Rumsfeld Is Once Again Inserting His Foot into His Arrogant Mouth

I thought the political handlers inside the Bush Administration had been successful in silencing our over bellicose, politically inappropriate, and all too frequently arrogant, condescending Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. But this week he has been back in the news with a vengeance, this time further perpetrating the administration’s lie about Iraq with his own unforgettable and often straight-shooting, short sided, dim-witted style.

The haughty Defense Secretary, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week, amazingly proffered the notion that the upcoming Iraqi elections might exclude insecure parts of the country. Rumsfeld stated, "[L]et's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country…[B]ut in some places you couldn't because the violence was too great? Well, so be it. Nothing's perfect in life, so you have an election that's not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet," Rumsfeld quipped.

So, are we (the American people and indeed the world) to buy that it is okay for certain part of the Iraqi electorate to be disenfranchised because of the on-going security problems, the morass that we created by not putting enough boot on the ground? And that the United States the great bringer of democracy, the shinning beacon on the hill, the hope of the world, can shrug it off as if it didn’t matter, chalking it up to life not being perfect? How does this translate to fair, open and equal election for the people of Iraq? Is this guy for real? Or have the Republican learned from their own homegrown experiments in voter disenfranchisement over the years, and are now applying those same undemocratic principles in Iraq? What is happening to America?

Open question to Donald Rumsfeld: do you know what the Constitution is, and if so, have you read it, and if so, do you understand that you read? Certainly by your callous, unthinking, and dare I say stupid statements, it is clear that there is a hard to disregard disconnect, somewhere between the dawning of understanding of American principles and your oft-time unbelievably ignorant vocalizations.

How did we and the world come to suffer you sir?

Iraq: Reality Check Please

Can any rational, reasonable person even keeping half an ear on the news out of Iraq possibly believe that the country is on the road to democracy? Violence grows on a daily basis with U.S. military official announcing that four Marines, from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, were killed Friday in three separate incidents while "conducting security and stability operations," in al Anbar province, while at least seven Iraqi’s lost their lives in the ongoing battles in and around Al- Falluja. How can elections be conducted under such an umbrella violence? Would Americans given similar circumstances turn out in large numbers to vote?

Meanwhile, President Bush praised interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and detailed his plan for stabilizing Iraq during his weekly radio address Saturday, stating, "[I]n less than three months, Prime Minister Allawi and his government have accomplished a great deal, despite persistent violence in parts of Iraq." What have the Iraqi’s been able to accomplish Mr. Bush? Has the violence lessoned, are the Iraqi people any closer to democracy then they were under Saddam’s rule. How long before the country fractures and Civil War bloodies the Iraqi people even more?

And consider this from yesterdays Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, Sept. 25 -- Less than four months before planned national elections in Iraq, attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces and private contractors number in the dozens each day and have spread to parts of the country that had been relatively peaceful, according to statistics compiled by a private security firm working for the U.S. government.

Attacks over the past two weeks have killed more than 250 Iraqis and 29 U.S. military personnel, according to figures released by Iraq's Health Ministry and the Pentagon. A sampling of daily reports produced during that period by Kroll Security International for the U.S. Agency for International Development shows that such attacks typically number about 70 each day. In contrast, 40 to 50 hostile incidents occurred daily during the weeks preceding the handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government on June 28, according to military officials.

Reports covering seven days in a recent 10-day period depict a nation racked by all manner of insurgent violence, from complex ambushes involving 30 guerrillas north of Baghdad on Monday to children tossing molotov cocktails at a U.S. Army patrol in the capital's Sadr City slum on Wednesday. On maps included in the reports, red circles denoting attacks surround nearly every major city in central, western and northern Iraq, except for Kurdish-controlled areas in the far north. Cities in the Shiite Muslim-dominated south, including several that had undergone a period of relative calm in recent months, also have been hit with near-daily attacks.

I think its time for a reality check.

Bush’s Speech Before the U.N. Had (Predictably) Little Basis in Reality

After listening to President Bush’s speech before the U.N. yesterday I wondered to myself: is this guy on the same planet as the rest of us? Does he not care that his and the country’s credibility before the world will continue to slide if his administration continues to deny and ignore what the rest of the world sees so clearly: mainly that Iraq and even Afghanistan are slipping from U.S. control, spiraling down in a blood soaked orgy of violence?

While the daily reports of the escalating violence peppers the front pages of major—and minor—newspapers around the world, the Bush Administration still clings irrationally to the theory that democracy is flourishing in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am sure most of the diplomats in the audience for the President’s speech yesterday were equal as dumbfounded by his almost alien speech that took on a decided belligerent tone. And yet Bush came before the body to ask for assistance, but to me it sound more like a demand. The New York Times opinion page summed it up best:

We did not expect President Bush to come before the United Nations in the middle of his re-election campaign and acknowledge the serious mistakes his administration has made on Iraq. But that still left plenty of room for him to take advantage of this one last chance to appeal to an increasingly antagonistic world to help the Iraqis secure and rebuild their shattered nation and prepare for elections in just four months. Instead, Mr. Bush delivered an inexplicably defiant campaign speech in which he glossed over the current dire situation in Iraq for an audience acutely aware of the true state of affairs, and scolded them for refusing to endorse the American invasion in the first place.

Even when he talked about issues of common agreement, like the global fight against AIDS and easing the crushing third-world debt, Mr. Bush seemed more interested in praising his own policies than in assuming the leadership of an international effort. The speech would have drawn cheers at an adoring Republican National Convention, but it seemed to fall flat in a room full of stony-faced world leaders.

The Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan think tank did an extensive analysis of the Bush’s speech. On thing is apparent, Bush is fiddling while the War on Terror slips from U.S. control. And I for one do not feel safer, how can I when the Commander-n-Chief is too busy obfuscating the truth to truly lead?

Where do we go from here?

The Turkish government confirmed this morning that 10 of it citizens were kidnapped Friday in Iraq. They are of course just the latest in a recent upturn in such abductions, which saw 2 Americans and a British national also taken only to later show up on tape with guns pointed to their blindfold clad heads. And this on the heals of a severe up-tick in violence in Iraq in the last week that has left some 100 dead and scores more wounded. Where is this all leading?

Where do we go from here?

Even to the casual observer is it plain the see that the situation in Iraq is fast spinning out of our control. It is widely reported that most of the major cities within the now infamous Sunni Triangle are in insurgent hands, not ours. Yet national elections are still scheduled for January. How can national election take place with these vital cities in Iraqi government (American) hands? And how much bloodshed will it cost to get take them back from the entrenched insurgents? And with what troops will we use to undertake such an adventure when we lack the resource to affect the capture and occupation of Al Fallujah, Ar Ramadi, Balad, and Samarra, and the Iraq security forces have thus far shown a reluctance to truly fight?

Where do we go from here?

Sabotage of vital infrastructure continues apace, the rising number of daily attacks by insurgents is getting progressively bolder and more deadly, and security in the country of Iraq is an ever vanishing dream of both the Iraqi and American people. Yet our President continues to paint a picture of Iraq as a country on the very threshold of democracy, stating recently that,

[T]he Iraqis are defying the dire predictions of a lot of people by moving toward democracy…It's hard to get to democracy from tyranny. It's hard work. And yet, it's necessary work. But it's necessary work because a democratic Iraq will make the world a freer place and a more peaceful place…[B]ut I fully understand how hard it is for democracy to grow in a country that has been under a leader that tortured and killed and maimed his people...

Huh? Really? Is the President viewing the world through a virtual-reality helmet? Is Bush so out of touch with the real world that he cannot see that Iraq is not a “catastrophic success” but a catastrophic failure that speaks to the lack of planning by the Pentagon and the striking lack of leadership on his own part? Wait don’t answer that. Of course he does! This is no longer about Saddam, and how he did or did not torture, kill, and maim his own people. This has gone way beyond quaint sounding platitudes and meaningless regurgitated sound bites. How can our President so blindly ignore the findings of our own intelligence (site) estimates, which paint a picture of a situation riddled with uncertainty; reports that state that at worse Iraq may devolve into Civil War? Is it stupidity, ignorance, callousness, or arrogance that binds the helmet to the President's head?

Where do we go from here?

Does the Bush Administration have a plan to extricate us from Iraq? If there is one, what is it? What is the plan as Iraq spins out of control and with each passing day lessens the chance that strong, fertile democracy will take hold in the killing fields of the Sunni Triangle? What is the plan to retake the cities of the Sunni Triangle, and at what cost in human life, both Iraqi and American? What is the plan when the Iraqi elections fail utterly degenerating into an orgy of violence we seem powerless to placate? What is the plan when the world’s worse fears are realized and Iraq erupts into civil war destabilizing the one of the world’s principle oil supplies?

Where do we go from here? That is the fundamental question. No matter who ultimately wins the White House, that question will hang above their heads like a sharpened scimitar thirsting for blood. Now that we have gotten so deeply entrenched in Iraq at what point do we remove ourselves completely from the picture. Will we ever be able to leave, or are American forces destined to stay on in a country that can never be secure without a strong central government to quell the long standing animosity between the peoples that call Iraq home?

Where do we go from here?

1000 American Servicemen Dead: For What?

So here we are, the milestone, surpassing 1000 American dead and countless more Iraqi men, women and children; do we know how many of them have died, do we care? Add to this madness over 7000 wounded Americans and how many Iraqis(?). Question: is it, was it, worth it? Is it worth the death, carnage, destruction, destroyed lives, and shattered dreams, not to mention the withering away of America’s leadership and creditability in the world? Is it worth the soul of two nations?

According to a CNN report, “more than three-quarters of those killed, 756 of them, have died in combat, and 647 of those have been killed since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003.”

Speaking from the Pentagon yesterday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld brushed aside the milestone by linking once again, in unambiguous terms, Iraq to 9/11 by stating,

It should be noted that the civilized world passed the thousandth casualty mark a long time ago... [H]undreds were killed in Russia last week. And this week, of course, on September 11, 2004, we remember the 3,000 citizens of dozens of countries who were killed on September 11 in 2001."

This callous and calculated statement from a member of the Bush cabinet despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission clearly debunked any plausible or creditable connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorist plot, and terrorism in general. More lessons unlearned and yet another Commissions’ findings consigned to the wastebasket of lies, deceit, and business as usual.

And as Sadr City becomes the next center of open urban warfare in Iraq and American soldiers and Marines continue to die at an alarming rate with 18 dead since the beginning of the week, isn’t it time we ALL threw off the masks of American ignorance and pride and asked as a nation why we are in Iraq? As citizens of a democracy isn’t it our duty to ask, no, to demand accountability from our elected officials and not fall prey to idol worship and swoon at the President’s every word just because he might share some of our same views?

The continued carnage in Iraq begs to be debated in open forum and this is not an issue the American people can agree to disagree on, not when human beings (Americans and Iraqis) continue to die at a rapid pace for no discernable reason. It is easy to forget that each life extinguished in this dirty little war affects other lives as well. How many lives have been touched for ill, altered, torn asunder because G.W. Bush took this country to war against a sovereign nation that presented no CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the security of the United States?

