Filibusters and Failure

This isn't going to end well. In case anyone had any doubts about the FUBAR status of the US intervention in Iraq, this week should have put all questions to rest.

The Democratically-controlled Senate set out a few weeks ago to put its members to a vote on the Iraq war, with a non-binding resolution pointed at the issue of the president's proposed "surge” of 21,500 soldiers into Iraq. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV, shown at left), the majority leader, spear-headed the toothless legislation presumably to rub President Bush's nose in the stink of his unpopular surge because it is in direct contradiction to the Iraq Study Group's recommendation as well as the requests of many recently fired military commanders.

The problem was that the resolution had strong language stating that Bush's plan went against “the national interest”, and many Republicans, although they are on record as opposing the troop surge, followed Ronald Reagan's 11^th Commandment that one should not speak ill of a fellow Republican, and were unwilling to sign such a strong condemnation of the president.

Which brings us to Senators Warner (R-VA) and Hagel (R-NE), who along with more moderate Democrats, crafted a watered down resolution which left out the nasty words about “national interest.” Unfortunately, when the bill came up for debate these same Republicans joined their colleagues and voted inexplicably to filibuster their own resolution. Odd? Perhaps, but you're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

The Democrats are barely hanging onto the Senate majority, with their 51^st Senator still in rehab from his cerebral hemorrhage several weeks ago, so apparently only meaningless debates will ever take place. This slim margin is hardly wide enough to fend off any filibuster by even the most conciliatory Republican minority on even the most noncontroversial bill. The Senate is functionally deadlocked.

Every bipartisan group opposes any escalation of the Iraq war, the US public bends 70% against sending more troops into the grinder--- yet the Democratically controlled Senate cannot even pass a simple non-binding resolution stating as much.

And to think that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) wants to go even further and actually end the war! Good luck with that, sir.

We are getting a clearer picture of the (lack of) outcome every day. The president has dithered for 46 months on securing the occupation of Iraq. His administration has consistently presented a pollyannish appraisal at every juncture: in regards to the level of violence, the costs of war, the political fortitude of the Iraqis and now the ability of a troop surge to solve the problems. Bush's surge ain't gonna work and we all know it, but we have to let it play out anyway.

The added problem is that the Senate dithers as much as the president. Bush's stated goal is to kick this can down the road to let the next president solve Iraq; he's said as much. Troop surges are designed to prolong the military phase of the war because Bush has been incapable and unwilling to pursue the political, diplomatic and economic aspects of the war. That heavy lifting is just too hard for our tyro leader.

Bush has pissed off every diplomatic ally we have, with even Great Britain pulling out of Iraq. NATO has been asking for more troops and materiel for Afghanistan, but the US has none to spare. The sectarian political landscape in Iraq looks grimmer every day with violence and heartache passing the break point of any potential conciliation between the factions. And economically Iraq is in shambles with their most highly educated folks refugeed in Jordan and Syria and the infrastructure destroyed.

The President can't run the war and the Democrats are unable to stop it. As the region spirals into chaos nobody can stop the bleeding.

Letter to the Editor

Here is my recently published letter to the editor of my local newspaper, the Kalamazoo Gazette, in response to their editorial on President Bush and the Iraq War. It's just my latest version of screaming into the wilderness which is the editorial board of the Gazette:

`Spite' was wrong issue to focus on

January 23, 2007

Your recent editorial, ``Don't cut military funding to spite Bush,'' is one of the most obtuse opinion pieces I've read on the Iraq war. With so much mayhem produced by Bush's failed Iraq policy, with so many Americans and Iraqis killed and maimed unnecessarily, it is inconceivable for a responsible journalistic board to come up with such a fatuous thesis.

I've heard nobody call for cutting war revenue in order to ``spite'' Bush. On the contrary, Bush has received a bipartisan blank check up to this point and has done nothing constructive with such unrestrained power. It's about time someone, at least, counted the pennies spent.

Bush's ``new strategy'' has been roundly criticized by Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, hawks and doves, and it stands in complete contrast to what was recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

You state that a funding cut would ``send a terrible message to U.S. troops.'' Perhaps you should pay more attention to the ``terrible message'' sent by a commander-in-chief who has made one wrong decision after another in the prosecution of this ill-conceived war.

You should think more critically about the president's proposal and less about the political machinations of a frustrated Congress and public who have generously supported Bush with their blood and treasure.

If you agree with Bush's latest iteration of a plan for Iraq, then make the case, but don't berate the loyal opposition who are (finally) doing the responsible job of governance. And please don't assign assumed motives such as ``spite.''

Of course, the Kalamazoo Gazette is the same newspaper that endorsed Bush in 2004 after disagreeing with almost every policy supported by his administration, so dissonant editorials have become commonplace.

Signed.

Option 4: The Heavy Lifting that Didn't Happen

I've been thinking about the old joke about the man going into the service station for directions and the man behind behind the counter says, “You can't get there from here.”

Thus, I'll discuss Option 4. To form a free, peaceful and democratic society in Iraq the necessary components may be lacking. As House has wisely surmised, they would have stumbled on a democratic system by now if they were so inclined.

The US mission in Iraq has inexorably creeped from a search for Weapons of Mass Destruction into a nation-building exercise that was destined for failure from the outset. The military won a decided victory over Saddam's Republican Guard within days and US led inspection teams ruled out the expected stockpiles of biochemical weapons within a few weeks, and everyone knew that Iraq never had nuclear capabilities.

So now we are entrenched militarily in a region that is increasingly unstable and no discernible realistic goal has been put forth. A comprehensive solution would have entailed political, diplomatic and economic phases in addition to the military phase. Unfortunately (an appropriate term in reference to Iraq), the time to have begun the political, diplomatic and economic parts of the plan was either before or during the military phase. Can we expect our diplomatic allies to sign on to the mission now? Can we expect the warring factions within Iraq to come to the table for a political solution as was done in Dayton? Can we expect the economy of Iraq to be self-sufficient any time soon? Hardly on all three accounts.

Having said that, I'll present the plan put forth by Michael O'Hanlon (at right) and Edward Joseph from the Brookings Institution who are calling for a partition, or federalization, of Iraq as was done in the Balkans in the 1990's. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and others have called for similar partition plans as well. Obviously, these regions are different enough to obviate direct correlations between their solutions. Also, the Iraq war has been so mismanaged for so long that the chances of a peaceful outcome are vanishingly small.

