less government in business, more business in government

I've always thought of George W. Bush as the MBA president, running the United States as if it was a multinational corporation (albeit with a inept CEO at the helm). For the last eight years, it has seemed to be the singular mission of the Bush administration to outsource government and let business run it. It came as no surprise that they brought in Blackwater to fight our wars, and even less when industries began to deregulate with the industry policing itself, driven by the whim of a free market economy.

This in some cases, makes for more efficient government and a more aggressive economy, but in many other cases, you are throwing the public interest to the wolves. The most recent, and most egregious that comes to mind is a proposal to make changes to the Endangered Species Act which would "streamline" the protection services of the Department of the Interior. What the proposal really does is to remove mandatory consultation from government scientists, so that what goes on the endangered species list and what factors contribute to extinction of a species becomes the responsibility of a department that oversees conservation and land development.

Quote from the MSNBC article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26143098/
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. In May, the polar bear became the first species declared as threatened because of climate change. Warming temperatures are expected to melt the sea ice the bear depends on for survival.

The reasoning offered up for this is that since we don't know/can't make correlations that global warming is a contributing factor to species extinction (uhhhhhhh we can't?) the DOI doesn't need to seek experts on climate, ecology, etc. They can decide for themselves. Additional reasoning is that the Endangered Species Act has been around for long enough that government agencies and private land developers and land owners know best how to take care of species that fall within their boundaries and plans; they don't need to waste time consulting the experts. I can just see the level of abuse this is going to open the floodgates for rampant disregard in the name of efficiency and money.

How business friendly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26199580/
Again, none of this is unexected. I was surprised however, to see that today, George W. Bush, signed a bill banning lead in toys. Whaaaat? This is one of the few times I've seen this administration step forward to regulate the private sector. I would have expected Bush to offer the veto pen and say that it should be up to businesses to regulate themselves and consumer displeasure to manifest itself in corporations bottom line. Maybe the legislation was veto proof, or maybe you'd look heartless by not passing it. Whatever the reason, this represents a stark difference from the business friendly legislation pushed during the last 8 years of Bush.

a letter from someone who knows things

President George W. Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to "provide for the common defence." As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration's warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don't have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda -- that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

hahahaha

this is awesome...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

WALLACE: How does [McCain] overcome all of that and…

BUSH: Because there’s two big issues. One is, who’s going to keep your taxes low? Most Americans feel overtaxed and I promise you the Democrat party is going to field a candidate who says I’m going to raise your tax.

If they’re going to say, oh, we’re only going to tax the rich people, but most people in America understand that the rich people hire good accountants and figure out how not to necessarily pay all the taxes and the middle class gets stuck.

We’ve had — we’ve been through this drill before. We’re only going to tax the rich and all you have to do is look at the history of that kind of language and see who gets stuck with the bill.

saddam's charade

That June 2000 speech was about weapons of mass destruction. In talking casually about that speech, Saddam began to tell the story of his weapons. It was a breakthrough that had taken five months.

"Oh, you couldn't imagine the excitement that I was feeling at that point," Piro remembers.

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"history will prove me right"

Awesome article. Simply maintaining that history will prove you right, as adamantly as possible, doesn't have any impact on what actually does happen. 14 years later, it's pretty obvious George W. Bush was wrong about the MLB's new wild-card system. Where will we be on Iraq in 14 years?

------------------------------------------------------------

I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right." -- Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush after voting against realignment and a new wild-card system during a Major League Baseball owners meeting in September 1993. Bush was the lone dissenter in a 27-1 vote. "Time will tell. We believe in our research and that the positives far outweigh the negatives." -- Milwaukee Brewers president and acting commissioner Bud Selig after owners approved the new system 14 years ago.

---------------------------------- Judging from their track records on this one, maybe Selig should take a crack at sorting out that nettlesome Iraq situation and the president should forget about baseball and events in Baghdad and turn his attention to health care. You didn't have to stay up late Monday night to watch Colorado's 9-8 victory over San Diego for confirmation that baseball's wild-card system makes for compelling entertainment. It's apparent from the euphoria in Denver, an NFL hotbed where baseball suddenly is monopolizing the front of the sports pages.

