Author: Limelite

In a diary yesterday titled Police & Puppeteers: New Mission for US Military in Iraq, I analyzed the August 8th Rand Corporation report, “US Policy Options for Iraq: a Reassessment” commissioned by the USAF.  Please read that diary in conjunction with today’s.

Today I’ll analyze what Anthony H. Cordesman has to say in his report on his recent trip to Iraq, coincidentally released the same day as the Rand Corporation’s report.  In a nutshell, Cordesman offers,

From my perspective, the US now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq. It cannot dictate Iraq’s future, only influence it, and this presents serious problems at a time when the Iraqi political process has failed to move forward in reaching either a new consensus or some form of peaceful coexistence.  Synopsis: Trip Report

Anthony H. Cordesman holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.  His report on Iraq, “The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq” (.pdf) condemns the Iraqi government as a failure and concludes that its failure has undermined the American military mission, erasing any possibility that it could produce an outcome with any “political meaning,” i.e. “success.”  

With that said, Cordesman manages to retain some guarded optimism.  

. . .there is still a tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq, and for timing reductions in US forces and aid to Iraqi progress rather than arbitrary dates and uncertain benchmarks. It recognizes that strategic patience is a high risk strategy, but it also describes positive trends in the fighting, and hints of future political progress.

The question is, is his optimism warranted or does Cordesman find himself unable to purge Bushie Kool-Aid from his system, having previously served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain?  His war analytical abilities also extend to America’s involvement in Afghanistan, about which he said in his February testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs this year that there is,

. . .a very real risk that the US and NATO could lose their war with Al Qa’ida, the Taliban, and the other Islamist movements fighting the Afghan government. We are still winning tactically, but we may well be losing strategically.  Winning in Afghanistan: Challenges and Response

No guarded optimism there.

Or here, either.  Only in January, Cordesman went on record saying that

the Bush administration’s latest strategy on Iraq makes victory there “possible” but “the problem is it also isn’t probable.”  Council on Foreign Relations Interview

He went on to define exactly what he meant by “victory,” and presumably what he considered the Bush Administration meant by it also.  

If we can’t win the battle of Baghdad in three to six months, if we can’t secure the city, if we can’t drive out most of the Sunni insurgents, or destroy them, if we can’t bring the extreme Shiite militias under control, if we can’t bring not simple tactical victory, but the ability to both secure areas and actually bring aid and some kind of belief the government can work, then essentially the strategy has failed and so has the U.S. war effort. Whatever will happen, the country will then drift into sectarian and ethnic divisions. The only question will be how violent, how much chaos will occur, and how many countries around Iraq will become involved.

That’s pretty clear.  We failed to win in Iraq.  It’s two months past Cordesman’s deadline for winning in Baghdad alone.  None of the other items on his list of terms for victory are assured, either.  Ergo. . .

Yet, Cordesman continues to be teased by Iraq.  Why?  Perhaps because in his latest report he no longer discusses the possibilities of victory, rather his theme is adjusting the American attitude to the constantly changing events in Iraq.  In fact, he’s quite blunt regarding “victory.”

. . .while Americans are still concerned with finding ways to define “victory” in Iraq, virtually the entire world already perceives the US as having decisively lost.  Report

Including the country of Iraq, and he cites the opinion polls to prove it.

In essence, any flirtations with victory appearing in his latest report that Cordesman continues to engage in are delusional, since the adage “perception is reality” applies in the world view and to the minds of the citizens of Iraq.  Reversing the entire world’s attitude to coincide with the “official US attitude” is impossible.  More realistic is for America to adjust its attitude.  What is left for Bush’s legacy then?

It may well be that

the US will ultimately be judged far more by how it leaves Iraq, and what it leaves behind, than how it entered Iraq.

. . .”and what it did to Iraq while it was there,” Cordesman tactfully fails to include.  That the US created the largest share of international refugees by its war in Afghanistan and by driving more than 2 million of the best and brightest Iraqis out of their homeland in addition to displacing another 2 million people within Iraq is but one example of Cordesman’s lack of tact.  

So great is the exodus of Iraqis that it has caused a 14 percent rise in the number of refugees in the world, to almost 10 million globally. That’s the first rise in absolute numbers since 2002.  UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

Tactlessness might have been a gentle description of Cordesman’s June report, in which he wrote

The US is often the first to call for transparency and integrity in the reporting of other governments. It has never provided transparency or integrity in its reporting on the war in Iraq. It has downplayed the growth of the insurgency and other civil conflicts. It exaggerated progress in the development of Iraqi forces, and has reported meaningless macroeconomic figures claiming “progress” in the face of steadily deteriorating economic conditions for most Iraqis outside the Kurdish security zone, and does so in the face of almost incredible incompetence by USAID and the Corps of Engineers.  Still Losing

The June report is a litany (and seemingly endless list) of America’s failures in Iraq.

