Friday News Dump-- Pat Tillman Edition

Since this is a late entry, I'll make it brief. Late last Friday the Pentagon, under cover of the night, released the official report on the cover-up of the friendly fire killing of Corporal Pat Tillman in Afghanistan.

As we all may remember, Tillman gave up a lucrative NFL career to volunteer for the Special Forces after September 11, 2001. He turned down cushy recruiting duties that the military offered him in order to out himself in harm's way for his country. Tillman trained and deployed and was subsequently killed in action accidentally by his own comrades.

Cpl. Tillman's family was paid back with a series of orchestrated lies by senior Pentagon brass. The cause of death was purposefully obfuscated until after a televised memorial service for Tillman two weeks after his death. Upon learning of the cover-up, his irate mother noted that such abhorrent behavior was done for “patriotic” reasons.

The most recent report notes that three investigations into the friendly fire incident were mishandled and up to half a dozen Army Generals, including John Abizaid, lied about the incident. The truth was known about Tillman's killing within 24 hours of the unfortunate incident, but the Generals made a concerted effort to dissemble and mislead.

Tillman's father said:

"After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this. They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. [T]hey realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."

Tillman's mother said:

"It makes you feel like you're losing your mind in a way. You imagine things. When you don't know the truth, certain details can be blown out of proportion. The truth may be painful, but it's the truth. You start to contrive all these scenarios that could have taken place because they just kept lying. If you feel you're being lied to, you can never put it to rest."

Mistakes happen, especially in war; most people understand that. Family members deserve the respect and humanity to be given the truth about such things at the time of their discovery. Conveniently, the Pentagon found “no criminal negligence” in neither the incident nor the several cover-ups which followed.

I'll throw one more thought out there: George W. Bush, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, is famous for watching SportsCenter every night, and the coverage of Pat Tillman's death on that show was ceaseless for months after his death. At some point Bush must have thought for one second, “I wonder how that guy died.” Controversy surrounding Tillman's death was almost immediate because he was a football hero and celebrity. Bush must have had access to reports and the Generals involved. Bush had said that “Pat Tillman was an inspiration both on and off the football field.”.

Did Bush never ask how Tillman died? If this is how we treat a celebrity, heaven help the poor working class folks. Atrocious.

UPDATE 3-27-07:

The Tillman family has issued a statement regarding the Pentagon report and is calling for Congressional hearings.

"The briefing we just received was shamefully unacceptable," the family said in a statement issued from their home in San Jose, where Pat Tillman grew up. "Our family is therefore compelled to continue our (pursuit of) the full truth about the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death and the so-called 'missteps' and 'deficiencies' of Pat's unit, the Army, the Department of Defense, and this administration."

I'm sure that will provide terrific publicity for future military recruitment.

Friday News Dump-- Gone-zales Edition

First in this week's series of the Friday News Dump is the convenient late-night release of records that puts future former Attorney General Abu Gonzales in a meeting that decided the fate of the fired US attorneys. Unfortunately this puts a lie to the previous claim that the AG, AG, was not part of the process.

On March 13th, the Goner had said: “But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.” He went on to whine that there are “110,000 employees” of the Justice Department and he cannot know all the decisions being made, as if he was out of the loop in the firing of the eight US attorneys. Firing US attorneys has the same priority, I suppose, as terminating a DOJ cleaning lady or any of the other “110,000 employees” for sloppy dusting or serving spoiled lunchmeat.

Laughable at the time he said it, now shown to be an outright lie. The recent document dump plainly puts AG at a meeting of Justice Dep't principals as they hashed out the plan to fire the US attorneys for political reasons, and even discussed the rationales conjured for canning them. And they wonder why the Congressional Judiciary Chairmen are insisting on testimony under oath.

The documents surfaced just hours after [Gonzales' “resigned” Chief of Staff D. Kyle] Sampson (pictured at right), through his lawyer, reached an agreement to testify about the firings before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. He resigned from the department last week.

If these US attorneys all serve at the “pleasure of the president” (I'll leave any further imagery of that statement to the Rude Pundit), then why manufacture all this bullshit? Just fire 'em and move on. Remember the noise over Clinton firing a bunch of clerks in the Travel Office? In the end this recent flap is an internal Republican affair since the attorneys themselves, all Bush appointees, are the ones claiming injustice at their firings. By the way, when the movie of this episode is made, Jason Alexander--i.e., George Costanza from Seinfeld-- will of course be cast as Sampson.

