Thrusday Dog Blog (and general critter blogging)

Masked lapwings, Vanellus Miles, are very common in Tasmania. They are also called Spur-wing plovers because of the nasty bone spur on their “wrist” joint that they use to attack anyone, including humans, that get to close to their brood.
During their breeding season, Imogen and I refer to them as “psycho lapwings”, as that pretty much sums up their behavior.  Since they’ll “nest” (more of depression in the ground than an actual nest) anywhere there is a bit of grass, they are everywhere along the roadways, parks and even in people’s lawns.  I saw one pair with their nearly grown chick in a small divider strip in a carpark.

Hillary MUST step down. RIGHT NOW.

[Crossposted from my Real History Blog]

Okay. I am SO DONE with the Clintons. I was no fan of theirs during their administration. And Hillary Clinton has run one of the most negative campaigns in modern history against Barack Obama, who, by contrast, has managed to stay, rather miraculously, above the fray.

I’ve watched Hillary diss all caucus goers as “activists”, claiming HER supporters couldn’t get there because they work, implying dishonestly that those who did go weren’t employed. I’ve watched her say that any state she lost was unimportant in the overall scheme of things, whereas states she won were “the most important.”

It’s been disgusting to me personally to have her carrying any banner for the Democratic party, of which I’ve been a proud member all my life, because I feel she undermines our values. She complains she’s gotten unfair treatment because she’s a woman. But Obama never complained he got unfair treatment because he was black. McCain doesn’t complain about getting unfair treatment because he’s old. Everyone gets unfair treatment at times. To label it misogyny is bizarre, untrue, and demeaning to all the women who have spent lifetimes fighting for equal rights. You can’t ask to be President of the United States and then whine about how unfairly you’re treated. All people running for President are going to be treated unfairly. As she says herself, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

When she and her husband tried to paint Obama as unelectable because he was black (and don’t even try to argue in their defense – that’s EXACTLY what they’ve been doing) they are basically speaking heresy against core Democratic values.

I’m one of the few Democrats I know who does not look back fondly on the Clinton years. I have to go back to Jimmy Carter to find a president I was at least satisfied with. I watched in shock as the Clintons sold out our economy, our jobs, and our manufacturing base with their unqualified support for NAFTA. I cheered Dick Gephart’s valiant effort to defeat his own party’s president on this.

I watched as Hillary Clinton was handed the health care issue, with the full power of the presidency behind her. She couldn’t get it done. She didn’t forge the necessary coalitions, and when she did compromise, it was in all the wrong places, so that by the time she brought forward a bill, there was little left worth supporting.

The best part about this campaign is that now many Democrats are finally seeing the Bill and Hillary Clinton that the right wing has hated for so long. And perhaps that common ground will help us forge some new bridges in the fall. The problems we face in this country – reclaiming our vote, opening up government, turning the Titanic around re global warming, and finding a new energy future are too big to leave to partisan concerns. I’m looking forward to hearing new voices rise in the Republican party, as the neocon philosophy slowly recedes from the national conversation, having utterly failed us for the past eight years.

Today was the final straw for me. For her to bring up the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason for staying in the race was the lowest blow yet, even from a Scorpio such as herself. She was trying to make the point about June being the end of the campaign, but the subtext of course was, someone might kill Obama, and that’s why she’s waiting around.

Go away, Hillary. Please. Go far, far away. You and your husband’s lies have aided in destroying people’s faith in government. Go duck sniper fire in some other country. You don’t belong in our party. You couldn’t even run your own campaign well. I don’t want you anywhere near government. You don’t deserve it.

When this campaign first started, I had no reason to get involved. I thought any of our leaders – John Edwards, Clinton, or Obama, would do a better job than the Republicans so I planned to just sit the primaries out. But when I saw what some Clinton supporters were saying about Obama (having ‘no’ record, being unqualified for any of a number of bogus reasons) that pressed my button. I have great sympathy for the underdog.