O'Hanlon recognizes that Iraq, like the Balkans, consists of distinct subregions dominated by ethnic and/or religious majorities. These subregions should be allowed to exist in semi-autonomous states with self-rule based on their unique characteristics. Unlike Bosnia, however, Iraq has an economy welded to the delivery of one thing-- oil-- and that for a successful economic plan, collusion among the sectarian factions in Iraq must take place to exploit the export of oil in order to benefit all the players. Without a political truce among the factions, the economy of Iraq will falter.

Unfortunately (yes that word is used a lot in relation to Iraq), the circumstances in Iraq have not ever been amenable to a peaceful coexistence between Shi'a, Sunni and Kurds. Only with a dictatorial ruler has there been enough order to keep the oil flowing. Scowcroft and Poppy Bush were wise enough to know that in 1991, thus they allowed Saddam to stay in power after Gulf War I. And if the machinations of full scale diplomatic, political, economic and military nation-building were to occur, the work necessary should have been done in advance and by an administration more competent than the current one. Failure was predetermined in 2003.

O'Hanlon, however, believes that we could attempt a political solution even at this late date by bringing the major players together, Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd, for a summit to iron out differences and come to some accord, as was done in Dayton. So far, however, no inkling of such a gambit has ever been put forth. Furthermore, strong militia leaders such Moqtada al-Sadr and perhaps even al Qaeda leaders would demand to be at the table, which of course would be a nonstarter and could kybosh any deal. Sadr's militia reportedly numbers 60,000 and is fully armed.

In order to increase the slim chance of lasting success for O'Hanlon's political plan, a diplomatic phase would need to be instituted among our allies which would necessarily include UN, NATO and especially Arab states such as Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Having a true multinational force in place to keep the peace for the long haul would do wonders to instill a sense stability and commitment to the educated moderate citizens in the region. Unfortunately (there's that word again), many of the educated and productive moderate Iraqis have left in the continuing refugee migration of 1000 people per day. This brain drain will have lasting negative consequences on the social development of Iraq for generations to come. And with Great Britain reducing their presence to 4500 from 7000, chances of increasing an allied presence in the Iraq quagmire is zero.

My point in the previous discussion of Option III was that if, as Bush is determined to do, we are to entertain a purely military solution to Iraq, and ignore our allies' opinions, and pay for it by ourselves, then we had better have a big freakin' army. Only by having a huge overwhelming military presence to institute martial law for perhaps a decade can we have any hope of making up for the deficiencies of the political, economic and diplomatic parts of the plan. And nobody would be able to guarantee that even then we would be successful. In short, the 21,500 planned by Bush is way too little and way too late.

I admit that going through these perverse mental gymnastics is pointless. Bush will do what Bush will do as Decider-in-Chief, and it will likely make no rational sense. To speak of “solutions” in Iraq is specious. I'm also safe in that there is no way I will be proven wrong since Bush is unlikely to engage in the heavy lifting needed to institute anything so sensible as a comprehensive plan as Clinton had done in Bosnia, and the American people are wise enough to eschew any military draft for Bush in Iraq.

WSJ: Hack Journalism

The Wall Street Journal's (subscription) editorial Monday follows many of the themes covered by my latest “diatribe”, with one glaring deficiency, which is that they fail to arrive at a conclusive remedy.

They call for a "Heaver Footprint" in Iraq:

President Bush is set to announce his new strategy for Iraq this week, and the early signs are that it will include both more American and Iraqi troops to improve security, especially in Baghdad. We think the American people will support the effort, as long as Mr. Bush treats this like the all-in proposition it deserves to be.

So now after the Republicans have lost both houses of congress, Bush is going to unveil his fourth or fifth “plan for success.” Has he attempted to garner support from congressional leaders, from foreign allies, from high ranking advisors or members of the Iraq Survey Group for his "new strategy"? Has Bush done the behind the scenes wrangling necessary to make his case, or is he going to simply make another lame proclamation to all of us unwashed masses and then expect us to cheer our great leader?

If the stakes in Iraq are as great as Mr. Bush says -- and we believe they are -- then he should commit whatever forces are needed to achieve success. The public's support for the Iraq campaign is waning, in major part because the casualties and expense have been producing no visible progress.

No mention is made of Bush's responsibility in squandering the support of the public and congress these past four years. If I were the WSJ opinion editor and had backed Bush during this deadly dithering, I would be irate at this point. Where is the outrage? When Bush's latest “plan” fails, WSJ will be the first to blame the “waning public support” or the Democratic congress, but never the Commander-in-Chief.

A better message is that he will do whatever it takes to reinforce the forces of moderation and democracy in Iraq to prevent a defeat that would empower American enemies in Iraq and in the war on terror. And his strategy is best framed as providing the forces necessary to protect the population that most military experts believe is the key to successful counterinsurgency.

Ahhh, yes, the plaintive plea to “do whatever it takes.” And what, pray tell, could that be? More troops? OK, then how many? And from where will they come?

The most glaring deficiency of the Wall Street Journal piece is the lack of a concrete remedy, which according to Journalism 101, is requisite for any opinion piece. The WSJ is negligent to point out the problems in Iraq and not conclude that more soldiers-- many more soldiers-- are needed, and have been needed for a long time, to “prevent defeat.”

The 800 lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to recognize is that, if we choose to continue this war, we need to institute a draft. Go heavy or go home. And by going home, we will have abrogated our responsibilities to “buy what we break” in Iraq.

The tragedy nearly four years after the fall of Saddam is that such a strategy has never been tried. The consequences of failure in Iraq are too great not to try it now, before it really is too late.

Notice the passive tense: strategies are tried. Those pesky strategies just don't behave themselves. Never mind holding the ersatz strategist accountable.

And when, pray tell, will it be “really too late.” When your son or daughter is required to put on a uniform?

Bush has three options: pull-out altogether, add 20K to 40K soldiers, or institute a draft and add up to 250K soldiers immediately, as Gen Shinseki and others had advocated in 2003. Following his usual pattern, however, Bush most likely will do the worst of all three options and adopt some version of the McCain plan which is add just enough soldiers to kick this can down the road for another 6 months. And that number-- 20K, 30K-- has been determined by how many troops are available rather than how many are needed.

