In one fell swoop, senator McCain has given up ownership to just about every tactic and strategy that the GOP had in their arsenal.

   This li’l political defect generally takes away the GOP strategy of tying Senator Obama with Joey Resco, and the Chicago housing scandal.

   And playing on the emotionalism of having a downs syndrome baby is living on a very dangerous thin ledge that may win some points in the short run, but cannot be used for any sustained length of time.

   All in all, this was a strange pick at best_ and an out-and-out bizarre pick in the minds of many political junkies out here.

   But if it turns out that Johnny Python’s Flying Circus wins, then the ol’ maverick will prove once again smarter tougher and better than those of us who participate on the sidelines.

Cheers !!!  

Death does not have the last word.

To paraphrase from Alice, this administration just keeps getting “worser and worser.”

The Bush administration has finally found another bit of insulation from the failing overall foreign policy and the disastrous misadventure in Iraq.

Three-Star General, Douglas Lute has said that he would accept the position as White House Implementation Manager for the Wars and Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration suddenly doesn’t want to call him this, but meet our new War Czar.

At least three other generals declined position most notably former top NATO commander retired Marine Gen. John J.  Sheehan.

In an interview last month with the Washington post Sheehan bluntly stated why any such offer would be a tough sell to most generals capable of holding such a position.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," Sheehan said.

 The administration is also said to have tapped retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, for the post. Both said they weren’t interested.

In declining the position, some of the generals have given reasons such as the difficulty dealing with the various administration bureaucracies while at the same time waging active combat.

 But what really comes through between the lines of what they are saying, is this thing was the President’s idea so this thing is the President’s baby, and leading this nation in time of war is the President’s job.

 To complicate the administration’s sticky position on trying to find a manager for the war, is the fact that they have recently been going around charging Congress with trying to be a 535 member Commander in Chief squad, when in reality the President is the only Commander in Chief.

Yet, now it seems our one Commander in Chief wants to delegate further, the awesome responsibilities of performing the duties of the “commander” part in “Commander in Chief.

The most gigantically magnificent enterprise a country can do is to immerse itself into warfare.

Warfare is the one quick way to break men, systems of government and entire nations. One doesn’t enter into it without a full sense of what perils the monster may reap upon both aggressor and defender alike.

Those perils are not the “fog of war” type either. It is a given that once we commit ourselves to war there will be many things that don’t go  according to plan, of course there will be unforeseen problems and tragedies that arise during a war.

No, what we should exercise a healthy dose of reservation for is the very idea of war itself. It is the President who uncorks the bottle of combat and prepares the nation for the idea that we will resolve a given issue with a clash of arms.

The idea of war is the monster.  And it is the President who must bestraddle and come hell or high water ride the tiger until the end of the bloody thing. The monster, once borne, will consume, and show no favor.

A President must know, that power being the ultimate nutrient, is what the war machine craves most. The President must be up to the task of controlling the beast.

People, agencies, companies, armies, any part of the machinery which has direct arteries to the monster, will reach out to whatever power source they can and try and feed the monster. Inexorably the monster will turn and see if the President has the metal, to firmly maintain the reins.

Some have done it well, some, not so well.

While no war is good, some are necessary, in that they are the only reasonable action that can quickly resolve an issue and lead humanity to a better position than before the conflagration.

It is good that we have a system of government that does not allow for unilateral war making in any large-scale manner by the executive branch. It is just as good that in 1947 we decided to not have a Secretary of War any longer, and true to the American ideal created the Secretary of Defense. That one word makes a large difference.

But most importantly, when a sympathetic Congress gives the President an easy road to war, it is incumbent on him or her to self regulate. If the Command chooses the easy path, the spawned beast is theirs to ride.

This President or better yet, this administration was fully willing to ride the beast while the going was good. They even stayed the course when things abroad took a turn for the awful, but they yet had control of Congress.

But now, out there in the cold light of a failing foreign policy, with the people on the home-front firmly against him, and Congress against him and the rest of the world, at best in a state of angry ambivalence towards the United States, President Bush himself wants to shirk the responsibility up staying bestraddled to the war monster.

It is a certainty that war, like no other national engagement, ages a President. It is well that it should.

It should sap every bit of energy from the leader as a testament of the awesome responsibility of sending young men and women toward imminent carnage. 

The gaunt face and sagging eyes should act as testaments to the President’s commitment to warfare.

Recent history shows us that in our heretofore most unpopular war, the one in Southeast Asia, Lyndon Baines Johnson after dragging the country deeper into the quagmire, at least had the commitment to stay in the hot seat.

