Let the Iraqi people decide

(based the report from 9/27/006 that can be found at http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=166)

After all, it is their country. In recent public opinion polls of Iraqis, 71% would like their government to ask The United States to get out. The wishes of The Iraqi people should be the only factor in deciding what to do with their country. Even more telling, 78% of the Iraqi people say we’re provoking more conflict compared to 21% who think we’re a stabilizing force. Whether they’re right or wrong doesn’t matter. We should for once respect their wishes. After all, we held elections where they picked leaders. In a democracy, leaders should represent the people. The people are telling their government to ask us to leave. Why has the Iraqi government not done this yet? Are they afraid to speak out to The United States? I suppose their is little indication our Commander In Chief will listen considering he’s sending more troops in when 12% of Americans think that’s a good idea.

We do not own Iraq and are supposed to be there as liberators, not occupiers. Sending in more troops is against Iraqi and US public opinion. The Bush Administration is now thumbing their nose at their own people, and the people whose country they’ve invaded on false pretext. When the war started, they insulted our European allies for going against the war, and now they are insulting The American public. It is clear they will do whatever they want. This is why Democrats must take the reigns of this war. The President cannot just do whatever he feels like. Right now he is acting like a child playing with plastic army men. He must view our military as a giant game set up for his personal amusement.

6 in 10 Iraqis now favor attacking American troops. In January of last year, only 47% of Iraqis supported attacking American troops. We are seen as an occupying force that needs to be eradicated. This support for the insurgency is not related to support for Al Queda, which has always been very low. Even more interestingly, the polls says if we were to commit to withdraw our troops, half of those (3 out of 10 Iraqis) would no longer support attacking Americans. So if our troops stay, 6 out of 10 Iraqis would want them dead. What do think it will do to public opinion if we send in 20,000 more troops? Chances are this will inspire more people to fight us. More troops almost certainly means more enemies, and more death to Iraqis and U.S. troops.

The citizens of America and Iraq seem to have no control. Officials for both countries are dragging on a war that no majority supports. This is a war that Americans and Iraqi’s can see is doing more bad than good. It is now up to our Congress to be the voice of reason to counteract the arrogance and belligerence of our Commander in Chief. If this war continues on the path it has, The Iraqi people will believe even more firmly that America intends to build permanent military bases in Iraq, a perception that is already held by 77% of Iraqis. The report I’m reading suggests that this perception is highly correlated with support for attacks on U.S. forces. Whether or not this is our plan, the longer we stay and the more troops we put on the ground, the more Iraqis there will be who will want to kill us and drive us out of their country. If President Bush succeeds in his plan to send in more troops, it will anger everyone.

Iraqi’s are anxious to rebuild their country and strengthen their government. This will not happen while we are still their. We are nothing more than a distraction and we are preventing the country from moving on after decades of war under a ruthless dictator. Saddam Hussein is now dead and that entire period in the history of Iraq is over. Iraqis are optimistic about the future of their government and country and will take control of their own destiny only when we remove the biggest roadblock to their peace; The American Military.

Get Ready America

Get ready for the truth that is. I know there are still those out there who continue to support The President and refuse to believe he’s a criminal. You’re about to get a dose of reality. In a short time, Congress will do their job and investigate the events leading up to this war. Oversight is a duty of congress but they have chosen to neglect this duty. The 109th congress will go down in history as one of the most corrupt, incompetent, unpatriotic legislative bodies this country has ever seen. They have failed the people by openly neglecting their duty and letting a President wreak havoc on our system. The wrath of the people was obvious in the midterm elections.

They will will find undeniably, that President Bush criminally lied to Congress (which is an impeachable offense) and mislead The American people with such vigor and lack of integrity, that anyone who denies he did so will be considered delusional. This is a congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, who supported a war without even asking basic questions such as “where is this evidence?” “can we see it to make sure it’s credible?” and “what’s the plan?” All the while, the CIA was telling The Bush Administration certain pieces of their case were no better than rumors. Saddam Hussein trying to buy Uranium from Niger, for instance, was debunked as non-credible information. The President, knowing this, used this shaky evidence to convince The American people and Congress to grant him the power to wage war. Colin Powel, a man respected by both parties left in shame, knowing that he took part in a criminal misinformation campaign.

Just the other day, the 3000th US troop was killed in action. This pales in comparison to the of suffering we’ve unleashed on The Iraqi people. Estimates go anywhere from 30,000 to 654,965. Unless you’re not to good with numbers, any estimate is many times more than the number killed in 9/11. Most of the people killed were civilians. Women, children, grandmothers, fathers, mothers.

