Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg and What Comes Next

***Due to Blogger's new format change, there are random changes font size and colors***

The two Chinese characters  wēi (危) and jī (機/机) comprise the word for crisis. Separately, these two symbols express two related but separate ideas,  the notion of danger and a critical juncture. At this time, due to the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18th, President Donald Trump is facing potential political crisis that is both dangerous and represents a critical juncture in our history.

With about two months to go until what promises to be one of, if not "the" most contentious election in U.S. history, President Trump has to decide what to do about filling the seat, which could tilt the Supreme Court to the ideological Right...or Left (depending on who is appointed) for many years to come. 

As an aside, Amy Coney Barrett is Trump's top choice. She is a legal scholar and a circuit court judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit. Her father was an attorney for Shell Oil.  She graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997 top in her class summa cum laude.She clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. She considered to be politically conservative. 

Justice Ginsburg was known for her outspoken views, especially on issues involving women. It was no secret to anyone that those views were often very liberal. Her fellow justices, while not always agreeing with her, felt a sincere respect for her opinions and for her as an individual. Justice Ginsburg was one of the longest serving justices on the nation's highest court, having served 13 years following her appointment by then President Bill Clinton.

With Ginsburg's death, the ideological tilt of the Supreme Court is solidly conservative, with only Sonia Sotomayor, Steve Beyer, and Elena Kagan  remaining on the ideological Left. The Democrats are demanding the president hold off until after the November elections before someone is nominated to fill the seat. Ideally, they would like it to be a female (especially as racial minority and perhaps even gay) and someone who leans to the Left as did Ginsberg. What they are afraid of is that President Trump will select someone is conservative. Even a conservative leaning moderate like John Roberts would be too much.

Meanwhile, Establishment Republicans, are mostly siding with their Democrat counterparts. They too want the president to hold off for now. Of course, should Trump lose and Biden win, there's no question as to the type of individual he will select to replace Justice Ginsburg. So, what would happen if Trump went ahead with an appointment or waited, especially given what's at stake nationally?

America is a deeply divided country. The ruling Oligarchy has helped to make sure of that. A divided America is a America which is easier to control and manipulate. That's not to say that there aren't some real areas of disagreement, however, those areas are not naturally as deep or decisive as they've been made out to be.

In fact, pretty much everyone regardless of gender, race, ethnic background, or even political affiliation knows that the political system in this country is broken beyond repair. Reform won't cut it. It needs a total overhaul. The Democrats trot out retread Joe Biden, a man with 47 years of living in the political muck of Washington. He, we are lead to believe, is the best the Democrats can provide for the highest office in the land; an individual who is a much a part of the problem as Mitch McConnell.

Donald Trump is far from the ideal president, but he was elected because he wasn't part of the Status Quo. He was someone who was legitimately outside of ruling clique. The ruling Oligarchy has been trying to get rid of Trump since literally day one. Every scheme they could think of has been tried and has, thus far, failed. What if Trump nominated someone from outside of the political system? Someone whose career was not beholden to ruling elites? How would that affect the balance on the Supreme Court?

If Trump was to nominate someone, then the process of review would start, distracting the public from the manufactured chaos going on now. It would also mean that if Trump lost, this individual would still be there, although I think the various Senators and Representatives would "green light" them if at all possible. They would obviously want to all the new incoming president to have an opportunity to nominate.

Given that so many of polling places are closed because of the COVID virus (and all the issues and concerns about mail in ballots), what would happen if we ended up in another one of those "hanging chads" or "pregnant chads" situations like we did with George Bush Jr and Al Gore back in 2000?

For those too young to remember, the Supreme Court  settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. The result was that Bush won. Now, with only eight justices currently setting, that could create a problem right? Well no.

First off, five of the eight lean conservative, so that would be in Trump's favor. However, many of those same justices have made statements indicating that they may not be too fond of "the Donald". That could either it to the Left or worse, result in a tie decision.  But that's just part it.

Presidential elections are supposed to be decided by the Electoral College, which was created originally to keep one or a small group of densely populated states from dominating elections. It takes 270 votes in the Electoral College to win (with virtually all voting along partisan lines). In the event of a tie, the House will decide the outcome with each state getting one vote (the magic number needed to win is 26).

Many legal scholars at the time and since have criticized the top court even accepting the case; suggesting the matter should have remained in the Florida Supreme Court. Notably, Justice Ginsburg dissented and stated that the Supreme Court had no business taking this case and that in doing so was creating new election law.

The last thing our country needs right now is a repeat of the Bush-Gore election of 2000 or to be caught up with a Electoral tie and having the subsequent proceeds being over seen by Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker of the House.

While it's President Trump's prerogative whether to nominate someone to fill Ginsburg's seat now or allow the election to run its course is solely up to him. I think that if he was the challenger instead of the incumbent, he would want the opportunity to name whomever he wanted.  Certainly that's what Biden and the political establishment want.

However, if we're playing hardball partisan politics, why take the chance? Why not go ahead and nominate who you want? It would force the media's attention onto the nomination process and away from the election, and with a little luck, might just get your person on the bench whether you win or lose in November. At the worse, it would give the incoming president a hot potato to handle right off the bat.  

 

The political leanings of the Supreme Court

Bush v Gore

Electoral College Ties

Bush v Gore law case

All's Fair in Love Of War

The Military Industrial Complex. We've all heard the name. Some people see it as proof of America's supremacy. Others see it as a cancer. President Eisenhower warned us about it in his 1961 Farewell Address to the American Public. President John Kennedy alluded to it in his speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association also in 1961 (Kennedy was assassinated in 1963). We have been at war in the Middle East almost continually since 1990, beginning with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and our subsequent liberation of Exxon and BP...err...I mean the Kuwaiti Royal Family and its people. The "War on Terror", which began in 2001, it has been going on ever since (technically, even longer. The first terror attack on US troops was in 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon following an earlier attack on a US Embassy).

America is "officially" at war (undeclared of course) with seven countries---Syria, Afghanistan, Niger, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya---thanks to the 2002 "Authorization for the Use of Military Force to Fight Al-Qaeda-linked militias". Never heard of it before? Yeah, don't be surprised. It was one of this "none-of-your-business" pieces of legislation passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attack. The AUMF, which mentions an additional six countries, contains no geographical restrictions, so US military might can be deployed anywhere at any time.

In fact, the bombing business is so good that the US is actually running out of bombs, seriously. The Pentagon is planning on investing an additional $20 billion dollars of its...I mean "our" money...in munitions as outlined in its 2018 budget. According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the US has dropped approximately 1,186 munitions in just the first quarter of 2018. That's a lot folks. One key problem facing the Pentagon is that several of its suppliers simply can't keep up and have decided to quit the bomb making business. That places the Pentagon in a position where it is becoming more dependent of foreign suppliers and you'll never guess who one of those suppliers is?

Ok, I know you can't stand the suspense so I'll tell you. China. Yeah, you read that right. Communist China is one of our suppliers for munitions (now do you understand the Beltway uproar over President Trump placing tariffs on Chinese imports?). As for trying to create a broader market for all things that go bang, there really isn't any. With other suppliers dropping out, that leaves Lockheed Martin and Raytheon producing 97% of all the military's missiles and munitions (talk about businesses "to big to fail").

The Department of Defense (DoD) has publicly identified four critical areas of concern. The first is the production of solid rocket motors (SRMs). At present there are only two producers of SRMs, Orbital ATK and AeroJetRocketdyne, with Orbital ATK taking on the majority of the business. The next area is thermal batteries. These are used in every form of bombs and munitions employed by the US military. At present there is only one producer, which happens to dominate 80% of the market (the DoD declined to name the company).

Third on the critical list are fuses. Nothing goes "boom" without these. The DoD in typical bureaucratic Orwellian doublespeak says there are actually an excess of fuses available thanks to improvements elsewhere, however, it has also reduced the number of potential supplies. So apparently having to many fuses is a bad thing. Last on the list are small turbine engines. There currently only two producers of military grade turbines, Teledyne Turbine Engines and Williams International, however, Teledyne has announced that they're getting out of the business, which will leave the DoD with only one supplier (unless the Chinese want to step up). The DoD found that of 121 second tier suppliers of munitions, 98% of them were a single source provider. Of the 73 third tier providers, 98% of those were also single source. But wait, it gets more interesting.

The Pentagon has confirmed that it sole producer of a chemical propellant, Dimeryl Diisoyanate, which is used AIM-9X and AMRAAM missiles is quitting, thus leaving the military with no qualified producers. That means missiles stay in the launch tubes. Yikes! Another key component used by missiles is Dechlorane Plus 25, which is needed for insulation. Since there are no US producers, the US military has turned to the Belgian company Occidental Chemical, the only qualified producer.

However, despite the risks of being dependent on a foreign company for a key material, Occidental Chemical is itself dependent on a Chinese manufacturer that produces the pre-cursor needed to manufacture the propellant. According to the Chinese, its source has been exhausted and there is none left in the world. This is part of a growing trend faced by the Pentagon; increasingly shortages of chemicals needed to support various munitions and missiles, which is forcing the military to pay increasing prices as demand continues to grow while supply diminishes or simply evaporates altogether. The result is systems are having to be redesigned to find substitutes if possible or scraped.

As if this isn't bad enough for the Pentagon, spare parts for planes, tanks, truck, and other vehicles are in short supply. 22% of the Marine Corp's F-35's are grounded worldwide due to a lack of spare parts, reducing its readiness to only about 50% (one article cited a USAF pilot being grounded because a plastic clip on his helmet was broken and they couldn't get a spare clip from the supplier). The military, as a result, has gone into the scrounging business and looking for anything it use in so-called "boneyards" where old planes and other military equipment are consigned after reaching the end of their usefulness. They are also turning to other countries that we've sold weapons to and offering to buy back some of the spare parts. In a few cases, collectors have been contacted for possible leads. They are even raiding military museums for possible parts!

