, being labeled soft on terrorism or told that they are running from the enemy -- they can only hope to take back the House, Senate, or the Presidency by default or luck. With such a weak position on the War, the Democratic Party is prime to be beaten again by the Republicans promoting social issues, such as gay marriage and flag burning, that have kept many voters from voting Democratic.

It's tough to put all the blame for the current state of the US on the Administration and Republicans. Why? Because two of the most important institutions, the opposition political party and the mainstream media, seem incapable or afraid of doing their job.

Does America == The Bush Administration policies and actions?

By law and tradition, the President, no matter how much or little he wins by in electoral terms, is the leader of the United States and of all Americans. But when President Bush continually says that "America" wants to do something, is he being honest?

To understand the point of this question, we should look at the recent Presidential elections results and current polls to see if America really is behind the President and his policies. This is not an effort to reopen old arguments about the validity of recent elections. Rather, the point is to analyze who the President can realistically claim to speak for.


The 2000 and 2004 results: A sliver of a mandate

The 2000 election was marked by the hanging chad debacle in Florida and the intervention of the Supreme Court. Bush won with 271 Electoral College votes to Gore's 266 (see the official results at the FEC). 270 out of 538 electoral votes were needed to win, and Florida was worth 25. In terms of the popular vote, Bush received 50,456,002 actual votes, or 47.87%, while Gore received 50,999,897 votes, or 48.38% of those cast. Because of the way the Presidential system works, the electoral votes trumped the popular vote and Bush became President on January 20, 2001.

In 2004, the results were slightly more favorable for Bush (the FEC official results can be found here). Again, 270 electoral votes out of 538 were needed to win. Bush secured 286, while Kerry managed 251 (with one vote given to Edwards). In the popular vote, Bush received 62,040,610 votes, or 50.73% of the population, while Kerry received 59,028,444 votes, or 48.27% of those cast. This time, Ohio and its 20 electoral votes was the pivotal state.

In 2000, the disputed Florida popular vote was unbelievably close. In the final official tally, Bush received 2,912,790 votes; Gore received 2,912,253. The difference was just 537 votes, or .009% of all the popular votes cast for Bush and Gore.

In Ohio in 2004, the vote was once again close. Bush received 2,859,768 votes in the state to Kerry's 2,741,167 votes. So while this time the overall national popular vote was won by Bush, the electoral vote was decided by only 118,601 votes, or 2.117% of the votes cast for the two candidates.

In 2000 or 2004, Bush could hardly claim much of a mandate. A huge percentage of Americans obvioulsy did not want him as their leader.


With low polls, does Bush speak for even less of America now?

According to a June 16th CNN Poll, Bush does not have tremendous support from Americans. Results of the poll included that:

• 37% approve of his job as President. The question, posed to 1,017 US adults during a telephone survey on June 14th and 15th, was, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president?" 53% said they "disapprove."
  
  
• 39% approve of his Iraq efforts. The same respondents were asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" 54% answered "disapprove."

Despite these numbers, Bush continually states that "America" or "Americans" wants to do or believe in this or that. For example, during this week's radio address, the President said ("them" is the new Iraqi Prime minister and his team):

"And I told them that America is a nation that keeps its word, and America will stand with them as we work toward our shared goal: a free Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."

"I traveled to Baghdad to personally show our Nation's commitment to a free Iraq, because it is vital for the Iraqi people to know with certainty that America will not abandon them after we have come this far."

It's really the Administration speaking

What makes so many people who oppose various aspects of the Bush Administration frustrated is they feel that its policies, such as allowing torture, ignoring aspects of the Geneva convention, wire tapping citizens without warrants, adding Presidential statements to bills that essentially enable the executive branch to ignore the legislative branch, and conducting an undeclared war (legally, but not rhetorically) without a clear endpoint is undermining the foundation of what has historically made Americans so proud of this nation and what has led others around the planet to look to America as an example.

By claiming the mandate of the people during times of slim electoral wins, and at other times ignoring negative polls, but always claiming the mantle of the "will of America," the President is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Usually, conservatives like to label liberals as do-gooders who think they know more than the common man and who want to impose their view of how the world should work. So it's ironic, when election results and poll numbers show how few people back the President's policies, that he and his supporters continue to claim it is the national will to follow his course -- and if not the will, it's the right thing to do anyway.


Bush is in charge, he's just not speaking for the majority

President Bush is in charge. He won two elections, and he will continue to serve as the President until January of 2009. The point of this post is not to dispute his authority; rather it's to point out the fact that many of his critical views represent a minority of Americans today. And thus, what he is really saying, is that "I, and my supporters" believe in my actions and want to stay the course.