Just as in the Rand report, Cordesman deals with the inevitable and only realistic conclusion regarding “victory” in Iraq — the timely withdrawal of American troops and materiel over a period of 9-12 months, optimistically, assuming withdrawal into Kuwait, or 2 years, in the opinion of military commanders.  Cordesman resorts to tact again, describing such a retreat as a “secure” withdrawal. (He’s a lot less tactful describing the US embassy construction project in Baghadad: “. . the most expensive white elephant in the history of diplomacy and an extraordinary monument to human folly even by the demanding standards of the Middle East.”)  By now you’d think the author would be convinced.

No.  He begins to make an argument for a “new” attitude that he terms “strategic patience,” among which are these three points:

   1. More Realistic Plans and Reducing Troop Levels As Conditions Make This Possible  

    The US team in Iraq made it clear that it was examining options for phasing down US forces, and for planning longer-term US commitments that would extend well into the next Administration with much lower troop levels and budgets.

   2. Looking Beyond Partisanship and Artificial Deadlines  

    The idea that General Petraeus can give a military progress report in September that should shape US policy ignores the fact that the fate of Iraq is scarcely dominated by US military action. US policy must look at the political and economic situation, and all of Iraq’s civil conflicts, and must not just focus on Al Qa’ida and the worst elements of the Sadr militia.

   3. Luck and the Tribes Partly Compensate for a Failed the Surge Strategy

    Declassified intelligence data generated by MNF-West confirms in far more detail what a walk on the ground reveals in both Anbar and Northern Iraq. Substantial numbers of tribal leaders have turned against Al Qa’ida.
    (snip)
    Key tribal leaders, and the main tribal confederation in the area have started to fight Al Qa’ida, have turned to US forces for help, and seem willing to strike a bargain with the Shi’ite-dominated central government if the government will give them money, a reasonable degree of de facto Sunni autonomy, and incorporate their fighters into auxiliary police forces, the regular police, and Iraqi Army.

But the risks to “strategic patience” are enormous, with a 50/50 chance of succeeding in Cordesman’s estimation.  Here are but the top 4.

    –Prime Minister Maliki may sometimes tell us what we want to hear, but he is at best weak and ineffective and may well be far more committed to sectarian Shi’ite positions than he has publicly stated.
    –The Kurds are hanging together, but have scarcely solved their problems with the Turcomans, the Arabs, Turkey, Iran, and Syria.
    –The Sunni political leaders inside and outside the central government have limited popular credibility, and sometimes almost none with the same Sunni tribes that have turned on Al Qa’ida.
    –The Shi’ites increasingly are turning on each other at the national, provincial, and local level.

Chances for the success of “strategic patience”?  Tenuous, at best, in Cordesman’s own opinion.  In an attempt to make a case for such a foundering hope, Cordesman says

The real case for strategic patience, however, is not the high probability of success in most areas, but the reasonable prospect of success in some areas.

What!?  In the end, Cordesman doesn’t even attempt to sell a full bill of goods.  Only half a bill.  And I, for one, am not buying.

The truth is, I only listed four of the problems (risks); there are many more.  Only a deluded Bushie would attempt to convince anyone that those problems are solvable.  We all know, none of the milestones expected of the Iraqi government have been met.  Delusion again is required to believe that those “risk factors” on Cordesman’s list (and it includes many of those seen in the Rand Report) will be solved.  Depending on the sustained political action of a moribund Iraqi government, which is the underpinning condition for “strategic patience,” is an option that could only be attractive to a gambler living in a Fool’s Paradise.  “Strategic patience” in Iraq is an unwarranted option in this diarist’s view.

The Rand Corporation, an independent think tank that says of itself, “Objective Analysis, Effective Solutions,” issued its latest 104-page study yesterday titled “US Policy Options for Iraq: a Reassessment.” Objective the report may be, but Rand seems able to deliver what amounts to bad news to the US Air Force who commissioned the study.  In it, a single strong statement of radical shift in US policy in Iraq is recommended and a single pessimistic summation of the military commitment is offered.  In short, the new goal of armed forces in Iraq should shift from making war to building a nation.

Or, to getting the hell out.

The United States should focus its political, security and economic efforts in Iraq toward the single goal of reducing sectarian strife and other violence, but should also start planning now for the possibility that these efforts will not succeed. . .Rand Press Release

Note: The report was completed prior to the present “surge.”

The mission Rand recommends is a change from a military presence to a police presence.  Sectarian aggression, rather than insurgent or criminal fighting, is the main source of violence in the country.  As long as Iraqis remain radicalized along religious fault lines, peace, stability, and infrastructure reconstruction are impossible.  

“You cannot proceed with recovery and building a stable society when people fear for their lives,” said Olga Oliker, lead author of the report and a senior policy analyst at RAND. . .

The implications of continued violence in Iraq extend beyond its borders.

Continued failure to make Iraq stable and secure threatens to disrupt the Middle East not by catalyzing the spread of democracy but by exporting instability and conflict.