According to the Heritage Foundation's "2018 Assessment of US Military Strength", the US Army can field 31 Brigade Combat Teams (BCT). However, due to shortages of equipment and manpower, we have only three that are capable of "fighting tomorrow" and ten that are able to meet most of their assigned combat tasks (the military is suffering a personnel shortage due to the upswing in the economy, making jobs more plentiful. Another reason is that due to the numerous deployments and combat stress, a large number are leaving due to "burnout" and stress on the home lives, especially marriages). In addition, the report cites the need for an additional 19 BCTs (for a total of 50) just to meet historical requirements. The report indicated that the Army's capacity and capability are weak while its readiness is marginal.

The report also indicated that the US Navy's fleet is underpowered in the number of ships capable of extended deployment. Recently Congress had recommended a reduction in the total number of ships to pre-WWII levels. It goes on to recommend an increase to a 355 ship fleet from its current 305 and an increase to 13 aircraft carriers from the present 11. Attack submarines should be increased to 66 from their current number of 48, while surface ships need to go from 88 to 104. Deployment of aircraft carriers need to be extended to 36 months from the current 32 while surface ships need to match the carriers in deployment, going from 27 months to 36. Overall, both capacity and capability are scored as weak and readiness as marginal.

The Air Force has only four of its 32 combat coded squadrons fully combat capable. Less than 18 are able to complete the majority of its combat missions. Meanwhile, the Air Force, like all the other military branches is finding itself short of skilled personnel. In 2017, it was short 3400 aircraft engine and airframe mechanics. which in turn has grounded planes and thus reduced the number of flight hours pilots can get in for training and missions (along with the spare parts shortage), reducing its operational strength to 76%. In addition, the Air Force is depending on aging planes to meet its combat mission objectives. The reports gives the USAF a score of marginal for capacity, capability, and readiness.

Lastly, the US Marines. The Marines have long been the "tip of the spear" when it comes to boots on the ground anywhere in the world; America's shock troops. However, like the other military branches, it's faced with personnel shortages too. Normally, the USMC has been able to field 36 combat ready battalions. However, it is presently only able to field 24. It's main "combat platform" has been the M1A1/A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (also used by the Army). When first deployed in the early 1980's, this tanks was the baddest piece of mechanized hardware on the battlefield anywhere in the world. However, despite updates, it has been surpassed by several newer and more lethal tanks including the Chinese Type 99A, the Israeli Merkava, the UK Challenger II, but most notably two Russian tanks, the T-90 and the Armata T-14. In addition to losing its main platform superiority, the Marines are suffering from shortages of spare parts like everyone else.

So, there you have. The US has been at war for 27 years, going back to "Operation Desert Storm" in 1991, which essentially can be broken down into four or five wars, depending on how you want to count our two invasions of Iraq. We are militarily involved in approximately 76 countries. George W Bush, who launched the "War on Terror" following the 9/11, resulting in the bombing of five countries or 70,000 bombs during his term. President Obama expanded the bombing to seven countries, which equated to 100,000 bombs. Under President Trump, approximately 44,000 bombs have fallen thus far, which equals around one bomb every 12 minutes according to one report.

The Pentagon requested and got a $716 billion dollar budget which the majority of both Republicans and Democrats approved. I have to wonder what else we could buy with just a fraction of that---more schools, cures for cancer and other diseases, repairing the nation's crumbling infrastructure , securing our border, improving the quality of healthcare, or more cops on the street? But here we are. We're dropping so many bombs that we're not only running out, but suppliers are quitting, and highly skilled military personnel are walking away.

There's also the argument that US intelligence agencies and the military conspired to create the enemies--the "terrorists"--and the concept of the never-ending war for profit to consider too. After all, these military contractors are among the most powerful lobbyists in Washington and among the Oligarchs who now run our country. We are now faced with a beast that is feeding on itself and its appetite is both ravenousness and insatiable. To quote from Shakespeare's Mark Anthony in the play Julius Caesar, "Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!" (Act 3 Scene 1), and so we have dear reader, we've allowed them to slip their leashes.


Timeline: US involvement with Iraq and the broader Middle East

US at war in 7 countries...

The US is running out of bombs and it may soon struggle to make more

An Assessment of US Military Power

Karma: It Can Be A Bitch You Know (Especially in Politics)

You know, they say that Karma is bitch, which I have often seen proven true. There's also a saying by the great Chinese military and political strategist, Sun Tzu, which say that "if you wait by a river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by". Perhaps is this no better applied than in the world of politics. Not long ago, many pundits were predicting about the decline and fall of the Republican Party. The Reagan Revolution had come and gone. George H.W. Bush had liberated Exxon and BP...uh...I mean Kuwait.. from the evil clutches of our regional Iranian counterweight...I mean that ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile our national economy was sputtering, and right on queue came an unknown governor from Hope Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, better known to all simply as "Bill" and his "barely concealed" Machiavellian wife, Hillary. Well, those eight years proved to be a lot of fun didn't they? The economy bounced backed; there were some pretty positive initiatives passed, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act and Megan's Law, along with a few goofs like NAFTA and expanding NATO into Eastern Europe.

We got ourselves involved in a few civil wars, such as Mogadishu and in former Yugoslavia, and his failure to kill and/or capture Osama bin Laden at Kandahar when he had the chance. Of course, we can't forget the impeachment hearings and his lying to Congress (which apparently hinged on what the definition of "is" is). However, most people simply didn't care. They felt that was between Bill, Hillary, and his "victim-of-the-month". After all, the economy was doing great and that was all that mattered. By the time Clinton left office, the Democratic Party was doing pretty well, while the GOP was busy trying to redefine itself and remain relevant after their 1994 "Contract With America" turned out to be more of a "Contract On America" and blew up in the collective faces.

So, then came George "Dubya" Bush, aka "Shrub". I think what most people liked about Shrub...err...George was his laidback easygoing attitude. It seems everyone had an uncle like George locked away somewhere. He proved that anyone with a "D+" grade point average; who was unsuccessful as a businessman, a poor military record, a recovering alcoholic, but had lots of family money and connections could still become president, thus proving the "American Dream" was still alive.

Then again, it could be that voters just couldn't stand elitist Al Gore. Here was a man who just couldn't connect with the American People. He was "insider royalty". He was so elitist that his attempts to fit in with ordinary American's was comical. Then came the presidential debates and Gore's attempts to bully or intimidate Bush (which Bush just laughed off, along with the rest of America on national television).

Now, here was a guy born in the Heart of America, Washington DC (if you're the Tin Man); the son of wealthy and powerful Senator, Albert "Al" Gore Sr, who represented the flyover state of Tennessee. The future VP attended Harvard and Vanderbilt, and volunteered to go to Vietnam as an ordinary private, where he served with the 20th Engineer Brigade as a journalist. He would go on to serve in Congress from 1977 to 1993, when he was selected to run as Clinton's choice of VP. Regardless, Gore just couldn't connect with the American People.

Much to the surprise of the Democrats, who were still riding the Clinton high, "Dubya" won the election. As first, he seen as something of a joke: the proverbial class clown who somehow managed to steal the prom queen from the school jock. Even many Republicans started to shake their heads in embarrassed wonderment. Thankfully, there was some old hands of his dad (and the Establishment) to steer his Ship of State along the dangerous narrows; individuals like VP Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, AG John Ashcroft, Reich Secur...uh...I mean...Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. There Elaine Chao, the wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, who headed up the Department of Labor, as well as two excellent Secretaries of State, Former General Colin Powell and later, Condoleezza "Condi" Rice.

Nevertheless, it was one event which sealed Bush's presidential legacy more than any other, and that was September 11, 2001; better known simply as "9/11". It was the one event which has come to symbolize the early 21st Century. It was the day where America was deliberately attacked by an enemy most Americans didn't even know existed, from a country that some would have trouble finding on a map, and by a group the majority of Americans had never heard of...Al Qaeda.

However, there were some who had heard of its leader....Osama bin Laden; the same bin Laden whom Bill Clinton's Administration failed to kill years earlier (and the same individual whom the CIA picked out as potential leader decades before), after Russia invaded Afghanistan during the final months of the Carter Administrations and the beginning of Reagan's (under "Operation Cyclone", the CIA provided military aid, intelligence reports, training, and logistics to Afghani rebels known as the "Mujahideen", of which bin Laden was one).

This cowardly attack has often compared to the Japanese sneak attack on December 7, 1941 on Pearl Harbor, of course led to US and some allied troops to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and indirectly, led to the US and some Coalition troops to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein; apparently his usefulness had run out, and then again, maybe he knew too many secrets. The excuse this time was "weapons of mass destruction" or "WMDs", which we were repeatedly assured not only existed, but that Saddam was about to unleash on the world! Of course, as we were to learn later, they didn't exist. However, for Saddam and his cronies, he didn't matter. Only the perception that he did mattered. The outcome was a foregone conclusion...he and most of his ministers were executed.

Since then, efforts to rebuild both Afghanistan and Iraq have proved to be much more difficult than originally predicted and has led to a quagmire which we're still dealing with today. Meanwhile, "Dubya" exited the stage with the public's opinion of his administration pretty low (he has the unique distinction of having both the highest and lowest approval ratings, 51% and 25% respectively). At this juncture, the Democrats were feeling a bit more confident about the prospects for the upcoming presidential and Congressional elections. What nobody expected was a political "nobody" coming to the forefront...Barack Hussein Obama.

Barack Obama was unique in several ways. First, he was bi-racial---black on his father's side and white on his mother's. Second, there wasn't much know about his formative years for sure. There were (and remain) many questions over his place of birth; his education in Indonesia and apparently Muslim upbringing; his education in Hawaii, as well as family and personal friends with far Left or Communist sympathies, including former 60's radical and member of the Weathermen, Bill Ayers. Barack Obama was pretty much an unknown at college, despite his claims to contrary. While he claimed to be a law professor, he was in fact actually an adjunct instructor who taught just a handful of courses. In terms of having any real political experience, he was a neighborhood organizer for ACORN. He ultimately managed to fill an empty seat in the Illinois Senate and amassed no memorable record (voting mostly "here" or "present"). He was later, in 2005, that he was elected to fill an empty US Senate seat. It was as "Junior" Senator, with no national or even regional name recognition, that he decided to run for president (a highly unusual and risky political move).