You can see it in Major League Baseball's record 79.5 million attendance this season. That includes a combined increase of about 1.25 million fans in Philadelphia, Denver, San Diego and Milwaukee, cities where teams were playing meaningful games right down to the jubilant and/or bitter end. And you can tell by baseball's spiraling revenue, which has increased from $1.2 billion to $5.8 billion since owners had the temerity to mess with tradition and introduce realignment, followed by revenue sharing and a luxury tax on big spenders. Selig, who spent last week watching games at Miller Park and channel-switching at home, called his old pal, former Boston Red Sox CEO John Harrington, and they marveled at the direction the game has taken. "John said, 'Commissioner, did you ever think when we were designing all this that it could be this good?'" Selig said. "The answer is no. I thought it would be great, and so did John. But are you kidding me?" Baseball's playoff system is so popular, even Bob Costas is no longer on a soapbox on behalf of purists everywhere. The only people with reason to complain, it seems, are those unfortunate division champions who keep getting sent home prematurely by upstart wild-card clubs. If recent history is any indication, this year's wild cards, the Yankees and Rockies, might be sticking around a while. Since 2002, six of the 10 World Series participants have been wild cards. Three of the six -- the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins and 2004 Red Sox -- went all the way. When the Yankees win the wild card with their massive YES network revenue, a lineup featuring Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter and a $195 million payroll, it's officially time to dispense with the notion of wild-card teams as Little Engines that Could. On the contrary; lots of people in baseball think wild cards have an inherent advantage because they're grinding for victories until the final days of the season out of sheer necessity. Since the current system first came into effect, wild cards are 14-10 in the Division Series, 8-6 in the League Championship Series, and 4-4 in the World Series. "You're talking about guys playing their best, most inspired baseball of the entire season during the time they're rushing to make the cut," said Phillies assistant GM Ruben Amaro Jr. "Oftentimes it seems like there's a carryover there." That's not a hard and fast rule, of course. The 1997 wild-card Florida Marlins went 12-15 in September and won the World Series. The 2000 Mets (15-14) and 2006 Detroit Tigers (12-16) were also underwhelming in the final month. But since the rule's inception, wild-card teams have posted a staggering .631 winning percentage (461-270) in the final month of the regular season. The Angels, Giants, Marlins, Red Sox and Astros -- the five wild cards that made the World Series from 2002 through 2005 -- had an aggregate record of 94-47 in September. Does late-season momentum outweigh the advantage that a division title winner derives from clinching early, setting up its rotation and having an opportunity to rest injured regulars? The 2006 Yankees, who won the AL East by 10 games and got bounced by Detroit in the Division Series, might beg to differ. Still, the enduring success of wild cards in the postseason has prompted some baseball insiders to wonder whether it's time to erect a roadblock or two. In an effort to gauge that sentiment, ESPN.com surveyed general managers, assistant GMs and other front office personnel from all 30 big league clubs on the state of the wild-card system. We gave them five alternatives and asked the following question: If you had a choice of these scenarios, which wild-card setup would you prefer? Here's how it turned out:

Option No. 1: Keep the current system exactly as is (seven votes)

"Certain things are adages and clichés for a reason," said Dan Jennings, Florida Marlins assistant GM. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the wild card is the greatest thing that's happened to our game in the last 40-50 years." Right off the top, let's dispense with the notion that wild-card teams somehow slip in the back door. Discounting the strike-shortened 1995 season (the first of the wild-card era), there have been 22 wild-card winners. Only three (the 1996 Orioles, 2005 Astros and 2006 Dodgers) failed to win 90 games. And no wild card has ever won fewer than 88. If there's reason for debate regarding wild cards, it relates primarily to the fairness or lack thereof in the schedule. In 2001, Major League Baseball went from a balanced to an unbalanced schedule that requires teams to play 17-19 games within their division every year. The Phillies, for example, have to play well against the Braves, Mets, Nationals and Marlins if they want to lay claim to the NL East title, rather than clobbering the other two divisions and simply holding their own in intra-divisional games.

I don't think they should look at the wild card as, 'Well, you didn't win your division.' You just might have been in a division that was better than the other divisions. Why should you be penalized after that?

--Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd

But the system also raises questions about the equity of the wild-card race, because teams are chasing the same goal based on the same criteria -- winning percentage -- while playing vastly different schedules. The distinctions are even broader now that interleague play is part of the equation. And who's to say the wild-card Rockies, who won 90 games in a very competitive NL West, are inferior to the Cubs, who won 85 games while competing against Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Houston in the sorry NL Central? That's why a lot of executives think there's no call for a wild-card team to confront additional barriers in October. There were enough obstacles in place from April through September. "I don't think they should look at the wild card as, 'Well, you didn't win your division,'" said Colorado GM Dan O'Dowd. "You just might have been in a division that was better than the other divisions. Why should you be penalized after that?"

Option No. 2: Expand the first round of the playoffs from five to seven games (13 votes)

Oakland general manager Billy Beane spoke for many when he referred to the postseason as a "crapshoot." A bad call by an umpire here or a chalk-line double there can mean the difference between advancing or going home early. So doesn't it stand to reason that a longer first-round series will negate the possibility of a fluke or a hot -- yet inferior -- team springing a surprise? "The integrity of the playoffs would be better served with no five-game series where too many coincidences can impact the outcome," Cleveland GM Mark Shapiro said. Detroit's David Dombrowski concurred that a longer first-round makes for a fairer test without favoring one club or another. "We need to remember that sometimes the wild-card team is the second-best team in the league and has the second-best record," Dombrowksi said. "Handicapping them too much, in some cases, can be extreme." Beane actually favors the opposite approach. He proposes extending the first round to seven games and giving the wild card home-field advantage if it has the second-best record in the league. The biggest problem with a longer first round is the calendar. If this year's World Series goes the distance, Game 7 will take place Nov. 1. The new spaced-out schedule, which is dictated by television concerns, provides for more off days and potentially more wiggle room. But after last year's October weather debacle, the people in the commissioner's office would rather not be squeezed in the event of rainouts. Selig said a seven-game Division Series has been discussed ad nauseam in recent years. Everybody loves the idea until confronted with the possibility of lopping games off the regular season schedule and losing revenue as a result. "I understand the argument when a team says, 'Look, I played all year and went through all this hell for 162 games, and it's going to be over in five games,'" Selig said. "On the other hand, there's more drama because it's only five games. That's something to think about. "I've always believed that we should go back to 154 games anyway. But that's a real hit, particularly for the big-market clubs. We went through this two or three years ago and I asked the clubs, 'Are you guys willing to cut two or four games from the schedule?' And the answer was always no."