Hopefully, the governments of other nations and citizens can make this sometimes subtle distinction. Yes, the American people elected Bush according to our election laws, and yes, he is legally the head of our government. But that doesn't mean most Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. -- back the President and his actions. As Americans, we need to quit complaining and either support the President by working to keep the House and Senate in Republican control, or try and get one in Democratic hands (control of either one means control of its committees, which in turn means control of investigations, of the ability to move bills out of committee, and of other powerful actions).

While the Congressional elections are statewide and not really a Presidential referendum, if the Democrats can't motivate voters to give Democrats control over the House or Senate, the Democrats will have nothing to complain about. How many times, no matter how narrowly defeated, can a Party whine? Either the Democrats win in the fall of 2006, or all those people against Bush and his agenda need to start a viable third-party without the anchor of the apparently spineless and rudderless Democratic Party machine.

Newcomer Barack is a glimmer of Democratic hope

Despite the screwup and scandals of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, the Democrats have not been able to provide a clear vision of why they want to take over the House or Senate this fall. We know they would like to take one or both over because a majority in either would mean they would have control of the committees, and control means they can investigate all sorts of administration actions and non-actions, such as the pre-Iraq War evidence of WMDs and the legality of activities like the NSA warrantless wire tapping.


A bright spot in an uninspiring Democratic lineup

The Democrat Party fails to excite all but the most Kool-Aid chugging faithful -- those who still think Gore, Ms. Clinton, or Kerry have a chance in the 2008 presidential election. The bulk of Democrats and Independents are tired of the Kennedy, Dean, and other members of the old guard and want new blood with a real vision on where the country should go -- not a vision on how to win by default. What people want is a new star to support.

Currently, the person with the most potential to fill this role is first-term Senator Barack Obama from Illinois. He is most famous for his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention (if you have iTunes, click here for a free, unabridged audio copy of the speech) -- about the only inspiring speech that came out the the "I was in Vietnam" Kerry-fest. The Washington Post had an interesting article on how Barack is now the most requested Democratic speaker, and a key party fund raiser. There is now plenty of talk, particularly by those in the Democratic Party who do now want to see Clinton , Kerry, or Gore take a shot at the presidency in 2008, about printing Obama in '08 bumper stickers.

But what are his real chances? On the positive side, Barack offers:

• No "loser" baggage. While he was a critical speaker at the last DNC Convention, he is not tainted by the failed presidential bids of Gore and Kerry. His speech was praised by many for its clear and refreshing vision. Despite endorsing Kerry, Barack is not seen as a Kerry or Party guy.
  
  
• A vision for the future. While other Democrats seem only capable of criticizing Republicans or being quiet and hoping their rivals continue to shoot themselves in the foot, Barack's speeches are about optimism and embracing a future. He says what many TV and movie President's do and what people want to hear -- not what most real world, poll watching politicians and their staff approve as safe.
  
  
• A confident American success story. He brings up his roots, is self-deprecating when it makes sense, but always proud and confident that his upbringing is a strength. The fact that he doesn't look like a country club clone or millionaire like a Kerry or Edwards is a plus with the jaded public -- at least those who can overlook his skin color.

But what about the downside? When you enter the Presidential fray, things get ugly. Negatives include:

• His ethnicity. It is widely believed that Colin Powell's wife persuaded Colin not to run for President because she feared the popular former General would be killed due to his skin color. In 1960, it was a big deal for JFK to run, given that he was a Catholic. Can Barack overcome the fears, outright hatred, and masked dislike of a portion of Americans who don't think a person of color (or his specific color) should run the nation. No doubt, if he does run, there will be an ugly display of racism by some of those who oppose his candidacy.
  
  Hopefully, even if the mainstream media is reluctant, the bloggers of the global Net will uncover any who attempt to do this and ridicule and vilify them. Most likely, opposing candidates will steer clear of any direct attacks or, at most, rely on Swift Boat type support groups to plant seeds of doubt and stoke the fires of fear.
  
  
• His lack of executive experience. Recently, it seems like only governors or ex-VPs can win the Oval office. For example, Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all governors, while Bush I was a VP. Of these past Presidents, only Bush I had any foreign policy experience, but they each had an aura of leadership that comes with running a state. On the other hand, candidates from Congress have the problem of their entire voting and debating history being on record. The good news for Obama, is he has not accumulated years of votes that will enable the opposition to go after him on specific issues.

One thing he has going for him is that he is a well known Democrat, thanks to his 2004 speech. Being well-known is not critical for candidates. For example, who, outside of his home state, knew much about Bill Clinton before he became a front runner? But given his lack of baggage, the publicity will only help.


Too much to hope for: A Barack and Republican version of Barack for 2008

What could dash the enthusiasm for Barack? If he was chosen as a VP for another Democrat. Despite all his positives, he would be held hostage to the flip-flopping and poll following of all the major candidates. What the Democrats need is a candidate with a strong will and vision. If Barack runs, he needs to be at the top of the ticket. In reality, for the sake of the country, the Republicans need the same type of candidate.