What made the move that much more risky was that he would face the odds on favorite, Senator Hillary Clinton (she had changed her residency to New York to run for Bobby Kennedy's old seat, thus creating a link between the Clinton's and the Kennedy's (Bill Clinton met JFK as young man and has remained a lifelong admirer). Ultimately, Clinton lost in a highly contested campaign to the Junior Senator. Obama would go on to face Senior Senator John McCain, a disabled Vietnam War veteran, former POW, and a highly distinguished Naval pilot who came from a long line of Naval officers.

John McCain, who first rose to national prominence while he was a prisoner of war, held in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton". He later became a US Senator in 1987, after having served as member of the House of Representatives. McCain quickly earned a reputation for being outspoken and frequently disagreed with GOP party bosses. He was seen by many as a moderate or a more "traditional" conservative. Given McCain's reputation and name recognition, it was presumed that he would easily beat the Illinois upstart. However, that wasn't to be the case.

Barack Obama used his youth, bi-racial status, and charismatic speaking ability to attract the emerging Millennials, who are the largest voting demographic, while McCain's appealed mainly to the aging Babyboomers. There was also a notable difference between the two campaigns. McCain's campaign conformed primarily to the more tradition format (with the novelty of selecting an unknown for VP, non-conformist Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, to attract the more conservative elements of the GOP. Ironically, Palin would prove to be more popular among Tea Parties and some other conservatives than McCain). Obama's campaign was based more on the use of social media, including his use of the internet to raise money. In the end, McCain was outspent 4 to 1, and Obama won with 53% of the vote compared to McCain's 46%. Obama's first term, however, did light a spark under the Democrats, though the numbers were pretty much average with his accomplishments (except golf outings. There Obama wins hands down with 113). Immediately after becoming president, Obama was also roundly booed by public opinion for being "awarded" the "Nobel Peace Prize", an honor he didn't earn, and as a result, tarnished the award for all future recipients. However, it would be his second term which would become most noteworthy. First though, he had to defeat the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts.

Rome had its Crassus. The Democratic Party has its Al Gore. The Republicans have Mitt Romney. Romney, like Al Gore, comes from a prominent political family. Both of his parents, George and Lenore were very active in politics (his mother even ran for office), while his father went to work for the Nixon Administration as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and then, later, as Governor of Michigan. In addition to coming from a established political family, they were also Mormon. Mitt also made a fortune while working for Bain Capital (and ultimately as CEO) through leveraged buyouts. His net worth is estimated to be $250 million (his wife, the daughter of heavy construction equipment co-founder Jared Industries, Edward and Lois Davies, is worth some $50 million).

Like McCain, Mitt Romney just didn't connect with ordinary Americans. He had no real understanding of their issues, and certainly didn't share their working class values. He came across as arrogant and pandering. When the dust settled, Obama had won his second term with just over 51% compared to Romney's 47.21%. What hurt Obama in this election was the lower return of Millennials, who, while strongly disapproving of Romney, were disappointed in Obama's first term performance.

Obama's second term proved to be controversial, from de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants (and a questionable lawsuit against Arizona for enforcing federal immigration laws), to the illegal sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, the "Obamacare" healthcare law (which was unconstitutionally altered by the Supreme Court. In addition, prior promises by Obama, such as keeping healthcare providers, existing insurance, all turned out to be false). Perhaps worse of all, was the lies surrounding the Benghazi attack and the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three former special forces/CIA operatives amid illegal arms shipments to Syria and the same terrorists were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (except in Syria, where we suddenly called them "freedom fighters", since they opposed Russia's longtime regional ally). But, what difference did that matter?

The situation in the Middle East failed to improve as did his attempts at expanding gun control to ban "assault" weapons. IRS official Lois Lerner testified that conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status had been targeted by the IRS. Obama also pressed for a land invasion of Syria which was met with absolute rejection by the American People. Obama's Secretary of the Veteran Affairs, Eric Shenski, was forced to resign over charges of mistreatment, misreporting, and prolonged delays resulting in appointment backlogs and preventable veteran deaths. On the plus, Navy SEALs did find and kill Osama Bin Laden, despite delay's by the Obama Administration.

Obama, like Clinton's NAFTA, signed TransPacific Partnership, again selling out unions. We also had "Citizens United" upheld, which gave corporations the same rights as humans, except when it came to political contributions, where they were permitted near unlimited "free speech" (as donations were euphemistically called), while it remained limited for ordinary flesh and blood types. Without question, Obama's second term didn't live up to expectations, by Obama, his administration, or the American People. His approval rating for his second term only averaged 47.9% while the public's confidence in government slumped to a mere 30%.

So, there you have it. All the "static" about Trump's success or failures so soon into his first term is just that...static. Each political party has its ups and down. The big difference in Trump's case, is the open season by the corporate managed media. Trump was the "unexpected" candidate; he was the anti-establishment candidate that didn't come with strings attached. The media and political establishment----both corporate owned parties, the "K" Street lobbyists, the "princesses and snowflakes", and all those with dirty hands---already had Hillary crowned and enthroned. They were wrong. The public knew her record and they rejected it. Perhaps...just perhaps...Americans have finally had enough. We can only hope.



Obama's first term: By the number


Republicans for Obama


Obama's second term: A timeline


Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of Government

Who Supported What? Republican and Democrat Support of Key Issues

In my last article, "What's the Truth Behind Republican Claims of Supporting Black Civil Rights?", we examined the Republican claims that the GOP was responsible for "freeing the slaves", securing individual and voting rights of former slaves and those held in various forms of bondage, which was accomplished during and just after the Civil War while Democrats did everything in their power to thwart Republican efforts and turn back the hands of progress. We also looked at who was largely responsible for the passage of the Affordable Care Act, or as it's more commonly known, "Obamacare". As it turned out, the Republican claims were mostly true, but with a very important caveat. The Republicans who supported these measures were moderate and liberal Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln (a moderate) and Ulysses S. Grant (liberal), and those that opposed the "Civil Rights Act of 1866" as the various amendments were called, were conservative Republicans (Andrew Johnson) and reactionary Democrats.

My article also pointed out, as I have in numerous other articles, moderate and liberal Republicans (spitefully called "RINOs" or Republicans In Name Only) have been mostly booted out of the Grand Ole Party. Those who either went to or were already members of the Democratic Party (where they were tagged with label "DINOs" as in Democrats In Name Only), found themselves equally unwelcome, and so became Independents, which is now America's largest voting bloc and growing rapidly; Indies already exceed the total number of Democrats, who lag behind in second place and the much more distant Republicans, and are expected to exceed their combined numbers in only five years. As for Obamacare, the conservative and ultra conservative (aka the Far or Religious Right) Republicans, some Democrats and unions along with corporate lobbyists and professional associations opposed Obama's version, which was transformed from a unconstitutionally compulsory bill to a tax, which the Constitution permits Congress to levy. Nevertheless, many did support a much more efficient and cheaper form of national healthcare called "Single Payer" (which was also not a tax). Under "Single Payer", everyone would have the same core insurance with an option to purchase supplemental plans from insurance providers, but Congress, the President, and others in government would not be exempt as they are under Obamacare. Thus, money more so than party won the day and the vote.

Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to apply the same inquiry to more recent pieces of legislation such as women's right to vote, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Which political party was the central supporter to these key important issues? Let's start with Women's Suffrage and the right to vote. Few people know that women in America have had, at different times and places, the right to vote. In 1776, New Jersey allowed both genders to vote, provided they were property owners. However, by 1807, the law was changed to prevent women from voting anywhere in the state while in Uxbridge Massachusetts, women were allowed to vote as early as 1756. In 1848, the Liberty Party became the first political party to include women's suffrage as part of its party platform. It shouldn't come as a surprise to know that the Liberal Party, primarily a abolitionist or anti-slavery party, had as it's first presidential nominee was a Kentuckian named James Birney in 1840 and was closely tied to another political party called the "Free Soil Party" which included former Whigs and "Barnburner Democrats". Later, the Liberal Party would merge with the Free Soil Party which would shortly afterwards merge into the Republican Party along with Whigs and other, smaller, "third" parties). Thus, the women's suffrage movement begin as part of the anti-slavery movement which sought in provide equal rights across the board regardless of race, bondage circumstances, or gender.

In the same year, 1848, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton began their colorful careers to gain equal voting rights for women as well. In 1850, Lucy Stone organized the National Women's Right Convention in Worchester, Massachusetts, thus bring together the three key figures of the movement which would span over 70 years. Together, they campaigned on the issue of equal rights which resulted in the passage of the 14th Amendment giving blacks equal rights as well as the right to vote. Their efforts bore fruit first in Wyoming in 1869 and then in Utah in 1870 (however, women were stripped of their right to vote in 1887 with the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act by Congress (this was mainly anti-Mormon Bill whose focus was on the issue of polygamy . Its sponsors was Republican George Edmunds of Vermont and Democrat John Tucker of Virginia). By 1900, Idaho and Colorado had given women full rights, including the right to vote, and so it continued until June 4, 1919 when the Senate approved the amendment by a vote of 56 to 25. The bill was filibustered by Democrats to prevent a roll call vote until their Senators could be present. Nevertheless, 82% of Republicans (36) and 54% of Democrats (20) voted in favor while 18% of Republican (8) and 46% of Democrats (17) voted against, and thus the 19th Amendment passed allowed to proceed and was state ratified in 1920 (Tennessee was the final state to ratify the Amendment on August 18, 1920) with encouragement from Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. Republican Speaker of the House, Fredrick Gillett, sign the constitutional amendment bill into law. All in all, pretty bipartisan wouldn't you agree?