Option III: Win this Stinking War

I never liked this war. From the beginning I was part of the vocal minority that said it was wrong and it would not serve our interests. Many friends and family members were either quietly acquiescent or engagingly supportive of the war, but I find nobody now in support of continuing Bush's policies. I will present a responsible plan-- the only plan-- to win the war in Iraq.

Iraq is not Vietnam. It's leagues worse mainly because of its geopolitical importance. I respect Cindy Sheehan and have had the honor to meet her and shake her hand in recognition of her grief and the sacrifice of her son for my perceived safety. I am thankful that she has been calling attention to the failures of the president, and doing so all the while taking heat from opponents and grieving a terrible loss. She is a special lady. But I disagree with the current anti-war movement which is calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I may be alone, but I believe that we have a moral imperative to fix the problem we created. It's a bummer being part of a representative democracy, but as such we have to take the bad with the good, and the current bad is that we are responsible for our leaders' mistakes.

In previous columns, I have presented two options in Iraq: the McCain Plan of adding 20-40,000 more troops in an effort to “win” the war and the Hagel and Murtha Plan to pull out in a “phased redeployment”, which has also been given tacit approval by a number of military leaders.

Today I'll provide a plan that I have not heard before, but one that was inspired by listening and reading realist foreign policy thinkers, notably Lt Col Brent Scowcroft, previous National Security Advisor under George H.W. Bush, Dennis Ross who served under Poppy Bush and Clinton, Kenneth Pollack from the Brookings Institution , Sen Joe Biden (D-DE), and the infamous Henry Kissinger as well as other stalwarts from the Cold War era.

Granted, I have no idea if Pollack, Biden, Ross and Scowcroft would have any agreement with my plan; I only contend that this plan is inspired by their thoughts. None of these men has ever broached any type of comprehensive strategy as far as I know.

Option III is to really win the war in Iraq. Losing Iraq and watching it devolve into lawless theocratic enclaves is simply not an option. Unlike Vietnam and Korea, Iraq has significant natural resources that are integral to the world's economy. Failure in this war would not only limit exports from Iraq, but would also destabilize other oil producing nations in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Furthermore, abdication of our responsibility in the plight of Iraq and Iraqis would signal to our other allies that we have neither the will nor the ability to follow through on our endeavors. The ramifications of losing Iraq are daunting and would affect every level of our culture and security for generations.

Many on the left have bemoaned the lack of a realistic goal for “victory” in Iraq. Nonsense. The goal is to have a stable government that exports oil. Period. The astute observer would then ask, you mean like Iraq had under Saddam Hussein? The answer is yes, but we can't go back to that model mainly because Saddam was executed last week. Neither could we put in power a puppet “Shah of Iraq” at this juncture with so much attention focused on US involvement. Ahhhh, the 1950's and 1990's were such simpler times. So now we must do the heavy lifting of nurturing some type of representative government(s) in Iraq either as a single federal republic or a combination of states based on sectarian or ethnic preferences.

The plan I propose is to treat Iraq like it was Bosnia writ large. In many ways the regions are similar in that they are marked by sectarian strife, porous borders and historically have been ruled by strongmen. The difference is that Iraq is now much less stable than the Balkans ever were, and Iraq's neighborhood is the largest supplier of crude oil, which runs the world's economies. Many naysayers castigated the Clinton administration for getting involved in Bosnia and Yugoslavia, and many predicted a Vietnam-like quagmire at the time. If the Balkans can be quelled, peaceably occupied and self-governed, then perhaps Iraq could as well. The difference has been the US' inept involvement in the destabilization of Iraq, and the completely incompetent diplomatic, political and military conduct of the Iraq war versus the near-perfect execution of the Bosnian and Yugoslavian war plans.

Is it too late to turn Iraq around? I don't know, but if there is any hope, then the way to do it is simple (although not easy.) Simply put, overwhelming military presence enjoined by astute diplomacy and followed by economic exploitation of the region's assets. While I have real doubts about the current administration being able to perform on all these fronts, I will present my solution as a best case scenario.

Go heavy or go home. The problem with the McCain Plan is that 20,000 troops are not nearly enough-- too little too late would spell disaster. Due to Cheney's dithering, we are left with at best one more shot to get this right, and to send too few troops would be disastrous, just as it was in 2003. Is it possible to send too many soldiers?

To keep order in the Balkans, it currently takes about one armed guard for every 50 citizens, which would translate to about 150,000 soldiers in Baghdad proper. Given that the city has been allowed to become an armed guerrilla camp over the past 40 months, I would add 50,000 to that number to get a total 200,000 US soldiers to patrol Baghdad streets. Currently we have about 90,000 plus 65,000 inadequately trained Iraqi soldiers who are often an impediment to the peace. Therefore, we would have to immediately add 110,000 US soldiers into Baghdad in order to institute marshal law and establish the peace.

Outside of Baghdad and Anbar province, the outlying areas are relatively peaceful and would require a less dense military support, perhaps 100,000 for a troop strength needed as an occupying force of approximately 300,000.

Border security and forces needed to train Iraqi's would equal another 100,000 troops, for a grand total of 400,000 men and women active in theater. We currently have 140,000 in country, not including the multinational force in Afghanistan. For that many active soldiers, a total US military of perhaps 2.5 million from our current 1 million would be required.

Nothing is to say that all these soldiers would need to be American. Many of the border and training duties could be taken over immediately by the UN and NATO peacekeepers and preferably a strong presence from Muslim nations such as Turkey and Egypt. Unfortunately, our diplomatic standing under Bush's leadership is so poor that garnering help, even for non-combat positions, would be a challenge. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, we should plan on bearing the brunt of the military duties.

The US military would need to grow by at least 200% in the immediate future. If this seems daunting, then we should remember that in World War II, with the US population one-third of today's, we fielded a similarly numbered military that fought in two separate theaters in deadly battles such as Iwo Jima where 20,000 men were lost in a week's time. Most of these men and women were trained in a very short time frame after the December 7, 1941 surprise attack. Can it be done? Yes, if we have the resolve and leadership to institute a draft.