Option No. 3: Add a second wild-card club (seven votes)

Some executives favored a one-game playoff, while others liked a best-2-of-3 series. But this option was particularly popular with executives of clubs that compete against opponents with superior resources. O'Dowd, Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi and Milwaukee assistant GM Gord Ash were among the respondents who favor expanding the field by one team in each league. Ricciardi admits he's biased, but it's hard to blame him. Despite being crushed by injuries, the Blue Jays just posted consecutive winning seasons for the first time since 2000. Their reward: They finished 13 games out of first place in the AL East despite going a respectable 17-19 against Boston and New York. Toronto is accustomed to having a payroll that's considerably smaller than New York's or Boston's. Now the new, more enlightened Red Sox and Yankees are pumping more cash and resources into the amateur draft and international operations, so they're starting to look invulnerable on all fronts."I think you have to look at the dichotomy of the American League from our standpoint," Ricciardi said. "Those teams aren't going away. There's no cyclical change in their payroll or their ability to go out and get people. "It's not that we're not up for the challenge of competing with them. All we're asking for is a little more of a shot. This gives the Kansas Citys, the Tampa Bays and all those teams a chance to say, 'Hey, maybe we can get in at 88 wins.'" Atlanta assistant GM Frank Wren likes the concept of a best-of-three playoff because it would tax the depth of a wild-card team that might have qualified thanks to a hot streak at the end. If that team has to burn its two best pitchers in a "play-in" round, it will be at a disadvantage starting the next round. One obvious objection to the "play-in" concept: With 10 teams and four rounds, the baseball playoffs would start looking more like the marathon odysseys in the NHL and NBA. "Too many games," said Gary Hughes, special assistant to Cubs general manager Jim Hendry. "We might be watching Game 7 of the Fall Classic with our Thanksgiving turkey."

Option No. 4: Require the wild-card team to play four of five games on the road in the first round (three votes)

"We've talked about that a lot," Selig said. "But if you're going to make it almost impossible for the wild card to win, then why do you have the wild card?" In truth, home field advantage isn't as much of a factor as you might think. Since the advent of the wild-card era, home teams are 155-138 in the postseason. But it was pretty much dead even until 2004. In the three years since, home teams have gone 42-27 in the playoffs and World Series. The concept of wild-card teams-as-road warriors appeals to executives who want to tweak the system, but dislike the idea of dragging out the postseason with an additional tier or an expanded Division Series. "I think the wild card should be disadvantaged, and this seems like the best way to me," said Gerry Hunsicker, senior vice president of baseball operations in Tampa Bay. "I still think when you play 162 games, winning your division should mean something, until the industry decides we're not going to do that."

Option No. 5: The old Japanese League system (No votes)

For years, under the Japanese system, a team that finished first by five games or more during the regular season was required to win only two games in a best-of-five series, while its lower-seeded opponent had to win three. That rule is now off the books. While a few of our respondents were intrigued by the concept, no one embraced it as a realistic option. "I think it's an extremely cool idea, but it's just too radical and would never happen.," said a National League front office man. "Un-American," said another. Selig, similarly, has no interest in a wrinkle that seems too gimmicky and contrived for the national pastime. For all the talk about tweaking the wild-card system, fans love it, the money is pouring in, and there's a healthy mix of new faces and old guard teams this October. "You now have a system that's producing record attendance because people like it and believe in it," Selig said. "We're doing things we never thought possible. Why would you change that?" Jerry Crasnick covers baseball for ESPN.com. His book "License To Deal" was published by Rodale.

The Cheney Factor

In depth examination of Vice President Cheney and his restructuring of the role of the Vice President.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19378776/

Media Restraint?

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of CBS News' "The Blotter" have reported that President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to engage in non-lethal destabilizing efforts within the Iranian government. They report that the plan involves "a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions".

Although I have always defended the media as having a Constitutional duty to serve as a checks and balances system against the government, this one made me raise my brow. When it was revealed that the Bush administration had actively engaged in the use of warrantless wiring tapping of our communication systems, I was glad that someone within the government blew the whistle. Someone thought, hey, this is wrong, and the media told us about it.

In 1991, current Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams, pleaded guilty to withholding information in regards to the Reagan administration's destabilization efforts during Iran-Contra within the Nicaraguan Sandinista government. Again, giving weapons to the Contras, who were known drug traffickers, for hostages, was a bad idea. (It's kind of funny in a way, that National Security Adviser, Robert McFarlane got Reagan's approval while Reagan was in a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery, in the same way that Alberto Gonzalez went to John Ashcroft's hospital bed to ask him to override the Justice Department and reauthorize the domestic wiretapping program).