So, how about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Civil Rights Movement, which led to the signing of the 15th Amendment by President Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX), was one of this nation's most traumatic experiences, along with the antiwar movement just a few years later which brought forth such diverse individuals as Rev. Martin Luther King, Rev. Ralph Abernathy and Malcolm X. The Civil Rights Act was more than a anti-discrimination issue. It was a voting issue and a labor issue as well. The bill came to be a central domestic policy piece of President John Kennedy (D-MA) following in the footsteps of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 and was aimed at ending discrimination of all kinds, from education to hiring, voting to opening up hotels, theaters, restaurants, stores, parks, and all other public facilities, burst onto the national scene in the first half 1963 in the form of riots, protests, fire hoses, and police dogs (in truth, there had been other, more sporadic incidents dating back to the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. It had been President Eisenhower (R-KS) who had begun to take steps to address these issues just before his term as President ended and had encouraged Kennedy to carry the matter forward).

Following Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963, Johnson picked up the torch and pressed forward using the power of the Presidency and his considerable skills (the so-called "Johnson Treatment"). Debate on the bill was intense on all sides and several attempts to stifle its passage or usher through more watered down versions were made on multiple occasions. Finally, a compromised bill made its way through the Congress and was signed by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. The June 26, 1964 edition of the Congressional Quarterly stated that 69% of Senate Democrats voted yes on the bill (46 to 21) while 82% of Senate Republicans vote yes (27 to 6). As an aside, all of the Southern Senate Democrats voted no. On the House side, 61% of House Democrats vote yes (152 to 96) along with 80% of House Republicans (138 to 34). 92 of the 103 Southern House Democrats voted no. It was further noted in the Congressional Quarterly that despite having a Democrat President, the Congressional Democrats had a much lower than expected support for the bill. It should be noted that the majority of Northern and some West Coast Democrats (i.e. California) were liberal leaning while overwhelming majority of Southern Democrats along with some Midwestern were very conservative. On the overhand, the majority of Republicans were moderates (later to be called "Rockefeller Republicans) with a minority leaning to conservative. Johnson himself was generally a moderate leaning Democrat (JFK, for the record, regarded himself as a conservative, especially on foreign policy).

As for the Clean Air Act, it became law in 1955 under moderate Republican, Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower as the "Air Pollution Control Act". This was the first federal law designed specifically to reducing industrial pollution and for providing funds to find methods for reducing pollution. In 1963, the Clean Air Act, which aimed to actually control pollution came into being. In 1967, the Air Quality Control Act was passed and signed into law by President Johnson . It's objective was to enforce interstate monitoring of pollution as well as establishing specific monitoring stations and study methodologies. Further amendments to the law were made in 1970 (often called the "Clean Air Extension Act" or the "Muskie Act" after the support of Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine (D) which was sign into law by President Nixon) , 1977 (signed into law by President Jimmy Carter (D-GA), and again in 1990 (signed into law by President George H.W. Bush (R-TX), considered by many to be the last of the Rockefeller Republicans.

The Clean Water Act became law in 1972 under the Presidency of Richard Nixon. The purpose of the bill was to ensure the availability and access of all Americans to clean water plus water treatment, discharges from various industries such as coal, oil and gas, and manufacturing as well as the strengthening and expanding existing laws pertaining to protection of wetlands (up to this point, many industries simply dumped waste water directly into rivers and streams unfiltered). The law also established monitoring and water quality standards and enforcement guidelines. Under the recommendation of President Nixon, the Environmental Protection Agency was also created with the purpose of protecting human and environmental health as well as providing the means of enforcement.

As you hopefully have noticed, most of the amendments and laws were the result of bipartisan cooperation, mostly between moderate or liberals on both sides of the aisle. However, by the time of President Reagan's "Southern Strategy", the GOP had begun to purge itself of all centrists and with the Speakership of Newt Gingrich (R-GA), there was an all out transformation of the Republican Party. On the Democratic side, Bill Clinton was often cited as the last center Left President, and ever since, the Democrats have sought with equal zeal to purge themselves of all center and conservative leaning party members. What is left on both sides are ideological extremes with no interest in cooperating. Both parties have equally sold themselves to the highest corporate bidders to the point where there is really difference between the two. Both parties now find themselves bought and paid for by the Oligarchs who now rule this nation formerly of ours.

The revolving door between six or seven figure corporate jobs and the government has been removed, leaving simply an connecting hallway. As for all those disowned moderates or centrists, they became Independents; the single largest voting bloc in America and growing rapidly. Within the next five years, there will be more Indies than Democrats or Republicans combined, which is just another tangible measure of just how far both corporate party are with the American People (though the corporate media still tries to divert our attention and either ignore or downplay the obvious). Finally, you know the facts should your hear or read some piece of party or media propaganda about who did what and cares more about the American People.



19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote
http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=13&title.raw=19th+Amendment+to+the+U.S.+Constitution%3A+Women's+Right+to+Vote


Clean Air Act of 1963, Clean Air Act of 1970, & Clean Air Act of 1990 (Summary of Major Points)
http://redgreenandblue.org/2016/02/29/clean-air-act-of-1963-clean-air-act-of-1970-and-clean-air-act-of-1990-summary-of-major-points/


Summary of the Clean Water Act
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

Barack his Rocker: What Makes Obama Tick?

Ok, let's make this clear from the get-go. I'm not a psychologist, but I do have a pretty good understanding of human nature, and something isn't quite right here. Why is it that every time there is a crisis, Obama finds a reason to avoid serious discussion and more often than not, a reason---preferably fundraising or playing golf---to get out of town until things settle down? Obama seems unwilling or simply unable to play in the big leagues, especially in situations he helped create.

While our technology has changed down through the millennia, Man himself really hasn't changed much. The same things which motivated us 10,000 years ago still motivates us now, just as the same types of things which inspired fear, confidence, hatred, compassion, love, selfishness and all our other emotions---voluntary and involuntary---are still with us; they've been hardwired into our collective psyche since we dropped out of the trees; or arrived as a slave race for aliens; or was pieced together out of Mesopotamian mud, depending on your personal beliefs. Each of us also has a "flight or fight" gene. We can even be tested for it (I was, and not unexpectedly, I tested positive for the "fight" variant, but then again, that could just be my overabundance of Irish and Scots ancestry too).

Nevertheless, could it be that Obama has the "flight" gene and an internal need to run away when confronted from a situation beyond his control? Could this have been reinforced by his acknowledged "troubled" childhood, or even his need to overcompensate? Numerous professional book reviewers of presidential and presidential hopefuls have cited numerous inconsistencies in his books, and more than a few troubling statements about feeling socially and/or racially inferior, even in terms of his early Moslem upbringing. His professional lack of experience, either in the business arena, the military, or even in politics has left him woefully unprepared for the type of serious and often immediate decision making a president is required to make; often with inadequate or incomplete information.

We know that many of the claims made Obama's supplicants , especially regarding his academic prowess, either simply never happened or somehow, he was omitted from some of the nation's most prestigious academic records and his classmates have come down with a serious case of amnesia (or were they blinded from his brilliance?). In fact, intellectually, the guy isn't really all that sharp despite an incredible and magnetic speaking ability...with a teleprompter. But speaking, with or without a teleprompter does not an effective president make.

In an era where just about everything a potential candidate ever did, from their birth (hell, conception) to their present moment in time is analyzed and reanalyzed ad nauseam. We hear from their kindergarten teacher, earliest playmates, babysitters, coaches, friends, neighbors, tailors, until we'd rather switch channels and watch infomercials instead. We learn in minute detail about their family, their eccentric aunts and uncles, cousins, family heritage, and so forth. And yet, we know next to nothing about Obama's, and what we think we know is often full of contradiction or are simply a blank. How's that possible? Those things we do have a reasonable certainty about are, frankly, troubling, especially his participation in clearly Marxist or communist organizations, associations with black racists, or with 60's era terrorists. His own comments regarding race, particularly about whites, are especially disconcerting. It makes me think of someone who has a fragile inner sense of security---not the same as self-confidence mind you---and with it, a internalized hatred of all things which "hurt" him as a child; which causes him to feel inadequate and propelles a need to appear superior; a persecution mentality now given an opportunity for revenge. I read once where Bill Clinton had a sense of insecurity stemming with his birth and an abusive relationship with his father and the need to protect not just himself, but his mother as well. This supposedly lead to both a drive to excel and a constant need for validation, be it the cheers of the crowds or his extra martial affairs.

All of this brings me back to Barack Obama the Man. Why does he seemingly make these inflated public statements following a crisis event which often sound phony or makes promises/threats which nobody, especially the intended party, takes seriously? As President, there is much Obama can do about the illegal immigration situation for instance, and yet despite constant threats to use executive orders (his "magic pen" as he's called it), nothing happens. He knows (as does Congress) that the American People want---demand---that the southern border with Mexico be secured, militarized if necessary (in all fairness, George W Bush was keenly aware of this too and failed to act), yet not only does he not act, he's repeatedly done just about everything in his power to make the situation worse. Now, faced with a major crisis, he further refuses to take action. When he went to Texas recently, it wasn't to access the border situation, it was for another fundraiser. It's like a child who refuses to look at the mess they made as if by not acknowledging it, the mess doesn't exist. When the assault on Benghazi was underway, Obama was at fundraiser. When the US military command was a go in dispatching mass murderer Osama Ben Laden, Obama was found on the golf course. During the operation itself, some individuals in the situation room said that Obama was beside himself; second guessing himself. In dealing with situations in the Middle East, especially those involving the terrorists groups, he has continually shown himself as weak and that's usually a fatal mistake.