Like World War II, taxes need to be raised, every able man and woman who is military aged needs to be in uniform, industries would need to be diverted to the war effort, the citizens have to be involved. A real war effort requires sacrifice by every facet of society and 400,000 soldiers in country. The Bush twins and Pierce Bush in uniform would be a great start. I have no idea what President Bush will present this week as his latest “plan”, but if it is anything short of complete national mobilization, then we need to impeach him, convict him and jail him for high crimes against humanity, gross negligence and perhaps mental instability endangering our national interest. I may be alone, but as a citizen I believe it's our duty to our nation and the world.

A majority of Americans were inexplicably supportive of the Iraq war in the beginning, but support was strong even after the facts became apparent that our president had cherry-picked intelligence and was careless in his strategy. The public sentiment turned south only when we realized that our leaders decided to lose the war. I say “decided” very carefully, but that is what I mean. They did not choose the strategy and tactics that would have led to success. The Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force was ignored. The forethought of establishing order and securing borders was lacking. As Republican Senator Gordon Smith recently opined, the negligence “may be criminal.” I would subtract the “may be.”

I find it odd that many Bush supporters and those who acquiesced to the Iraq war on either moral or pragmatic concerns are now quick to relinquish their support. This show isn't interesting anymore, so let's simply change the channel? And by “acquiesce” I mean anyone who either voted for Bush in 2000 or 2004 or failed to vote against him in 2004 when his incompetence was clearly apparent. He is our president, and whether you agree with him or not, whether you voted for him or not, we are all responsible for his actions. Although I have never agreed with Bush or his war, and certainly would never have voted for him, I realize that we have a moral imperative to attempt the establishment of order in Iraq (and Afghanistan) going forward.

If we walk away from Iraq, then what? We go on with our lives as if nothing happened? We buy our plasma TV's, vacation in Mexico and turn off CNN when they report the Cambodia-style bloodletting in Iraq? Then what? Brent Scowcroft, who does not have a reputation as being especially alarmist, argues that losing Iraq would destabilize the entire region, particularly Saudi Arabia's and Kuwait's tenuous oligarchies and “probably we'd see $200 per barrel oil.” Such a high oil price does not simply mean that we all drive Civics and wear fluffy sweaters, it means that the entire world's economy comes to a screeching halt. Screeching. In our lifetime, we have never seen a real worldwide economic collapse, of which the Great Depression would be a mild example. Wars, dirty bombs, unabated pestilence, gnashing of teeth, etc, etc are all real possibilities.

True, we could have avoided the war in Iraq and put the $400 billion toward alternative energy technology and homeland security, but we chose not to. True, we could have promoted democratic transitions in more stable allies like Qatar, Bahrain, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, but we chose not to. True, we could have corrected the historic injustices perpetrated on Palestinians by us and our chief ally, but we chose not to. Instead we chose to sheepishly follow our maladroit leaders into this unfortunate Iraq escapade. And then we re-elected the numbskull.

The primary problem with the Iraq war is that it was started in the first place. The problem with Option III is that it was not done four years ago, as General Shinseki and other military thinkers had presented at the time. If this had been instituted in 2003, we likely would not be having this dire discussion, and loud-mouthed critics like me would have been silenced. If we had a president that could strategize war, inspire confidence among our allies and unite the American people, then perhaps we wouldn't be having this dire discussion. The current problem is that we are 4 years into a losing war, the American people are inattentive to any talk of further escalation and our leadership continues to be stunningly inept.

Nobody is reminding the American people that losing Iraq has real consequences... lasting worldwide consequences. And we need to get over this silliness that goals are unattainable in Iraq. Democrat, Republican, Red state, Blue state, Activist, Inattentive... we need to (finally) do the heavy lifting-- ALL of us. In short, we need to grow up. But will we?

Bush is our president, our responsibility is to clean up his mess. But will we?

Madam Speaker

It's a big deal. But it's not really a big deal. For the first time a woman is a heartbeat and a defibrillator malfunction away from being President of the USA.

Women have earned the highest jobs within governments and business throughout the world and the United States remains one of the few developed countries that has not had a woman chief executive. I mean if Pakistan can do it, why can't we?

I have no idea what kind of job Nancy Pelosi will do as Speaker of the House. I have no idea where she will rank among her predecessors Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Tom Foley, Tip O'Neil and Sam Rayburn. She may present an agenda of unifying reforms and responsible accountability or she may take bribes and kickbacks and divide the citizenry with demagoguery. Only time will tell.

But I do know one thing: her job will not be easier because of her gender. Unnecessary comments will be made about her attire, her hairstyle and her make-up. Missteps or weakness will be attributed to something as irrelevant as her chromosomal configuration. Strengths will not.

Whenever such a hurdle is jumped, the hurdler later recounts the pressure that was sensed and the encumbrances that were met. From Rosa Parks and Jackie Robinson to Madeleine Albright and Sally Ride, the first person through a particular gate pays a certain price. These other pioneers were capable, talented and honorable persons who overcame obstacles that were artificially burdensome. Like these other pioneers, Ms. Pelosi is specially qualified for the charge and will serve with distinction.

Serving as chief resident more than a decade ago, I remember walking through a surgical ward with a female attending several years my senior and asking her advice on the management of a particularly ill patient. On three separate occasions we were interrupted by patients or family members asking for nursing help or food service or hygiene care or some such thing. On each occasion the female physician stopped and politely directed the person to the proper nursing or clerical personnel. After the third incident, it occurred to me that this never happened when I was alone or with another male doctor. These people, either consciously or not, viewed a female in the hospital differently, even even one who wore an identical white coat, beeper and stethoscope that I did.

The point is that our culture has not evolved past these stereotypes about gender, and this failure is at our peril. As the first female US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright famously reported that when she went overseas to meet with patriarchal Third-World leaders, she always looked back to the airplane as she disembarked to read the United States of America on the side of the plane. This reminded her that she was not alone, she was representing the greatest nation in the world.

As Speaker Pelosi leads us forward, she has a daunting job. So much has gone wrong in our federal government these past several years that deft leadership is necessary especially now. Her gender is no guarantee of success or failure.

Her job will not be made easier because of her gender. But I'm one proud American who is thankful that Nancy Pelosi is Madam Speaker...

because she's the best person for the job.

Rocky Balboa

The iconic underdog is back, but more accurately, he never left. Nobody alive today does not relate to Rocky somewhere deep in their soul. If you feel that Rocky is not part of you, then you are not tapping into your feeling center.