Iraq, which had not been an immediate threat to the US prior to invasion has been successfully turned into a very real threat since, thanks to the Bush Administration’s cowboy foreign policy.  America before the Iraq War had an enviable reputation and status among countries of the world.  No more.  And the possibility of further diminished credibility and power, especially to the effectiveness of America’s defense capability, exists.

The problem is, reducing sectarian violence requires strategies different from defeating an enemy.  Basically there are 5 options to solving that problem.

       1. Use overwhelming force to pacify the country and further fighting.

       2. Pick and support one or more “winners” of the civil war and help them gain control of Iraq, thus ending the conflict.

       3. Help to partition Iraq into three separate states.

       4. Leave Iraq and wait for one or more victors to emerge.

       5. Maintain current efforts by seeking to broker a deal to reduce violence while Coalition troops focus on combating insurgency and supporting the central government.  Rand Monograph

Let’s examine the options to determine each one’s relative merit.

Option 1 would require a military presence in the 350,000 – 500,000 range.
Option 2 would almost certainly backfire.
Option 3 would not end sectarian violence.
Option 4 would ditto.
Option 5 would require a functioning Iraqi government.

Unfortunately, the Rand recommendations hinge on these next 4 key factors.  

The United States can help prevent current levels of violence from rising by supporting a functioning national unity government, preventing a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk, forestalling the formation of new autonomous regions, and ensuring that the central government continues to control oil revenue.

Of those four, we know the following:

   1. There is no functioning national unity government in Iraq;

   2. We have no idea how to prevent the Kurds from taking over Kirkuk other than physically occupying the city, which would necessarily mean partially evacuating “peace keeping” troops from Baghdad and probably initiating Surge II;

   3. We have no political influence or sway among tribal or sectarian entities to dissuade the formation of new autonomous regions other than to hope more tribal and religious leaders undertake to ally themselves with US troops against al Qaeda, which, of course, in no way precludes continued sectarian violence;

   4. This one we probably can do, providing that “central government” is a puppet government of the USA.

The Rand report goes on to suggest solutions in several areas:

Political diplomacy (How novel an idea, and rather an impertinent one to suggest to the Air Force, no?) must be employed by engaging Iraq’s neighbors and whoever remains a US ally in discussions of Iraq’s future, as opposed to our present unilateral warmongering.
Security forces must become less sectarian and more effective, which will be impossible until the Ministry of Interior is purged and corruption within it ceases.  As well, only joint US/Iraq patrols must be undertaken, and the US must increase financial support of the Iraqi courts.
Economic solutions depend on ending the smuggling and resale of gasoline and diesel, which are the primary sources of funds for insurgents and militias.  This will require a complete overhaul of the Oil Ministry.

Assuming all of the above does happen then one of two outcomes ensue and America must make the hard choice based on which one does.

If — and Only If — Violence Declines  The US must continue to protect Iraq’s sovereignty; initiate demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration programs, which will probably require extensive amnesty; restructure and consolidate Iraq’s intelligence services; but cease financial investment in infrastructure projects, including utilities.

If Violence Fails To Decline The US forces should, to the extent possible, withdraw without haste while issuing assurances to allies in the region and around the world that

withdrawal does not mean that the United States plans to evacuate other bases or reduce its commitments to friends in the region.

 Most tellingly,

(t)he United States should not seek to keep troops in any part of Iraq either to maintain control over oil fields, pipelines, and export terminals or to intervene in Iraq’s future affairs

whether or not we like or approve of whatever government rules in Iraq.

Departing from the Rand report (Click if you would like to download the full .pdf document.) and venturing my independent analysis, I offer the following: Given the likelihood of 3 of the four key points’ failure to reduce sectarian violence, the best interests of the US are to install a puppet government in Iraq, participate in the corrupt functions of that government, and enforce our choice from an increased military presence outside the borders of Iraq and increased pressure on Iraq’s neighboring states to keep out.  Sound familiar?  You may recognize the plan as identical to historical relationships America fostered among Banana Republics in South America during the second half of the last century.

At this stage, no reality-based observer can conclude that decreasing sectarian violence in Iraq to the point where citizens no longer fear for their lives, daily bombings of mass slaughter cease, and an independent Iraqi government can function, allowing economic recovery and normalcy in that country stands an ice cube’s chance in the desert of succeeding.

Continued magical thinking will not alter the circumstances in Iraq.  That is why it is vitally important for Americans to select a president who recognizes this truth.  And that is why I feel it is vital that a meaningful debate devoted to the single topic of “What I will do regarding Iraq, if elected president,” needs to happen.

The floor is open to discussion and opinions.  Iraq remains the most critical crisis facing our next president.  Have no fear, Bush and his cronies have no intention nor any ability to solve it between now and November, 2008.

If Congresspersons have questions on whether impeachment proceedings against members of this administration who are known to or are highly suspected of having committed crimes should be brought up on impeachment charges, perhaps  some of those questions can be aired here.  For members of Congress who need reminding about their duties and responsibilities, let us recall Barbara Jordan, speaking to the Nation on the Nixon impeachment.