More recently, the military situation in Gaza and the downing of the MH17 has shown Obama again out of his depth. His statements are characterized as worthless; unbelievable. Our allies, especially Israel, have good reason not to feel confident in the Obama Administration, although I think they can completely count on the American People having their back. Meanwhile, our adversaries, or former adversaries, can barely contain their contempt for the man. I dare say that even many of our allies feel the same way. American economic and military power, along with our political prestige continues to flounder, not necessarily because we are weak economically (though we are much to debt heavy and we have all but lost our middle class while becoming officially an oligarchy whereby the government represents primarily the top 1%), and we still the best trained, equipped, and dedicated military in the world, it's because the government and its leaders (notice I didn't say "our" leaders) like the President, his Administration, and Congress are perceived globally as inept and ineffectual. As in advertising, image in politics, especially global power politics, is everything.

Obama retreats to fundraisers, golf courses, lengthy vacations, or ineffectual press conferences because they're safe. He understands them. He feels safe. He believes he can control the situation; perhaps things will sort themselves out or someone will devise a way out for him. Regardless, the distance from the "real world" and the one of illusion which he has created for himself throughout his life, is intact. The ultimate problem is that the world is spinning out of control at an unparallel rate. The world needs America despite their occasional claims to the contrary. We are not the world's policeman, but we are its best, and perhaps ultimate hope for continued survival like it or not. In the absence of our leadership, those who desire to enslave of the human mind and soul see only encouragement to crush Humanity's Will. Our adversaries will press forward with the own agendas while the shadow of tyranny will continue to stretch over and quickly darken the light of freedom which we represent. Barack Obama has serious flaws, but I'm not explicitly speaking of the man---we all have our own failings and I would be the last to cast the first stone---and historically, America has made some terrible mistakes in judgment. We're not perfect, but we try. America needs a dedicated and serious leader it can count on, and the world needs to know that we have its back. Against evil, failure is not an option.

Shrink: Very Concerned Over Obama's Mental Stability
http://govtslaves.info/shrink-concerned-obamas-mental-stability/

Is Barack Obama Mentally Stable: More Questions
http://www.truthandaction.org/is-barack-obama-mentally-stable/

Networks Ignore Criticism of Obama Attending Fundraisers Amid International Crises
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/07/18/networks-ignore-criticism-obama-attending-fundraisers-amid-internation

A Frustrated Obama Constrained
https://www.nrcc.org/2014/07/21/frustrated-obama-constrained-mundane-matters-nowhere-found-crises-break/

Obama takes heat from both sides for skipping border on fundraising trip
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/09/obama-takes-heat-from-both-sides-for-skipping-border-on-fundraising-trip/

SICK: Obama Will Do 2 Fundraisers Today After 23 Americans Die in Crash
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-fundraisers-today-after-americans-die-crash/

The New Crisis in Iraq

In what can only be described in terms of Vietnam, thousands of US trained, financed, and equipped Iraqi soldiers tucked tail and ran in face of the onslaught of "The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" (ISSI). Those of us old enough to have fought in Vietnam, or at least remember the unwhitewashed version of events will recall how, after announcing the gradual withdrawal of US combat troops from Vietnam, the US military undertook what was called the "Vietnamization" of the South Vietnamese troops ("ARVN"), starting with the development of a core of group leadership within the South Vietnamese military, followed by upgrading of equipment, which included weapons, tanks, artillery, helicopters, and training of regular soldiers. However, as North Vietnamese regulars ("NVA") and Viet Cong, the guerrilla irregular forces also known as the "NLF", advanced, the South Vietnamese military crumbed and fled; throwing away weapons and uniforms along the way. Not much different here.

The ISSI is an extremist Sunni Moslem guerrilla force with a history of fighting in Syria's long and bloody civil war, which makes them battle hardened. It's goal is to create a strictly interrupted Sunni oriented Islamic state. What sets them apart from other Islamic groups, including Al Qaeda, is their brutality; so much so that even Al Qaeda (which is also Sunni) has disavowed them and Iran, which is predominately Shiite, may intervene. When Al Qaeda and Iran are nervous, that's worth noting. With Obama's announcement of a US withdrawal timetable from Iraq, a tactical mistake, groups are rushing in to fill the void in light of a highly unstable, untested, and corrupt government (much like Afghanistan). You will recall that the US trained Iraqi (and Afghani) soldiers have proved to be unreliable, especially in light of their sudden attacks on fellow US soldiers, much like the Viet Cong did after infiltrating the South Vietnamese military (in both cases, usually reported by the corporate media as "friendly fire").

In quick succession, the ISSI has overrun towns and cities that took months for US forces to bring under control, not including the hundreds if not thousands of US and Coalition troops wounded, maimed, and killed in the attempt. Thus far, thousands of retreating and deserting of Iraqi soldiers and civilians have been executed or wounded, with hundreds of young girls and women reportedly raped. United Nations observers report a stream of some 300,000 refugees pouring into neighboring countries, which are already overflowing with refuges from previous wars. Their economies are already stretched to the breaking point (the US had previously taken in some 85,000). And, as in all situations such as this, food, water, shelter, medicine, and sanitation become very real life or death issues. Meanwhile, the ISSI have captured several weapon depots full of US military equipment and material; much of it expected to see action in the seizure of Baghdad and the rest of Iraq and perhaps even in Syria or against neighboring Iran or Jordan;. While their goal is nothing short of establishing a strict Sunni oriented Islamic State, the Shiite majorities in Southern Iraq and neighboring Iran may still have something to say about this. However, if there's one positive in all of this, the much maligned Kurds have use this opportunity to seize areas long claimed in the north.

While many will be quick to jump on the Obama Administration for this latest crisis, let's not forget that it was George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who got us into the quagmire in the first place. Under the guise of "weapons of mass destruction", Bush decided to pick up where his daddy, George Bush Sr. left off in the first Gulf War ("Desert Storm"). There was no need to invade Iraq as we all now know. Saddam Hussein had no "weapons of mass destruction". His ground and air defenses had been decimated previously by coalition troops. There was an effective "no fly" zone in place, and what's more important, Hussein, for the tyrant he was, kept the religious extremists in check. He ruled Iraq with an iron fist. He had demonstrated repeatedly that he could be far crueler than his enemies; an important treat in a maniacal dictator. The main reasons I suspect were to install a regime friendly to US and Western corporate interests and to gain some measure of control of Iraqi oil facilities, and to be able to put US troops on the doorstep of Iran. Hussein, the US installed strongman, had become to unreliable. The invasion of Iraq and subsequent death of Hussein will long be remembered as a tremendous intelligence and political blunder and perhaps the turning point in US global dominance. As the old saying goes, "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know".

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said that the ISSI and its rapid success was a total surprise. If she really means that, then her competence in strategic analysis is truly lacking. Given the history and instability of the region, there was no way a political void would be tolerated. The Iraqi (and indeed, the Afghani and Syrian) government is ineffective. It has little to no credibility with the majority of the people. While the West and other nations may think the democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread, democracy is not for everybody. In fact, of the nations around the world that have embraced democracy, not a single one has embraced the American form of democracy. Instead, they adopt the English form of proportional representation . Some societies, however, prefer a "strong arm" government. They feel secure. Crime is not much of an issue since these types of governments have a serious "zero tolerance" attitude toward crime (except their own). The economy is generally stable and they're free from fear of the types of uncertainty that a democracy can bring. Theocracies, on the other hand, have often proven to be the most oppressive and retardant forms of government.

Of course, I'm not praising dictatorships. Not at all. But what I am saying is that we have to have a foreign policy which respects the traditions and desires of other peoples. Too many times the US has intervened to overthrow a democratically elected government because it didn't fit with our foreign policy objectives (but ironically, we've usually supported the installation of right wing military juntas; most of which have proven to be very brutal), which is more often than not dictated by corporate interests rather than humanitarian interests.

As of this writing, Obama is trying to figure out how to salvage the situation. It should be an interesting decision for him. Obama's Presidency has been, up to now, a near complete failure (he's likely to go down in history as America's worse, and perhaps most divisive President). He desperately needs "something" to show that he can be a tough and effective leader (he could learn much from Russia's Vladimir Putin in that regard). This crisis in Iraq may well be that "something". He didn't start the war. It was something he inherited from the previous administration. But how he resolves it may show whether or not this rather politically inexperienced former community organizer has the right mettle. But, as always in such matters, at what costs to the American People will his legacy be forged?

Hillary Clinton Warns Of Jihadists
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/hillary-clinton-syria-islamist-state_n_5486133.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl13%7Csec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D488630

Iraqi Kurds Seize Oil Rich City of Kirkuk
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/12/iraq-kurds-seize-kirkuk_n_5487184.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular


UN: 300,000 Iraqis Became Refugees This Week
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/iraq-refugees_n_5491139.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Iraqi Insurgency: Hundreds May Have Been Killed During Sacking Of Mosul
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/iraq-insurgency-mosul-human-rights-reports_n_5491023.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

4 Key Things To Know About The Islamic Surge In Iraq
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/06/12/321376130/four-key-things-to-know-about-the-islamist-surge-in-iraq?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

Obama Sues Arizona over SB1070

President Obama has ordered the Justice Department to formally file suit against Arizona. Their allegation is that the Arizona’s new tough anti-illegal law is “unconstitutional” in that matters relating to immigration fall exclusively to the federal government. In what could be dubbed as “Showdown at the OK Corral” over the issue of illegal immigration, Arizona’s Governor Brewer may want to hang out a “Welcome to Tombstone Mr. President” as his administration bumbles into a lawsuit they really don’t want any part of.

The general rule regarding federal law versus state law is that a state law can not impede or contradict existing federal law. It does not matter if the federal law is haphazardly enforced or not. At present, the federal government does not have a single coherent law regarding illegal immigration, and certainly takes an uneven approach to its enforcement with little in the way of “teeth”. As a result, illegals have little fear at being stopped. An arrest and deportation is of only minor inconvenience, and they’re often right back in this country within a few days. Employers too have little to fear from federal government which rarely investigates and even more rarely prosecutes (lack of personnel and money). Individuals seen “running for the border” are often not stopped under existing federal law, who must be stopped in the act.

