Bush: Who will help Caesar?

According to ThinkProgress Bush has invited Congress to the White House for non-negotiations and the Washington Post reports that Bush has criticized Democrats for the Delay in Iraq Spending Bill. The POTUS is said to have retorted

"They need to do it quickly and get it to my desk so I can veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without further delay."

Frankly I don't see what the rush is as the POTUS waited until June 16 to sign the supplemental last year. In the same article the Washington Post continued reporting President Bush as saying

...that the Pentagon would soon have to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts 'to cover the shortfall' caused by the lack of a bill.

Why? Bearing in mind that the Congressional Research Service reported to Congress last year that with funds already appropriated they won't run out of funding until July 2007.

So, what's all the hulla balaoo about? The sticking point as everyone knows by now is the controversy of announcing a withdrawal date. Honestly, setting in place a plan for staging a withdrawal has never had to be set in concrete it just needs to be an aiming point. Additionally, far from being a catalyst for more violence it actually stands to neutralize a primary propaganda weapon of nationalist insurgents which is that the U.S. are in Iraq for good.

I say, announce a date and see what happens. You don't physically have to do anything and you can observe what transpires and if violence increases then the POTUS can take the date away. I think it makes for an excellent stick and carrot approach that will motivate everyone with a genuine interest in seeing a stable Iraq to be pulling in the same direction to achieve it.

Unfortunately I'm of the growing opinion that the POTUS has slowly but surely dug himself a hole as "the Decider" that his brains trust have so far not been able to help him out of.

They need to work much harder!

Sally Neighbour: Inside the mind of a terrorist

Sally Neighbour's article in The Australian titled Inside the mind of a terrorist dated 19 February 2007 amongst other things identifies the bonding between disaffected young adults who turn to terrorism but are we still missing something?

In one part I'm glad that Sally acknowledged that Bin Laden is/was driven more by politics than religion. This is key to combating the myth of his motives as being purely religious. However, I feel we need to make more room in the overall discussion to explore some of the other myths surrounding our understanding of terrorism and terrorists. To examine issues that fall outside of what I call the symptoms of terrorism such as disaffected young adults and their need to bond. we need to do more than simply relate the personality traits that are present in one form or another throughout mainstream society.

Critically, I think we need to be aware that our burgeoning terrorists come from all walks of life, ideologies, religions and economic backgrounds. Thus, the one thing this broad demographic denotes is the overwhelming futility of attempting to "profile" would-be terrorists.

What it does identify however, is that as individuals, we often participate in collective actions at times for widely differing reasons. This ranges from our rebels without a clue all the way to intellectuals who have a broad understanding of the complexities of geopolitical dynamics. They may rally under the same banner but their respective raison d'êtres may differ markedly.

In this sense then, trying to understand the behaviour of individual terrorists (the foot soldiers) is tantamount to confusing a private soldier's reasons for joining his country's army as definitive insight into why his country is at war.

My point is that we need to look more broadly at the collective or organisational motives of these organisations as key indicators for their actions. This is more politically difficult for governments to do as this means treating the illness rather than it's symptoms.

Issues form the core of all disputes and by that I mean issues real or imagined. Some of these issues will be concrete such as specific economic, political, territorial issues etc. or may be abstract such as values, culture and belief based issues or a combination of the two such as historical.

I'm not suggesting that all issues can be legitimized just that they need to be heard. The argument that we will not legitimise terrorist activity by sitting down and talking with them is a straw man argument.

By this I mean that it is not enough for governments to rail against a terrorist organisation one moment and support them covertly the next (Hamas, Fatah, MEK and others). It is not enough for governments to demonize acts of terrorism but continue to support those same acts to meet their own short term goals. We must act consistently with our core policies if we expect others to believe we act in good conscience.

If we are unable to behave consistently with our core values and policies then we cannot hold ourselves to be any different from our claimed enemies. We need to understand that no matter what we do as a society we set an example--like it or not. We can choose to set a good example i.e. behave consistently with our core values providing the space for our enemies to follow or we can behave inconsistently and have our people wear the cost when our enemies do the same. However we choose to behave, consistently or inconsistently, behaviour in our society is guaranteed to reflect that.

Hillary Clinton and Integrity

In October 2002, if I was looking for a stand-up Democrat with b*lls of steel it would have been Russ Feingold who addressed the lion's den in the Senate and laid out the stark truth about why going into Iraq was wrong. His argument was salient, truthful and his "No" vote matched his words and his convictions. We call this integrity.

The Weasel Word Queen on the other hand voted "Yes" while lacing her floor speech with internal contradiction saying "If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us." and went on to say "So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

Hillary Clinton then quietly voted "Yes" on the resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Once you lose your integrity, it's all down hill from there.

Barracking for the right reasons

I guess the main thing that seems to come out about Barack Obama in the media is his assumed lack of experience and the "unfortunate name" factor

I thought this was worth looking into more closely.

To start, in a state that produced both Hillary Clinton and Abraham Lincoln, Barack has more public office experience than either of them combined prior to attaining Presidential office and we all know what a mover and shaker Lincoln was.

Specifically, Barack had been a state senator of Illinois for six years prior to gaining the federal senate ticket in 2002. He's been in public office now for over a decade. A man who could have chosen a career in any one of America's prestigious law firms instead fought hard to be accepted as a civil rights lawyer and community organizer.

The State of Illinois is no backwater either, it has the 5th largest population and economy out of the 52 states.