[Note: Also seen on Daily Kos.]
Congressman/woman, is your faith in the Constitution shaky?  Do you shrink before exercising the power it devolves upon you?  Ms Jordan offers this,

  My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.

Congressman/woman, do you remain unsure what your rightful power is as a third branch of government?  Is your reason for NOT pursuing impeachment proceedings a belief that to do so is a waste of time because there aren’t enough votes for a conviction?  

It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive.

Do you shirk impeachment because, never having engaged in such an activity before, you are unsure what its purpose is?

We know the nature of impeachment. We’ve been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to “bridle” the executive if he engages in excesses. “It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.”  “It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.”

Do you believe impeachment is a futile approach for questioning the so-far unquestioned power of the Unitary Executive?  

“It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.”  The framers confided in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the executive.

Are you confused as to when impeachment is called for, having witnessed its shamefully ridiculous misuse against Bill Clinton?

It [the Federal Convention of 1787] limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term “maladministration.” “It is to be used only for great misdemeanors,” so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention.

For you, is impeachment “impractical”?  Do you think it is too late in Bush’s term for him to face impeachment?  That he should be let slide because he’ll be gone (good riddance) in 500 days or so?  

“No one need be afraid” — the North Carolina ratification convention — “No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity.”

Are you afraid of what the people will think if you initiate impeachment proceedings?  Are you afraid Republicans will accuse you of attempting a cheap political trick and wasting time in the face of pressing congressional business?  

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons.  Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

Do you worry about sufficient grounds for impeachment?  Isn’t the president’s commutation of Libby’s sentence, the result of a fair trial, a unanimous guilty verdict, and a considered sentencing a criminal override of the rule of law?  Isn’t the president’s stonewalling in providing documents that may incriminate his attorney general in conducting illegal politicization within the DoJ abetting further crimes of a that nature?  

Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. “If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached.”

Congressman/woman, do you need reminding of who you represent?  Are you confused about protecting their interests, especially pertaining to protecting the right of the people to vote in free and legal elections, when you vacillate over whether to or whether not to impeach?  

Justice Story: “Impeachment” is attended — “is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations.” (snip) The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable “who behave amiss or betray their public trust.”

Do you think that executive power trumps legislative power?  That a president, or his vice-president, or other high officers, can run things ‘their own way,’ even going beyond the impeding legalities that apply to ordinary citizens because they say that their job of defending our Nation requires them to use extra-legal methods in the interests of saving time and getting results?  

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.” The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice.

Congressman/woman, there is really only one question you should concern  yourselves with in deciding whether or not to initiate impeachment proceedings.  AND NO OTHER.  

Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate?

In asking that question, you will achieve the only requisite perspective on the issue of impeaching George W. Bush, Richard Bruce Cheney, and Alfredo Gonzales.  You will see your way clearly to responding in the only right way.  You will have your view of America and the Constitutional rights and responsibilities of those in your office. . .from the Mountaintop where Barbara Jordan once stood, “sharing the pain of this inquiry.”

Having taken tacos to task two years ago and winning, Florida’s migrant tomato pickers united within the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) are now taking a bite out of burgers.  Burger King burgers to be precise.

“Make fast food fair!” and “It’s time for the King to do the right thing!” protest signs read and protesters chanted outside the Miami corporate headquarters of the fast food giant. “Nuestro sudor no es gratis,” (Our sweat isn’t free) stated tomato-shaped placards held by about 50 Mexican farmworkers and supporting clergy.

What’s the complaint?  That practically communist idea in our time that the laborer is worthy of his hire.  Or is that a Biblical idea?  Some workers in Immokalee currently bring in about $8,000 a year.
Today’s Miami Herald reports laborers and clergy are calling for “justice,” citing

unfair wages and working conditions in the fields where Burger King’s tomatoes are picked.

Rev. Noelle Damico, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and director of the Campaign for Fair Food characterizes the wages paid by Burger King as a “moral outrage.”  Continuing,

“Burger King and the other fast-food companies not only profit from the farmworkers’ poverty, their purchasing practices have a hand in creating that poverty.”

Similar demonstrations against Taco Bell won the workers a 1-cent per pound concession to be paid to those who picked the tomatoes sold to the fast food chain.  But this only after a 4-year boycott called the “Taco Bell Truth Tour” when farmworkers went around “asking people to stay away from Taco Bell and restaurants run by its Louisville-based parent, Yum! Brands Inc.”  (Yum! Brands include KFC, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver’s and A&W All-American Food Restaurants.)

Prior to 2005, Taco Bell purchased approximately 10 million pounds of tomatoes from Florida each year.  So, the penny-a-pound increase means about $100,000 to the workers, collectively.

Is one cent per pound too much to ask from Burger King, the only recently publically traded ground beef sandwich and shakes manufacturing giant?  Apparently so.