However, this story about modern day Iran feels different. Let us pretend for a minute that Iran was oblivious to America's meddling. America is now a lot more unsafe now that the "covert action" has been caught with its pants down. Let's be honest, Iranian President Ahmadinejad is not someone who has been entirely consistent and who even the most far-left "liberal" would not trust. One day he is claiming he is developing a nuclear program ONLY for energy, the next day he is making power posturing and flaunting his indigence to well meaning nuclear oversight. Is it too much of a stretch to be hesitant of trusting a President that publicly states that he wants to blow Israel off of the map, with nuclear weapons? If he didn't know before, now Ahmadinejad knows we have been actively trying to derail his government. The repercussions, given America's spread out military, is unnerving and scary. This is one of those times when I think the media, could have shown some restraint in releasing this story.

They could have waited until Iran figured it out and made an angry statement on TV. Then the media could have piled on about how stupid it was to try and destabilize Iran which is represented by someone who you could refer to as a "slam-dunk" of a threat to the US. Which is more worth it, exposing another ill thought out Bush plan, or having a severely pissed off Iranian leader who gives updates on his nuclear capabilities like he was a weather man?

"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran... And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow,"- Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Do They Actually Care?

The Democrats are now in control of the U.S. House and Senate, even with the Republican majority ousted I still can't tell if politicians actually care about what is happening to the American public. Speaking on the recent veto of the Democrat's funding proposal for Iraq by President Bush, Senator Harry Reid was adamant that Republicans, Democrats, and yes, the Bush administration would work together and hopefully they'd have a solution before Memorial Day.

I heard this on my way home from work while listening to NPR. This announcement came during the same week where I have been working 7:30 AM to ~ 9 PM all week long. When something happens at work, when I have responsibilities to take care of something, you just suck it up and put in the time. Americans do this every day, some may work two or more jobs, some work the worst of the worst jobs to provide for their family, and they do it because they have to do it. For once I'd like to see a similar effort from politicians. From the laziest and least working 109th Congress to the new and improved "100 hour plan" 110th Congress, what's the difference? If the Democrats were serious about withdrawing our troops from Iraq, they should hunker down, put their heads together and begin serious negotiations and proposals immediately. Memorial Day is more than three weeks away, while they are engaging in their political dance of posturing and expedience, men and women are dying.

Chris Shays spoke out against the Iraqi government going off on vacation,"If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight — that would be the outrage of outrages," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn. On the same side of the coin, a solution needs to be proposed now. If withdrawal is the serious conclusion of months of developing the spending bill, they should resubmit it with no changes. The politicians take forever to come to any sort of usable consensus, the Bush administration led us into a deadly Catch-22 in Iraq, and all the while blood continues to spill; the future of Iraq seems bleak.

McGovern PWNS Cheney

Former Presidential Nominee George McGovern:

VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney recently attacked my 1972 presidential platform and contended that today's Democratic Party has reverted to the views I advocated in 1972. In a sense, this is a compliment, both to me and the Democratic Party. Cheney intended no such compliment. Instead, he twisted my views and those of my party beyond recognition. The city where the vice president spoke, Chicago, is sometimes dubbed "the Windy City." Cheney converted the chilly wind of Chicago into hot air.

Cheney said that today's Democrats have adopted my platform from the 1972 presidential race and that, in doing so, they will raise taxes. But my platform offered a balanced budget. I proposed nothing new without a carefully defined way of paying for it. By contrast, Cheney and his team have run the national debt to an all-time high.

He also said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the U.S. exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.

In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush.

Cheney charged that today's Democrats don't appreciate the terrorist danger when they move to end U.S. involvement in the Iraq war. The fact is that Bush and Cheney misled the public when they implied that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. That was the work of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda team. Cheney and Bush blew the effort to trap Bin Laden in Afghanistan by their sluggish and inept response after the 9/11 attacks.

They then foolishly sent U.S. forces into Iraq against the advice and experience of such knowledgeable men as former President George H.W. Bush, his secretary of State, James A. Baker III, and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft.

Just as the Bush administration mistakenly asserted Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it also falsely contended that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exploded the myth that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear materials from Niger, Cheney's top aide and other Bush officials leaked to the media that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent (knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal).

In attacking my positions in 1972 as representative of "that old party of the early 1970s," Cheney seems oblivious to the realities of that time. Does he remember that the Democratic Party, with me in the lead, reformed the presidential nomination process to ensure that women, young people and minorities would be represented fairly? The so-called McGovern reform rules are still in effect and, indeed, have been largely copied by the Republicans.

The Democrats' 1972 platform was also in the forefront in pushing for affordable healthcare, full employment with better wages, a stronger environmental and energy effort, support for education at every level and a foreign policy with less confrontation and belligerence and more cooperation and conciliation.

Cheney also still has his eyes closed to the folly of the Vietnam War, in which 58,000 young Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese died. Vietnam was no threat to the United States.

On one point I do agree with Cheney: Today's Democrats are taking positions on the Iraq war similar to the views I held toward the Vietnam War. But that is all to the good.

The war in Iraq has greatly increased the terrorist danger. There was little or no terrorism, insurgency or civil war in Iraq before Bush and Cheney took us into war there five years ago. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism, a bloody insurgency against our troops and a civil war.

Beyond the deaths of more than 3,100 young Americans and an estimated 600,000 Iraqis, we have spent nearly $500 billion on the war, which has dragged on longer than World War II.