Even as everything was falling down around him, staff was leaving, the media turned sour, the country turned dovish and the battles abroad were, compounded by the battles for civil rights here at home, the President didn’t pawn off of his responsibility to yet another layer of bureaucracy.

The nation affords every President, a civilian Secretary and the pentagon full of military brass running around implementing his/her will. That should be enough bureaucracy to give him/her the advice and consent that they need yet keep them close enough to what is ultimately their responsibility.

President Johnson knew it was his war to win or lose, and he lost it. Nevertheless, at least he kept the burden of our tragedy upon his shoulders while he was in the White House.

There is not a case known of LBJ trying to insulate himself from the unpopular policies by adding another person to become the face of the Vietnam War.

This President however, with all of his braggadocio talk and cocky swagger, while conservatives ruled the country has tried to unsheathe the compassionate conservative almost as soon as the democrats took the reins of power.

Gone is the brash, arrogant talk by his Attorney General, who at times almost seemed disdainful that the country would challenge his right to administer as he saw fit, while he chipped away at civil liberties. The administration, with the changing of the guard, quickly began the givebacks, and the conciliatory tones.

And the defense minister who the President all but chanted, “hell no he won’t go,” when conservative congress got the boot, the Defense Secretary got the other one.

The “cowboy” Bush gave way to the meek mealy mouthed, “what’s your plan then,” unconfident “Wonder Pet.” A Presidential George Jetson, still crying “Jane, stop this crazy thing !!”

This is the true tragedy of the administration, not merely our folly in Iraq, but the fact that our President lacks the fortitude to remain Commander in Chief, when his chickens are coming home to roost and the world looks to see how our leadership acts when events get the better of the nation.

This adventure was not done for any American idealism, or any modicum of national security. This was a stab at a provocative movement in the Middle East, which the administration thought would have little or no consequences.

This little excursion may yet turn out to be the ultimate undoing of the Presidency and of America’s global leadership.

Moreover, the worst aspects probably haven’t even congealed themselves into an able malignant manifestation of anger against United States, yet.

But, don’t worry, the President is insulated, and it’s no longer his baby.

 

 

 

 

 

In President George W. Bush’s truculent vacillations that run between the incompetency of the Johnson Presidency and the vituperativeness of the Nixon administration, we are truly getting the worst of both. 

Now comes the 21^st century version of Tet.

At the height of a surge in US. troops and while the President was singing the accolades of the administration’s latest strategy, the insurgency rocked American confidence in the war effort by staging a dramatic example that they were far from quashed.

They didn’t have to win the battle, just by staging it. . . . They won!!!

The President lost the confidence of America, thusly America lost the war.

The American people had come to realize, after much effusion of blood, that hearts and minds cannot be won through military efforts.

Unfortunately, the last occurrence of Tet, saw almost five more years of fighting.

 

Will we have to go through that?

Shudder at the thought,everyone, shudder with dread.
 
Are we waiting until the body count ticks up to 58,000?

Truly, this is not a struggle between ideologies, not between conservative or liberal, nor between Muslim and non Muslim. Neither is it between western society and Arabic society.

This is an age old struggle between right and wrong!!!!!

 And what we’re doing is very wrong!

Deja voodoo anyone !

 

 

At what point does the headlong corporate pursuit of efficiency become a gilded societal decollator that tears us apart, piece by lethargic piece.

We are finding out now that Citibank, the world’s largest bank is cutting 17,000 jobs to increase the efficiency and rapidity of it’s profitability.

Well, the not-so rhetorical question now has to be, what is this efficiency they are creating? Do they not see the ghost in the machine, in their race to attain easy profits for themselves and their shareholders?

I highlight that word easy because the secret ingredient to making profits all-the-while strengthening society is a certain amount of inefficiency in the corporate structure. There should be a certain amount of labor intensity to the gaining of wealth. It is advantageous to us all if you put two or three Americans to work in your climb up the billion-dollar Mtn.

I’m the last person in the world to call for governmental uber-regulation or most types of brakes on the free movement of markets. Nevertheless, at a certain point an unencumbered laissez-faire attitude tends to forget about the very components that create it.

Like a good spice, a little tad of inefficiency makes the end product more pleasing to the consumer. The pleasing aroma of employment and thus wealth is the nutrition that helped build this great land.

As long as Citibank remains just a little less efficient, some college kid might just land that dream mail-room job, thus kick starting his career climb for the next 30 years.

 It’s the inefficiencies of some of these large companies that gave the uneducated factory worker enough wealth to put his and her child through college to become the very managers, vice presidents, CEOs of these very companies that are trying to be hyper-efficient.