Perhaps the more vocal “attacks” against McDonald’s lulled Burger King executives into believing their stalling tactics and appearance of cooperation with CIW would work.  It seemed to be working for their competitor who threw CIW a bone by joining the

Socially Accountable Farm Employer (SAFE) voluntary certification program. The initiative purports to certify producers that have “complied with all applicable laws and regulations governing employment” and foster a work environment “free of hazard, intimidation, violence and harassment.”

Great! you’re thinking.  But SAFE doesn’t take any input on how compliant farmers are from the farmworkers themselves.  It’s totally run by the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association industry group and the [local SoFla] Redlands Christian Migrant Association, a nonprofit providing childcare to migrant workers.  Nor does SAFE do anything to address low wage abuse.

Getting back to those two years of private negotiations by Burger King. . .they certainly seemed to be lulling CIW as well.

But.  

That changed last week when Burger King went public announcing it would not agree to pay the extra penny for its tomatoes.

Burger King claims it can’t pay more because it doesn’t have the accounting system in place to trace how many pounds each worker picked since

it buys its tomatoes from repacking companies, not directly from the farms.

Thank god for the middle man!

Feeling safe from any moral obligation to approach paying a living wage to lowly tomato-pickers at the moment, BK can throw them some bones, a la McDonalds.

. . .Steve Grover, vice president of quality assurance and regulatory affairs. . .said Burger King has been willing to look at other ways to help. The company offered to remove any suppliers from its system if the coalition can show proof that they are violating federal labor laws. But none have been identified.

    Burger King also looked at ways it could provide charitable contributions to the workers through its Have It Your Way Foundation, with ideas including building houses or creating a day-care program for workers’ children, Grover said. The company offered to send recruiters to interview workers who might be interested in a restaurant job.

    “We were legitimately trying to find a way to work with these folks,” Grover said. “They pretty much slammed the door on us. They were unwilling to look at any other alternatives.”

Yeah.  They’d rather have a penny a pound.  How greedy.

Contrary to its successful marketing slogan, Burger King just can’t let them have it their way.

So, what are you gonna do/say next time you step up and place your, “Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce” order?  How about, “Keep your tomatoes, too, cheapskates!”  Better yet, why not indulge in a little Truth Tour boycott of your own?  Your waistline and Florida farmworkers will thank you.

[Crossposted To: DailyKos

not in the presidency.  At least, not in 2009.

I have nowhere near the expertise of exposure and investigation that journalists such as David Sirota have as a researcher into the political philosophy and ability of Sen. Obama.  I have only heard him speak once regarding his book, The Audacity of Hope, and my impression is that he is a sincere man, intelligent, educated, and articulate, and who is, like everyone, formed in adulthood by his childhood.
That may be a childhood that he tends to obssess about, and it may be a childhood that excessively informs the political adult at the moment.  Tempering in the US Senate will do him no harm.

“Black America” is a concept he rejects, but it is not one that is rejected by a vocal and considerable number of African-Americans who reserve the special definition to apply only to those descended from slaves shipped to this country from (largely) West Africa two and three hundred years ago.  By their definition, Obama is certainly African-American, but not Black.  How much of a political conundrum that presents to them in qualifying him as a good candidate who understands “their issues” is still unknown.

He is, by inclination or personality, a consensus builder.  In my opinion, the country has been misshaped to almost unrecognizable by the current regime, that building a consensus with any of it adherents is not something I’m interested in seeing any future president do.  His published foreign policy ideas are fuzzy, and he has no real international policy exposure, much less experience.

This is a problem beyond his own “greenness” since he has few if any experienced advisors in this area that I am aware of.  Consequently, if he were elected president, I question his readiness to appoint (or even know) well-qualified cabinet members, such as Sec’y. of State.  At this juncture, we most require a president well versed in international diplomacy and well accoutered with expert help.

There is no argument that Sen. Obama is not personable, charismatic, and a superb public speaker, a “common man,” and a rising star in the Democratic Party.  But he is no bold challenger to the status quo — yet.  And he is still a tyro in the areas where this country needs a pro.

I’m waiting to see if he will morph from acknowledged liberal to true Progressive, if he will become a man of the (Democratic Party) machine, or find definition as a grass/netroots populist.  A self-proclaimed anti-Iraq War politician from the beginning, he took down his 2002 antiwar rally speech from his website.  The one that earned him the reputation of which he boasts.  I detect a mixed signal from someone who is politically unsure of himself.  Nor is he leading any anti-war charge in the Senate*[SEE UPDATE BELOW] for all his perceived (by some) anti-war stance.

UPDATE: The Obama/Murphy/Thompson Iraq War De-Escalation Act

The binding legislation ends President Bush’s escalation by capping the number of troops at January 10, 2007 levels, puts forward specific benchmarks for success in Iraq and establishes a timeline to redeploy our troops. Redeployment, according to the bill, would begin no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of all combat brigades redeployed by March 31, 2008 – a date consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Troops would be sent either home to their families in the U.S., to Afghanistan where more troops are needed to fight the war on terror or would remain in the region to train Iraqis, protect against more violence and perform counterterrorist activities. The Iraq War De-Escalation Act will refocus the efforts of American armed forces on Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden and urges the president to send, within 60 days, a Special Envoy to Iraq to begin the important work of diplomacy with key nations in the region. Obama Offers Plan to Stop Escalation of Iraq War, Begin Phased Redeployment of Troops

 So, I reject the position of those who would characterize him as the “anti-war candidate” when compared to Hillary Clinton.