The Democrats are right. Let's bring our troops home from this hopeless war.

There is one more point about 1972 for Cheney's consideration. After winning 11 state primaries in a field of 16 contenders, I won the Democratic presidential nomination. I then lost the general election to President Nixon. Indeed, the entrenched incumbent president, with a campaign budget 10 times the size of mine, the power of the White House behind him and a highly negative and unethical campaign, defeated me overwhelmingly. But lest Cheney has forgotten, a few months after the election, investigations by the Senate and an impeachment proceeding in the House forced Nixon to become the only president in American history to resign the presidency in disgrace.

Who was the real loser of '72?

THE VICE PRESIDENT spoke with contempt of my '72 campaign, but he might do well to recall that I began that effort with these words: "I make one pledge above all others — to seek and speak the truth." We made some costly tactical errors after winning the nomination, but I never broke my pledge to speak the truth. That is why I have never felt like a loser since 1972. In contrast, Cheney and Bush have repeatedly lied to the American people.

It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972. Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over.

Aside from a growing list of impeachable offenses, the vice president has demonstrated his ignorance of foreign policy by attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. Apparently he thinks it is wrong to visit important Middle East states that sometimes disagree with us. Isn't it generally agreed that Nixon's greatest achievement was talking to the Chinese Communist leaders, which opened the door to that nation? And wasn't President Reagan's greatest achievement talking with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev until the two men worked out an end to the Cold War? Does Cheney believe that it's better to go to war rather than talk with countries with which we have differences?

We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it's wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.

On a more serious note, instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."

At the Pleasure of the President

United States attorneys are appointed by the President of the United States, not coincidentally, attorneys are often of the same political persuasion as the President. US attorneys are expected to enforce United States law, they are not political tools used to investigate and undermine opposition political parties. When President George W. Bush took the oath of office in 2000, he pledged to Americans that he would make national unity a top priority, perhaps the only growth of unity is in the growing discontent with the Bush administration. The forced resignations of 8 U.S. attorneys, has shaped it to be yet another example of political suppression of actions that are contrary to the interests of the administration.

Karl Rove has made the case that the resignations were not political actions but house keeping measures based on job performance. It is interesting to know what the criteria of job performance encompasses, perhaps they were sleeping on the job or maybe criminals were not prosecuted in an efficient manner. It has come out in recent weeks that the attorneys were removed because they were investigating Republicans in corruption cases and there are indications that they refused to be swayed by Republican Congressmen and women, pressuring them for information that they should not have had access to. It is quite obvious that it is not in the interest of the administration, for its members and supporters to be investigated and possibly be indicted on charges of misdoings. By removing attorneys that are in the midst of prosecuting such cases, the executive branch is circumventing the execution of the law.

• Bud Cummins was removed, according to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, to groom former Karl Rove aide, Timothy Griffin, for the position.
• Kevin Ryan, a Bush loyalist, was actually the victim of the poor job performance, but the DOJ had tried to retain him amidst the chatter of large scale firings. He was removed after a judge sought to go to Congress to make public his poor management problems.
• Carol Lam was removed because she was said to not be aggressively pursuing illegal immigration cases. The Department of Justice had defended Lam's performance in mid-2006, which asserted that she was pursuing larger scale immigration crimes, as opposed to small border crossing crimes. Emails between the DOJ and the White House, show that concern was growing about her expanding investigation of disgraced Republican Representative Duke Cunningham, which was beginning to investigate Republican Representative, Jerry Lewis (he was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee at the time of her firing).
• David Iglesias was removed when New Mexico Republican Party chairman, Allen Weh, complained to Karl Rove that he was unhappy about Iglesias' performance on voter-fraud issues, despite his active role of training federal prosecutors and giving symposiums on that topic. There had also been complaints that Iglesias did not prosecute Democrats quickly enough to make an impact on the 2006 elections.
• Paul Charlton was removed when his investigation of Republican Representative, Rick Renzi, began to ramp up. He had also created opposition with the Bush administration on his refusal to pursue death penalties in a few cases. Only a few months earlier, he had been honored with the Federal Service Award.
  
• John McKay was fired because he had not convened a federal grand jury case of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington State election for governor, following two recounts giving the victory to Democrat Christine Gregoire. McKay has responded, stating that following an investigation from his office as well as the FBI, they were unable to find credible evidence of federal crimes.
• Margaret Chiara was fired, according to the NYTimes, to make room for an attorney the Bush administration wanted to groom for the position.

These firings were not the first instances of politically motivated removals. Attorney Frederick A. Black, was demoted in 2002 while he was prosecuting the Jack Abramoff case through the Guam Superior Court.

Kyle Sampson, top aide to Alberto Gonzales and former UN ambassador, John Bolton (who did so on the Daily Show with John Stewart) have argued that there is no distinction between removing an attorney for politics and job performance. According to them, poor performance can be equated with acting contrary to the political interests of the ruling party.

As far as I know, Department of Justice attorneys do not have a requirement to be impartial. Unlike the Office of Independent Counsel, the advantage of politically moderate attorneys is in facilitating their confirmation by the Senate. As confirmation hearings during the Bush years have shown us, anyone heavily skewed to one ideological direction will get skewered.