The US attorneys' claims are critical because, if true, they put an unhealthy political (nay, criminal) spin to the conduct of the Justice Department. The president is not allowed to selectively terminate attorneys who refuse to attack his cronies' political opponents or attorneys who refuse to participate in other partisan shenanigans. The president gets to appoint them, but we all pay their salaries and they are charged with defending our Constitution.

Rover, Darth Cheney and Dumbya plotting to let this out on Friday night is further evidence of the disdain they have for the public's attention span. By Monday morning this will all be forgotten.

War Over Subpoenas

A while ago this column noted that the new transfer of power in Congress was all about subpoenas, and 75 days into the new Congress this is now coming true. Instead of coming clean about the US attorney firing flap, the Bush White House has engaged in a obvious cover-up and now has claimed “executive privilege” instead of testifying to the American people, i.e., Congress. On the 34^th anniversary of John Dean's famous quote about the Nixon White House having a stain, the Bush White House is showing its own stain.

The rule of law in this country dictates that the truth will come out eventually and President Bush is the decider on whether his cronies do this voluntarily or not. Subpoenas and testimony under oath are the tools we use to achieve justice in this great nation, and this particular issue begs for such justice.

The White House has vowed to be forthcoming with all information, yet the emails they recently furnished have a three-week gap from November to December 2006. Does anyone remember Rosemary Wood? Tony Snow, the White House spokesmodel, has said that the President will fight subpoenas, but does not cite any valid precedent. In fact, 31 of President Clinton's aides testified under oath in response to Congressional subpoenas issued by the Republican Congress, and for issues a lot less germane than a president fiddling with the Justice Department.

In case you missed the Watergate drama, stayed tuned and heat up the popcorn, because this has all the makings of a re-run. Maybe after this one, you'll understand why we should have learned these lessons 35 years ago.

Free Fall

Depressing. Look, nobody had been more vehemently against the election of George W. Bush as President. I knew he was trouble and I still cannot fathom how he could have fooled so many people through two elections. But even I did not see this coming, the rank incompetence, the utter disregard for law or ethics, the damage that will take decades to repair if it can even be fixed. My duty as citizen is being tested to even watch this train wreck anymore. Even Bush doesn't seem to give a damn. Here's the run down:

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby was convicted on 4 of 5 counts including obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI and 2 counts of perjury. One juror remarked that the jury wondered why Libby was on trial and not other higher ranking officials, such as Rove and Cheney. This is really a story about the Iraq war and the cherry picked intelligence to justify the war. Libby was the salesman and fall guy. If the war had been a success, US Attorney Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, most likely would still have pursued this suit because it was not politically motivated and was based on legal facts.

Will Bush pardon Libby? You bet he will. If Poppy Bush could pardon the Iran-Contra criminal Cap Weinberger to protect his own ass, you know Dubya will do the same. Besides, as the Rude Pundit has said, prison would be unduly hard for a man named “Scooter.”

The next story entails the war that was falsely justified by Libby's boss. Nine more soldiers were killed yesterday in explosions. Bombings also killed over 140 civilians attending a Shi'ite pilgrimage. Ho-hum, just another day in our quaint little Occupied Territory. Bush's “surge” is in force-- and fully funded-- yet the security of Baghdad seems unchanged, and we are in the 2nd month of the most recent 6 month Friedman Unit that Bush has given himself. Is it working? Huh, who would have guessed?

The third story is about eight US Attorneys who were fired around the elections in 2006 for apparent political reasons. David Iglesias, the US attorney for the district of New Mexico, and Bush appointee, claims that various Republican congressmen had pressured him about pending indictments against Democrats, and when they these indictments were not filed before the November elections, Iglesias was fired. While it may be difficult to prove a cause and effect relationship in these cases, and the Iglesias case is a classic he said- he said without corroborating circumstantial evidence, the allegations are pretty damning. The fact that these eight attorneys were Bush appointees as well as the timing of the firings adds to the credibility of charges. To fire that many US attorneys is unprecedented in the middle of a presidential term.