The quickest way to form a Luddite society is to scare people into thinking our quest for the ultra efficient business model is going to cut them out of meaningful existence in this society.

It would be one thing if this were a struggling sector or  a struggling bank, but in fact, the financial sector of our economy for the last three decades has had lulu numbers in the profits arena.

And Citibank, the biggest of the big . . . is not exactly short on cash?

 

 

From the inane to the insane?! That, my friends, pretty much sums up our immigration issues as it relates to our porous borders.

While the issue is serious, very serious, our actions are very near delusional.

Do we really think that partially walling up the border is a plan that will work? Moreover, is it good marketing for the country? (((I seem to remember a great President uttering a "Tear down that wall," phrase, to great applause.)))

How about our plans for using hundreds if not thousands of unmanned drones, what genius thought up that one? No doubt that he/she was in the midst of full-throttle political
apoptosistic hysteria when he offered this gem of an idea.

Those high priced model airplanes could buzz all about, on a 24-hour basis, snapping glossy 8x10’s of the happy families as they enter the land of “milk and honey.”

I’m sure our residents in our border communities would really be endeared to their country and it’s brilliant planners if we put this doozy of a plan into effect.

And of course, if the illegal aliens get a little too casual and start to pose for family portraits as the planes and their cameras buzz by we could arm the little airplanes and basically have the equivalent of a real live episode of “Combat,” that runs 24 hours a day.

WAIT?!

I’ve got an idea that matches the best that the government has come up with so far.

Get your party hats out and prepare to hail our 51^st and 52^nd state.

That’s right me’s amigos, and you hosers, we should just grab the moose by his tequilas and bring our neighbors into the national patchwork and we’ll have solved the problem.

Mexico first, let's make 'em feel important, patronize ‘em, and just to prove we’re not patronizing our southern brothers, we’ll bring in Canada. What, aren't there only about 57 of them left, up there?

Although, we should probably leave Quebec because those folks speak funny and are cranky. Let’s face it, we have enough cranky funny speaking folks already.

Just think, after this brilliant plan is initiated, all we will have to worry about is a small 750-mile mountainous border with Guatemala and Belize to the south, heck we could grow a looong mescal cactus hedge, you make it through THAT border, you're a haaaapy pappy anyway, floating on rainbows, "speaking water words out of silk trombones." In addition, on the huge border up north, we’re only guardin’ against Santa, so just nationally expense out a trillion dollar missile program and we should put quick work to that guy. . . . Either that, or melt his home ice sheet.

Well, that problem is solved; on to the next major crisis.

Me out!

 

Let’s talk legacy.

I know the President flatly states that he doesn’t worry about such things, but be assured, he surely does.

There is one thing that he does not have to worry about though, and that is his spot on the totem pole of the 43 men who have held the office so far.

Sad to say, this President, George W. Bush, will no doubt be ranked near the very bottom of the list.

When you look at the men who, let’s face it, were just plain bad for the country,  most of them could’ve had decent administrations, if not great ones, if it weren’t for usually one or two glaring, horrible confutations with administrative progress.

At the bottom are names like Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, James Buchanan, Lyndon Johnson and most of the mid nineteenth century president’s.

Now, we have George W. Bush.

At the bottom, I think that Andrew Johnson is probably our worst President. Why, you say, would I place him at the bottom? Surely, not for his taking over suddenly and unexpectedly because of the assassination of President Lincoln, you say.

You are correct; his stance as remaining a Senator while his state seceded and his ascendancy to the Presidency was honorable. Andrew Jonson’s major error was fighting for a soft landing for the rebellious states. He then pulled out the veto pen on the reconstruction efforts that Congress and the nation were trying to put in place. Finally, when Congress got so angry with him that they set out a hackneyed impeachment trap for him, he bit.

In all fairness, it was a trivial way to impeach the President, but Johnson knew this. He knew that Congress was wholeheartedly against him and yet he still couldn’t resist their trap to impeach him.

So, for trying to retard the progress of newly freed blacks, negating the deaths of 300- thousand men and being impeached, Andrew Johnson will probably remain the nadir of the American Executive Branch of government.

Johnson is just barely below the great General, but out and out thug, even for his time, Andrew Jackson, Two phrases_ threatening to hang a senator, and Trail of Tears.

Next on the list of the shameful, just below of the OTHER President Johnson, Lyndon Baines, comes our current killer and chief George W. Bush.

At least LBJ. could claim he was ensuring the rights of black America at the same time he blossomed a war of choice.