It was told to Americans the entire war and occupation would be a bargain at $2 Billion. We’re currently spending $6.4 billion A MONTH! As of now, $349 billion has been spent at the expense of the next generation, since it is not being paid for by the generation of Americans who supported this war. This would be like racking up millions of dollars of debt on credit cards and leaving it to your children or grandchildren to pay off. Estimates say that by the time this war is done, we’ll have spent anywhere from 1 to 2 Trillion Dollars. So you see, $2 billion for the entire thing is not just a bad estimate. Spending 4 billion instead of 2 would be a “bad estimate.” This was a flat out lie. We’ve spent 174.5 times the original estimate of $2 billion. Take this scenario. You pull up to a gas station and fill up your 20 gallon tank for $45 at $2.25 a gallon. When you receive your credit card statement the charge reads $7852.50, 174.5 times more than you thought you were paying. Of course, you call the gas station as they obviously made a mistake. But oh no, they tell you their posted prices are just estimates. You just failed to read the small print. $2.25 a gallon is just a slight “misestimate” of the true market price and you will have to pay the new amount. Tough shit buddy, now would you like to put your bill on layaway? Or you could have the bill, plus interest, billed to your children in 20 years. This war is nothing less than a criminal looting of the next generation of Americans. You would not accept this kind of price gouging at a retail outlet, so why do people accept it from their government?

The truth is on it's way. Even since The Iraq Studies Group Report came out, there are still people who were prideful enough continue to delude themselves that America is in the right. It’s now blatantly obvious this war was i’ll-fated from the start and in the next few months, all the evidence will point to this conclusion. When our congress finally fulfills their duty to our constitutional theory of checks and balances, it will be obvious to anyone who cares about their country that America is in trouble in more ways than just this war. We have an administration that has committed criminal acts of terrorism far worse than anything Osama Bin Laden has ever done. Congress let this happen without even batting an eye because a single organization was asleep at the wheel. That organization was not The Congress, The Republican or Democratic party, or The Bush Administration. That group of people is the American public and they are ultimately who is to blame. Unconciousonably, there are still those who support this war and this President. These people are more dangerous to the future of America than any terrorist in the world. The future of our country relies on how history will judge these last six years. If war criminals are allowed to fill the positions of our government with the support of the citizens, America as a beacon of light and hope to the world will be forever gone.

Breaking news: Condoleeza Rice finally figures out what the problem with the entire Middle East is!!!

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday a lack of democracy — a "freedom deficit" — is the core problem in the Middle East. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061209/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_mideast_2)

I’m almost speechless, but I’m going to try to tackle this anyways.

Americans aren’t fat, they suffer from “calorie indulgence”

In war we don’t kill children we “preemptively dispatch future enemies.”

The Bush administration isn’t stupid, it suffers from a horrible medical condition called “competence deficiency” which is sort of like Iron deficiency. Maybe they make a supplement for this.

I’ll be right back I have go “evacuate my excretory system”

I think this administration suffers from a “reality deficit.” Seriously, Secretary Rice is one of the few people in this administration who isn’t a complete retard, but why can’t she just admit what the real problem is? The problem is not a “freedom deficit” Why can’t they just say: “There are three different factions fighting for power while an occupying force tries to control a country of 50 million people while fighting at least two of the three factions as well as Al Queda fighters.”

That is very different from a “freedom deficit” isn’t it? If I had to say it in a few words I think “shit-storm of violence and religious friction” would be a bit more accurate. Of if I wanted to use a euphemism I could call it a “product of excretory evacuation of people not seeing eye to eye on Islamic principles” Yeah, that sounds nice. I think I’ll send in my resume so they can make me White House Press Secretary.

Anyone who supported the Iraq war now knows they’re an idiot, and that France was right

Anyone who supported the Iraq war now knows they’re an idiot, and that France was right.
“The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.”

...reads the first two sentences of the Iraq Studies Group report released on 12/6/06. This rare honest and frank feedback from our government is the first from a bipartisan commission and proves that the Bush administration has been flat out, criminally lying to The American people about the situation in Iraq. This isn’t a surprise to most people, but it is to the many Americans who still trust our failing President. No mistake can now be made that this president is unfit for office. Anything who now thinks George W. Bush is doing a good job as president is unquestionably an idiot. Anyone who thinks he has not broke the law is expressing a falsehood, not an opinion.