Those who would use the argument that Iraq was a growing threat as a basis for the attack, were clearly wrong; there were no WMD, no WMD programs, nothing. So why are we there? The other two countries of the now infamous “Axis of Evil,” Iran and North Korea pose more of a threat to the United States then Iraq ever did. Both have announced—let me say it again—announced that they have ongoing nuclear weapons programs. Yet we will use “quiet, sustained diplomacy” to deal with them, going so far as to remove troops from the Korean peninsula thereby weakening our military stance if we ever did need to deter North Korean aggression. Not only that, but Iran has proven ties to terrorism; it was (and more than likely still is) for years the chief supporter of Hamas (a known terrorist group), and allowed Al Queda free rein of its territory. Add to this caustic mixture Syria, which openly supports Hezbollah (a known terrorist group) in Southern Lebanon. I ask with concern knitting my brow: where are the battle plans for those three countries? Surely they are a threat! Can you smell the hypocrisy in the air as thick as maggots on a dead carcass on the streets of Sadr City?

Make no mistake I harbor no illusions about the nature of Saddam’s character. I know he is an evil man capable of mass murder, torture, betrayal, and other vile acts. But he was contained, and at the time we (almost) unilaterally attacked him and his sovereign country, we as a nation had far great concerns to deal with several hundred miles to the east in Afghanistan where the real terrorists live. And while we fiddle-fart around in Iraq causing more death and destruction, the terrorists are reconstituting themselves in Afghanistan.

How ironic and pathetic is it for the Vice President to call into question the Democrats fitness to defend the nation when it was under a Republican watch that 9/11 took place. Shouldn’t we, the American people be calling into question the Bush Administration’s ability to keeps us safe? I know I do! Hasn’t terrorism around the world increased under their stewardship of the War on Terror? And for those who would point to fact that America has not been attacked since 9/11, aren’t you operating under the same blind illusion that America is a fortress, that kept the Bush Administration from taking the terrorist threat seriously before 9/11, despite the many, many warning signs?

1000 American dead in Iraq, and more than 7000 wounded, and still the chief architect of 9/11, the man whose name was not even mentioned during the Republican Convention, remains free. Free to plot more terror, and kill more Americans…wait is that laugher I hear, laced with derision wafting through the late summer air?

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Here is something I ran across—thanks to my lovely wife—and I thought I’d share it with the world, so to speak. The article is called A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican and it illustrates in stark detail how no man stands alone, and that the theory of individualism, the self-made man is really illusionary in nature. No commentary by me, the piece speaks for itself:

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

by Donna L. Lavins and Sheldon Cotler

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee.
He fills his pot with good, clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan. Because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast -- bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower, reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount that is contains because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and the breakdown of its contents.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer meets these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get worker's compensation or an unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should loose his home to temporary misfortune.

It's noon time. Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification (those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark).

Joe is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. Joe's dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad, Joe gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives. After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

In the years to come, Joe's life will change dramatically. The U.S. dollar will be devalued as a result of our huge deficit, our living standards demolished, our standing with the world diminished and our social security gone...all because some conservative republican made sure he could take care of himself and his buddies.

Can Kerry Win?

Well its official, Bush got the bump in the polls (11 percent) everyone anticipated Kerry would receive, but didn’t. The bump Bush wasn’t supposed to receive because he is the incumbent, but did. And it’s beginning to look as though Kerry will loose this election, unless he does something to set himself apart from Bush and show himself to be the leader, the visionary, the President people need him to be.

Even before the now fabled bump Kerry was slipping; the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, the pundits all agree, did their damage, planting the seed of doubt deep in the soil of the American electorate’s unease about Kerry. And now that seed has taken root and not unlike to apple of Eden, I believe has poisoned Kerry’s chances to be elected Pres-44 and called into question both his leadership abilities and trustworthiness. His less then enthusiastic response to these attacks on his character only lent fuel to the fire. Why can’t the Democrats mange to formulate an effective response to these types of nasty attacks? Their continued malaise and unwillingness to do what it takes to check the Republicans can only buttress the conservatives charge that the Democrats are weak and spineless, thereby unable to defend America against the now ubiquitous and ever looming terrorist threat.

True, Kerry did come out swinging directly after the Republican Convention, but the punches to me, lacked real power. He only skirted the surface, still refusing to truly refute the mounting accusations against him. Why, for instance, doesn’t Kerry address the charges leveled by Democratic turncoat Zell Miller and Vice President Cheney in their respective speeches at the Republican Convention, line by line, laying waste to the half-truth’s and misrepresentations that laced them? Why doesn’t Kerry compare Cheney’s defense record against his own? Point out that Cheney, while defense secretary under Bush I, fought to cut the same weapons systems Zell Miller castigated Kerry for voting against.

Why continue to allow the Republican’s to own the field of battle, to define the issues, to set the pace of the debate? I was astonished, stunned speechless when Kerry, when given the perfect opportunity, stated that he would still have voted for the war with Iraq even when faced with the evidence that Saddam owned no WMD. Here was a chance to redefine the issue, to separate once and for all the ill-advised war in Iraq from the necessary War on Terrorism, and Kerry’s team blew it. Here was a chance for Kerry to be a leader, to stand apart from Bush, but he ceded the field to the Republicans. Why?

Note to John Kerry: if you want to win this election you must define yourself, you must set yourself apart from Bush, detach yourself from his shadow and present your vision for America. Stop reacting and take the offensive. Get off the ropes and punch back with force; this is war man, political war, but war nonetheless. Be the leader you claim to be, marshal the troops and take the offensive. It time to get, well, nasty; sling some mud, I am sure the undecided voters will not mind; indeed it is preferable to being muddied and not responding in kind. You sir have been slapped with the gauntlet by Zell Miller, pick it up and redden Zell’s face, let him, the Republicans, and indeed the American people know that you are not to be trifled with. If being above the fray means losing the election, sink to their level and beat them at their own game; then at least you know you gave it your all man!