2008 will be a great time for America is both parties manage to find intelligent, charismatic visionairies who are willing to run for the Presidency. Then, the voters can ignore distracting and marginal issues like gay marriage and concentrate on the most important things that face this country, such as our military involvement in the world in general and Iraq in particular and the re-definition of American rights in the age of global terrorists and digital technology.

Today's Iraq war vote illustrates how politics is about power, not right or wrong

Mr. Smith, Jimmy Stewart's do-good movie politician, had a tough time in Washington in 1939, and he would once again be both amazed and ashamed today at how and why our Congressmen and Senators do what they do. The ongoing war in Iraq is an incredibly important issue, not just in geopolitical terms, but in terms of the lives and health of the soldiers, contractors, and civilians directly in harms way (the Pentagon reported yesterday the 2,500th US death in Operation Iraqi Freedom as part of its continuously updated casualty report; 18,490 have been wounded in action so far, although almost 10,000 of those returned to duty within three days).

Instead of trying to figure out how to keep more soldiers from getting killed, wounded, stop-lossed, and separated from their family, Republicans rammed through some votes on the Hill with the idea of forcing Democrats to support the war, or appear as if they didn't support the troops. Democrats, as usual, did nothing much to make them look like a viable alternative.


The House Resolution says we will prevail and we won't leave

Today's House resolution, "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary," passed by a vote of 256-153. The resolution is short, but here are some highlights:

• We will win: "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror..."
  
  
• Saddam was helping terrorists: "Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions..."
  
  
• The mission is a happy, safe Iraq: "Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors..."
  
  
• No withdrawal schedule to be set: "... declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq..."
  
  
• We (the US) will win no matter what: "... declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq..."

Why is this such a political jerk around? Because read the words above... It focuses on prevailing, as if wanting to and doing it is possible just by will alone (see the Vietnam War). To that effect, the resolution sounds like a self-affirming, pump you up speech before the big game. And those speeches mean little when the teams hit the field.

In addition, the Resolution states the same thing the President has -- namely that the US won't give up until we "prevail" and that we will see through the "completion of this mission." If everyone would be just honest for a minute, what's the chance of "a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq" in the next couple of years? Sovereign, sure. Free is a tough one to define and audit. Secure is a long way off -- just read accounts of the soldiers in the field. And united -- will that happen in the next 25 years with Shia, Sunni, Kurds, and others killing each other or trying to disadvantage each other? Not likely at all, or at least by US standards.


The Senate forced a vote on withdrawal the day before

With a public support boost from the confirmed killing of top Iraqi terrorist and leader of al-Qaida, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Republicans rushed to get the Democrats on the record for voting on the Iraq War. This strategy is aimed at the Fall Congressional elections, which the Republicans are hoping to win enough of to retain control of Congress. If not, the Democrats will gain committee control of the House or Senate and will be able to open investigations into topics, such as the OIF's initial justification, the competency of the OIF after-battle plan, the Plame identity leak, and the warrantless tapping of US citizen communications.

The Senate's Thursday vote was on an amendment titled, "To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit." The vote was to table this effort, effectively saying that there will be no immediate withdrawal. The tally was 93-6 in favor of tabling it.


Making a complex issue black and white, yeah or nay

Criticizing the Congress for its two recent Iraq votes seems to point all blame at the Republicans, and surely they deserve a heaping portion as they continue to disrespect the troops, their families, and the rest of America by creating false choices between only victory or defeat; by claiming we area at war while never having declared war; and by providing no benchmarks to gauge when or how victory can be achieved.

But Democrats deserve almost as much scorn. They seem more worried about not losing the Fall mid-term elections than they do standing up for principles. How pathetic is it when the Democratic Party, told that a fast ball is coming down the center of the plate, chooses not to swing lest they get out?

In the end, both parties are failing the US and the world at large. Selfless service in Congress is a joke, despite what we teach our kids. Republican or Democrat -- they are all about getting power and keeping it. Congress loves to honor the troops, yet Congressmen are not willing to jump on any political grenade and sacrifice themselves for the sake of the country or soldiers. There is no honor on the Hill. And that's a shame, since there is so much dedication, devotion, and risking taking by our troops facing daily dangers and separated from their families for much longer than many were led to beleive.

Hopefully, either some current Senators or Representatives will finally get it, and do what is right for the country, or a new bread of jaded, pissed off Americans flying the political colors of a third-party and espousing an idealistic, yet realistic, common sense philosophy will come to the fore. And there is no doubt that a portion of that third-party flag should be in the latest digital camouflage pattern of our armed forces, as they are bearing the brunt of fallout from the actions from our spineless, self-centered officials.

Let's hope -- and support -- that new breed. Republicans and Democrats have proven time and again they are bad for America and Americans.