“We do not recommend a stay-the course-solution” says James Baker, former Secretary of State and member of the group. Even ever obstinate Rumsy indicated a change a direction is needed right before he was let go. Ah yes, it all comes crumbling down.

I ask those who supported this war and this president. How does it feel to know you supported a senseless killing spree and a failed Presidency? Because it certainly feels like shit to be right. To tell you the truth I would love nothing better if I were now admitting I was wrong from the start about this war. If Iraq was now a beacon of democracy in the middle east, I would eat my pride between two buns with a side of freedom fries and enjoy every bite. But for me, that possibility was never even in the cards. Why? Because I know a little bit about history, particularly the history of trying to force democracy on nations. Anyone who knows even a little about the history of democracy in the world would know that democratizing states are the biggest cause of violence in the world today. And guess which country has tried to force democracy on the most nations who weren’t ready for it. I’ll give you a hint, it’s not fucking France!

The same thing happened in Iraq that happened in Afghanistan, South America, Korea and Vietnam. We went in with our big guns and said “democratize or we’ll kill you!” Why do we continue to think this works when it never has? How many people can we kill trying to “protect” them from their own government? What’s the last country we successfully helped to become a democracy? The only one I can think of is The USSR, and that’s the only one where there was no military action. We waited them out instead of killing them and now they’re an ally.

“We do not recommend a stay-the-course solution.” former Secretary of State James Baker said. Critics of the war were right on the mark before the war even started. But unfortunately the American public trusted the President and supported a sloppily planned, incompetently executed military campaign into one of the few stabilizing forces in the middle east. Why do you think Bush One didn’t get Saddam after the first Iraq war? Because his advisers told him that having Saddam Hussein in power was more good for America and it’s interests than bad. Critics of the new Iraq war said that a preemptive war would lead to thousands of deaths, and could destabilize the entire middle east.

It take very little pride in being right because for me it was a no-brainer. I don’t mean to belittle the intellect of the majority of American who supported this ill conceived campaign, but I do require they at least admit they were wrong. I hope that The American public learns from this what they obviously didn’t learn from Vietnam. Democracy can be a great force of good in a country, but they must find it themselves and only when they’re ready. We had to fight for our own right to govern ourselves and other countries should have to do the same. Civil war is always ugly, but sometimes it’s better that wars be fought by people trying to help themselves. Trying to save people from themselves only breeds resentment and encourages hate for The United States. There will now be a big civil war in Iraq and many people will choose to die for their country. We should offer amnesty to any Iraqi who wishes to get the hell out, and wish luck to those who wish to fight the good fight for the future of their country. It’s what we had to do and it’s only through our internal struggles that we became a strong democracy.

Political risks that could help a Democrat win in 2008

Democrats are in better public favor than Republicans right now, but they still aren’t respected much by Americans. The sweep of the House and Senate was more anti-Republican than pro-Democrat. Bush won in 04 despite four years of incompetence. Elections are no more than giant organized political stunts, and Republicans are good at winning them. In order to regain the respect of the American public, Democrats have to take risks to show they have fortitude as well as new ideas for how our government should be run.

I propose that the Democrat who wins the primary to run for President picks members of their cabinet before the election. Throughout different intervals during the course of the campaign the candidate would pick people for different positions. One week he/she may pick their secretary of defense, the next week secretary of state and continue this until election day. This is no different than picking a vice president as a running mate. This way people know exactly who they’re getting before they vote. Here’s the controversial and risky part of my plan: the candidate should pick some celebrities, provided they’re intelligent and know something about politics. Republicans have had success with actors and even made one President. Very important positions should of course to go those who are most qualified, but less important positions, ones that are more for show than anything should go to famous people.

Celebrities are royalty in this country. People hate politicians, and love entertainers. If Oprah Winfrey was on a ticket, every woman in the country would vote for that candidate. If Dave Chepelle was appointed to some minor position, every young person in the country would vote for his candidate. This would draw many non-voters into the political process. You could have them visit news shows, have mock debates, go on the campaign trail. If Martin Sheen, with his “presidential” background was to go on Larry King Live, all of a sudden people who never cared about politics would tune in. Just another reality tv show. If John Stewart was on board, young people would vote in unprecedented numbers. Donald Trump has done well for himself so why not appoint him to look at our nation’s finances? There are some very talented and influential people in our country who aren’t political insiders.

