PRESIDENT BUSH NEEDS TO WRITE FOUR LETTERS

Seeing President Bush's worst speech of his Presidency last night, reminded me of a famous story or fable that has been told many times. I have heard it told about Roman Caesars, Popes, Kings and Russian Presidents, amoung others. Regradless of who you tell it about, it is perfectly fitting for President Bush as he finds himself in a politcal quagmire of his own doing...

The story goes that an outgoing politcal leader was turning over his power to the new leader, (in this case we will use Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev of the former Soviet Union). As he turned over power, Khrushchev also handed Brezhnev four letters. He told him to open the four letters in order, one for each time that Brezhnev found himself in a predicament that he could not get out of.
After a short time, Brezhnev found himself in his first predicament, so he opened the first letter. The letter said, "Blame me." So Brezhnev blamed Khrushchev for all of the countries problems and the people bought it. The predicament was solved. Soon he found himself in a new tougher predicament, so he opened the second letter. It said, "Blame the opposition." So Brezhnev blamed all of his critics and the people bought, predicament resolved.
He found himself in a third predicament, and opened the third letter. It said, "Blame the media." Brezhnev did just that, the people bought it, no more predicament. Eventually he found himself in a fourth predicament, so he opened the fourth letter. It said, "Sit down, write four letters."
I think it is clear that it is time for Bush to sit down and write four letters.

MACHIAVELLIAN IRAQ

It pains me to even approach a war, especially one as horrific as our current one in Iraq, with a Machiavellian view, but I feel it is necessary. Probably the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans in my lifetime, is that the Republicans view everything as Machiavelli would, while the Democrats only seem to do so when it can embarrass them. I have reluctantly concluded that if the Democrats wish to build on or even just maintain the power that they have just acquired, they must start being more Machiavellian, especially on big issues like the Iraq war. So with an ache in my heart, I hesitantly would like to give my Machiavellian analysis of President Bush’s request for an escalation of troops over in the Iraq.

First let me state the obvious. This escalation is nothing more than a political ploy by Bush to give the appearance that he has done everything possible to “win” this war before finally signaling for a reduction in troops and eventually a complete withdrawal. This is about as immoral a military strategy as a military strategy can be. Sending more brave men and women into harms way, just so you can cover your own ass politically. A true act of a coward.
So morally, it would be imperative that the Democrats do everything in their power to stop this escalation, which is the precise stance that Barack Obama has taken. On the Senate floor he stated that he would do everything in his power to block it. Ted Kennedy, the moral touchstone of the Democratic party, has introduced legislation that would require congressional approval of any increase in the troops in Iraq.
Morally, these are the correct steps to be taken, but I fear that the best political move requires that the Democrats not stop this escalation, that more troops are sent to Iraq. Here is my reasoning.
I believe that in 2008, the number one issue on voters minds will be Iraq, and the presidential candidate that can provide a solution to ending the war will win overwhelmingly. If the Democrats are successful in blocking this escalation, then President Bush, and the few allies he has left, will be able to claim that the Iraq war could have been won, if only he was able to put more troops in. If you think that this is insane talk, just realize that there are still many conservatives that believe that we could have won in Vietnam if only given a few more years.
What is important politically is that one of these people will be John McCain. Blocking this escalation give McCain an out, a plank to run on. “I was right, we could have achieved victory in Iraq, if the Democrats had not blocked the escalation.” Who knows who will buy this, but from a Machiavellian view point, why give it to him?
Especially when, if the Democrats do not block the escalation, then McCani is really in a difficult position. For if it is not blocked, and as nearly every military expert has predicted, it does not help matters in Iraq, then McCain’s credibility in Iraq is shattered. More importantly, it emboldens the Democratic candidates. They can argue that they tried to stop the escalation, but couldn’t, because of President Bush. Therefore, the only way for this country to do what is right in Iraq, is to have the Congress and the President on the same page, ergo, a Democratic President.
So while not blocking this escalation means more Americans being put in harms way, it will help the Democrats win control of the White House in 2008. As I stated earlier, one of the most immoral stances to take, but one of the most Machiavellian as well.

SADDAM'S EXECUTION

Most likely in the next few days, Saddam Hussein will be executed. If ever there was a case for capitol punishment, this is it. He more than lived up to his nickname, "The Butcher Of Bagdad". Not only was his regime responsible for as many as 400,000 deaths, he probably was personally responsible for hundereds himself. He was such a big fan of torture that for his birthday every year, it is reported that he would visit his state run torture chambers and take the place of the torturer. Clearly, he will not be missed.
However, it is still is a bad decision to execute him. Not because doing so will worsen the violence in Iraq. I don't think that it is possible for the violence to get any worse there. And not because I think that capitol punishment is morally unjustifiable. The reason why executing Saddam Hussein is a bad idea, is because it is a bad political move.
If what we truely want is to bring Democracy and stability to Iraq, we need to change the mentality that has plagued it for decades, if not centuries. In the last hundred years, Iraq has changed leaders numerous times. And everytime, the first step of the new regime was to execute the leaders of the former regime. When Saddam Hussein took over he not only killed all the leaders, but anyone connected to it, including those in his own Ba'ath party who showed any signs of sympathy for the old regime.
So killing Saddam now would only guarantee that Iraq will continue its cylce of violence and push it farther away from Democracy and stability. If they were to sentence him to life imprisonment, they would make a bold statement to the world community, a statement that Iraq is now different from its past, different from the rest of the Arab world and ready for Democracy.

THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS...AND SANITY

Merry Christmas everyone! I happen to be Jewish, but I still like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, or a Happy Chanukah, or a Great Kwanzaa, or a Festive Festivus. I see no reason why people who don't celebrate Christmas can’t be merry on it, or at least be wished that they be merry, just like I don’t see why gentiles can’t be happy on Chanukah, or white people glad on Kwanzaa.
I really don’t see the point why people get all upset over someone wishing them well for any reason or occasion. Likewise, I don’t see any reason why anyone should get upset over they type of greeting that people offer. Just as it is silly to be mad at someone for wishing a Jewish person or a Muslim, or an atheist a Merry Christmas, it is even sillier for anyone to get upset over people wishing others Happy Holidays or Season Greetings, or whatever they want to wish on others. There are so many great, important, worthwhile issues to wage war on, like poverty, illiteracy, child abuse, etc. that it just a complete and utter waste of time to wage war on Christmas greetings.
I know that Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager and others have seen their ratings plummet as people wise up to their game of fear mongering and race baiting, but surely they can come up with something more intelligent on which to focus their false rage. Actually, after listening to them, maybe not.
Merry Christmas!

BIBLE, KORAN, DIANETICS...WHATEVER

A few members of the right, specifically Sean Hannity and Dennis Prager, are engulfed in false outrage over newly elected Illinois congressman Keith Ellison’s decision to have his swearing in photo-opt with his hand on a copy of the Koran, rather than the Bible.
They claim that this action, by our country’s first Muslim congressman, “undermines American civilization,” and if we allow him to choose “his favorite book” to be sworn in on, then what’s to stop a congressman from being sworn in on a copy of The Book Of Mormans, or Mein Kampf?
I want to address this last point first, because it is so ridiculous. If there existed an elected member of Congress who wished to be sworn in on a copy of Mein Kampf, then this country would have a much bigger problem then his choice of books on which to place his hand for a photo-opt. If a supporter of the Nazi party ever became an elected official in our government, we would be screwed. That would definitely “undermine American civilization.”
It would undermine it because the values preached about in Mein Kompf are in conflict with those that form the basis of American civilization. The Koran, however, does not. The basic values of Islam are very similar to the basic values of America, and if Dennis Prager or Sean Hannity ever read the Koran, they would see that to be true.
However, even that is not the point here, because the United States Constitution, the real basis of our American Civilization, makes no reference to any book that a member of Congress needs to be sworn in on. And more importantly, the very first sentence of the Bill Of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So it is pretty clear that not only does the Constitution not require one to place their hand on the BIble when being sworn in, but it expressly states that no one should be denied the right place their hand on any book they choose. There already has been a Congressman who was sworn in with his hand on the Book Of Morman.
To exemplify this point, imagine that an American, Christian soldier, who, after serving a tour of duty in Iraq, decided to live there. And he was elected to the Iraqi Parliament. When he is sworn, should he be allowed to be sworn in on a Bible, instead of the Koran? Even though the Koran is the book that everyone else chooses? Of course he should, just like Keith Ellison should be able to choose the Koran here in America, without any false outrage from Sean Hannity and Dennis Prager.

I'm back, sorry for the long absence, again. As I mentioned earlier, I needed a new kidney, and thanks to my brother, and my whole family, and a team of doctors and nurses, I had a successful kidney transplant on August 25th. It took me awhile to completely recover, but finally, I can now return to annoying people with my opinions on the world today.
A lot has happened since my last post, too much to comment on, so I'll try to hit the ground running and write about the most current issues. Obviously, the biggest topic in the news right now, is Iraq. The Baker report was just released, and Robert Gates was just confirmed as the new Secretary of Defense. Hopefully these two events will mark a new direction in our policy in Iraq, or even better, a change in the situation over there.
One of the biggest issues in the blogesphere these days is the situation in Iraq and what to call it. Many on the fringe right are trying to convince people that it should not be called a civil war. The reason for this is obvious. Right now, our Military is set up to fight an insurgency, not a civil war. If you call what is going on in Iraq a civil war, you must admit that the present course the Bush administration is taking, is wrong, and must be changed. So, the defenders of the Bush administration must make sure that the situation in Iraq is not called a civil war, or else they would be forced to criticize the President.
If you study their arguments, you will see that they fall into two categories. One group that claims that there is absolutely nothing even resembling a civil war in Iraq, (we'll call them the radical Bush fundamentalists), and another group that argues that the situation in Iraq is too complicated to be called a civil war. The first group is easy to debunk. Just look at the facts. The second group is even easier to debunk. If the situation in Iraq is too complicated to be called a civil war, that doesn't mean that it is not in a civil war, but just that the situation has other elements as well. This group is correct in claiming that the situation in Iraq is too complicated to be called just one thing, but one of the many things it can be called is a civil war, along with an insurgency, and a holy war, and sectarian violence...
So by arguing that Iraq is too complicated to be labeled by just one label, not only does this group really admit that Iraq is in a civil war, but they are arguing that the situation is worse than a civil war. And if that is the case, then the Bush administration really needs to change its Iraq policy.
Now all of this really is meaningless, because it really doesn't matter what you call the situation in Iraq...call it an insurgency, call it sectarian violence, call it chopped liver. Whatever you call it doesn't change the facts that are on the ground, that Iraqi citizens are killing each other every day in obscene numbers. Whatever you call that, it means that the Bush policies have failed and need to be changed.

