About Face In The Iraq War

I have mentioned in past commentaries that regardless of how the war in Iraq ends, or when it ends, Iran will be the main benefactor and Iraq and Iran will be allied together.

 

Now, despite the spin about the success of the surge, the State Department's top official on Iraq says Iran's sharp decrease of arms and munitions to Iraq has decreased the attacks sharply.  We know that the Shiite make up the majority in Iraq and Iran and that al-Sadr told his militia several months ago to stand down for 6 months.  We also know that the present administration in Iraq and Iran meet often and are in close contact with each other.  The game is on for them because they know that with the lack of violence, the U.S. will eventually have to leave.  

 

Another tell tale of what is happening in Iraq is in Basra, where British troops have turned over security to Iraq. Our military commanders are worried because Iran is entrenched in Basra and wields influence there to the point that is alarming.

 

And to top it off, Iraqi defense minister al-Obaidi declared his intent to dismantle the Sunni awakening councils which are financed and backed by the United States.  The Sunnis, who are the minority in Iraq but ruled the Shiite when Saddam was in power by force, will not be allowed to have any infrastructure to challenge the Shiite.  

 

In just 3 more months, the war will be in progress for 5 years.  Almost 4000 Americans have been killed, over 20,000 wounded; we don't have any idea how many innocent Iraq men, women and children have been killed and Mr. Bush still can not articulate when the war will end or how.  What we do know is that it was a war over WMD that did not exist.  Bush's reckless behavior to remake the Middle East in his vision has destabilized the entire region and when all  the killing stops, Iran and Iraq will be two sister states.  Iraq will look nothing like Bush saw in his dream.  But lucky for Bush, he won't have to deal with the mess he created much longer.  Unfortunately, the next President will bear the burden of his reckless behavior.

The Boston Globe's John Sasso On Hillary

Here is a great article from the 12/22 edition of the Boston Globe written by John Sasso.  Sasso has long been involved in the Democratic party and in Presidential elections.  He managed the Dukakis campaign in '88 and the Kerry campaign in '04.  He undoubtably knows what he's talking about. ---

Today Clinton has forged herself into a formidable political leader. She has undergone a remarkable journey. In the face of unending autopsies on her personal and political past, unrelieved targeting at both Democratic and Republican debates, the punishing demands imposed on a woman candidate, she is still standing unflinchingly in place....

Why the most electable Democrat? Because after a year of being tightly measured, Clinton has won a public acceptance that she has the intellect and inner confidence to do the job. She has reached beyond her political inheritance and shaped a political presence all her own. Hillary belittlers still abound, to be sure. She is still caricatured as calculating. But the senator has taken on some different markings. Gone is the defensive bite, on hand is a new openness to concede mistakes, often with glints of humor.

Once nominated her campaign will undergo another transformation. Her candidacy will take on an historic aura as it confronts an historic question -- can a woman, this woman, be elected president? Americans will be caught up in crossing one of the country's great divides. Voters of both parties, not just proud women, will be favorably disposed to make that crossing. Americans like the good feeling of removing barriers.

Why the least vulnerable Democrat? The day the Democratic nominee becomes obvious the Republican attack machine will spring to action. Always, the opponent is a target to be eviscerated. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, a man less intimately understood and less defined, Republicans will rush to manufacture their own brutal definition. Can Obama withstand that kind of barrage? Does he have the personal makeup to be as relentless as his opponents? Do past political positions leave him vulnerable? Because the risks are sky-high, these questions need to be reasonably raised and answered beforehand

Clinton is well past negative redefinition. Unlike John Kerry's 2004 campaign in which veterans opposed to Kerry's candidacy challenged his war record, it will be difficult to ram a Swift Boat into her candidacy. If there is a convict in her political past, as with Willie Horton during the Dukakis 1988 campaign, he will already have been exhumed. Besides, the Clintons are veteran enough to mount a withering counterfire of their own.  