Where do you want to take America? We need more then slogans and quaint sounding rhetoric. You told us you can do better, but how? What is the plan, where are the policy statements, where is that bold vision that will convince those undecided voters that you can lead? And for God sakes man show some passion, some conviction, some moxie, and some emotional depth. Pound a fist on the podium, raise your voice, rant a little, scream; call Howard Dean if you have to and ask him how it’s done.

With less then two months until the election Mr. Kerry you need to step it up, kick some Republican booty, close the deal before we—your supporters (albeit reluctantly of late)—start wondering what patch of land in Canada would best suit our particular needs as the dullard from Texas occupies the Peoples House for another four disappointing years.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I do things. That’s the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.--George W. Bush from Bush at War by Bob Woodward, as quoted in Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency.

That one statement epitomizes the central theme of Senator Robert C. Byrd’s (D-West Virginia) new book Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency. That is that President Bush is an arrogant man whom Byrd sees as "callow and reckless," and "incredibly dangerous," and thoroughly undeserving of the office he currently holds.

I do not believe there has never been more negative press (books, magazine articles, newsprint etc.) written about a sitting president, as has been written about Bush in the history of our Republic. Attacks on the Bush presidency have reached a fever-pitch in recent months, with books by former Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke and former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neil leading the pack. But few critics of the Bush Administration and its many failings bring to the debate the weight of Senator Byrd who has served along side 11 presidents. With forty-five years of Senate tenure to claim as his own, combined with a scholar's understanding of constitutional government, few can match Senator Byrd’s experience and insight into the inner working of our Republic and it many and varied machinations.

In Losing America, Byrd not only criticizes the oft-discussed rise of the neoconservative philosophy, but he also speaks with deep sorrow and undeniable passion at what he sees as the slow erosion of constitutionally mandated separation of powers between the Congress and the presidency. And Byrd also speaks with sorrow to what he sees as the evisceration of the United States Senate at the hands of a simple minded man, whose lack of constitutional acumen has led to the "slow unraveling of the people's liberties," in the months and years following 9/11.

An eloquent orator, Byrd often laces his speeches with quotes from antiquity and the founding fathers, which he uses to formulate well-reasoned legal and historical arguments to illustrate his concerns, and drive his central theme home; mainly, as the title to one of his speeches points our, the Emperor Has No Clothes and he, Byrd, is two crier trying desperately to make us all see the naked arrogance and destructiveness of the Bush presidency.

At age 87, the fiddle player and former Klansman from West Virginia is an unlikely Pied Piper. But in the months leading up to the Iraq War, Byrd thrust by his own sense outrage at the treatment of the Senate, whom he sees as the greatest deliberative body in the world, became the Congress’s moral conscience and protector of the Constitution. As Senators young and old, Democrat and Republican fell in line behind the Bush Administration due to intimidation, bullying, and outright lies, Byrd, stood his ground. And through—now famous floor speeches, eight of which are included in this book—repeatedly warned that the Bush White House was on a reckless and perilous course, one that endangered the very foundations of our democracy. How prescient were his views? Each one of has to take an objective look at our country and it standing in the word, an answer that question for themselves, but I stand with the Senator!

A recent newspaper article noted on the occasion of Senator Byrd’s now famous February 13, 2003 speech, entitled We Stand Passively Mute:

“When he rose on Feb. 12, 2003, to speak against the Bush administration's request for congressional authorization, his words ricocheted around the world. He chided his colleagues for standing ‘passively mute . . . paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.’ He attacked the idea of pre-emptive war, calling Iraq ‘the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time . . . in contravention of international law.’"

In many ways Losing America is unique among the books calling the Bush Administration to task for its reckless course. Byrd, long past fearing political retribution or concerned about revenge from the White House, pulls few punches in his lambasting of Bush whom he says challenges the wisdom of our founders like none of the other eleven presidents he’s seen in office. Through Byrd’s eyes we gain unique insight into the inner working of the Senate, and none to subtle nuances of the budget debates between Congress and the Executive Branch of OUR government. Byrd, through his fluent prose treats us to a history lesson in American government, offers insight into the minds of the Founding Fathers as they crafted the founding principles of the American Republic.

Now Come the Dogs of War

Byrd in his quest to put the current administration in the strongest possible light thus proving that the Emperor Has No Clothes even cites an infamous quotation by Hermann Goering on how to sell a war to the citizenry; it is:

Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither did Russia, or England or America, nor for that matter Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leader of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…[V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.—Hermann Goering, quoted in the Nuremberg Diary (1947) by G.M. Gilbert

Thus opens Chapter 8 of Losing America, entitled Selling The War, speaking of the now ill-joined Iraq War, which of course is still ongoing. Byrd speaks out forcefully against the war, chiding his fellow Senators for giving into the dogged pressure from the Bush White House and voting to supplant—for a second time in thirty years—the power of the Congress to declare war and transferring it the presidency.

Again in his speech We Stand Passively Mute (included in the book), given on the floor of the Senate on February 12, 2003, Byrd stated…

”[O]n this February day, as this nation stands on the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horror of war. Yet this chamber is, for the most part, silent—ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of the particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United State Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.”