Finally, we have Walter Reed and the Veterans' Administration Hospitals being investigated for substandard conditions and an unwieldy bureaucracy. The story is emblematic of the Bush administration's lack of preparation for anything related to the Iraq war. Over 30,000 wounded have been removed from the battlefields of Iraq; where did the president think these men and women would go?

Military hospitals and the VA operate under the venue of the Executive Branch and therefore the president bears responsibility. Bush has ordered yet another bipartisan commission to quantify his mistakes, but judging from how he has completely ignored the recommendations from the 9-11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group, I don't see the value. The Senate has been having hearings on the Walter Reed situation, and while they may be criticized for political grandstanding, what should they do, just ignore it like the president has?

As a consequence of these these issues, Bush's approval rating sits at 30%, his all time low, and he has been below 40% longer than any other president in history. Bush is not a victim of partisan sniping and gotchas, rather he has failed at substantive duties of the President due to his own incompetence and laziness. His presidency is in free fall. My question is, who are these 30%?

An Object Lesson from a Wingnut

"There is no teacher but the enemy."-- Gen. Mazer Rackham, Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card.

Victor David Hanson is not my enemy, but he is a tool, and like all tools he has some utility. For the uninitiated, Hanson is the Last Bush Apologist and he writes drivel for the National Review. Today, Hanson has lived out his purpose in showing us that the US' mission in Iraq is indeed lost.

I'll accept the criticism that picking on Victor David Hanson (at left) is too easy, a fool's game. It's true that his columns are usually the most senseless compilations of worn out platitudes and irrational tautologies, but his recent piece represents a wonderful summary of everything wrong with Bush's war and he finishes with a clue to the question of whether Iraq can be saved.

According to Hanson's most recent piece, the reasons that Bush's war has become a disaster have, of course, nothing to do with the miscalculation and ineptness of the Commander-in-Chief, but rather, everything to do with everyone else in the world: NATO, Congress, “Sunni-border nations”, the “European Left” and CNN. Poor George, he didn't get to make war in a vacuum, presumably like FDR and Woodrow Wilson had the luxury of doing during the last century's great wars. Because we all know there was no dissension among the ranks at those times.

Some of us who have opposed the war in Iraq since it's inception have done so not because of a blanket condemnation for force, but rather we oppose the war because of the poor rationalization for the war, the inept diplomacy surrounding the war and the incompetence in the conduct of the war. Hanson forgets that Bush had near-record approval ratings after 9-11 with the vast majority inexplicably never questioning how the administration, the branch of government in charge of protecting our borders from attack, could miss all the warnings during the summer of 2001. Bush was given a free pass and allowed to make war or peace at his discretion. How this may have deterred Bush in the handling of his foreign policy is a mystery to me.

Hanson continues that Bush was held to higher standard in Iraq due to “easy victories” in Grenada, Panama, Serbia, the Gulf War, etc., and Bush was hamstrung because of all the military cuts made during the 1990's. The confused unwashed masses, ie, the 70% of Americans who now oppose the Iraq war, are too unsophisticated to understand that war means casualties and nothing of value is gotten easily. Our Dear Leader is presumably the only one adult enough to have this great wisdom.

Predictably, my view is completely different. Bush got a blank check after 9-11 with an overwhelming mandate to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan and half the Senate Democrats joining to pass the Iraq UN Force Resolution. If anybody downplayed the difficulties in Iraq, I would point to Cheney's assurances of the US being “greeted as liberators”, Wolfowitz calculating that Iraqi revenues would “pay for rebuilding” and Rumsfeld predicting that the war “might last 6 days or 6 weeks, but certainly not 6 months.”

Hanson bemoans the “Orwellian” outcome that in order to get “one person / one vote” in Iraq, we have to allow “Sadr and his epigones” the freedom to kill us. Never mind that Bush's administration decided to disband the Iraqi Army, under-man our occupying force, allow chaos to reign for years after the invasion and leave a power vacuum which naturally has been filled with profligate demagogues such as Sadr, Zarqawi and others. Of course, any other imperial supervisor from Tiberius to Churchill could have predicted the current Mad Max scenario that has resulted.