Obviously, I wish him to remain a US Senator where his outstanding oratorical skills are best showcased for the time being, accrue experience, and develop his domestic and foreign policy credentials for a few years.  And show some leadership in that office before expecting me to trust his ability to lead as president.

Which would you rather attend to celebrate upcoming events?  Any of the many galas surrounding NFL Championship #XLI, or the really big bash the City of Miami will host in the Orange Bowl the day Fidel Castro dies and the Cuban community of my hometown gets to shout as one, “We won!”

Whatever that means.

Decisions, decisions. . .
Should I fork out $1000 a head to attend the Official Super Bowl XLI Host Committee Gala today and shake my booty with J.Lo, hubby Marc Anthony, and DJ AM on the sand at Eighth and Ocean?  Or should I save my $1000 and spend half that on a really great fruit bowl headdress and go shake my booty to as-yet-unspecified-entertainment-but-you-can-bet-it-will-involve-salsa-dancing at some later date?

Should I sit by my mailbox and hope for one or two, maybe three eye-popping invitations to say, the Super Bowl XLI Host Committee party at the Miami Beach Convention Center featuring special guest, legendary running back Jim Brown; or should I catch the news conference with Super Bowl halftime performer Prince; or should I take in the warm up act of Billy Joel, who will sing the national anthem, at another news conference?  Or should I just hop into my sedan and tool on down to Little Havana that Fateful Day When the Time Comes and sing along with (I betcha that $1000) Gloria Estefan when she cranks it up?

Should I take to the streets — the scene of the One Big Party That Is Super Bowl Weekend — and admire the stunning security measures designed to protect pigskin fans?  I mean, someone should take note of what local, state and federal agencies have done.

Those governments have spent millions of dollars on a security plan that includes high tech X-ray machines, robots and mobile bomb labs.

Or should I curb my impatience and hold out for the gigantic megaspending that will be poured into assuring safety for all the anti-Castro crazed in the (near?) future?

Then there’s the decision where to take my event-inspired appetite for the best satiation available.  Should I dine at Miami Beach restaurant The Forge’s Soul Kitchen party in such comapany as Deion Sanders, Ronnie Brown, Vernon Carey, D.J. Williams, Morris Chestnut, Adewale Ogunleye, Dwayne Starks, Edgerrin James, Patrick Surtain, Jim Brown and Desmond Howard?  Or should I head over to The Fifth in South Beach for its Club SI muncheroo and keep company with that other ballgame crowd, Venus and Serena Williams, listen to Wyclef Jean, and watch Jimmy Buffet’s SI swimsuit video, “Getting the Picture”?  Or see my favorite Florida Marlin, Dontrelle Willis, at O Asian Grill, or share a napkin at the Versace Mansion with the likes of Jessica Biel, Nas, Diddy, Mark Wahlberg, Hilary Duff, J.Lo, Marc Anthony, Matt Leinart, Kanye West, Nick Lachey, Jay-Z, Jamie Foxx, Jeremy Piven, Beyoncé and Queen Latifah, who will all be chowing down.  Hmmmm. . .probably not there.  Slim pickin’s for the hoi polloi amongst that crowd.  Or should I just put my hunger pangs on hold until I get my chance to eat what will surely be the world’s biggest outdoor paella ever made on that Blessed Day Upcoming?  I dunno who will be dipping into the mother of all woks with me, but I bet we’ll all just get along.

Anyway, I’m exhausted just considering the possibilities.  And I’m betting there’s still plenty of time before the Whoopee!  Fidel’s Dead Party kicks off.  I mean, they haven’t even got a theme yet.  (How’re you supposed to design a souvenir t-shirt without a theme?)

Now I understand why Solzhenitsyn left the USA complaining that there were just too many choices in this material country.  After this weekend, everyone of us in SoFla will need a vacation to some “not a first world country.”  Cuba still sounds good.

DISCLAIMER: You may have seen this diary at DailyKos.

Scientists announced that stem cells may be havested from amniotic fluid which hold as much promise as embryonic stem cells.  If this is the case, President Bush would have no reason to veto a bill from Congress authorizing federal funding for stem cell research using such cells.

However, scientists also acknowledge that they don’t yet know

exactly how many different cell types can be made from the stem cells found in amniotic fluid. They also said that even preliminary tests in patients are years away.  Miami Herald

All the more reason the president should see to it that stem cell research be funded.  The question now is, will the new Democratic Congress continue with the anticipated embryonic stem cell funding bill meant to overturn Bush’s lone veto in the face of these new findings?

Probably the answer is “yes” since scientists warn that amniotic stem cells, as yet, do not appear to be an entirely satisfactory substitute source and do not offer the full scope of possibility for discoveries about human function as do embryonic cells.  