The more I read, the more I realized we’d be crazy NOT to elect Obama. He has it all. He’s smart. He’s experienced. He’s principled. He had a genuine, documented record of forging important legislation and getting bipartisan support. He made a break with politics as usual to run a campaign that was truly of, by, and for the people when he rejected all PAC money. He spoke out against the war when it was politically risky to do so. He chose community organizing over Wall Street. He grew up in two countries, so he has a better understanding in his blood than most of how lucky we are here in America, and how much the rest of the world suffers, often as a result of our foreign policy abroad.

And then there’s Hillary. She’s a liar. She’s a backstabber (telling Obama to his face how “honored” she was to share the debate with him, and then a couple of days later saying, when he wasn’t there to respond, “Shame on you.”) She valued loyalty to herself over competency, which is why her campaign had so many issues. She ran as if it was a “coronation” – rich drapery at events, spending campaign donor money as if it was water. Staying at the Bellagio in Vegas. And perhaps worst of all, claiming her husband’s presidential experience as her own. (See my response to that here.)

I knew she was a climber, that the only reason she stayed with her husband after he embarrassed her in front of the world was so she could make him pay in a different way – by campaigning for her, and leveraging his connections on her behalf. There’s a wondrous kind of karma in this, in that he ended up being one of her biggest liabilities, rather than a help.

As a feminist, I was upset that our first female president would only have gotten there on her husband’s coattails. She is not qualified to be president. Why not wait for Barbara Boxer, who would make a fine president? Or Kathleen Sebelius? Or Janet Napolitano? Or Christine Gregoire? There are plenty of women who would make good presidents. I’m not someone who would vote for someone just because she was a woman. I will vote for the best person, no matter their color, their sex or sexual orientation, or their race.

For all her nastiness, for all the lies, I have defended her staying in the race. Until today.

Look. The nomination race is over. It’s been over since Obama won Wisconsin, just a week after sweeping the Potomac primaries. It’s been over, mathematically, for a long time.

But I wanted to allow her and her supporters their fantasy. I saw the contest as building our Democratic party base, given us reasons to go into every state and register new voters. And that’s been good for us, to a point. Until now. She knows Obama has received death threats. She knows that people who have stood up from positions of power and said no to war have been assassinated. And she saw the press go after Gov. Huckabee for his beyond dumb and horribly unfunny allusion to the same.

The second to last straw, for me, was her comment about how the “hard-working” “white people” were voting for her, implying that other people were not so hardworking. I wanted her excommunicated from the Democratic party for that statement alone.

But this comment was truly the last straw. Her statement today was simply unconscionable.

She needs to go away. Forever. I never want to see her face on TV or hear that voice again.

Stepping Through the Door

This diary is about the irresponsible statements made by Hillary Clinton on this 23rd Day of May, 2008.  I’m not going to link to the statements.  BooMan has done a sufficient job laying it out.  I simply want to comment on the seriousness of what she has said.

As a trial lawyer, one of the cardinal rules I have been taught about a jury presentation is that it is most effective to lead a jury right up to the point of making a decision.  But to pause on the door step.  To let them take the last stride themselves.  People want to make their own decisions.  It makes their positions more firm.  They become committed to the idea, because it is their own.  Given that Mrs. Hillary Clinton and I were both educated in American Law schools in the same quarter century, I am almost certain she has come across, and probably internalized this rule.
A second thing I am almost certain Mrs. Clinton and I share, based on our American legal education, is the necessity of preparation before making public remarks.  Even for someone whose style is relatively extemporaneous, like myself, some thought goes into the structure and content of the words you speak.  For interviews.  For press conferences.  For mere discussions where your motive is to influence people.

So in making her statements today regarding her own continuation in this campaign, there is little doubt in my mind that Mrs. Clinton weighed her words regarding the assassination of a Democratic hero carefully.  These statements — both the one made today and another reference she made recently — appear calculated to lead voters and media personnel up to a certain conclusion.  

Simply ask yourself why you would mention the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in discussing your own mathematically doomed campaign for the Democratic nomination.  You are leading the audience to come to a conclusion.  You do not step through the door to that conclusion.  They draw it on their own.  This man may well be shot — she urges the audience to conclude — and it is important that I remain to save our party.