In 2005, White House Counsel Harriet Miers approached Alberto Gonzales telling him that President Bush wanted to purge all 93 district attorneys, a move reminiscent of Stalin and Lenin era Soviet Russia. Pursuant with the Patriot Act, the White House would be able to replace removed district attorneys for an indefinite amount of time, circumventing Senate oversight. Checks and balances are effectively eliminated and opposition opinions are never voiced. The removal of those not considered Bush loyalists is yet another example in the Bush legacy of political insulation and suppression of political opponents.

• Valerie Plame, outed.
• Military generals speaking out against Iraq War policy, forced into retirement.
• Political commentators paid off by Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind.
• Qualcomm donors to Democrats, barred from federal Telecom Conference.
• "Either you’re with us or you're with the terrorists".
  
• Bullying scientists on Global Warming.
• Bush Town hall meeting, question and answers, filled with pro-Bush supporters.
• Attorney Scandal, no transcript and officials not under oath.
• Habeas Corpus suspended for ANYBODY suspected of being a terrorist, people disappear without a trace and are tortured.

What are they afraid of? Public opinion?

First you terrorize your opponents into silence so that your movement appears to have no opposition. This gives you tremendous power, not only because moderates quietly feel they are alone in their disagreement with you, but also because the ignorant media – especially the foreign media – casts you as the choice of the people. Having succeeded in silencing moderates, the next step is terrorizing them into cooperating with you. Soon passive cooperation is not enough. You want more than their body – you want their soul, so you terrorize the moderates into being "passionate" in your cause.

In the end, your movement appears to have only loyal and active supporters. Now you are in total control, for who would dare speak out against you? As Hitler said, 10 years before he finally rose to power, "The National Socialist Movement will in the future ruthlessly prevent – if necessary by force – all meetings or lectures that are likely to distract the minds of our fellow countrymen." In other words, all opposition is evil and we will protect you from it. Conservative Columnist for WorldNet Daily, Bob Just

Sound familiar?

Republicans During Kosovo

From the years 1993 to 2001, President Bill Clinton worked alongside four different Congresses; the 103^rd, 104^th, 105^th, and finally the 106^th. During three out of four congresses, both the House and the Senate were presided over by a Republican majority. It is interesting to examine how a Republican majority Congress worked/fought against a President of the other party, especially during war time and on issues of the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973. It is in my opinion, a good window of time to examine the failure (56-34 with 17 Republicans joining the Democrats) of today’s non-binding measure which sought to rebuke President George W. Bush’s plan of escalating the number of troops deployed in Iraq with a surge of 21,500 combat and support troops.

Article I- Section 8 of the United States Constitution provides that while the President is the Commander in Chief of military forces when called upon to do so, the Congress retains the power to:

• To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
• To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
• To provide and maintain a navy;
• To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
• To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

In order to understand how the balance of power is struck throughout the course of a war, we must look at Article I in conjunction with the War Powers Act which requires the President to gain the approval of Congress before the commencement of any sort of hostile acts. This Act, whose legality has never been formally challenged through the Supreme Court, gives the Congress a set of teeth, as declaring war can be interpreted as a formality that does not give Congress a role in actually authorizing military action. Congress can authorize a war, but can it end one? Congress can end a conflict if war has not been formally declared within 60 days conflict. However once it authorizes a war, as it did in Afghanistan and Iraq, it relinquishes its war making power to the President. This however does not give him the authority to conduct a war on Iran, unless Alberto Gonzalez somehow successfully makes the argument that in the “War on Terror”, the “terror” aspect is so far reaching that the President can make war with whomever he so pleases. I find that to be unlikely.

In 1992, the US as well as NATO were convinced that it was time to take action against Bosnia. The Senate and House, although controlled by the Democrats passed the multilateral authorization of force by a strong ~94% agreement. Eventually in 1995, the Dayton Agreement was signed and peace was agreed upon by the warring parties in Bosnia and NATO.

It was during this time that Democrats and President Clinton began to be heavily criticized by some in the military and by the Republicans. In a 1996 editorial, John T. Correll, Editor in Chief of the Air Force Magazine, blasted Clinton for not observing the Weinberger Doctrine –

“In 1984, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger proposed six tests to determine whether US forces should be sent into combat: Is a vital national interest at stake? Will we commit sufficient resources to win? Will we sustain the commitment? Are the objectives clearly defined? Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will support the operation? Have we exhausted our other options?

…the Clinton Administration, which came to office imbued with the idea that the instrument of military power could be and should be applied with fewer restrictions. President Clinton's first Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, said that under the Weinberger rules, the armed forces would be employed "only very, very rarely" and that "people may not be willing to pay $250 billion or even $200 billion a year for a military that is not very useful."

To my knowledge Correll, even as far as 2003 (when he discontinued his role at the Air Force Magazine), supported the efforts that the Bush administration had made in Iraq and Afghanistan. To some degree, retrospectively I would agree, Bush along with Rumsfeld transformed the military to better fight the evolving threats arising from Middle East combat. However, given our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today, it being 2007, I would be curious to see if Correll has given his thoughts any reconsideration. His laudatory attitude towards Bush was largely based on rhetoric and not action.

[Correll commenting on G.W. Bush] “He promised to review the open-ended deployments: “Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless deployments is the swift solvent of morale. ... I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling.””