Arizona’s new law, however, provides law enforcement officials with the legal authority to stop and arrest anyone thought to be here illegally provided they have justifiable probable cause. To avoid charges of discrimination, Arizona requires all law enforcement personnel to take racial sensitivity classes, with an emphasis on avoiding racial profiling. In short, Arizona lawmakers anticipated the Justice Department’s lawsuit and took every step to ensure its law would be compliant with existing federal law.

Seventeen other states have begun to take steps to enact similar legislation as Arizona’s. Three states, Utah, South Carolina, and Oklahoma have already taken steps to stop illegal immigration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html). Oklahoma has, for instance, made it a felony for transport or shelter illegal immigrants, and they’ve blocked efforts by illegal immigrates to obtain driver’s licenses and in-state tuition. 

 A bill will be introduced in 2011 to seize the property of any business that knowingly employs illegal immigrants. A good step, but I wonder if this includes religious groups who act as if they are exempt from local, state, and federal laws when it comes to illegal immigration. They often smuggle, shelter, and find housing and jobs for illegal aliens, and at the same time, instruct them in steps they can take to circumvent existing laws concerning public assistance.

Meanwhile, Obama has ratcheted up the rhetoric about providing illegal immigrates with blanket amnesty. Obama said during a speech, which received little national press coverage, at American University on July 1 that he would seek to provide the estimate 11 million illegals with “pathway for legal status” and went on to claim that our southern border have never been more secure. 

Under his version, illegal immigrants would have to acknowledge that they broke the law; register; pay their taxes and possibly a fine; learn English. Geez, I wonder if that would have worked for Al Capone? (“Ah, sorry about that St. Valentine Day’s thing. I’d like to pay back taxes on my rackets in cash. Anyone want a beer?”). Obama has even hinted that he may bypass Congress and issue an executive order. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Obama has become quite adapt at doing end runs around Congress. For more, I suggest checking out: FairUs 

Book Review

There’s an old joke that if you remember the sixties, you probably weren’t there. That’s the basic premise behind Bernard von Bothmer’s new book, “Framing the Sixties: The Use and Abuse of a Decade from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush”, at least, if you’re a Republican. The sixties, as the author correctly points out, was really two eras. The first, “the good sixties”, was from the late 1950’s to the Kennedy assassination in 1963. 

In fact, up until Kennedy’s murder, America was still basking in the afterglow of the Eisenhower Years, with a few exceptions such as the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the literal brink of nuclear war (Soviet Premier Khrushchev ordered the Russian Navy to stand down due to, in large part according to Khrushchev, Kennedy’s “lack of experience”), Sputnik, the Berlin Wall, and America’s first tentative steps into Vietnam.

Von Bothmer goes to describe “the bad sixties” as 1964 to 1974 as a time of America’s quagmire in Southeast Asia, student protests, the SLA, Black Panthers, the Gray Panthers, the SDA, set-ins, campus takeovers, Chicago Police Riots during the Democratic Conventions, the murders of Dr. King and RFK, the War on Poverty, moon landings, and finally, America’s military defeat in Vietnam and Watergate. In between we had the Civil Rights, Women’s, and Gay movements. We had NOW, rock’n’roll, love-ins, the Summer of Love, Hell’s Angels, the Green Movement, drugs, and sex galore. It was an era of pushing the limits…any limits.

The book, all 232 pages of it, was interesting; though provocative may be the more operative word since von Bothmer contends there is a subtle battle raging between the Left and Right as to who will ultimately “own” the legacy of the 1960’s. According to the author, it was the Right who broke the 1960’s into essentially the “good” and “bad” years, with the obviously the Republican afterglow of Eisenhower representing the best part and the Democratic led latter years as representational of all that was bad about the era (of course, Watergate serves as a explanation point for the Democrats while Vietnam underscores the decade for the Republicans).

It has often been said that the victors write the history. Personally, I don’t believe the history of the sixties has yet to be written. The sixties was as much about conservative blue collar white kids and poor blacks marching off to a unpopular war as it was for the sons of the rich being deferred or the burning of draft cards, bras, and communes. 

The book makes a great effort at trying to make some sense of an incredible era in today’s political light, though it is clear that the author lays much of the blame at misrepresenting the icons of the 1960’s at the feet of the Republicans. There was much that good about the 1960’s, and much that was bad. I don’t think either side is any more right or wrong as the other. It was also a time when people believe we could do better as a society, and they tried. Oh, and by the way, I was there.

Poll Results

Our last poll asked if you thought the federal government should sue Arizona for enforcing existing immigration laws. 37% of you said they should while 63% of you did not. Actually, I think it’s a good idea. Have I lost my mind you wonder? No; at least I don’t think so. The reason is because I see this blunder by the DOJ as something of a “friendly” lawsuit. The lawsuit will show the true intent of Arizona’s law was to protect its citizens. Secondly, that it was designed to be compliant with federal law (such as it is). Third, a decision in favor of Arizona will spur on other states to enact similar legislation. And fourthly and perhaps most importantly, a defeat of the DOJ may, just may mind you, prompt Obama and Congress to do something about illegal immigration instead of sit there on Capitol Hill like a bunch of bobble heads.

Election Predictions

This has been one of the most intensely watched elections in recent memory. People who normally don’t vote are registering. Young people are getting involved. Seniors, who are usually active in elections, are even more active this time around. Many in the media are coming out and openly supporting Obama. I think the reason has little to do with having out first bi-racial Presidential candidate or having a woman for Vice President, though that certainly plays into it (both candidates lack a strong economics or foreign affairs, but at least Palin is going for the number two spot on the ticket). People see two ongoing wars which are on going to nowhere and they want both over with now. True, the surge in Iraq is working but isn’t time for the Iraqi people to run their own government, and how long will we be propping up the government in Afghanistan? Shouldn’t they too be running their own show by now?

Yes, we all know the war on terror will continue, perhaps indefinitely, but how is it that we can track one cow in another country with mad cow disease right down to its stall and yet we can’t find a six foot Moslem terrorist with the face like a horse who needs dialysis? How many dialysis machines are there in the region that we can’t monitor? It almost seems like someone wants Bin Laden roaming around like the proverbial bogyman to frighten boys and girls into more military funding and tighter controls on freedom under the auspices of “national security”. But, who knows? Maybe I just don’t see the big picture.

Then there is illegal immigration and people refusing to speak English. Remember those? For months they made headlines, and nowadays nada (sorry, couldn’t resist). It’s still an issue to be sure. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2006, there were 10.4 million illegals in America. The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals estimated that as many as 210,000 illegals could become homeowners. How you might ask?

The Internal Revenue Service started issuing Individual Tax Payer Identification Numbers so folks like illegals could file federal tax returns (and I suppose become eligible for Social Security benefits). Some government functionary decided that it would be a good idea to accept these ITPAI numbers on home mortgages applications rather than social security numbers. And that’s how you achieve the American Dream without really trying. Oh, by the way, did you know that an estimated 73,000 of the home loans are likely to go bad? Yelp, that’s according to the Latino Affairs for the Center for Responsible Lending. Want to guess who gets to pick up the tab on those?

Then there is the economy. What can I say? It stinks and most people are pointing their fingers at Bush (though this has been building for a long time and both parties are to blame). The bailout is estimated to have a one trillion dollar price tag. 80% of the American people said “no” to picking up the bill for greedy corporate executives and their mismanaged companies. Washington said “yes” to their lobbyists and hailed it as an example of bipartisan cooperation. All I could think of was that Washington needed to be turned back into the swamp land it started out as. At least I know the ticks and other bloodsuckers haven’t left.

This brings me to my predictions for the upcoming elections. I’m no prognosticator. Some are based on conversations, examining polls, and seeing what other folks are saying. Others are based strictly on my gut instinct after 30+ years in politics.


Election Predictions for November 4, 2008

President: Obama over McCain by 55% to become America’s first bi-racial President.

US Senate: McConnell over Lunsford by 51% in what may be McConnell’s last race.

3rd Congressional: John Yarmuth over Anne Northup by 60+%. Anne just needs to get it out of her system and move on. How about a shot for Metro Mayor? We need some fresh ideas there.

Kentucky:

19th State Senate: Shaughnessy over Heleringer. Interesting race. Heleringer is a tough opponent.

35th State Senate: Angel over Albers. Not much to watch on this one. Denny should win handily.

37th State Senate: Hawkins over Clark in close race. This is Perry’s toughest race ever. Perry will beg and plead for “one more chance” in good ole boy fashion. He lost touch with the folks in SW Jefferson County a long time ago.

29th House: Bratcher over Sexton in close race. Kevin should win this without to much trouble.

33rd House: Crimm over Galbraith handily.

34th House: Marzian over Pitzer handily

43rd House: DeWeese over Watson handily

Judical:

4th Supreme Court Dist: Abramson over Shake in close race. By the way, I’ve noticed an awful lot of Shake signs in right of ways along Old 3rd Street and in Fairdale. Shouldn’t someone wanting to be chief judge at least follow the law? Signs in the right of ways were, the last I heard, illegal.

30th Judicial/ 4th Div: Kemper over Cunningham. Kemper is a good guy for the job.

30th Judicial/2nd Div: Smith over Vandertoll

30th Judicial/30th Div: Bowles hands down.

30th Judicial/16th Div: David Holton over Kathy King in close race. David Holton is the right person at the right time for this job.

Louisville Metro:

Metro 4th: Tandy over Owens handily

Metro 10th: King over Shepherd

Metro 12th: Blackwell over Witten. Witten is good candidate. I hope he’s back in the future.

Metro 14th: Bob Heuglin over Bob Henderson in close race. This is a case of “good” Bob over “bad” Bob. I hope the residents of 14 get this one right.

Metro 16th: Kelly Downard over Art Hoffman with 60+%. When this one comes on, it would a good time for a kitchen break.

Metro 24th: Madonna Flood over Weddle.

Metro 26th: Honaker over Ackerson in a tight race.