Further, this was not an off-the-cuff remark.  It is part of a canned string of language she has rehearsed.  When the interviewer gives the opening to talk about extending the race, she spits out her canned answer.  An answer crafted, by her, and likely by a team that is despicable.  It is “the Bill was in until June and Obama is wearing a target” block which she has honed and is ready to spew.

Alone, the use of this language for her obvious narcissistic pursuit is beyond repugnant.

I raise one further point.  I do not believe it should go unsaid.  I believe to ignore it would be naive.  We have all heard the racist undertones of the campaign this woman has run.  It has been called dog whistling for the most part, I believe, to avoid calling it what it is.  She and her handlers have sought to drive a wedge between the people on the basis of the pigmentation of our skin.

Combine this tactic with the disturbing things that could be heard ushering from the mouths of some voters in West Virginia, and I believe you can see that Clinton is fanning the flames of a dangerous thing.  Take it a step further.  To talk of assassination — clearly referencing your opponent’s possible demise — in an atmosphere where you have fanned the flames of racism:  It is sin.  I am not a religious man.  But this is sin.  Sin that makes my skin crawl.

We all now know the type of vitriol that exists even at the extremities of the Democratic party.  And I believe most here share an understanding that these extremes exist in the American right at an even more dangerous level — by people who proudly carry weapons and believe that the word of God might be the best political guidance.  There are frightening people out there in the world.  Who do not share most bloggers views of discussing problems at a keyboard.  All I can say is heaven help this woman, should a lunatic decide that he or she might single-handedly prevent our nation from taking a most historic step forward.  She will be damned.

An Unscientific Poll: WSHDN?

Please take the poll, What Should Hillary Do Now? (i.e., now that she’s implied she’s staying in the race just in case Obama gets a bullet in his brain and the Dems need their “understudy” to take over the Lead Role in their production of How to Win the Presidency Against a Cranky Old Man Who Calls His Wife a Trollop*)?

* and a few other nasty little words we won’t repeat here, at least not tonight.

Poll below the fold . . .

I Don’t Accept Her Explanation

You know those math problems where they ask you to solve the progression?

2…7…16…39…94…?

What’s next for Clinton? Calling him a n*gger? I don’t accept her ‘June’ explanation because the 1968 nomination was not decided until late August at the convention. If she is trying to make a case for staying in the contest until June it would make sense to point out that the race in 1968 lasted until August, not June. It’s also not the first time she’s referred to the RFK assassination as a reason for her to stay in the race. This was no slip of the tongue. It has been a talking point with her since early March. And, as I have already pointed out, it makes no difference now whether she is campaigning or not, she already has secured the second most delegates. If Obama is killed or embroiled in scandal, Clinton has the strongest claim to the nomination right now and further campaigning can only harden Obama delegates against her candidacy at any brokered convention. Her argument makes no sense. Therefore, I cannot grant her the benefit of the doubt in this case. Her argument makes no rational sense and it was not a slip of the tongue. She has intentionally raised the specter of assassination, and she has no decent excuse for it. The best I can say for her is that all she was doing was making a magnificently disingenuous argument. And that’s being very generous.

She also needs to redo her apology so that it includes Barack and Michelle Obama and their two daughters.

Norman Finkelstein arrested in Israel

The “only democracy in the Middle East” once again resorts to force in order to silence dissent:

“[T]he American academic Norman Finkelstein has been arrested and ordered deported from Israel. Finkelstein arrived in Tel Aviv earlier today on his way to the Occupied Territories. He was immediately detained and told he is banned from Israel for ten years. He’s expected to be deported tomorrow. Finkelstein is known one of the most prominent  academic critics of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.”

Apparently Finkelstein was arrested on “security” grounds, illustrating once again that Israel’s definition of “security” is far removed from the conventional use of the term. He can at least count himself lucky that he is not Palestinian, in which case he would now be facing the very real possibility of torture and years of detention without trial, or else he might simply have been shot.