Reflecting from 2007, Bush's words ring hollow as the criticisms he reserved for Clinton are those that he is also facing now. As we can see, Bush was heavily critical of the way Bosnia and Kosovo were handled. Many individuals like Bush and Correll threw up their arms, finger pointing that Clinton had committed our troops to world policing activities and used US military power too liberally. As the Congressional Democrats and Clinton pursued keeping troops in Bosnia to ensure success during peace negotiations, Republicans were intent on ending our nation’s activity in Bosnia.

The Republican Congress sought the following measures:

11/9/1995- H.R. 2606
Title: To prohibit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense from being used for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation force, unless funds for such deployment are specifically appropriated by law.
[Passed 243-171; 214 “AYES” votes were by the Republicans; failed in Senate 22-77]

12/13/1995-H.Res 302
Title: Relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enforce the peace agreement between the parties to the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Reiterates serious concerns and opposition to the President's policy that results in the deployment of 20,000 members of the U.S. armed forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Calls for: (1) the President and the Secretary of Defense to rely on the judgment of, and ensure the provision of appropriate resources and support to, the commander of the U.S. armed forces that are deployed in and around the territory of the Republic in all matters affecting the safety, support, and well-being of such forces; and (2) the U.S. Government to be impartial and evenhanded with all parties to the conflict as necessary to assure the safety and protection of such forces.
[Passed 287-141; 221 “Yeas” votes were by the Republicans]

12/13/1995- H.Res.304
Title: Providing for debate and for consideration of three measures relating to the deployment of United States Armed Forces in and around the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[Passed: 357-70; Majority opinion of both parties]

12/13/1995- H.R. 2770
Title: To prohibit Federal funds from being used for the deployment on the ground of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of any peacekeeping operation, or as part of any implementation force.
[Defeated 210-218; 190 “YEAS” votes were by the Republicans]

This piece of legislation was submitted by D-Rep. Lee Hamilton

12/14/1995- H.R. 306

Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the deployment of United States Armed Forces to Bosnia.
Supports the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.
[Defeated 190-237; 219 “NAYS” votes were by the Republicans]

With this Congressional record I think it is obvious that the criticism being endured by the Democrats concerning the non-binding resolution is without any merit whatsoever. Democrats are being accused of hurting the morale of our troops by pushing this resolution, obviously when Lee Hamilton presented the “We support our troops” legislation in 1995, the vote by the Republican majority was a resounding “NO”. Alongside of this lack of support for American troops assisting in peace keeping along with NATO, the Republicans voted repeatedly to cease the funding of activity in Bosnia. At the time, did that not embolden our enemies and show them that a peace agreement would not be supported by force from America? The inconsistency is stunning, a turn around in party politics that was only a little more than a decade ago.

This lack of support for the President in foreign policy only continued into 1999 when America again returned to the area for the Kosovo War. Again, the Congress authorized military action, agreeing to use of “air operations and missile strikes”. There was no opposition to Clinton from the Republican majority. And although the Senate had agreed to Senator Biden’s resolution authorizing air attacks in Yugoslavia and had also overwhelming agreed to Senator McCain’s resolution authorizing Clinton the use of “all necessary force and other means, in concert with U.S. allies, to accomplish U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) objectives in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)”, the Republican House still fought the legality of the war. This is not to say that I think that Clinton’s war was legal, in fact I would side with the Republicans and say it was pursuant with the War Powers Act to end U.S. involvement. The end result was still to authorize an extension to bombing in Yugoslavia, but to this day, Clinton critics argue that he went too far in pursuing “victory” and defending the Albanians.

The Republicans made many efforts to censure President Clinton on his handling of and engaging the United States military in the Kosovo War. They passed resolutions to debate the legality of war, they sought to withhold funds for the war and peacekeeping efforts, they even voted to not “support the troops” in what was for the most part a piece of fluff legislation. It is surprising now that the Republicans are acting so fiercely against Democrats taking action against President Bush and the Iraq War. During the Clinton Administration, there were not questions of how legislation was hurting the morale of the troops, there were however repeated questions about the Presidential powers invoked by Clinton in war making; questions that were absolutely legitimate. The current Republicans in Congress seem to have entirely given up their job of oversight of Presidential power; giving their responsibility in a system of checks and balances directly to President Bush without any after thought.

Historical Lessons for Iraq

We study history to take a glimpse into our past, to gain knowledge as to what motivated people, what mistakes they made, and how we may build upon their experience so that each generation becomes greater than that that preceded it.

The Bush administration is making an interesting claim to support their war on terror; when asked about what lessons he has drawn from Vietnam, he answered “we’ll succeed unless we quit”. The Bush lesson being, had Nixon not called for total withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973, and we pressed on, the American intervention would have been victorious. Had we pressed on, America would have been forced to answer the question, what is victory? Would victory have been the complete obliteration of South Vietnam, ending the north-south “civil war”, or perhaps maybe it would be the reformation of South Vietnam into a democratic entity. Who knows, however, because that question was left unanswered in our past, the question has risen again.

Another historical lesson we may draw on to better understand Iraq can be seen in a statement made by Dick Cheney recently.