More then just a testimony to the arrogance of the Bush presidency, Losing America is blistering critique of the United States Congress in general and the Senate in particular. Time and again Senator Byrd calls upon history to make his points, comparing the modern American Senate with that of ancient Rome; indeed he sees many parallels between the Roman Republic where English law was born, and thus our own, and the American Republic. And just as the Roman Republic fell from the inattention of its citizenry, Byrd sees the signs of America demise written in our current course, stating, “[M]any early symptoms that heralded the Roman decline may be seen in our own nation today.”

More then any other book I have read on the Bush presidency thus far, Losing America resonates more closely, rings more true, and sings more perilous, because of Byrd and the wealth of knowledge and experience he brings to bear. He is not a government employee with a grudge, nor a political appointee with an axe to grind; he is a sitting United States Senator, a representative of the people, a member of a co-equal branch of government, OUR government. And in his words, though sometimes coated with bitterness, anger, and frustration, a true love of country can be discerned; a true concern for the welfare of the Republic can be gleamed.

Who better then him to sound the trumpet of alarm and have it resonant truly? Who better then him to march upon the field flying an upside down Old Glory signifying to us, the American people, that all is not right with OUR Republic? Though a Democrat, Byrd’s words flow not from a partisan quill, but from a deep love of country; his words of derision aimed at Bush are formed not by hatred of the man, but from a genuine concern the he is taking the country down the wrong path; We The People would do well to take heed of the Emperor with no cloths, before he undresses us all.

CNN.com - Bush announces major troop realignment - Aug 16%2C 2004

CNN.com - Bush announces major troop realignment - Aug 16%2C 2004

I am of two minds (in case anyone wanted to know) about this troop announcement. Having served in the military in Europe during the time the Soviet Union was imploding, I can see the need to bring the troops home and leave but a token force in their place. Europe boarders are largely porous now and Russia presents little threat. It will take time to bring them home because Army and Air Force personnel were allowed to bring tier families with. It will take time to outfit U.S. bases to accommodate that many soldiers and airman and their families, not to mention the support infrastructure that must be bolstered.

As far as Korea is concerned; bad move. The country is on the verge of sometime and it isn’t good; pulling out U.S. troops at a time when the North Koreans have signaled by spotlight that they are developing nuclear weapons is just foolish. We have already started moving troops back from the DMZ (demilitarized zone), but the North has a million men under arms, and at least that many artillery pieces. Invading the South would be a small detail; just firing a few rounds over the DMZ would be enough to upset the world economy. After all South Korea has the world’s fifth largest economy and is a center for steel, automobiles, electronics, textiles, and shipbuilding. And strategically its position vis-à-vis Japan cannot be discounted or ignored; you know Japan, the country with the world’s third largest economy.

It is rumored the North Korea is soon to be in possession of six old Russian missile submarines (my guess is Delta class SSBN’s), and according to Jane’s Defense Weekly is working on an SLBM with a range of some 1000 nautical miles. If left unchecked a nuclear capable North Korea would destabilize the entire Pacific Ocean basin, from the Bearing Sea to Australia, from the Asian landmass to California.

Funny how is was imperative for use to invade Iraq because Saddam MAY have had WMD, but the other two countries that constitute the so-called Axis of Evil, that have confirmed that they have nuclear weapons programs underway, we leave well enough alone. And instead of putting more troops into South Korea as a deterrent and incentive to negotiate, we pull them out. Make sense to anyone?

As Americans, It is Up to All of Us to be Well Informed and Thoughtful

Richard Clarke closes his much (wrongly) maligned book Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror with the following paragraph: “[a]s Americans, it is up to all of us to be well informed and thoughtful, to help out country make the right decisions in this time of testing. We all need to recommit ourselves to that ancient pledge ‘to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of American, Against All Enemies…”

I remember when Clarke, a career Civil Servant who has served under four Presidents released this book. The Republican pundits and Bush Administration officials alike, lined up in lockstep spreading all sorts of malicious trash about the man in an effort to undermine his creditability and question his motivations. Nowhere were theses attacks on Clarke more vicious then on Fox News. To a certain extent the attacks worked, insofar as not enough Americans have read this book, and took to heart its message. And we all need to read this book; that is if we truly care about our national safety.

In Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror Clarke says that he is telling a personal story, one that led him first to the Sate Department where he held a number of high ranking positions, the then to the White House where he worked the counterterrorism problem for some ten year, under three different Presidents, becoming the first Director of Counterterrorism under Clinton. If anyone knows how Usama bin Laden and his ever growing gang of murders think, it is him, and those who served with and under him. As far as I can tell he has no agenda other than the truth and the safeguarding of America.

What I learned by reading Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror is the startling, and often troubling history of our governments struggle against fundamentalist Islam, a struggle that begin with the ineffectual responses by President Reagan. I was in the military at the time the Marines barracks was bombed and could never understand why we didn’t respond to the bombing in like kind, despite the massive lose of life (what is little known is that the Marines were told not to chamber rounds in their rifels and had no clips in their guns when they were attacked). Now I understand our response, or lack thereof, and the disastrous consequences that have ensued.

Book Excerpt:

Wolfowitz fidgeted and scowled…”Well, I just don’t want understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden.”

“We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations call al Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States, I answered…

Wolfowitz turned to me. “You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA failed to find the linkage doesn’t mean they don’t exist.” I could hardly believe it, but Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory hat Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, a theory that has been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue.

End Book Excerpt

Clarke lays it all out in easy to verify facts that paint a picture of neglect from Reagan to Bush Jr. Many Republicans have decried his treatment of Clinton in the book, stating that he let Clinton off the hook. Never mind that what Clinton did during his tenure is a matter of fact. But Clarke does not let Clinton off the hook, he is critical of the former President for not leaning on the CIA and FBI enough, and for allowing the Monica Lewinski scandal to diminish his political capital.