Activist Sam Bahour writes:

‘Dear friends,

ACT NOW:   Flood the Israeli Ministry of Interior with faxes, emails, calls.  DEMAND THAT DR. FINKELSTEIN BE PERMITTED TO ENTER ISRAEL IN ORDER TO REACH THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY!

Minister of Interior Mr. Meir SHEETRIT
Israeli Ministry of the Interior
2 Kaplan St., Qiryat Ben-Gurion
P.O. Box 6158, 91061 Jerusalem  
Tel.  +972-2-670-1411 / +972-2-629-4722
Fax: +972-2-670-1628

or

Mr. Meir SHEETRIT’s numbers at the Knesset
Telephone 1:     +972-2-640-8410
Telephone 2:      +972-2- 640-8409
Fax:      +972-2- 640-8920
Email: mshitrit@knesset.gov.il

It is now Friday night and the Ministry will be closed through Saturday for the Jewish Sabbath. Thus, if you are in the US please call your congressman and senator NOW and advise them a Jewish American U.S. citizen is being denied access to Israel!!

Also, CALL the STATE DEPT’s Hotline for American Travelers: 202-647-5225 and let them know this is happening and is in violation of international law.

If you are an Israeli, please start working the phones…this denial of entry is all being done in your name!!

The only ‘democracy’ in the Middle East strikes again,
Sam’

You heard the man.

Clinton Invokes Assassination of RFK

I don’t know how stupid Hillary Clinton thinks the American public is but it is somewhere around massively stupid.

Sen. Hillary Clinton referred Friday to the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 Democratic campaign as a reason she should continue to campaign despite increasingly long odds.

Clinton was responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of dropping out.

Clinton said she didn’t understand why, given this history, some Democrats were calling for her to quit.

If you look at a timeline of events leading up to the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, you’ll note that George McGovern didn’t announce his candidacy until August 10th, a mere sixteen days before the convention commenced. As for Humphrey, he wasn’t even on the ballot in the states that held primaries. He entered the race too late for that, after LBJ announced he would not seek or accept the Democratic nomination:

Following this announcement, Humphrey quickly re-evaluated his position, and announced his presidential candidacy in late April 1968. Many people saw Humphrey as Johnson’s stand-in; he won major backing from the nation’s labor unions and other Democratic groups that were troubled by young antiwar protesters and the social unrest around the nation. Humphrey avoided the primaries (and/or was too late to enter them) and concentrated on winning delegates in non-primary states; by June he was seen as the clear front-runner for the nomination. However, following a key victory over McCarthy in the California primary, it appeared that Kennedy could possibly challenge Humphrey for the nomination. But the nation was shocked yet again when Senator Kennedy was assassinated the night of his victory speech in California.

Robert Kennedy’s assassination certainly changed the balance of power in the nominating process, but Humphrey was ultimately nominated on the first ballot despite not having earned the delegates at the ballot box. McGovern offered himself as a candidate at the last moment. The rules have changed since 1968, but the fundamentals are the same. If, God forbid, Barack Obama was to be assassinated before the convention in Denver, all the delegates would be free to pick whomever they like, whether they have been part of the campaign or not. Clinton doesn’t get more of a claim to the nomination because she gets the maximum number of delegates in the three remaining contests. She already has the claim that she won the second most delegates. Further campaigning does not add to that claim.

But to raise the specter of assassination as a rationale to stay in the campaign is completely tasteless, especially with Teddy Kennedy’s recent diagnosis with brain cancer. The fact that it doesn’t even make any sense just adds to the ominous feeling that there is an implied threat. Of course, she has now apologized for any misunderstanding.

“Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact.” she said. “The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever.”

She continued:”My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.”

In any case, this is, at a minimum, an extremely unfortunate turn of phrase that insults our intelligence. Perhaps she merely meant to refer to the June part of the situation, as she claims, but we already have a candidate that has won the majority of the earned delegates. He will be our nominee unless there is a compelling reason to choose someone else. If that happens, Clinton already has the strongest claim to be his replacement and further campaigning only undermines her chances of winning over Obama’s delegates. As she travels the country on her Insult Your Intelligence Tour she is bound to continue to give offense.