Dr. George Daley, a Harvard University stem cell researcher, said the discovery shouldn’t be used as a replacement for human embryonic stem cell research.

“While they are fascinating subjects of study in their own right, they are not a substitute for human embryonic stem cells, which allow scientists to address a host of other interesting questions in early human development. . .

As the article states, “The hallmark of human embryonic stem cells, which are created in the first days after conception, is the ability to turn into any of the more than 220 cell types that make up the human body.”  Still, Dr. Daley points out that amniotic stem cells may be frozen diretly after birth so that parents would have a source for future tissue replacement in a sick child without fear of immune rejection.

Admittedly, the specifics of the vetoed bill only addressed embryonic stem cells.  Passed by the House in May of 2005, the bill instated

funding to research on embryonic stem cell lines that were nonexistent in 2001, when Bush limited funding to lines in existence at the time.  CNN.com

The senate passed the stem cell bill in July of 2006, setting up the first-ever presidential veto, which occurred the following month.  The House was unable to override the veto, thus killing federal funding in this area of research.

Now the playing field has changed, and perhaps it has become less politicized; it may be prepped for an “intermidiary” bill.  Assuredly, certain Christians and the president will find it impossible to sustain opposition to a bill authorizing  federal funding of amniotic stem cells due to “religious objectons” that they used previously.

The revered Bill Moyers called out to Americans and Democrats for something more than a list of action items in this era of great need to return to representative democracy and to recapture the Great Experiment that has been tortured into an unrecognizable tyranny by the politics and policies of George W. Bush and the neocons.

In gottleib’s diary, “Bill Moyers for President,” we read

Bill Moyers is not in trying to change the minds of people but reach folks with the story they would embrace if only they were allowed to hear it.

Here is my submission to the dialogue he calls for.  It’s short and working its way toward sweet, I think.  I hope the BooTrib Community “hears” it.  I’d like to hear back what my story means to indivdual Froggers — how do you interpret it? — whether you embrace this American Story or not.
Our New Story — Populus Americus

is old again: Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Let us go back to being America again, keeping the “good old” and revitalizing what America means for the next century in the following way.

Let our story be titled “Populism for the Planet” and let its motto be, “What’s good for Mother Earth is good for the country.”  Let our duty be to, “Ask not what you can wring out of the environment, but what you can restore.”  Let our rallying cry be, “Earth first because it’s the only.”

Quite simply, if we don’t abjure national elitism, corporate ultramontism, and turn toward reestablishing positive rights within a civil society, the culture of greed will continue to devastate our, if I may coin a word, bihome (pronounced “biome”).

As is true of an actual biome, diversity and symbiocity are the key to a bihome’s sustainability.  And as biologist, Lynn Margulis, holds, symbiosis is the major driving force behind evolution.  Similarly in a bihome, symbiocity is the major driving force impelling progress.

Recognize these simple principles of diversity and symbiocity, act on them, live by them, legislate and govern by them and America may enjoy a resurgence, not just within her own borders but one that extends past them, overflowing the world.

If we fail to act and live by them, then it is only a matter of accelerating time when the super biome — Earth — will collapse and perhaps die from (coining another term) mankind disease, and government of, by, and for anyone will be moot.

DISCLOSURE: [Most of what appears in this diary originally was a comment to MontanaMaven’s diary, “Moyers Asks Us to Shout from Our Keyboards,” at Daily Kos.]

Americans, we are told, are most generous people.  We give to one another in many ways. Perhaps the most important donations we make are in our loving and kindly interactions with others each day of the year, our lending of helping hands when difficulties arise, our voulunteering in the greater community, and our providing the broken-spirited with a shoulder to lean on.

At this time of year for seasonal as well as financial planning reasons, those Americans who are fortunate enough to be able to do so, execute most of their charitable contributions. Without prying or tooting a self-aggrandizing horn, I thought it would be interesting and enlightening to discuss the giving habits or styles of the BooTrib Community.
Speaking as a member in mediocre standing, I use the week between Christmas and New Year to support my favorite non-profits in a tax-decuctible way.  And while John Hancocking this evening, I became aware that my cheek muscles were starting to ache, and realized that I had been smiling all the while I was draining my purse.

A moment’s thought, and I decided my happy feelings were because I truly cared about the organizations I was donating to. They are folks doing the work in support of causes that I feel passionately about.  They are promoting agendas that are politically correct in the sense that, to my way or thinking, their causes are what politics should be about.

I don’t write mega-checks; I just re-cycle a bit of what some investments earned over the year, so it’s really not “my” money at all that I’m giving away since I didn’t earn it by the sweat of my brow.  In a sense, it’s Republican-like money, unearned spawn of itself.  So, it’s best to get rid of it!

Who are the charities I most adore?  Well, I support 10 each year.  Not always the same 10, but pretty much so.  They range from broad internationals to small narrowly-focused locals. I see the categories of charitable work I go in for are wide-ranging, too: from international development to animal shelters, from medical research to environment causes.