Critics had tented to focus on his treatment of Bush Jr., and true Clarke has few kind things to say about him, but Bush flubbing of the War against Terror are well documented. What Clarke does is give us a behind the scenes look at what Bush’s ill conceived decision to invade Iraq have done to U.S. security, and the over all War on Terror, and why after three years of fighting in Afghanistan we are not safer as a nation.

Then too Clarke writes volumes about the failures in the FBI, CIA, State Department, Justice Department etc. to take the terrorist threat seriously enough to end the incessant infighting long enough to form a united front and do something about it. And this was never more pervasive then under the current Bush Administration, where, yes, terrorism was not on the front burner until the tragedy of 9/11.

It is clear after reading the book, that our (Americans in general) ignorance of the fundamentalism Islamic movement might well be our undoing. They do have an agenda, and it is not just to kill Americans, it is world domination as absurd as that may sound. But in Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror, Clarke makes a convincing case that this is Usama’s and his followers intent, their long sought after goal, and a study of Islam and it spread at the fall of the Roman Empire will bear him out.

We are at a crucial nexus in our nation’s history. Vexing problems beset out society from within and without and this general election is perhaps the most important in our Republic’s history. I do not hide my distain for the sitting President and his Administration. I believe they have endangered this country with arrogance, inept leadership, and a plentitude of unwise decisions most of which have left the United States in a position of being scorned, ridiculed, disrespected and feared. We owe it to ourselves, or children, and each other to go into this election armed with knowledge and understanding; in short to be informed and informed well.

By writing Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror Richard Clarke has attempted to do just that, inform the American public. I implore you not to dismiss this book out of hand out of loyalty to Party; read it with an objective eye, and open mind. The future of the Republic depends on an informed electorate, be informed!

Outfoxed: What Liberal Media?

Where to begin? Ordinarily I would not undertake to review a documentary within the virtual walls of this forum, but Outfoxed; Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, a film which takes an objective look at Fox News, is a one well worth heralding because its message affects us all as Americans, especially in the run-up to the crucial elections in November.

I do not regularly watch Fox News, because of three overriding reasons; 1). their slant on the news is decidedly biased towards the right; 2). the O’Reilly Factor with Bill O’Reilly, and; 3). Hannity & Colmes with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. I consider both O’Reilly and Hannity liars and bullies in the worst tradition of elementary School playground childhood interaction, and the rest of the major Fox News on-air personalities are not far behind.

It is an open secret that Fox News is neither “fair” or “balanced.” How can it be when Hannity opens his show with a countdown to how many days it will be until Bush is reelected, and O’Reilly regularly and habitually bullies his guest, and yells at them the shut-up, and when they don’t, has their microphones cut? I am left wondering: is this the Jerry Springer Show or a place where the issues are debated fairly and without an agenda by the host(s)? The later is true of course, O’Reilly, Hannity, Brit Hume (whom I used to respect), Geraldo Rivera (who I have never thought mush of ), and the entire Fox News organization have an agenda, and that is to be the 24-hour mouthpiece of the Republican Party and its ever increasing lean to the right of center. It is almost as if the term fair and balanced is used to mock those gullible enough to watch the news channel.

The documentary Outfoxed examines Fox News from a number of different angles, starting with its owner, openly right leaning, naturalized American citizen Rupert Murdoch owner of international News Corporation. But the documentary is not content to examine Fox News from the outside; it delves into the meat of the network, interviewing a number of former Fox News producers, and news reporters/local news anchormen, in order to get their perspective. And it dissects the methods Fox News uses to get their slanted message out to the public at large. But what I found most enlightening is how deeply entrenched Fox News is the Republican Party ethos to the exclusion of any other view point. As Outfoxed shows in glaring detail, Fox News is, once again, nothing more then the 24 hour mouth piece of the Republican Party, the same Party that regular reminds the American people that the “liberal” press is lying to us! How ironic.

The documentary points out that what Fox News is doing is worse than the old Soviet propaganda machine, because at least one knew what the Soviet government was up to: it was suppressing all other view points except its own in a bid to control the populace. What Fox News and the Republican Party are doing is far more insidious and underhanded because it clothes it right wing propaganda in the American flag and calls it news. News that heralds itself as “fair and balanced” however is anything but, even to the most causal observer who cares to pay attention to the world around them.

The most disturbing part of the documentary is when Outfoxed delves into the coverage of election night, 2000 in which Fox News network was the first to call the election in Bush’s favor despite the fact that Florida was still in contention. Fox’s declaration forced the other news organizations to follow suit in very short order, and the documentary points out that this and not the contentious court case to follow, or the war of words, nor the endless debate over counting ballots, was the main reason Bush became President. Why you might ask? Because the declaration set up an expectation, an air of finality that swayed public opinion in Bush’s direction; it is an argument that is hard to refute.

Outfoxed also goes the great lengths to paint Hannity and O’Reilly (especially O’Reilly) with a brush of reality that colors their shows with the bright colors of truth. They are, in the final analysis not journalist at all; they do not seek the truth, nor do they wish to entertain an opinion contrary to their own. They have a Right Wing Republican Party agenda and will do anything, including twisting the truth and outright lie to prove their points. Much like Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Conservative political pendants who have little or no real journalism experience, they are in the end, arrogant, loudmouthed bullies and talking heads; mouth pieces of the Republican Party. O’Reilly is especially grating to the sensibilities. Other may find him entertaining, I find him obnoxious and insufferable.

The sort of behaviors exhibited by Fox News on-air personalities would not tolerated nor considered creditable on ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, or CNN, so why do the American people tolerate it here?