President Bush’s war of choice has no such lofty counter balance.

 If he had fought hard enough He might have pushed through a much needed Social Security revampment, or he should have shepherded his revolutionary “no child left behind” program all the way through. He may still, though hopes are dim, come out victorious in our “legitimate” war on terror.

However, for both of these Presidents the verdict is, when you send thousands of young men and women in uniform to their deaths, for specious or flat out wrong arguments you should never be rated very high in the pages of American history.

 

This is truly a Greek Tragedy – American style.

 

  

Hey y'all!!!

Help a brother out.

I'm looking, oh so hard, to find the document where the Iraqi people pleaded with us to come in and re create their government. I can't find it anywhere. I know there had to be some importunator, who with moist eye and quivering lip entreated us to war on their behalf

I read where The President went to war for WMD/ democratizing Iraq/ fighting the global war on terror/ fighting Islamofascists ect. ect. ect.

I see where we were all set to place our puppet, (((ahem!, excuse me I didn't mean to write that.))) Ahmad Chalabi at the head of the Iraqi government (((just think how much fun that would’ve been)))

I see where we refused to listen to our own generals, and did not send sufficient forces to occupy Iraq.

I also see where we DE-baathafied the country and in turn created a brain drain at the most critical chokepoints.

And I now, plainly see where we are setting the Iraqi leadership up, the same way we set up President Theiu in Vietnam, right before we declared victory and got the hell out.

But I just can’t find out where the Iraqis said PLEEEAASE!!! you fearless Americans, if you come in and do some "slam dunk easy" arse kickin' and name takin', we will  fix it up right on your political schedule, and allow you to sabre rattle to other bigger and stronger nations.

Hmmm!!!

 To play off of the title of an excellent book by Judge Robert Bork, which itself was taken from an excellent poem by Yeats titled The Second Coming,  the conservative movement better start working on civility lest we find ourselves in the throes of a death spiral toward insignificance.

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;"

Are conservatives, as a group starting to fracture? Yes. mainly because of massive fusillades on anything not endorsed by the right wing of the political ideal.

Let's take the big issue of that day; How many times have we witnessed a true and proud conservative get mauled for simply expressing his or her view that the war is a misguided?

William Kristol, Editor of The Weekly Standard, doesn't just disagree with James Bakers Iraq Study Group's findings, he has to heap obloquies at the messangers.

 He co-authored an article in the Dec. 11th edition of the Weekly Standard titled A Perfect Failure
READI IT HERE:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/021jenri.asp

Kristol's retort begins with his disdain for the ISG's co-chairmen Baker and Hamilton and how they took time for a photo spread for a fashion magazine.

This argumentum ad hominem is a sad statement on the current state of conservatism.

Even if Kristol's point of view has merit, all but the most ardent syncophant is put off by the mean spirit of the article.

James Baker has been a credit to the the American people and the conservative ideal for a long time. the fact that he was commissioned to do this study should speak to his high status as a statesman and critical thinker.

If William Kristol has an argument with the findings, fine. But, why not stay on the high road.

"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,"

When Tom Delay spoke about being involved in an international conservative movement, on FNS (10-03-05) none of our talented tenth spoke up about that little statement.

We cannot be so vehemently against international trade agreements and UN power grabs on one hand, then try to collocate some sort of global philosophy, on the other.

If we  have any sort of conservative link with the rest of the world, it would be our link in jolly ol' England, So, when the son of Lady Thatcher, got caught up in a coup attempt  to bring down the government of Equatorial Guinea, Africa's third largest oil reserve. We. . . . US. . . . You and I, the famous and the lumpenproletariat. . . we should've spoken up. We should've railed against this criminal act.
Isn't there some sort of political "Friend of the Court," brief that we could've come up with?

If we can easily talk about a senator driving off of a bridge and drowning a girl. at dinner parties, we should as easily bring up how we need to keep our house clean when famous sons of great allies try and bring down countries.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

we are tarring ourselves with the stain of the querulous. and if we don't wake up, and soon we will be the ones so full of sound fury, but signifying nothing.

William Kristol is by far, not the only one in the complaint parade, neither is he  a constant  grouser, with no plan, purpose or program.
 
In later posts I'll be sure to HIGHLIGHT all the intellect and positivity he espouses. But it is the quick and vehement disparagements that too many of us dish out  when we don't agree with the point being discussed.

Last month Mike Gallagher went on a tirade about theLIBERAL viewpoints regarding Mary cheney's pregnancy.
WHAT!!!!

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards the puisne, to be born.

Let's not bring the rough beast to birth.