Hanson and I disagree with how we got to the current situation in Iraq, but we have some agreement on how the future could turn out differently. Although it's a long shot, some semblance of victory could be achieved in Iraq, and Hanson and I agree that the only avenue at this point is through military victory. I would argue that only military solutions remain because Bush has squandered all the other options. We have no real allies left in Iraq to rely on diplomatic assistance. The regional powers have lost confidence in the US' ability to build anything but a failed state. If you were a Saudi prince, would you sign on to the US' caravan at this point? The political factions in Iraq have gained such a foothold that the people of Iraq live in fear rather than hope. The economy of Iraq continues to falter with joblessness and vast emigration of the educated middle class. I see these miseries as leaving only the US military to bail out Iraq.

Hanson seems to agree that the US military is the trump in this game:

Not arguments, rhetoric, pleading, or money right now can save the democracy in Iraq. The U.S. military alone, in the very little remaining time of this spring and summer, can give Iraqis the necessary window of security and confidence to govern and protect themselves, and thereby to allow the donors, peacekeepers, compromises, and conferences to follow.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. If Iraq is to be saved, and that's a huge "if', the US military is all that remains between some type of order and a failed state. Hanson fails to ask, if Bush agrees with this premise, then why is he asking for a mere 21,500 soldiers? If Iraq is the “central front on terror”, then why hasn't the administration fought the war with more conviction? If the West's “way of life” is truly “in jeopardy”, then why hasn't the President been able to convince the European “non-Left” of the importance of the war?

Republican Senator Gordon Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge, as outlined by Bush, has only a one in four chance of succeeding.

I don't have answers for these questions, and obviously neither does Hanson. His final sentence makes it clear to me that the war has indeed been lost. Hanson as the Last Apologist for Bush goes over the edge of reason and engages in science fiction thinking when he finishes his missive with the quaint plea:

“If General Petraeus can bring a quiet to Baghdad, then all the contradictions, mistakes, cheap rhetoric, and politicking of the bleak past will mean nothing in a brighter future.”

Ah, yes, the Indispensible Man Theory of warfare, much like Orson Scott Card's Ender Wiggin, who saved humankind from the Bugger invasion, Gen. Petraeus is the last best hope to save Iraq from itself. IF the good general can “bring quiet to Baghdad”, much like bringing virginity to Anna Nicole; IF only he can do that, THEN all will be good with the world. If only... then, then, then... then "I'll be proven right and all those librul dunderheads will be proven wrong.”

Just as Harry Potter has special wizard powers, Gen Petraeus is somehow uniquely qualified to grasp victory from the jaws of certain defeat. With Hanson invoking the Indispensible Man theory, I'll mark March 2, 2007 as the day we officially lost the Iraq war.

Fred Upton Wakes Up

Good morning, Fred. How are you? Would like some coffee with your bagel shmear? Well, well, you had a nice long sleep. I hope you're rested up....because you have a lot of work to do, sir.

After rubber-stamping the Republican Party's War-A-Palooza over the last several years, my Representative in the House, Fred Upton (R-MI), recently broke ranks with his party and joined Democrats and only17 of 246 Republicans to disapprove of President Bush's decision to send more troops into the Iraq War. Upton decided to do the right thing and join the Democratic leadership to oppose President Bush's “surge.”

In his floor speech, Mr. Upton said that “... [Bush's] surge strategy will fail and only prolong the day that the Iraqis will finally pick up the baton and lead their own government. He continues:

Let's face it, this is a civil war, it is real anarchy. And, in fact, the Iraqis don't want us there. Nearly 80 percent of them in Baghdad say that American troops provoke more violence than they prevent. And those same polls show that Iraqis overwhelmingly want U.S. troops gone within a year. In fact, we know that a majority of both sides, Shia and Sunni, believe that it's okay to kill our troops.

Kudos to Mr. Upton for his (albeit delayed) insight.

I'll take Upton's change of heart at face value, although it reeks of political opportunism to back the president without expressing any serious reservation these last few years, then when the war and his party's Congressional majority is lost, he gets a “Hallaleuah” moment of epiphany.

But, Mr Upton, your work is hardly done. The Cheney administration is made up of recalcitrant warmongers who care little about the authority or advice from the Congress. You have been a large part of the disaster in Iraq merely by your blind acquiescence to your Party's policies. Now, you must summon all your creative powers to bring our soldiers home, and that entails much more than signing on to a non-binding resolution that stinks of political cover.

We'll be watching.