Critics will point out that the acting is coarse, the storyline is strained, the scenes are contrived and the dialogue is hazardous (“You're a fighter, Rocky, so... fight.”) The gloomy cold cityscapes of Philadelphia and the gloomy sweaty gym scenes are preambled with forty-five minutes of Rocky gloomily pining at Adrian's grave and gloomily bemoaning his poor relationship with his estranged son.

Rocky Balboa's miasmatic gloom serves as the motif of everyman's reticent suffering. The struggles of our imperfect relationships, our waning motivation, our losses, our physical aging. All beings suffer, and Rocky shows us how.

The worst thing to do would be to cogitate too much about Rocky Balboa-- it's a gut movie, a feeling movie. Intellect is great when trying to solve foreign policy crises, but for the 100 minutes of watching Rocky, turn off the brain and let the heart (or as Rocky would say, “the basement”) take wing. Be a gut player. It's the right time to do it.

The nuts and bolts of the movie are as sinewy as Stallone's ageless biceps: Rocky's wistful devotion to his deceased wife, his concern for his son and family, and the compassion he shows to strangers and former rivals as well as an unkempt stray dog. These gritty themes are necessary to see and feel once in a while.

Rocky traverses the valley of fear and survives the dark night of a ten round battle against the heavyweight champion. “I feel better than I thought,” the bloodied Rocky says at one point during the fight. In the end, the broken and bruised Rocky is again redeemed, the perpetual archetype of salvation.

Polishing Rocky Balboa, the man or the movie, would certainly be ruinous. The infrastructure is pure unvarnished granite, and it's beauty never gets old.

Quiet Please, Terrorists at Work

Keeping tabs on the Iraq war takes its toll, both in time and in soul-sucking anguish. The events that currently take place on a daily basis, from Baghdad car-bombs to verbal dissembling by our leaders, rise to a higher level of outrage with each passing day. I lack the available hours as well as the fortitude to dwell on these issues, but I feel compelled to add a few thoughts.

I'll just give a sample of the bullshit we endure. From the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. military officials and diplomats want Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states to recognize Maliki government, send ambassadors to Baghdad and forgive more than $40 billion in Iraqi debt. Among Sunni states, only Egypt has sent an ambassador, and he was assassinated.

The problem: Most Arab states, an official says, “see the current government as…an Iranian stooge.”

How can Condi Rice approach the Arab world with a straight face and ask for their economic aid in Iraq? Condi lecturing Arab states to “do the right thing” is like The Donald judging whether some beauty queen bimbo would make a good role model for our teens. On a human level I am embarrassed for Rice, but as a citizen who pays her salary, I am frothing in disgust.

Or, how about this tidbit? Washington Post:

Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is: We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 24 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

“An interesting construct” indeed. Friends and family of mine who voted for Bush never mention their thoughts on the president these days. I have made a point to refrain from talking politics on any level just to see if the subject will be broached. It never is. No intellectual discussion of nascent democracy, no talk of “just war” theory, no long diatribes on our vulnerability to terror. The constant drone of death in our names quietly continues. Honestly, I long for those care-free days when the nominal conservatives had the time and energy to fill my email box with Clinton blow-job jokes and Hillary cartoons.

Where is the outrage? New York Times:

First there was the “mission accomplished” banner. Then, last year, there was a “plan for victory” and, just this past October, the presidential assertion, “Absolutely, we’re winning.” Now that President Bush is seeking “a new way forward” in Iraq, he is embracing a new verbal construction to describe progress there: “We’re not winning. We’re not losing.”

“We're not winning. We're not losing?” Somebody actually said this? The president actually said this? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs actually said this? I wasn't quite conscious during the lies of Vietnam, but I cannot imagine that BS being any deeper than what we hear today.

The sad part is that over 30% of the American people still believe Bush is doing a good job as president. I'm not sure Bush even believes that anymore. The other sad part is that previous Bush supporters have checked out. Their attention has been diverted away from the insoluble problem of Iraq and onto other fatuous concerns, like whether to buy a Wii or a Playstation, which plasma TV is the best, or whether the stock market is too risky to add capital.

These past 70 months, my confidence in our nation and our political system has been rocked. Never would I have imagined that a meathead like Bush would be elected twice, and then his supporters completely ignore the disaster that has become his presidency.

The question, and one I'll never get an adequate answer to, is why anybody would have voted for Bush/ Cheney in the first place, but especially in 2004 when it had become abundantly clear that Bush is a pernicious imbecile and that Cheney is a psychopath. What possible motivation would compel someone to vote for these guys? What policy was so important that they needed to spend four more years in office? What fear was so great that Al Gore or John Kerry, both decent honorable and intelligent men, weren't satisfactory candidates? The Supreme Court? Tax cuts? Abortion? Gay marriage? Gun rights? What?

My feeling is that anyone who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 may have been misguided, but anyone who voted for him 2004 did nothing less than commit "citizenship malpractice." They should think long and hard about why they cast their ballot; they should ask friends and families to help them work this through; they should perhaps seek counseling. Above all, anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 should refrain from casting any more ballots in any election for any office until they have figured out exactly how on earth they could have made such a huge blunder.

I'm not being too dramatic when I say that when I realize what my country has done in my name, it breaks my heart. No matter the stated intention-- to bring democracy, to save the Iraqis from Saddam, to protect us from WMD's and terrorism-- the Iraq war is a fool's errand perpetrated by a fool, a fool that we knowingly elected and re-elected. We are all responsible. We are all murderers. We are all incompetent. Blaming Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice is the easy way out; we all should have known better. Democrats should have been more skeptical, the media should have been more questioning, opponents should have been more vocal, I should have been more eloquent in my castigation.

The days that my blog remains empty are not to be construed as days that my conscience is not troubled by the virulence inflicted by my country. My heart aches daily.

Jimmy unleashes the fury

The newest book to land on the nightstand is former President Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, his review and assessment of the Arab-Israel conflict beginning with his tenure up to the present day. I have perused the introduction but have not made much headway through the tome.

In today's Washington Post, Kenneth W. Stein, a professor at Emory University and former Carter Center scholar, offers the expected rebuke of Carter's conclusion about the occupation of Palestinian land by armed Israelis. Carter maintains that such occupation, a term that even Ariel Sharon has used, is not only counter-productive but unlawful. Stein voices the usual concerns about Israeli security, only he peppers his opinion with uncorroborated accusations about Carter's ethics and motivations. Criticism of Israel always demands a hefty toll and requires a thick skin.