A Reader Needs Help

Few things tick me off faster than someone defenseless, like seniors, kids, or the handicapped, being picked on by a bully, regardless of whether that bully is an individual, corporation, or government. One of our readers, Scott Romano of Georgetown, Kentucky is a good example. He’s trying to get some help for this handicapped daughter. Below is a letter he recently wrote to 4th District Congressman Geoff Davis. Perhaps some of you can lead a hand to Scott by contacting Mr. Davis’ office on his behalf. I’m sure Scott would appreciate any other help you can offer. Here’s the letter:

September 25, 2008
Mr. Geoff Davis
Congressman, 4th District of Kentucky
Fort Mitchell, KY 41017

Dear Mr. Davis:
The purpose of this letter is to document our recent experience with the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and request some changes in the laws in Kentucky regarding the services for handicapped residents of Kentucky.
Background
I am the father of a profoundly mentally handicapped daughter, Lisa, who is now 24 years old. Lisa and I relocated from California to Kentucky after meeting a wonderful woman in 2007. Tina (my wife) and I were married in Georgetown, KY in May of this year.

I took full physical custody of Lisa about 5 years ago. One year later, her mother passed away leaving me as the sole caretaker. Before we left California, I had fought the state and county system there in order to get adequate services for Lisa. Three times we appeared before an administrative judge – three times the judge ruled in our favor stating on one occasion “this parent is doing everything he can to prevent institutionalization of his daughter.”

Before coming to Kentucky, we did some basic research and were able to locate an adult day care center in Georgetown (Active Day Center) that we toured in December. Finding this daycare was a tremendous blessing for us. While I settled down in Georgetown, my wife or I transported Lisa to and from her daycare. This transportation service was provided free in California without having to go to court.

Once I began working and commuting to Winchester, we requested basic transportation services for Lisa to and from her daycare (about 8 miles away). The Transportation Cabinet denied us. In the denial letter, they quoted from Kentucky Law as follows:

“A Medicaid-eligible recipient may receive non-emergency medical transportation services if the recipient meets the following conditions:
a. The recipient is traveling to or from a Medicaid-covered service…
b. The service is determined to be of a medical necessity; and
c. Free transportation which is appropriate for the recipient’s medical needs is not available or use of an appropriate and operational household vehicle is not available.”
907 KAR 3.066 section 3

We were denied because we have an operational car in our household! The Transportation Cabinet believes that it is our responsibility to transport our handicapped adult to a Medicaid-approved facility.

We then proceeded to an administrative hearing with a judge to decide. This hearing was held on August 11, 2008 in Georgetown at 9am. Present at this hearing was the Honorable Administrative Law Judge David Wicker, my wife and I and our daughter Lisa. The Transportation Cabinet failed to show up. At 9:45am, Judge Wicker issued a default judgment recommendation on behalf of Lisa. We thought that was the end of this issue and transportation would begin shortly.

However, Kentucky law provides for an appeal within 15 days. Much to our amazement, on the 15th day, we received a certified letter from Mr. Jeremy Thompson, Administrative Branch Manager with the Office of Transportation Delivery, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. This letter was an exception to the recommended dismissal issued by Judge Wicker. In this letter, Mr. Thompson states that they have further investigated our household and take exception to the possibility that we have two vehicles. By further investigation, Mr. Thompson means that someone from the transportation department drove to our house and wrote down all the car license numbers in our driveway or parked near our house. How scary is that? What country does Kentucky reside in?

On August 26th, we received a letter from Mr. Thompson stating that, in order to exclude any vehicles in our household, we would have to provide either:

1. A mechanics statement that our vehicle(s) are in operational. These statements would be valid for ONLY 30 days and that a maximum of 3 mechanic statements per vehicle may be submitted each year. (I guess after that, we push the car to her daycare and back.)
2. A statement from our employers or school (my wife is an on-call substitute teacher and taking college classes) listing work hours, school hours, and school schedule. This statement would have to be renewed every 3 months.

We absolutely refuse to jump though hoops for the Transportation Cabinet in order to secure basic transportation services for a profoundly mentally handicapped ADULT citizen of Kentucky; services that we believe are federally mandated by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

Today, I spoke to the Secretary’s Office for the Department of Health and Family Services and was advised that the Secretary has denied the exception appeal filed by the Transportation Cabinet. We have services. But for how long? If we replace one of our cars (both have in excess of 100,000 miles), will we be faced with another court hearing to deny services? When can we expect another “visit” from the Transportation Cabinet?

The Crux of Our Issue
Lisa is an adult. The federal government recognizes this. Why does the state of Kentucky consider her my responsibility? As a father, I love my daughter. All that I or any other parent of a mentally handicapped child asks is for some help. The truth of the matter is that, legally, I can turn Lisa over to the state of Kentucky and walk away. The state (and taxpayers) would have 100% responsibility for 24-hour/7 day a week care. Any idea how much that costs? On-line research puts the number at anywhere between $90 and $166 per day. Mentally Lisa is about 9 months to 1 year old. She is in diapers, cannot feed herself, and requires constant supervision so she does not hurt herself.

Today we read in the Georgetown newspaper, the News Graphic, where Kentucky lawmakers gave the head of a commission a raise of $62,000, bringing this “public servants” yearly pay to $195,000. And we cannot get basic transportation for our handicapped daughter. How is this fair? Perhaps, given the recent bribery issues with the Transportation Cabinet, I should have slid some Ben Franklin’s into someone’s hands. Is this the way Kentucky works?

Because we choose to NOT turn over our daughter to the state of Kentucky and allow the citizens and taxpayers of Kentucky to foot the entire expense of caring for Lisa 24/7, we are penalized. Now the entire burden falls upon us and we must battle the state of Kentucky for basic services.

The US Supreme Court ruled that unnecessary institutionalization of qualified individuals with disabilities is a form of discrimination under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), and states (yes that includes Kentucky!) may not administer their public programs so that institutions are an individual’s only recourse (Rosebaum, 2005).

The more pressure Kentucky puts on our family – the closer Lisa is to institutionalization.

This “law” needs to be changed. It needs to be reworded to clarify that the Medicaid recipient UNDER 18 must meet those qualifications. When Lisa was under 18, the entire burden was on me and I accepted that. She was still an under-aged child. Once she turned 18, I thought the law was on our side. In some instances it was. In others, it has been a battle.

We need this law changed NOW before parents and caregivers like us are forced to turn our family members over to the state to care for.

I do not regret my decision to alter my life to care for my daughter. All we ask is that the state of Kentucky provide some assistance to assist us in preventing her from being institutionalized. As I stated in all my letters to the Transportation Cabinet, we are prepared to fight. To the bureaucrats, this is just a matter of money. They make a decision to deny services and they go home to their family. To us who are affected by these misguided decisions, we live with the consequences and realities of their decisions and wonder how we can survive the extra burdens placed on us.

The biggest fear of any parent of a mentally handicapped child is what happens to their child once they die. It is a thought that gives us nightmares and rips at our heart whenever we consider it. It is the reason why we push so hard, advocate so loudly, and fight so viscerally. We know that the services we receive now can lighten the load on us so that we can care for our handicapped child that much longer. This is a concern that the majority of parents never have to face.

On behalf of all the handicapped adults living in Kentucky and all the underage handicapped children who this current law will affect in the future, I ask that you do whatever is in your power to have this law rewritten to more reflect the reality faced by the parents of handicapped adults of Kentucky who choose to care for their handicapped child.

Mr. Davis, I truly hope that you will read this and take some action. I intend on sending a copy of this to the Governor, Senators, newspapers and a ton of people who blog on-line. The taxpayers of Kentucky need to know what their money is NOT being used for. There is no greater cause than to help those who cannot help themselves.

Sincerely,
Scott Romano – father of Lisa Marie Romano
102 Lakeside Court
Georgetown, KY 40324

War in Iraq: George W. Bush

Accomplished? On May 1, President Bush triumphantly proclaimed the end of combat operations, and he did it with a theatrical flourish. Attired in a Navy flight suit, the former Air National Guard trainee (Bush had actually cut short his flight training to participate in a political campaign) landed ceremoniously on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln off San Diego. Bush emerged from the plane under a banner stretched across the carrier's super structure. "Mission Accomplished" the banner exulted. "We have difficult work to do in Iraq," the president said. "Parts of that country remain dangerous...The War on Terror continues." But, he went on, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

But a growing opposition thought otherwise. Rumsfeld had assured Bush that the war could be fought on the cheap. Once the productive Iraqi oil fields were up and running, they would more defray the costs of the war and the occupation. (As of spring 2008, Iraqi oil production was still below prewar output.) A streamlined military force brandishing high-tech equipment would be all that was needed. American forces could be reduced and hand off the job to Iraqis.

When Lieutenant General Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, told Congress that "something in the order of several hundred thousand" military personnel would be needed, Rumsfeld was outraged. The Army's top officer was hounded into retirement. The Pentagon leadership pointedly refused to attend the customary retirement ceremony.

And Americans were dying. Bremer and the CPA, mostly made up of young and inexperienced recent college graduates but with impeccable political credentials, holed up in the heavily fortified and protected area of Baghdad, the Green Zone.

Beyond, chaos and danger reigned. Snipers picked off individual soldiers. Roads were sown with mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which were designed to blow up and destroy the unprotected undercarriage of military vehicles when they passed over. Personnel carriers were only lightly armored, another money-saving policy. Besides, heavy armor was unnecessary, it was thought, with Iraq conquered and the population friendly. Troops took to fashioning their own armor from scrap metal or persuaded families back home to provide it to them.

The Bombing of a Shrine. When Baghdad fell, Saddam Hussein was nowhere to be found. As the coalition rounded up other former government leaders on their "Most Wanted" list, the supreme leader's whereabouts remained a mystery. Then, seven months after his statue fell in December 2003, a disheveled and filthy Hussein was discovered cowering in a tiny subterranean dugout -- a "spider hole," his captors called it -- near his birthplace of Tikrit. The all-powerful dictator who once had thirty-seven palaces was living in a few cubic feet underneath a mud hut. Bush immediately went on television to trumpet his capture, "I say to the Iraqi people, 'You will not have to live in fear of Saddam ever again.'" But elsewhere, there was little to crow about.