CHENEY: Remember with me what happened after in Afghanistan. The United States was actively involved in Afghanistan in the '80s, supported the effort against the Soviets. The mujahideen prevailed and everybody walked away. And in Afghanistan, within relatively short order, the Taliban came to power. They created this safe haven for al Qaeda. Training camps were established, where some 20,000 terrorists trained in the late '90s. And out of that, out of Afghanistan -- because we walked away and ignored it -- we had the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the embassies in East Africa and 9/11, where the people trained and planned in Afghanistan for that attack and killed 3,000 Americans. That is what happens when we walk away from a situation like that in the Middle East.

Once again, the presiding wisdom of the Bush administration is that, if we do not leave, then we will win. By most accounts, the US mission in Afghanistan that had taken place during the Carter, Reagan, and Bush (41) was a resounding success. The mission was to halt the spread of Russia and communism into Afghanistan following the removal of the Shah. The United States funded, trained, and armed the mujahideen for many years until the Russians withdrew in 1989. Victory!... or not? The question however is, did we walk away? We accomplished our mission and did not have the foresight to anticipate the rise of the Taliban; at the time there really was no impetus to stay any longer than the mission at hand required. We left the country in tatters; they experienced nearly a decade in guerilla warfare against communist rule leaving their infrastructure broken, the best and the brightest of the country had left out of fear, leaving Afghanistan with no leadership outside of the mujahideen factions; we left an awful situation. This is leaps and bounds different from both Iraq and Vietnam. We did not leave because we were in many ways “losing”. We had won. It was just a shortsighted victory.

Today, if is somewhat the fault of the United States that Islamic terrorism persists with the strength we are currently witnessing. The Mujahideen are by definition very similar to the extremist jihadists. They were fighting the specter of atheist communism and promoting the strength of armed and political Islam. We raised them to power.

What was the United States to do in the 1980s? Were US troops to remain in Afghanistan until democracy was spread from border to border; were we to depose the theocratic state that we funded in exchange for secular leadership? Such a campaign is on par if not more daunting than the current Iraq situation. Never would it have been as obvious that the United States was using political puppets to serve its own worldly interests.

The only lessons we can learn from Vietnam and Afghanistan are that if we remove ourselves from regional struggles, regardless if we began them or not, the United States can retreat to a semblance of isolationism and peace for a short while. The lesson is not that if we remain, that victory is immanent. Such a conclusion is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible to the men and women that volunteer for our armed forces. To achieve “victory” in Iraq, we will most likely be in Iraq for an untold number of years, more than a few of those years will be devoted to figuring out what victory is in the first place. If we learn anything from Afghanistan it is this: even if we achieve victory, how long will it be until we discover that our victory was short lived and our conditions for victory short sighted? What other regional conflicts are we not foreseeing by our actions and what new enemies are we creating?

state of the union!

Tonight, George W. Bush discussed Health care reform. It's about time. Energy policy reform. Long due. Immigration reform. Glad it's being addressed. Global Warming. I told you so, but it's already too little too late. Fuel efficiency. Fiiiinally. The semblance of bipartisan discussion and open exchange of ideas. I sure hope so.

Dikembe Mutombo. You've got to be kidding me.

smackdown

You may disagree with the content of Keith Olbermann's commentary, but it is refreshing to see someone other than FOX News brewing up a pot of righteous indignation. This video comes in just a week before President Bush is slated to address the nation and deliver us his plan for future prospects in Iraq. I would have to agree with NPR, that it is likely that Bush's message is going to look exactly like the plan for Iraq just released by The American Enterprise Institute (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.25396,filter.all/pub_detail.asp).
I mean... almost everything he does mirrors AEI.

Already the Democrats have issued a statement to President Bush asking him to reconsider what they (and basically everyone else) anticipate his Iraq plan to be, the increase of troops. Troop increase, I can't imagine that this is a good idea, how could it be? We are not fighting a war in Iraq, at least not in the traditional sense, where there are distinct forces on each side of a conflict. In a traditional war, numbers matter, strategy matters, and perseverance matters. How are the tactics of traditional warfare going to help, are we to increase our troop levels by ~20% and knock on every Iraqi door and ask if they are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? We are fighting people who are defending their crumpled status quo and who really don't like the United States. The only way to "win" militarily would be to kill every last terrorist and detain/kill every single person that we think might one day become a terrorist. I think at that point we would be teetering on a cloaked form of genocide. We are attacking symptoms and not causes, and by not focusing on the cause, things have been escalating out of control.

What are the causes? Historical relations between Sunnis and Shi'a, the former Baathist party, and the inability of countries such as Lebanon and Iran to provide better social services and political strength to its people outside of terror sponsoring organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Is it a surprise that there are so many that support Hezbollah and Hamas? Given that they have extensive social programs including education, health care, etc. and national unity, how can we be surprised? President Bush and his cabinet have shown little effort in factoring these elements into US-Middle East policy and as we all know (or at least will eventually come to realize) it has been disastrous.

As a side note, Americans should observe Hezbollah and Hamas. They provide everything that a government should provide to its people, but their foreign policies are also driven by the religious convictions of their leaders; foreign policies that have dragged them into war with Israel, with no end in sight. We should take note of this as our politicians suggest and promote that the United States be a Christian nation.