POLITICAL SCIENCE LOOK AT 2008

A quick note on political science in general. It really is not a science. Like economic laws, political science laws don't have the certainty of scientific laws. If I drop a ball, I know that it will fall toward the ground due to the law of gravity, however, I do not know that I will make money in real estate when interest rates are low or that the opposition party will gain seats in mid-term elections. The latter two might be highly probable, but not certainties.
Which is why it is so difficult to make money in the market and to forecast election results. The best one can usually do on these matters is to make happy guesses. So here are my happy guesses concerning the 2008 Presidential elections.
First on the Republican side:
The Republicans better hope that George Allen and Bill Frist get eliminated quickly. Allen basically is very similar to George Bush, only not as smart. He's a nice guy, who can play the political game very well, but I can guarantee that by 2008 Americans will be looking for a President who they think can accomplish goals, not just be their buddy. After all the screw ups that this Administration has had, competence will be a major factor in most people's choice for President, and Allen has just too much of that Mayberry RFD charm to be taken seriously. Frist on the other hand, might just be the worst Presidential candidate in our lifetime. He can't give a speech to save his life, he has proven to be a bumbling fool as Senate Majority Leader, and he had done everything to show that he is a puppet of the religious right. The Democrats are praying that he is the Republican nominee.
Mitt Romney, could very well be the nominee, he is handsome, eloquent, and at least gives the appearance of being competent. His biggest drawback is that he is a devout, practicing Mormon, and lets face it, Mormons are weird. They believed in polygamy, they consider that their current leader, Gordon B. Hinckley is God'’s chosen prophet today, and that there is a Mrs. God, that God is married. I seriously doubt that America is ready for a Mormon President, not to mention the fact that the power that the religious right has welded recently is fading fast, and probably will be a negative force by 2008.
Which would be a great sign for John McCain. The more the religious right implodes on itself, the better his chances are for winning the nomination. However, I have the exact opposite view of his chances from the conventional wisdom. I think that McCain has a great chance of being the Republican nominee, but that heis not likely to win the national election.
Why do I hold such a crazy belief? It has to do with political science or the lack of science in political science. McCain's numbers show that he is equally popular among all three major sections of voters; conservatives, liberals and moderates. He is at between fifty five and sixty five percent in all three sections. That sounds unbeatable. It is, if political science was a real science. But those numbers do not translate into actual votes. The art in political science is trying to guess how numbers will translate into votes. Here is my happy guess on this matter. The good news is that he probably will do fairly well among moderates, but getting only sixty five percent of conservatives will kill him. It is generally assumed that a candidate needs at least eighty percent of his base in order to win. McCain probably needs slightly less due to his overall popularity.
But the deceiving number is the fifty percent of liberals who like him. When asked in a poll do you like a candidate, it is easy to say yes. It is a completely different matter to actually pull the lever for him. I am guessing that maybe, and I mean maybe, five percent of the liberals that said they like McCain would actually vote for him, especially after they learn that he is pro-Iraq war, pro-life, pro-deathpenalty, anti-gay rights, and anti-affirmative action. McCain on paper is actually more conservative than Bush. So I really don't see him getting any more votes from liberals than Bush did, but I do see him getting quite a few less votes than Bush from conservatives.
The reason why conservatives like Bush is that he is dependable, they know his stance ahead of time on every issue. The reason why McCain is so popular among moderates is that he is not dependable, he is his own man, and his stance on any position can change at any time. That scares the hell out of conservatives, especially the religious right. The base that elected Bush twice, will not vote for McCain, they would rather stay home.
So McCain will get a little more that half of the conservative vote, a little more that half of the moderate vote and virtually none of the liberal vote. In a general election, he has no shot. But that is just a happy guess.
(I will analyze the chances of the Democrats shortly.)