The United Nation Security Council has issued no less than 65 resolutions, most of which have been been vetoed with the US' and Israel's sole dissenting votes, that take issue with Israel's handling of Palestine. To be sure, Palestinian leadership has been lacking, but their job has been made more impossible by the increasing bloodshed and economic strife these past six years. Material support of Mahmoud Abbas may do wonders for increasing Arab support of US interests elsewhere in the region.

We hear little of the US' role in the Levant these days, other than our Secretary of State cheering on the Israeli Army's push through southern Lebanon with some twisted reasoning that Iran backing Hezbollah somehow justifies the US' proxy military killing hundreds and displacing thousands of civilians and destroying a billion dollars worth of property. Other than that, we hear no serious movement, only passing presidential rhetoric, towards a two-state solution in Palestine and Israel.

Does this have relevance? You bet. No less pertinent body than the Iraq Study Group has re-iterated moderate Arab pleas for more positive intervention by the US to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. All rational quarters know that without peace and justice in Israel, there will never be hope for peace anywhere in the Arab or Persian spheres, and the geopolitical implications of an unstable southern Asia are indeed grave, to our economy and the welfare of the entire planet.

Predictable criticism will be forthcoming from Israel apologists who are concerned that justice in the Middle East is somehow zero-sum and who feel that any gains by the Palestinians will be at the expense of Israel's safety. Carter will certainly be vilified for his recent historical polemic, as he was as president for engaging the Palestinians and recognizing that severe injustices have been thrust upon them over the past 60 years. Carter's voice is a welcome respite from the inanities coming out of Washington these past six years, and arguably, it is in lockstep with the realist surmise of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

I'll finish Carter's tome one of these days in the not too distant future, and unfortunately I can wait because it's relevance is unlikely to wane anytime soon. I'm sure Carter suffers no delusion that he possesses the Rosetta stone to Middle East peace, but he certainly recognizes that stemming violence is always the first step to approaching reconciliation. Let's take the first step.

BREAKING: Iraq is a mess

Well, the much awaited Iraq Study Group Report has come out. Seventy-nine recommendations for the president and congress.

“The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.”- ISG Report, 2006

The conclusion of the ISG, as well as the newly appointed Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is that the Bush policy has been a failure. No kidding.

I have one favor to ask. Can someone please explain to me what the point of electing Bush was?

Every single optimistic comment the president made these last two years has been shown to be pure bullshit.

I have to agree with Pat Buchanan that “the entire establishment of the federal government has failed this nation, just as they did in Vietnam.” The ISG recommendations are flawed because they 1) are too numerous to institute in a timely fashion and 2) are often unrealistic, such as expecting that a ragtag group of Iraqi police will be able to quell violence that the US military can't.

I agree with Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) who noted that the ISG is flawed because not one of the members of the group were opponents of the Iraq war from the beginning.


I agree with President Bush that there is "no easy exit." It may not be easy, but we do need to exit. It's useless to review all the "what ifs" of securing borders, training Iraqis, preventing looting, refraining from torture... We lost.

Whether we stay or go, we are screwed, and our allies will be killed. We can't stay because we are losing. We can't pull out because we'll leave chaos and even more death and destruction. We can't increase our troop numbers because we don't have enough soldiers, and even if we did, we don't have an endpoint.

“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” -- John Kerry, 1972.

It took 10 people from both parties a total of 8 months and over 200 interviews of generals, congresscritters and strategists to figure this out? Some of us knew this years ago.

Bush is a failure.

But then, Bush has been a failure his entire life, so who would expect something different this time?

Shame on Bush. Shame on anyone who voted for him-- you should have known better.

Iraq Quagmire: Option 2

We are still awaiting the report from the Iraq Study Group which will presumably give President Bush detailed instructions on how to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. In the previous post we reviewed the McCain option of adding more troops to the Iraq war in an effort to stabilize the region. We also noted that the venerable Senator did not give us a clue from what source these extra troops would come.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Vietnam veteran, represents the opposing stance, that we should “redeploy” our armed forces, in other words pull out and allow the Iraqis to sink or swim. We have seen Bush dither as the situation has devolved in stepwise fashion on his watch.

Here's a blurb from Chuck Hagel's op-ed from this past weekend:

"The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government...

[snip]

The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month.

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission [aka, ISG] gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead. “

This is basically the position that Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), a decorated combat veteran, had taken several months ago for which he was called a “coward” by Rep Jean Schmidt (R-OH); and this is the option which the president, vice-president, RNC Director Ken Mehlman, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove and other chickenhawks have labeled "cut and run." And the list of experts that have taken the public wrath of the administration is impressive:

• Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said in May 2006, "I think that the United States should soon begin its process of redeployment."

• Former National Security Agency director and retired Lt. Gen. William E. Odom wrote in the May/June 2006 issue of Foreign Policy, "America must withdraw now."

• Retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. and retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns wrote in November 2005, "There may well be some negative consequences as a result of withdrawing of U.S. troops, but fewer, we believe, than if we continue on the present course. Ultimately, the United States will be stronger if we leave the quagmire that is Iraq to resolution by its own citizens."

• In a November 2005 interview, retired Army general William Nash said, "This is not a situation of figuring out the perfect solution. So I am one who believes strongly that our presence is now a detriment to our achieving our goals. As a consequence, I would say we need to be looking for excuses to withdraw, not for reasons to stay.

• On October 18, Richard L. Armitage, who served [in the Bush administration] as deputy secretary of state from 2001 until 2005, expressed his support for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

And the Dailykos gives more detractors:

"Add to that list former Senator McGovern and William Polk, who in their new book Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now propose starting withdrawal this year, with a complete withdrawal completed by mid-2007. Oh, and add Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, who called for a withdrawal of troops after the election in 2005 (with complete withdrawal in 2007). Add Barry R. Posen, director of the security studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (who argued in January for a complete withdrawal within 18 months). Add former senior counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke. And add Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. In his op-ed, Carpenter calls for a withdrawal beginning today."