Update [2008-5-23 18:57:2 by Steven D]: As Fabooj notes below, this wasn’t the first time Senator Clinton has raised the spectre of RFK’s assassination as a justification for staying in the race to the bitter end.

SECOND Update [2008-5-23 19:4:27 by Steven D]: Listen to what she said, and make up your own mind about what her intent was:

(h/t Man Eegee)

TX-Sen: Cornyn Funds the War, but Not Those That Fought It

The first paragraph from this article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram says it all.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, voted to approve $165 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but provided one of 22 votes against the domestic spending measure that is paired with the war spending bill.  The Senate bill would add about $50 billion through 2017 for veterans’ education benefits.

John Cornyn provided one of just 22 votes against this bill which was an expanded version of the GI Bill, called the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Act, to increase education benefits for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Texas’ other Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison voted for it along with many of the Republican Senators up for re-election this year who are trying to moderate their positions in an election year.

But not John Cornyn. Here’s what he’s had to say about this bill.

“The anti-war crowd is determined to use our men and women in uniform for their political advantage, even if our national security is jeopardized in the process,” Cornyn campaign spokesman Kevin McLaughlin said.

And again on his reasons to oppose it.

The updated GI Bill would hurt re-enlistment rates because troops will be eager to take advantage of it.

The Austin American-Statesman replied to this line of argument on their editorial page today. Simply put…

While those arguments will no doubt be repeated often between now and November, they are as empty as the arguments that the World War II era GI Bill cost too much. How much is too much for people we ask to walk into bullets?

Supporting the troops is more than plastering a yellow decal on a car. Real support means a commitment of money. Mere money doesn’t match the commitment we asked the troops to make.

President Bush is now threatening to veto the legislation. But Cornyn has already indicated he’s willing to vote against overriding the veto. You should sign Rick Noriega’s petition calling on Cornyn to vote to override that veto.

As Rick Noriega said

“If that GI Bill was good enough for the Greatest Generation, why is it not good enough for the latest generation?

Are You One of the 8 Million?

Certain anonymous sources in the intelligence community are now coming forth and claiming that the Bush administration has been using the electronic surveillance capabilities of the US Government to generate a list of potential “enemies of the state” in the event of a national emergency, people who could be rounded up and held in concentration camps at the whim of the President pursuant to Federal Continuity of Governance (or COG) plans first prepared as contingencies in the event of nuclear war. The Bush administration may very well have illegally compiled data on millions of American citizens in order to propagate such a list.

And how many people might the Executive Branch of the Federal Government deem potential enemies of the state subject to incarceration as of this very moment? As many as Eight Million of us (via Radar Magazine):

According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, “There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.

In effect, the executive branch under the guise of FEMA (yes, that FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security would take over the operation of the Federal Government, and the Congress and the Courts would be effectively neutered in the event of an emergency. In short, overnight we could mutate from a Republic into a Police State. And what might constitute a national emergency justifying such extreme measures? Well, that’s not all that clear …

Of course, federal law is somewhat vague as to what might constitute a “national emergency.” Executive orders issued over the past three decades define it as a “natural disaster, military attack, [or] technological or other emergency,” while Department of Defense documents include eventualities like “riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful obstructions or assemblages, [and] disorder prejudicial to public law and order.” According to one news report, even “national opposition to U.S. military invasion abroad” could be a trigger. […]

Under law, during a national emergency, FEMA and its parent organization, the Department of Homeland Security, would be empowered to seize private and public property, all forms of transport, and all food supplies. The agency could dispatch military commanders to run state and local governments, and it could order the arrest of citizens without a warrant, holding them without trial for as long as the acting government deems necessary. From the comfortable perspective of peaceful times, such behavior by the government may seem far-fetched. But it was not so very long ago that FDR ordered 120,000 Japanese Americans—everyone from infants to the elderly—be held in detention camps for the duration of World War II. This is widely regarded as a shameful moment in U.S. history, a lesson learned. But a long trail of federal documents indicates that the possibility of large-scale detention has never quite been abandoned by federal authorities. Around the time of the 1968 race riots, for instance, a paper drawn up at the U.S. Army War College detailed plans for rounding up millions of “militants” and “American negroes,” who were to be held at “assembly centers or relocation camps.” In the late 1980s, the Austin American-Statesman and other publications reported the existence of 10 detention camp sites on military facilities nationwide, where hundreds of thousands of people could be held in the event of domestic political upheaval. More such facilities were commissioned in 2006, when Kellogg Brown & Root—then a subsidiary of Halliburton—was handed a $385 million contract to establish “temporary detention and processing capabilities” for the Department of Homeland Security. The contract is short on details, stating only that the facilities would be used for “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs.” Just what those “new programs” might be is not specified.