And I try to avoid supporting the really BIG charities, the popular ones, the amorphous do-alls, and the super high profile ones like United Way, the Special Olympics and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.  I have nothing against them!  I just feel that my small drop in the bucket might make a more effective (and I confess — satisfying) splash in a different container.

I try to choose charities that give most of their money directly to those who need it, whether the homeless or the physician.  And I try to support charities that reflect my personal values — hence that warm feeling at check-writing time.

Here’s my Top 10 Favorite Charities for 2006

1. Oxfam International
2. International Medical Corps
3. Ashoka
4. American Foundation for AIDS Research
5. The Conservation Fund
6. Planned Parenthood
7. National Alliance to End Homelessness
8. Habitat for Humanity (for my neighborhood)
9. Humane Society Adopt-a-Pet (for my neighborhood)
10. Farm Shares (for my immediate neighborhood)

I’d like to read about your favorite charities and something about your rationale for choosing the one’s you support.  I know many of you give to charities for deeply personal reasons and may not wish to reveal those to us.  But anyone who does want to share, I can’t think of a better way to wash away that horrible lingering miasma of commercialism and materialism that seems to overwhelm the run-up to Dec. 25th.

Your comments will probably allow us all to get a head start on a Happy New Year.

The Aristotelian Mean, or “moderation in all things,” that is found in the Nicomachean Ethics is defined as the middle ground between excess and deficiency.  Granted Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is viewed by many as an attempt to provide a teological explanation of Nature, that is to say Nature works toward an end goal.  In the modern scientific age we live in, this is known to be erroneous.  Nature is non-moral and completly bereft of “goals.” Thank you for demonstrating that to us, Mr. Darwin.

But the Nicomachean Ethics does contain that golden nugget of an idea “The Golden Mean of Behavior,” more completely presented yet loosely restated as moderation in all things, excess in none.  That idea does not mean (yet is frequently misinterpreted and misunderstood to mean) that a person can take all things (particularly in re health) with moderation; therefore reasoning that a moderate amount of a bad thing can be indulged.  Wrong!

Here’s how my idea of the Aristotelian Moderate Democrats and the philosphy for which they stand is correctly understood.
Instead, of believing that a little bit of a bad thing can’t hurt us, we should think more correctly about what Aristotelian Moderation truly means.  We should understand, for example, that in the face of danger, courage is the happy median between the excess of foolhardiness and the deficiency of cowardice.

We can, and should, seek happiness as Aristotle believes is the true Good.  That happiness is, in a sense, our goal.  We achieve happiness, true Good through living in accordance with appropriate virtues, that is behaving in the right way for the right reasons.  Even our own Declaration of Independence asserts that a goal of government should be to ensure that its citizens’ right to pursue happiness be protected.

Virtue, Aristotle teaches, is that mean state between excess and deficiency.

Remembering our example of courage, we can illustrate how one is a virtuous Moderate Aristotelian Democrat in the following.  As Aritotelian Moderate Democrats, in our approach to social issues, legal, and moral ones, we should take the courageous, step, action, or position, but never either extreme.

And we should make these steps as private citizens and collectively as a nation, of our own volition.  That is to say, without coercion, absent threat, free from fear.

In sum, an illustrative list of some of the virtues common to Aristotelian Moderate Democrats and how they should be understood:

Courage consists of confidence in the face of fear. Temperance consists of not giving in too easily to the pleasures of physical sensation. Liberality and magnificence consist of giving away varying amounts of money in appropriate and tasteful ways. Magnanimity and proper ambition consist of having the right disposition toward honor and knowing what is one’s due. Patience is the appropriate disposition toward anger. . .

Most importantly, Aristotelian Moderate Democrats seek justice in all things because justice encompasses all other virtues.  Justice is of two varieties:  distributive — distribution of wealth (and honor) according to earned merit; and rectificatory — creating a balance of equality among all people through law.

There are other beautiful virtues discussed in the Nicomachean Ethics, and I hope you already have a familiarity with them, or, it not, now have acquired a curiosity about them that will volitionally “drive” you toward reading the work by Aristotle.

Before going on about my Aristotelian Moderate Democratic life I have this to say to those who might try to impugn the idea with false charges of “it’s wishy-washy,” or it’s “weak.”

Caveat: Sometimes only a person with a bleeding heart has sufficient courage to do what the rest of us shy away from doing.  And in times when governments adhere to wretched excesses of corruption and imperialism, the courageous position is misrepresented by that government and painted as the radical one.  Always remember this, that in a democracy we must never make the mistake of accepting even a moderate amount of bad governance.

Please, let us all go on about our lives as virtuous Aristotelian Moderate Democrats.

[Author’s Note:  This diary owes its “life” to shirlstars Remember Me?, which inspired me to comment.  Which, in turn, inspired me to write this.  Every writer should thank his/her Muse.

You can also find it at DailyKos and (soon?) at Political Cortex.]