The tsunami of public opinion is engulfing the administration and the only option will be to pursue a “phased redeployment.” The facts on the ground have dictated this eventuality for over a year, and probably two, but the president has dithered away every opportunity to do the right thing. Mr. Bush has broken our military, the nation of Iraq and our international credibility. He has been directly responsible for the deaths or mutilation of hundreds of thousands of people, and that number will surely triple after we leave Iraq.

Unlike Vietnam, the loss of Iraq has significant geopolitical ramifications because 40% of the world's oil comes from the region, but also because neighboring Iran will be strengthened politically and economically by a Shia Iraq, and not least, a failed state in Iraq would surely give terrorist jihadists the perfect training ground.

Next post, we'll discuss what else Bush can destroy in his remaining 24 months.

Iraq Quagmire: Option I

The Iraq Study Group is busily putting the finishing touches on their final report that is supposedly going to save Boy Bush's hide and his presidency. Usually when such a council is set up it is purely for political cover, in other words the president has already decided on “the plan”, and the expert panel is merely configured to add credibility to “the plan.” In this case, however, I don't think Bush is pursuing the panel's advice for the expediency of political cover. I believe Bush really doesn't know what to do. We'll help him consider his options.

George W. Bush deserves our compassion. Seeing him recently meeting with Vietnamese leaders I was struck by how vulnerable and pathetic he looked. His hair grayer, his brow more furrowed, Bush did not seem to have the same irrepressible joviality. He apparently saw no irony in bluntly stating that Iraq is no Vietnam while being entertained in a beautifully manicured palace in the heart of Hanoi. He's right, Iraq is leagues worse.

What to do in Iraq? There are really only two courses to consider: Go heavy, or go home. The American people are weary of this debacle and the president has been derelict in his duty of planning and fighting this war. The time for making this decision is years late. Be that as it may, when the ISG comes out with their recommendations, the president should not expect a silver bullet. There is none, and none will be forthcoming.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has recently taken the Barry Goldwater stance that the USA has a responsibility to the people of Iraq and we should fulfill this obligation by sending more troops in an overwhelming effort to achieve stability. Of course, he conveniently never puts a number on that additional force, but I'm sure it would need to be in the hundreds of thousands. From McCain's recent op-ed:

“We must be honest about the war in Iraq. Without additional combat forces we will not win. We must clear and hold insurgent strongholds, provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies, arrest sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias, train the Iraqi army, and embed American personnel in weak and often corrupt Iraqi police units. We need to do all these things if we are to succeed. And we will need more troops to do them.

They will not be easy to find. We should have begun to increase significantly the size of the Army and Marine Corps the day after 9/11. But we did not. So we must turn again to those Americans and their families who have already sacrificed so much in this cause. That is a very hard thing to do. But if we intend to win, then we must.

It is not fair or easy to look a soldier in the eye and tell him he must shoulder a rifle again and risk his life in a third tour in Iraq. As troubling as it is, I can ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq. And he will go, not happily perhaps, but he will go because he and his comrades are the first patriots among us. But I can only ask him if I share his commitment to victory.”

On one level, I share McCain's sentiment that the Iraqi people deserve our forthright attempt at achieving a livable resolution to the conflict that we started. The question McCain never answers is what it would take to send the necessary troops. The troop levels in Iraq (I'm not even considering the Afghan disaster) have ranged from 125K earlier this year to approximately 145K now after the president canceled the tour leaves of several thousand Marines, National Guard and Army troops. We know this isn't enough to fulfill McCain's plan. The current military has approximately 1 million men and women, of which 1/5 can be deployed at any given time. To get the requisite 400K combat ready soldiers to make up an overwhelming contingent, we would need 2 million active duty. In effect, we would need to double the size of the military immediately, and that would also mean immense outlays for equipment.

Where can McCain get troops? We have already lowered recruitment standards, paid unprecedented sign-on bonuses, and canceled honorable discharges in order to keep men and women in uniform. McCain has no words of advice, except to “ask a young Marine to go back to Iraq.” McCain doesn't answer how many will say, “No, thank you” and how many times will he need to ask that “young Marine” again and again?

In the reality-based world, the only way to acquire enough soldiers to put 400K into Iraq is to dust off the military draft. Indeed, the draft. Literally millions of young men have already signed up for conscription, we already have their names, and the president only has to get the computer to spit out a few hundred thousand random birth dates, and voila! We have a huge frickin' Army. Instantly.

If McCain's stance is actually agreed upon, as long as we are indulging our fantasies, I would add one more recommendation: the only fair thing to do would be to first ask anyone under 30 years-old who voted for Bush in 2004 to do the responsible thing, the patriotic thing, the moral thing. They should be asked to enlist voluntarily and take infantry assignments. If they believe in this war, then we should give them the opportunity to walk the walk.

After all, what would be fair in drafting those who may have voted against this radical administration in the first place? Send them to war? No way. George W. Bush has saved us all from the dreaded weapons of mass destruction, he has bravely rescued Iraq from Saddam, and now our "crusade" has hit a few bumps in the road. Sen McCain is generously offering a solution-- and the very least these young Republicans can do is offer to serve.

Next post, we'll discuss the traitors who want to “cut and run.”

Subpoenas: the time has come

To re-iterate the cliche, this election was a referendum on George W. Bush's policies. With the Democrats wresting control of the House by two dozen seats, I think it's safe to say the people have spoken. Mr. President, this is what “a mandate” really looks like.

The Senate at this moment is undecided. James Webb and Macaca Allen are in a dead heat, which begs the question, how deranged do you have to be to vote for George Allen over Jim Webb? The fact that Allen got 12 million votes boggles my mind. Who are these people?

Starting in January, the Democrat House has a lot of work to do. The Iraq policy must be changed in the most immediate way. Fiscal responsibility needs to be re-instituted. Immigration, education, health care and the Medicare drug boondoggle, habeas corpus and the torture bill, energy policy and foreign oil use, stem cells, taxes and the deficit: the neglect on these important issues has crippled us for decades. Nancy Pelosi, while not necessarily my favorite legislator, is so much better than what the Republican had to offer that we have cause for hope.