For those would cannot do without their nightly dose of Fox News and claim to love their country, Outfoxed is a documentary well worth their time to watch. And for those of us who think that truly “fair and balanced” news reporting is essential to the proper functioning of our American Republic, Outfoxed is an education in what can happen when the People and the government agency charged with the stewardship of the airwave—the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—stop paying attention and allow cancers like Fox News to infest the very heart of our democratic process. I, for one, do not like being subtly manipulated by those with interests other then the welfare of the American people and nation in mind. Do you?

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Who are Iraq's Mehdi Army?

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Who are Iraq's Mehdi Army?

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Talks collapse in Iraqi holy city

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Talks collapse in Iraqi holy city Perhaps we will let the Army and Marines finsh the job this time!!

The Carpetbagger Has Landed

Keyes fires up GOP faithfulSaid Allen Keyes on Fox News on March 17, 2000:

I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it.

But that statement of principles didn’t stop Keyes, a resident of the state of Maryland, from announcing this weekend that he would run for the Senate in the state of Illinois.

When asked about this apparent hypocritical stance, Keyes explained that he was not being a hypocrite, nor violating his stated principles, because unlike Mrs. Clinton, he was “invited” to run in the state by the Republican leadership. A leadership spurned on in large part by my Congressman Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Keyes also stated,

[w]e must continue to assert and stand tall to defend the great principles of God's authority and unalienable rights on which this nation is founded…[I]f, indeed, that land is still Illinois, then I have lived in the Land of Lincoln all my life . . . and I will be proud to call Illinois my home."

I suppose this was a weak attempt by Keyes to further justify his violation of his own principles. How can I trust a man who can so easily violate his own principles, and then invoke God’s name in his misdeed?

Now I have lived in the state of Illinois since 1995, and I have yet to visit the state south of the capitol Springfield, and I am just learning the ins and outs of the city of Chicago. How can Alan Keyes possibly get to know my state, its people, and its concerns in less then three months? He can’t and demonstrated as much this morning when addressing the Republican rally; he asked…”[w]hat do I need to know?” Shouldn’t my Senator already know what issues affect the state? Obama, who has practiced law in the state and who has been a sitting state senator for seven years, is clearly the choice for me and the citizens of the state of Illinois.

Keyes ended his speech on Sunday stating that he believed he was “duty-bound” to protect the moral principles upon which the nation was founded. And he invited the states citizens to join him because "the victory is for God." I have to wonder why God would care one way or the other whether or not Alan Keyes sits in the chambers of the United States Senate. I dare say he has much more weighty concerns on his universal mind.

Alan Keyes Picked to Run for Senate in Illinois Violating Federalist Principles

The Illinois Republican Party in a bid that speaks volumes about the level of desperation to field any candidate to run against the Democratic Party’s golden child Barack Obama, in the upcoming November general election, picked arch-conservative Alan Keyes from (gasp) the state of Maryland late last night! Keyes, if he decided to run, would challenge Obama for Illinois’s soon to be vacant junior U.S. Senate seat.

First of all it is extremely doubtful that Keyes—who has made two failed bids for the Whitehouse and advocates replacing income tax with a national sales tax among other far-fetched ideas—has any chance at winning in Illinois, a state firmly in the blue. Second, I find it amusing and very disingenuous—not to mention exceedingly hypocritical of Mr. Keyes to even consider to possibility of running in a state he is not a resident of. After all, he heaped nothing but scorn on Hillary Clinton when she ran for the open New York Senate state seat back in 2000. Said Keyes on Fox News (that bastion of fair, unbiased, and balanced reporting) on March 17, 2000,

I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it.

However, Mr. Keyes, seems to believe that it might be okay him to represent the people of Illinois, (I guess Federalism is no longer in danger) even though it might not be a good idea. Keyes stated yesterday,

I do not take it for granted that it's a good idea to parachute into a state and go into a Senate race…[a]s a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea.

He went on to state,

I think they have thrown down a gauntlet of national challenge to the Republican Party of the state of Illinois.

Are we being subjected to more Republican do as I say and not as I do leadership? Is it okay to violate Federalism in the name of Republican Party prestige and pride?

U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty (washingtonpost.com)

U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty (washingtonpost.com) And the arrogant disregard for the wishes of other (inferior) nations by the Bush Administration continues apace. According to the Washington Post,

…the Bush administration declared this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

How much lower does American prestige have to fall before Bush gets it? We are not alone; the United States as powerful as it is still depends on the goodwill of other nations. And the Bush Administration’s stance on this issue makes little sense even under the dim light of a Yankee Candle. What good is a nuclear proliferation treaty that cannot be verified by inspections?

It has taken ten years to negotiate this treaty, and the Bush Administration would make it all but worthless by refusing to support the inspection and verification process. They—the Bush Administration—site cost as the primary reason they wish to dump the inspection and verification process.

Since it is the U.N. that will be conducting the inspections, shouldn’t that body concern itself about the cost of the inspections? And what exactly would cost so much; the monitoring equipment, the cameras, the SUV’s, the white paint needed to cover the U.N. vehicles, the black pained needed to adorn the U.N. moniker on the doors of the vehicles, the salary of the inspectors, what? And it seems to me that the continued security of the U.S. and its allies (the ones we have left) against the continual and very real threat of nuclear proliferation would be worth any cost. Or perhaps I am being naive…perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…

John Kerry for President - Official Web Site

John Kerry for President - Official Web Site This is the man I support for our next President.