In the days after our hypothetical terror attack, events might play out like this: With the population gripped by fear and anger, authorities undertake unprecedented actions in the name of public safety. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security begin actively scrutinizing people who—for a tremendously broad set of reasons—have been flagged in Main Core as potential domestic threats. Some of these individuals might receive a letter or a phone call, others a request to register with local authorities. Still others might hear a knock on the door and find police or armed soldiers outside. In some instances, the authorities might just ask a few questions. Other suspects might be arrested and escorted to federal holding facilities, where they could be detained without counsel until the state of emergency is no longer in effect.

It is, of course, appropriate for any government to plan for the worst. But when COG plans are shrouded in extreme secrecy, effectively unregulated by Congress or the courts, and married to an overreaching surveillance state—as seems to be the case with Main Core—even sober observers must weigh whether the protections put in place by the federal government are becoming more dangerous to America than any outside threat. […]

. . . “Main Core is the table of contents for all the illegal information that the U.S. government has [compiled] on specific targets.” An intelligence expert who has been briefed by high-level contacts in the Department of Homeland Security confirms that a database of this sort exists, but adds that “it is less a mega-database than a way to search numerous other agency databases at the same time.”

A host of publicly disclosed programs, sources say, now supply data to Main Core. Most notable are the NSA domestic surveillance programs, initiated in the wake of 9/11, typically referred to in press reports as “warrantless wiretapping.”

And Congress is apparently being stonewalled in its efforts to discover what the Bushies have been doing regarding the modifications that have been made to the federal government’s COG plans over the last 7 years:

In July 2007 and again last August, Representative Peter DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon and a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, sought access to the “classified annexes” of the Bush administration’s Continuity of Government program. DeFazio’s interest was prompted by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 (also known as NSPD-51), issued in May 2007, which reserves for the executive branch the sole authority to decide what constitutes a national emergency and to determine when the emergency is over. DeFazio found this unnerving.

But he and other leaders of the Homeland Security Committee, including Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, were denied a review of the Continuity of Government classified annexes. To this day, their calls for disclosure have been ignored by the White House. In a press release issued last August, DeFazio went public with his concerns that the NSPD-51 Continuity of Government plans are “extra-constitutional or unconstitutional.” Around the same time, he told the Oregonian: “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right.” […]

More troubling, in 2002, Congress authorized funding for the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, which, according to Washington Post military intelligence expert William Arkin, “allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control.”

Do you really want to turn over the Federal levers of power to President John McCain if even a tenth of this story might be true?

The Pitiful Helpless Giant.

At the height of the War on Vietnam,Nixon went on the air to explain the logic of expanding the war to Cambodia.One of his reasons was that he wanted to erase the perception of the US becoming a pitiful helpless giant as the Vietnamese were inflicting heavy casualties on US Forces despite the US superiority in weapons.

It is that same attitude that has drawn us once again into a never ending war in Asia.The war has clearly not been won despite the many apologists claiming we are winning the war.What is worse is that the Iraqis are improvising their asymmetric warfare techniques which include fabricating their EFPs at home and deploying them against heavily armored tanks.At the same time the costs of our high technology force keep rising,not a little due to the explosive increase in the price of petroleum.If the war was planned to give us energy self sufficiency, it has had a disastrous effect on our economy.Imperialism has met its match: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

If we were not a pitiful helpless giant before the Iraq War started,we are one now.