For me, this election is about something bigger. Something more fundamental. This election is about subpoena power. This administration is the most corrupt and secretive in memory. The cynicism of Nixon's White House has been institutionalized and perfected under Bush and Cheney. Nobody puts it better than Billmon:

-- the collectivized bribery of the K Street Project, the Abramoff casino extortion ring, the Defense and CIA appropriation scams, the Iraq War contracting scams, the Pacific Island sex trade protection racket, the church pulpits doubling as ward halls, the illegal wiretapping, the lies, perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame case (I really could go on like this all day) -- and it's clear that what we need most isn't a new Congress but a new RICO prosecution, with lots of defendents and unindicted co-conspirators.

There's probably not much that can be done on that score, even if the Dems take both houses of Congress today. Oversight hearings and subpoenas to appear are all well and good, but what we really need to see is a heap of good old-fashioned law enforcement. I want to see the Rovians testifying in courtrooms, not hearing rooms.

Only by gaining access to documents and testimony under oath can the the American people learn how the government's power has been used. No-bid contracts, Pentagon spending corruption, misuse of military personnel are all now open for inspection. Let the sun shine in.

The Democrats will have 24 months, a virtual sprint, to get the process rolling. Nothing would warm the cockles of my heart more than seeing Turd Blossom Rove, Darth Cheney and Incurious George sweating it out in House hearings trying to explain what the hell they have been doing the past 6 years. I'd really like to know.

A Lot of Kids Left Behind

Kids are at risk.

I know this topic is not nearly as appetizing as Shrub missing Senator Kerry's poorly delivered joke, or the Republican leadership ignoring a congressman's harassment of an underage intern, or a meth-crazed Evangelical pastor playing hide the salami with a male prostitute. And of course in our popular press every topic is framed around the obligatory question “How will this affect Republican voters on Tuesday?”**

The larger issue is how much damage GW will do before he gets his ass continuously subpoenaed over the next two years (as we can only hope.)

Kids are at risk. Make no mistake.

I know this topic will get lost among all the juicy news of yet another Republican hypocrite getting male tail on the sly, but it's just too emblematic of the cognitive dissonance within the White House, even with all this red meat out there to be devoured.

Reuters is reporting that the administration has revised the Medicaid policy to withhold coverage for children born to illegal aliens unless their parents make formal application.

New federal rules deem babies born in the United States to poor illegal immigrant parents no longer automatically qualify for Medicaid health coverage, a policy some doctors worry might deprive these newborns of vital preventive care.

As with most Bush policies, I have no idea the purpose of this mandate. Like the Medicare drug plan, Social Security privatization, reducing dividend taxes, and many many other ideas, this one is just plain inexplicable.

The babies are American citizens by virtue of being born in the United States, even if their parents are in the country illegally.

Medicaid is a joint state-federal government health insurance program for low-income people. Previously, a child born in the United States was deemed automatically eligible for Medicaid for a year after the mother got emergency care under Medicaid for the birth.

"Since the mothers are illegal immigrants, they are not very likely to go to the Medicaid office to enroll their children because they're worried that they're going to get caught and deported," said Dr. John Lewy, a senior official with the American Academy of Pediatrics and retired pediatrician.

"The children are getting trapped by this," Lewy added.

So, Bush is instituting a draconian policy that puts the most vulnerable citizens at risk. Instead of defending our borders to keep illegals out; instead of enforcing laws to catch employers who hire illegals, Bush puts obstacles to care for babies who are eligible for necessary and cost-effective preventive care.

Dr. Rick Kellerman, a family doctor in Wichita, Kansas and president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said as a result of the policy, parents of these babies might not get them preventive care and early intervention for illness.

Because such care reduces the likelihood of major medical problems that are costly to treat, the policy might become hugely expensive for federal and state governments, Kellerman said.

The leaders of the two physician groups who care for children understand the challenges associated with care of poor and defenseless kids. Preventive care has been shown to reduce chronic illness and suffering on a human level, and reduce cost of care on an economic level. Bush's policy is not only inhumane but financially foolish. Surprised? Don't be. Just look at almost any other mandate or project that has come out of the White House-- from the Iraq war to the fight against embryonic stem cell funding: inhumane and costly.

Kids are at risk.

The administration lackeys at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have tried to defend this lame policy by stating that they know of no child who has been refused care because of this mandate. Of course, they are missing the chilling nuance which is provided by Dr. Lewy:

"I don't think there will be evidence that they're denied care. What I think is that they're not seeking care."

Duh! As a taxpayer as well as a physician, I have some appreciation that our nation faces the daunting enterprise of providing increasingly expensive health care to an ever more populous underclass. That's a tough nut, no doubt, but this is not the answer. Public Health 101 clearly states the the most cost-effective measures any community can institute are 1) clean water, 2) sewage management and 3) vaccinations. Even the poorest Third World countries make every attempt to provide these basic aspects of health care to their citizens, but our government is going to withhold one of the most treasured parts of our child care: vaccinations, among other preventive care and anticipatory guidance.

Kids are at risk. And I'm not even getting into the more nuanced topics of “herd immunity” which protects all of us, nutrition, proper use of car seats, prevention of accidents, emergency notification procedures and all the other benefits that these small citizens would have by being plugged into the medical care system from the start.

Why would GWB sign on to such a dangerously negligent policy? Does he think he will coerce the illegals to take their kids-- US citizens-- back to Mexico or Honduras? Does he believe that the few dollars saved by delaying these vaccinations and other services is cost-effective? Does he think that the illegal parents will somehow find the cash to enroll in private insurance to avoid this bureaucratic snafu? Or is Bush just stupid?

For the life of me I cannot see the purpose of this policy. A more sane policy would be to do the opposite: provide the very best medical care for these young citizens. Lavish them with Cadillac care in order to ensure that they grow up healthy and able. Provide parents with needed transportation to bring these tiny American citizens to the doctor. Make every attempt to increase the interaction these poor and often uneducated parents have with health professionals.

Am I a bleeding heart liberal? Hardly. I'm just being plain selfish. These kids are US citizens, so they aren't going anywhere. It's in our best interest they make it to adulthood in one piece, and don't infect our families with rubella or pertussis on the way...

After all, these diapered little citizens are the ones who will be caring for us when we are diapered senior citizens.

[**How the hell should I know?!! I have no idea how anyone could possibly even consider voting Republican on Tuesday, or any other day for that matter. If the Democrats don't win at least the House, then I know in my heart that Diebold delivered this election to save Chicken George and Darth Cheney from impeachment.]