2004 Democratic National Convention Official Site

Home - Main - 2004 Democratic National Convention Official Site

Pouting Bush Shuns the NAACP for Fourth Straight Year

George W. Bush proves once again that he is a man of the people, a President who strives to embrace all of the American people, no matter their color or political affiliation, unless of course if you call him names, then all bets are off. This is the basis for George W. Bush’s refusal to speak at the recent annual convention of the NAACP in Philadelphia. Bush, speaking of the NAACP leadership recently told reporter,

“[y]ou've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me."

Excuse me, but aren’t you an adult Mr. Bush? Don’t you claim to be a leader? Are these the actions of an effective leader? Is this the way the President of an increasingly multicultural nation should act? Refusing to speak in front of the NAACP because Chairman Julian Bond rightly has called for your ouster is to summarily dismiss the thoughts—and votes—of some 500,000 NAACP members nationwide, and millions more (black & white, Asian & Latino) who support their cause.

The White House in a bid to prove a how gullible the American people are, at first attributed Bush's decision not to accept the invitation to speak at the NAACP annual convention to a scheduling conflict. Only later did Bush confirm what we all already know: that the leadership of the NAACP has little love for Bush because of his policies and track record to date on civil rights. Then candidate Bush’s visit to the openly racist campus of Bob Jones University during the election campaign of 2000; the Bush Administration’s announced support of the litigants in the Michigan Law School reverse discrimination case on Martin Luther King’s birthday, and a host of other questionable actions certainly do nothing to endear him to Black Americans as a whole. And his refusal to even meet with the Congressional Black Caucus speaks volumes about his stance on the Black American leadership in Congress. Message: you Congressional Black Caucus) don’t matter, your causes are not mine, nor my bases to embrace or consider, and the people you represent don’t matter!

Granted some of the things that Julian Bond and President of the NAACP Mr. Kweisi Mfume have been harsh, but were they deserved, are they the truth, and did they need to be said? I say yes, but of course each American will have to make up their own mind based on the Principles this nation is supposed to hold dear, you know, liberty and justice for all.

In his defense Mr. Mfume told reporters that,

“he has reached out to Bush numerous times in hopes of meeting with him…[t]he president never wrote me back," he stated. "I always got a letter from someone else in the White House stating his schedule did not permit such a meeting and they would get back with me ... and they never did.”

But Bush has continually stated that the Republican Party is the Party of inclusion, not exclusion. So why miss a chance to spread the love to the members of the nation’s foremost civil rights organization and let action speak louder then mere words? The message sent by Bush is undeniably clear: you (Black Americans) don’t matter, and the people you represent don’t matter, I don’t need your vote; you are insignificant, once again second class citizens whose core concerns need not be addressed by my administration.

Thank you Mr. Bush; you have further solidified my position in opposition of you and your Party of inclusion. We have no use for each other.

And Dubya Fiddled While the U.S. Army Burned

What will it take? What will it take before the continuing failure of leadership from the Bush Administration, and Bush personally as Command-n-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, falls upon the American people and U.S. Army and Guard & Reserve like a hurricane? A strong category 5 monster building in the South Atlantic, threatening, but then lingering, then threatening, then finally making landfall, spreading chaos and destruction in wide unrelenting swaths across an innocent land. Is that the magnitude of disaster it would take before America wakes up and rids itself of this embarrassingly incompetent Republican Administration?

Members of Congress (mostly democrats) and military experts within and without Pentagon are troubled by the increasingly clear fact that the U.S. Army is being strained by extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than half of the Army's 33 active duty combat brigades are serving in those countries (mostly in Iraq) or preparing to deploy there (see NPR.org / Morning Edition for a lengthy and interesting piece on this subject). They point to a looming crisis within the nation’s largest armed force and its reserve component. And yet the Bush Administration failing the leadership test again, declines to act decisively to avert certain disaster. Instead of making the hard choices—like growing the Army by at least two or more divisions—the Bush Administration calls in the Marines to perform a mission they are not designed to do; institutes morale-busting stop-loss measures; calls upon the inactive ready reserve; and continues to disrupt the lives of reservists in ever increasing numbers, pushing that institution to the breaking point. Despite all these measures designed to put more boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, the civilian leadership (and I use the term very loosely) at the Pentagon foolishly clings to the notion that there is no need to grow the standing Army.

It is doubtful, even at a cursory glance, that the U.S. Army could fight another major conflict, as called for in long standing U.S. military doctrine, with active duty troop strengths at its current level. I am left wondering, where is the disconnect? Why the resistance to doing what is right? Politics? Shame on Bush! Is it so hard for the Republican led Administration to admit that it was wrong to try and fight two conflicts without growing the Army in a substantial way? Is Rumsfled so hell-bent on proving his concept(s) of concentric warfare that he is willing to break the U.S. Army to do it? And are we, the American people so blinded by Administration political spin and fear-mongering that we are willing to stand by and let it happen?

I know it’s a dirty word for those who would love to continue to embrace the fantasy of a leaner, smaller Army of One to combat the “new” threat of the 21st century and beyond, but the draft is the only sensible way to alleviate the impending implosion of the U.S. Army and the Guard & Reserve system while fighting this set of wars. I roundly reject the notion that conscripts would be useless on the battlefield. Such an argument is an insult to all American men (and women), and paints them with a cloth of cowardice that is unwarranted and unsubstantiated. Will they not receive the same training as all Army soldiers? Conscripted or not, put a man in harms way and he will fight.

As a Veteran I am incensed that the once proud U.S. Army has been brought to this point by a civilian leadership that fails to lead with intelligence, wisdom, and foresight. This is clear failure of leadership. And once again Nero (Dubya) is fiddling while Rome burns and no one around him has the courage to tell the Emperor he has no clothes. Will we, the American people have the courage and wisdom to do so come November 2nd?