Even the commander of U.S. ground forces acknowledged that a "low-key, guerrilla-type war" was underway. Suicide bombers blew themselves up in marketplaces, city squares, offices, buses, and crowded streets, often taking as many as 100 fellow Iraqis with them. In one horrifying instance, 140 Shiites enjoying a Shia festival were blown up. Terrorist explosives reduced to rubble one of the most treasured shrines of Shia Islam, the Golden Mosque of Samarra with its gleaming dome, setting off a countrywide wave of violence between Sunnis and Shiites. Trying to quell the rising insurgency that was morphing into a civil war. U.S. troops fought pitched battles with Shiite militia in the teeming Sadr City district of Baghdad. A month later, they were fighting Sunni insurgents for the city of Falluja.

Misled by the Iraq National Congress's belief that Iraqis were united by their hatred of Hussein, American leaders had vastly underestimated the long standing enmity between the rival Muslim factions. Meanwhile Bremer had undertaken to exterminate root and branch all vestiges of Hussein rule. He outlawed Hussein's Baath party and barred all members from the government payroll, even low-level clerks and drivers who had joined the party simply to protect their jobs. "DeBaathification" eliminated much of the trained bureaucracy and brought normal government function to a standstill so that even mailing a letter became difficult.

Another Bremer edict disbanded the Iraqi army. Four hundred thousand angry trained soldiers were suddenly turned onto the streets with no jobs or income, to demonstrate or bitterly join the insurgency-where, at least, they would be fed.

The army was the only organization that could bring any kind of order to the country and perhaps stop the widespread looting, Bremer's predecessor, an appalled General Garner noted. "You can get rid of an army in a day, Jerry," he told Bremer. "It takes years to build one." (Bremer was to claim afterward that he didn't disband the army; it had simply "dissolved." And he said he took his action only after consulting the Pentagon.)

Despite these setbacks and growing antiwar sentiment, Bush was elected for a second term in 2004 and promised to prosecute the war until "victory." After the election, Powell went to the White House and submitted his resignation. He had, he insisted, always intended to serve only one term. Bush made no effort to keep him.

"We had a good and fulsome discussion," Powell said in a press briefing afterward. "We came to the mutual agreement that it would be appropriate for me to leave at this time." Washington interpreted that as diplomatic double speak for "We aired our disagreements in loud and angry voices."

Where are those WMDs? The bits of broken crockery that the "Pottery Barn Rule" had predicted continued to accumulate. David Kay, named to head a diligent search to find those hidden weapons of mass destruction, failed to turn up a single specimen after two years of looking. Nor could he uncover any evidence of any advanced plans to develop them. The best he could document were a few vials of anthrax powder kept in scientists' home refrigerators as souvenirs after the first Gulf War.

The aluminum tubes said to be designed for enriching and weaponizing uranium were actually for use in unforbidden short-range missiles. The deal to buy yellow-cake uranium from the African nation of Niger, mentioned by Bush in his State of the Union address, was a hoax. No evidence could be found of supposed meetings in Prague between Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi diplomats.

Then came the revelation -- with graphic, almost stomach-turning photos -- that American soldiers had mistreated and tortured prisoners in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. The Congressional cry to take the troops out grew to a roar. Democratic candidates swept the House and Senate in the 2006 elections. With Bush's popularity sinking to the low 20s in the polls, other Republicans stumbled over each other in haste to distance themselves from the president. Rumsfeld was finally fired, and the Iraq Study Group, an elite panel of Washington wisemen co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, normally a Bush acolyte, deemed the Iraq situation "grave and deteriorating."

Instead of withdrawing troops, however, a defiant Bush increased them. The "surge" of 30,000 reinforcements announced in 2007 was supposedly to allow the shaky, Shiite-controlled Iraqi government time and cover to solve contentious issues--such as sharing oil revenue and regional autonomy--and to train a viable army.

"As they stand up, we will stand down," Bush repeated, almost like a mantra. In the new army's first test of standing up, Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki ordered an attack on Shiite militias in the port city of Basra. More than 1,000 recruits deserted or fled the battlefield and had to be rescued by U.S. troops and airpower, with a ceasefire brokered by Iran.

Meanwhile, the country that Bush still insisted was the front fine in the "war on terror" lay in shambles, along with the lives of twenty-five million citizens. Except for the Kurdish-held north and the "Green Zone" headquarters of the coalition, no part of the embattled nation could be considered secure. (Later, in the spring of 2008, incessant rocket attacks shattered the supposed safety of the Green Zone.) Cities cleared of resistance by coalition offensives frequently fen back into chaos when the troops moved on. Historic Baghdad, the fabled city of flying carpets and Arabian Nights, was a nightmare of suicide bombing, IEDS, and ruins, with one million impoverished residents in 'Sadr City,' a Shiite enclave and a law unto itself.

More than one and a half million Iraqis, by official estimate, had fled, most of them huddled in squalid quarters in the unwelcoming cities of neighboring Jordan and Syria. Another estimated two million were displaced within the country, fleeing wrecked homes to crowd in with relatives or live in makeshift tent villages. Much of the educated population of what had once been the most developed country in the Middle East had decamped, including 12,000 of the country's 34,000 physicians. Living conditions for those remaining were abysmal. Whole neighborhoods were without adequate sewage or water.

In July 2007, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told Congress that most Iraqi cities had electricity only one to two hours a day. On the fifth anniversary of the war, the nation's electric grid was still producing less than 5,000 daily megawatts of power, less than when the war started. Iraqis faced a scorching summer when 11,000 megawatts would be the daily minimum. In oil-rich Iraq, oil to power generating plants was in short supply. The bulk of it was being shipped abroad, the Iraqi government's only source of revenue. And an estimated 35 percent of the population was unemployed.

The repeatedly fought-over city of Falluja, west of Baghdad, was a classic example of the war's devastation. Once a thriving city of 450,000, its surviving population was estimated in 2007 at fewer than 50,000. Eighty percent of the buildings had been damaged in the fighting; half of them were completely destroyed. Half of the homes were gone. Those that remained were largely without water, electricity, or sewage. There were no operating schools. Buildings had been stripped by looters, including floor tiles and window frames. Once Falluja had been known as "the city of mosques," with more than 200 glittering temples of worship. Only 60 remained intact.

The estimates of "collateral damage"-the Pentagon euphemism for civilian and noncombatant casualties-varied wildly. In 2007, the Iraqi Ministry of Health gave a low figure of 151,000 Iraqis killed from war-related causes between February 2003 and June 2006. A survey published in the British medical journal Lancetestimated 600,000 "excess" deaths-those above the normal attrition of population-for the period 2003-2006. An Opinion Research Bureau report estimated the war had caused 946,000 to 1,033,000 violent deaths. In one survey, researchers asked individual Iraqis if they had a civilian relative or friend who had been a war casualty. Eighty percent of those interviewed said yes.

One unlamented casualty was Hussein. After a tumultuous trial marked by raucous shouting at the judges of the special tribunal, the onetime strong man was unceremoniously hanged for 'crimes against humanity' on December 30, 2006. Reactions predictably ranged from cheering to anger. And yet the fighting went on. And on.

In December 2005, Bush at last admitted that some intelligence on which the war had been fought was "wrong." But so what? Bush insisted that the war was worthwhile and the decision to bring down Hussein was "the right thing to do." He would have made the same decision even if he had known more. Powell, the obedient soldier, kept silent while writing his memoirs and giving motivational speeches. But in 2007, he finally apologized for the United Nations speech. "The intelligence I was given turned out to be inaccurate," he told Barbara Walters. "That will always remain a blot on my record."

The Historic Record. In 1971, Henry Kissinger asked Chinese foreign minister Zhou En-lai the historical impact of the French Revolution of 1789. "Too soon to tell," En-lai responded.

In the lame duck months of Bush's presidency, in the midst of an election campaign, and with his popularity ratings cratering, by En-lai's reckoning, it is at least 200 years too soon to assess Bush's impact on history, and especially the Iraq invasion.

But writers, historians, politicians, office-seekers, and the world are trying already to size up the eight Bush years. Some contend that Bush is simply "an amiable dunce" (as Clark Clifford dubbed Ronald Reagan), readily manipulated by Vice President Cheney, former Secretary Rumsfeld, and his political Svengali Karl Rove. They say Bush is a president out of the loop, whose priorities were cutting brush on his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and getting a good night's sleep. Many Europeans share that view and believe Bush has destroyed the world's trust in the United States--trust that will take decades to rebuild. Others regard the Bush administration as visionary-the first to recognize an impending "clash of civilizations," and begin to prepare America for it. And meanwhile, to fight a preemptive war before the terrorist enemy got stronger.

How will the decision to invade Iraq be judged 50, 100, 200 years from now? How will Bush's record be written in the twenty-third century? Where is Zhou En-lai when we need him?


The above is an excerpt from the book Failures Of The Presidents: From The Whiskey Rebellion And War Of 1812 To The Bay Of Pigs And War In Iraq
by Thomas J. Craughwell with M. William Phelps
Published by Publisher; September 2008;$19.95US/$21.95CAN; 978-1-59233-299-1
Copyright © 2008 Author

Author Bio
Thomas J. Craughwell is the author of several books, most recently How the Barbarian Invasions Shaped the Modern World (Fair Winds Press, 2008) andStealing Lincoln's Body (Harvard University Press, 2007). He has written articles on history, religion, politics, and popular culture for the Wall Street Journal, American Spectator, and U.S. News & World Report. He lives in Bethel, Connecticut.

Journalist, lecturer, and historian M. William Phelps is the author of eleven books, including his most recent, Nathan Hale: The Life and Death of America’s First Spy (Thomas Dunne Books, 2008). He lives in Vernon, Connecticut.