Penn State: Owned

For some reason, I love stories like this. Illinois' basketball team has been struggling all year and are currently on the bubble for an NCAA Tournament bid. We've had some heartbreak in the NCAA last year when all the planets were aligned to run the table.

Last year, Penn State came to Champaign to upset the Illini and spoil their 33-game home winning streak. This year it was payback. Eric Benz, An Illinois junior biology major from Chicago, and a member of the Orange Krush posed as a Penn State alumnus to buy 100 tickets behind the basket in Happy Valley for the recent game. Benz and 100 members of Orange Krush student section, the oldest in college basketball, traveled by 12-hour bus ride and they kept up the ruse of PSU alumni throughout the pre-game.

Once the game started, however, the Nittany blue came off to uncover the proud Illini orange. Justin Weyman, the PennState ticket rep who made the errant sale put it this way:

"I was walking along the concourse and looked down through one of the portals, and I saw them strip off to their orange and start screaming. My stomach just dropped. I knew it was going to be something we would hear about."

The best part of the story is how Eric Benz, the Illinois junior, planned the scheme months in advance by chatting up Weyman last October with Penn State trivia in order to prevent suspicion:

"I'm just a sports nut, especially a college basketball junkie -- which isn't good for my major... And [Weyman] mentioned something about organizing the White Out they were having for the Michigan football game. And I knew about that because I watched the Ohio State-Penn State game two years ago on TV. I was just trying to be friendly." Weyman needed little prompting to sell a block of tickets to 100 fans...

The Illini won handily, buoyed by the presence of the cheering section:

Illinois head coach Bruce Weber recalled an immediate energy boost from his players when they saw the orange block emerge behind the backboard opposite the Penn State Blue Band. [Illinois player Brian] Randle had never seen the Krush so close to the floor.

Now if we can just get a berth to The Show.

Vaccinate the Boys!!!

My modest proposal is to make the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine mandatory for boys and optional for girls. Frankly, I'm hesitant to make the HPV vaccine mandatory for anyone, especially for the first five years of use until unforeseen problems can be studied. My bias is to keep such things optional for all, but if mandatory vaccination is to be instituted, I would argue that boys should be required before girls.

The purpose of any vaccine is multi-fold: 1) it should protect the individual from getting the disease, 2) the vaccine should protect other contacts from potentially getting infected and 3) a vaccine program can serve to completely eliminate a disease from a population, called “herd immunity”. This has been successfully achieved with small pox, a disease not seen in over 30 years.

Most infectious diseases that are managed with vaccines are transmitted from an infected individual to an unsuspecting host through airborne transmission (influenza, measles, chicken pox, etc), or by exchange of bodily fluids directly (hepatitis, HPV, etc).

Of these, HPV is the only one that is solely transmitted through intercourse and has an effective vaccine. Girls and boys can get this with either voluntary or involuntary (in the case of rape) contact. I would argue that since the boys are the population reservoir for the disease, and are the transmitters to girls or other boys, then only boys should be required to get the vaccine. If a girl transmits the virus to a boy or other girl, the receiver would very likely be a willful participant.

I think that the latest plea for girls to be required to get vaccinated is misguided. From a purely epidemiological standpoint, if anyone is required to get the vaccine, it should be the boys since only they transmit the virus onto others unwillingly (#2 above). Girls should be given the option to be vaccinated for their own protection (#1 above) as well as the protection of their partner (#2). Herd immunity (#3) is not an issue so far with HPV since th virus is endemic.

I know someone will broach the idea of a girl seducing a boy or other girl and therefore transmitting the virus to an unsuspecting host. This argument can be made, but it's very weak. There are many more rapists than seductresses.

ADDENDUM: This has been cross-posted over at dailykos, and as expected, the discussion became quite animated. A few clarifications to the above post came up:

1)The main point is that vaccines serve multiple purposes from a public health standpoint, but compulsory vaccination serves only one purpose, namely, to protect unsuspecting and unwilling others from getting infected from the host. Texas, Michigan, Florida, Maryland and other states are considering making the vaccine mandatory for pre-teen girls, and this makes no sense to me when balancing civil liberties with public health.