More people vote for American Idol than they do the president so it only makes sense to emulate the celebrity culture. That combined with the distrust for politicians that has grown stronger in recent years would create a strong force in politics. Bush’s campaign strategists did a great job making him seem more like a normal guy than a typical politician. His stupidity may have even helped him in his respect.

Of course there would be many who would be angered over this apparent sellout, but they would not be the majority. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reily will be beside themselves but few will care. Republicans will rail against anything Democrats try to do in an election. We can’t be afraid of trying new things because of what they’ll say. They already criticize Democrats for being too tied to Hollywood. It would be a great political maneuver if Democrats did an about face and embraced hollywood like a long lost child.

Republicans tend to hate hollywood. To lessen their anger we could appoint some mildly conservative celebrities. Country music stars other than The Dixie Chicks would work wonders. Appointing some flag waving asshole like Toby Keith might just counteract the turnoff of southern voters. Even a liberal guy like Willie Nelson, or a patriotic songsmith like John Mellencamp would work wonders in the bible belt. If Jonny held a rally in Indiana, to be broadcast on national tv, where he sings about how “I was born in a small town”, while confessing his support for the Democratic candidate for president, people in the midwest would be besides themselves with love for all things Democrat. Or better yet, have the Democratic Party be a big sponsor of Farm Aid. Put their name all over it and have Democratic politicians brag about it non-stop. It will be like magic. Willie Nelson, the godfather of country music, could go to his home-state of Texas and get at least some of the rednecks on his side. Celebrities are famous because in one way or another, they know how to communicate with people. Very divisive people such a Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, and Jane Fonda should not be tapped of course.

Another advantage is this would take some of the heat and controversy off of the candidates. If the media has an entire group of people to examine, there will be much less time for them to attack the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. The attacks will be much more spread out. Of course, some celebrities will say stupid things throughout the course of the election, but Bush said dumb things throughout the course of his first term as well as both campaigns and he still won. It’s all about damage control. This would probably be the biggest challenge.

The media will jump on board so fast it will be pathetic. The American people will treat elections like another reality show. The news will be dominated by who has been picked this week for what position, and who is on what talk show tonight, drumming up support for Democrats. The media will be on it like rabid dogs and their ratings will skyrocket. It will be a goddamn bloodbath of publicity. Some of it will probably be negative, but it will still make the average non-voter pay attention.

And Democrats should make a big deal about it. Explain how they want to try new things in our government and compare it to the new deal. You could even call it something cheesy like “the new deal II.” It sounds like a movie title but so does “star wars” “patriot act” and “operation iraqi freedom.” Appearing to be unafraid of new things will win Democrats some much needed respect. It would be a very bold step, but it would show resolve. Taking chances takes great courage and democrats should use that word over and over when talking about the tactic.

If Ronald Reagan can become president, and Arnold Schwarzenegger can become governor of california, why can’t the same tactic work for Democrats? There are many other examples of celebrities winning in politics. Sports stars, astronauts, actors, and entertainers have all been congressmen.

Republicans strategists have already figured out that theatrics work. Stunts such as Bush landing on the aircraft carrier to announce victory in Iraq obviously didn’t hurt him in the 04 Presidential election. Neither did surprise visits to troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving. These were cheap political stunts and it didn’t seem to hurt them at all, despite the criticism of liberals. They also weren’t hurt by gimmicks such as everyone waving flip flops at the Republican national convention. These are concepts Americans can wrap their brains around.

Then, to increase voter turnout even more, have elections the day after Thanksgiving and have polls at malls. Democrats could make a big deal of this saying it stimulates the economy as well as encourages voting. People are already out at malls anyways, so why not have them vote there? To create more of a buzz, you can have celebrities at malls meeting people who vote. It just makes sense. Americans are obsessed with consumerism as well as celebrities so it’s just giving them what they want.

Americans have demonstrated that anything packaged in an entertaining way will be accepted, whether it’s a good idea or not. Democrats can still have substance and integrity in their positions. In a competition between style and substance, style wins in America. However, if you combine style with the superior substance Democrats have over Republicans, liberals will have a balance of style and substance. This combination will be impossible to beat. Americans will be very apprehensive to vote a Democratic to the White House considering they now control both houses of congress. The public voice their opinions in other ways than voting, and they’ve demonstrated they like campaigns that are nicely packaged, and they love drama. Run the campaign like a movie script and they we can’t loose.