Not only did he beat his Republican counterpart for the State senate with an underfunded campaign but achieved this while working his full-time job as a law lecturer. It's interesting to note that his core support during this campaign came from African-American's who as we know hold the keys to a Democrat Whitehouse.

Far from working against him, Obama's name is his classic ice-breaker. He often says that people get his name wrong addressing him as “Alabama” or “Yo Mama.” it cracks people up and from that moment on, whether Jew, Muslim, Mechanic or Doctor he has them in the palm of his hands and open to listening.

And therein lies the threat to Hillary Clinton in that everyone who meets Barack or works with him admires him. It has been said that Barack has a way of making people who disagree with him "feel comfortable with the disagreement." Even Republican Senator Kirk Dillard said: "I knew from the day he walked into this chamber that he was destined for great things ...in Republican circles, we’ve always feared that Barack would become a rock star of American politics."

So, who would the Republican's run against Obama? I'd guess the Republican's will be searching for their own Obama, someone who's a Republican heavyweight--lots of experience and someone who is a consenus-builder to neutralise the Barack Obama factor. They'll want to be able to hold their candidate up along side of Obama impling that "Barrack's very good but we're better and these are the reasons why."-- captalising on Baracks good will. If it's Hilary, they can pick from a larger field as they can covertly swiftboat her out of the running. As one cheeky blogger made the observation recently "If she can't control her own husband how's she going to control an entire country?"--simple, ruthless but effective.

It's a long 400 day run into the key March primaries of 2008 and Barack has lots of time to get out to every city in every state and build his karma at a grass roots level--the money will come to him. And if he's a little short I'm confident that someone will pop the spread to keep the playing field level as too many people like him. At that point Hillary's money clout will be neutralised and America will be in a position to choose a new way forward.

Whether America's new president is a centrist issues Republican or a centrist issues Democrat like Obama, it can look forward to escaping the ham-fisted neo-realism nightmare created by Bush and Cheney.

Bush: when your only tool is a hammer

For the Bush Administration stirring the pot so to speak is central to their interventionist foreign policy. In terms of the state-military connection it is critical to maintaining their power base, influence and political relevance. In foreign policy terms however, the problem is that when your only tool is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail.

Bush and Cheney know that when you thrust a stick into a hornets nest you will stir a lot of angry hornets. But this is necessary in order to galvanise the American military machine into action and fire-up a stagnant economy. The economic effects of this strategy appears to be working according to some economists who predict that the American budget will move into balance just in time for the 2008 elections. To underline their commitment to the "Hammer" model of foreign relations I understand that Bush will be seeking an overall increase of Army and Marines Corps by 100,000 troops over the next 5 years.

I imagine privately that the Bush and Cheney camp feel quite irked that an ungrateful congress have failed to see their bigger picture which guarantees the role of the military and its associated industry for the foreseeable future and that their current six year investment has only cost them a paltry 3000 troops. To placate them I hear he will announce at his State of the Union address the creation of a new special advisory council on the war on terror made up of leaders in congress. I imagine this will both neutralise dissent and keep them out of his hair for the remainder of his term.

All aboard the Maggie Haberman Swift Boat

I see Maggie Haberman has ejected another 98% fact free story out of her derrière over at the New York Post with a ready and willing hatchet job on Obama Barack. Titled 'OSAMA' MUD FLIES AT OBAMA Haberman draws on a raft of impressive journalistic words like “allegedly” and “anonymously”. This pathetic excuse for journalism has the Clinton camp's stink all over it!

All you have done is increase Obama's credibility, created blowback for Hillary Clinton, made the Republican camp p*ss themselves laughing, make your readers feel as if you are treating them like idiots and trashed your credibility as a journalist.

No one expects you to be the sharpest tool in the shed Maggie but at least make an effort.

Hillary Clinton: Ambition's Ladder

Hillary Clinton's tea and biscuits “exploratory” campaign video for the 2008 primaries was a little cheap and cheesy. Still that's what happens when you empty the Democrat coffers of $35 million to run a one horse senate race-right? It will also teach her for letting Murdoch host her fund raisers—yeah he's crazy ...like a fox. Many Democrats have never forgiven her for siphoning funds away from both Gore and Kerry's campaigns; subjugating the party's interests for her personal ambitions and helping Bush and Cheney into the White house not once but twice.

Now, even “The Hammer” himself, Republican Tom DeLay is cheering her on. Seriously, if that's not bi-partisan politics I don't know what is :)

I suppose if she can leverage her husband's campaign nous, refrain from any turetic outbursts and stop flip-flopping for longer than five seconds then she might survive a nomination. Then the Republican party can breath a sigh of relief knowing that her voter polarizing powers will do a better job than any swift boating they could ever pull.

In contrast, Obama's “exploratory” announcement is a convincing breath of fresh air in a climate of stale partisan politics and unbridled ambition. His consensus building grass-roots approach is America's best hope for a fresh and invigorated democracy. Coincidently, Barack has more public office experience than Hillary and Lincoln combined prior to attaining Presidential office.

Coinciding with their ringing endorsement of Hillary, the Republicans are beavering away preening Democrat lobbyists in Washington as part of their senate damage control strategy. You can almost guarantee that the political weapon of choice for the 2008 election will be a Republican engineered and security focused “October Surprise” that will aim to stun voters out of their apathy straight into the arms of; wait for it ...another Republican administration.