2) Should girls get vaccinated? Absolutely, if they and their parents choose. Females are unlikely to pass the virus onto an unsuspecting or unwilling person. Unlike diseases transmitted thru airborne droplet nuclei in public places, HPV is transmitted through genital contact in (presumably) private circumstances. The only times HPV would be transmitted unwillingly would be in the case of rape, which almost always is from male to female or male to male. Therefore, if anybody should undergo compulsory vaccination, it should be males.

3) This sounds counter-intuitive and many at dkos had a problem with the concept of vaccinating the population in order to protect a subgroup of the population. The example of German Measles (Rubella) came up. Rubella is a viral illness that is self-limited and very mild or even asymptomatic in adults and kids. Infection in pregnancy, however, can cause birth defects to the developing fetus in utero, and this will often go undetected until birth. Therefore, from a public health standpoint, we try to vaccinate not only all reproductive age women, but also anybody who may come in contact with susceptible pregnant women. That way, even though some pregnant women may be susceptible, their chances of getting Rubella while pregnant becomes vanishing small because everyone else is vaccinated.

Requiem for Chief Illiniwek

After 80 years, the University of Illinois is forcing Chief Illiniwek into retirement. A vocal minority have successfully made the case that the athletic mascot is an insult to the heritage of Native Americans.

Truly, I have no strong opinion on this issue and this blog entry is intended only as a farewell for the memories I had as an undergraduate in Champaign-Urbana. Memorial Stadium and Assembly Hall were at their quietest during the National Anthem and also when the Chief was preparing to enter with his dance at half-time.

I remember nothing but reverence for the Chief during those years, and never considered the mascot anything but a gracious representation of the indigenous heritage of the Prairie State. Personally, I believe the contingent of Native Americans are misguided in their mission of expunging our culture of all such mascots, but that's not for me to decide. Certainly some mascots are disingenuous and disrespectful, with the Washington Redskins nom de sport and the Atlanta Braves' “Tomahawk Chop” coming to mind, but Chief Illiniwek was of a completely different tradition.

“The Chief” has always been revered by Illinois fans and attempts were always made to add authenticity to Native American traditions in a respectful way. The student who portrayed Chief Illiniwek was a talented campus celebrity on the level of the football quarterback or basketball center. His athletic dance routine was sincere, with fans showing affection not derision, and usually clapping along with the music. The dance always ended with a recitation of the Alma Mater.

Maugham said “tradition is a guide and not a jailer” and, for good or naught, the great tradition of Chief Illiniwek has ended. I know I can't begin to understand the misgivings of Native Americans with the display of their culture for our entertainment, no matter how well intended the traditions may be.

But I also know that I'll miss Chief Illiniwek.

Blaming the hammer instead of the carpenter for a bent nail

Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense and former head of the Operation of Special Plans (aka: Ministry of Propaganda), is being raked over the coals by the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by Carl Levin (D-MI), for manufacturing "intelligence" to support the rationale for going to war in Iraq.

At this point most Americans are suffering Iraq fatigue and we may feel that the last thing we need is another re-hash of the ill-fated run up to the war. But in reality, these questions have never been asked until now. Why was a policy wonk, a pencil neck think-tanker like Feith, making up "facts" that linked Al-Qaeda to Saddam, thus whipping us all up into a battle frenzy?

The reason is simple: because the Bush/Cheney administration wanted him to. The OSP was formed for the express purpose of spewing out unadulterated propaganda to support the pre-conceived notion of taking out Saddam. We have a plan, now give us a reason to use it.

These are horrific allegations, but the outcome has been even worse. The bigger question is why this inquiry has taken so long to pursue, and only Bill Frist (R-TN), former Senate majority leader and Pat Roberts (R-KS), former Senate Intelligence Chair, can answer that question.

WWJD?

In pure Christ-like fashion, members of His Coalition continue to bear false witness for apparently political reasons--- and in a polished form of snark, I might add. Roberta Combs, President of CCA, pictured at right, is "condemning" Speaker Nancy Pelosi for “demanding” a military jet to fly her from DC to her district in California.

Too bad Pelosi has done no such thing.

The non-partisan sergent at arms of the House has said that he requested the jet on Pelosi's behalf for security reasons, much the same as had been done for the previous Speaker, Dennis Hastert. The information was “leaked” from the Pentagon and twisted around by a plethora of right-wing nutzoids.

Remarkably, the Christian Coalition of America has continued the canard even after Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary, has called the flap “silly.”

Amen.

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.