The most vulnerable Democrat, Clinton is not. The most electable, she is. America's political landscape, this time around, looks fertile for the right Democratic candidate. But one day, surely, the country will elect a woman president. I sense that moment - and that woman - has arrived. 

For the full editorial, click here.

Happy Holidays To The Troops

I couldn't have said it better than this:

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year to everyone.

Burlington Hawk-Eye Endorses Clinton

In addition to the endorsements of the Des Moines Register and the Quad-City Times, Sen. Hillary Clinton can add yet another well-deserved endorsement to her list.  The Burlington Hawk-Eye had this to say about Hillary:

"Vetted perhaps more than any woman in history, Clinton demonstrates the resiliency and tenacity needed in a president, especially one who will inherit the challenges the current administration will leave behind.

In person, she's calculated yet personable. On issues, she's not a clone of her husband. She's an independent thinker with progressive ideas.

She promises that the days of secret eavesdropping and violations of other civil liberties ends on inauguration day. She promotes a reasonable approach to ending the war in Iraq and developing peace through partnership in the region. She honed her extensive international experience as first lady, traveling to more than 80 countries.

She finds it "galling" that American tax dollars help fund a first-class health-care plan for the wealthy members of Congress, while 47 million Americans go without access to decent health care. We'll take her word that she'll fix that, and that the wealthiest nation in the world will provide access to health care for those of little or modest means.

She sees the federal government as a partner with states and local schools in ensuring quality education.

Can she win? Polls show a dead heat in Iowa, and there are many undecided Democrats. Still, Democrats in the state would be selecting a proven leader with the skill sets necessary for our next president by caucusing for Hillary Clinton."

The Quad-City Times Endorses Clinton

Sen. Hillary Clinton picked up another important endorsement today, this one from the Quad-City Times.  Here is what they had to say about her and her candidacy:

"Hillary Clinton passes test after test after test. This Clinton arrived for the caucus campaign with much, much more experience than the first Clinton to stump across Iowa. In campaign speeches and in an interview with the Times Editorial Board, she spoke passionately of people — specific, real people — whose stories drive her desire to solve problems. “I was brought up to believe we were the problem solvers,” she told the editorial board. “If it was hard, that meant America would do it.”

This Clinton hasn’t shied away from problems.

As first lady, she stepped far beyond the traditional role and took on a major policy issue: health care. Washington special interests villified her for trying, branding any reform “socialized medicine” and even giving it her name: “Hillarycare.”

Regardless, she persevered, becoming an advocate for children worldwide and pioneering the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has survived Republican and Democrat Congresses.

She passed perhaps the toughest personal test. Many Americans stand up for the sanctity of marriage. Hillary Clinton did something much harder. She very publicly stood up for her own marriage.

 She passed the New York voters’ tests. Twice. Rudy Giuliani backed away from challenging her to address his own health and marital problems. She went on to win and six years later won again by an even larger margin.

In the Senate, she’s worked across party lines to pass test after test and earn this testimonial: “This blue-state senator with a blue-state perspective has managed to build unusual political alliances on a variety of issues with Republicans.” That commendation was written for Time magazine by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who led the impeachment prosecution against her husband.

We tested her, too, in our editorial board interview, looking for evidence of the partisan rancor that is destroying our country. We found none. Instead, we found a proven, passionate, intelligent leader with a breadth of legislative and executive experience that is the best of a good bunch.

For Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, we support Hillary Clinton."

This is just another great telling of why Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job of United States President.  Her experience and proven strength sets her apart from everyone else in the field. 

Anything Can Happen: My Analysis For How The Democratic Nomination Process May Play Out

With the pivotal Iowa caucuses just 11 days away, one thing is clear: anything, and I do mean anything, could happen.  So here are a few possible scenarios that could shape the outcome of this Democratic nomination process.

One scenario is that Hillary Clinton wins the Iowa caucus.  If she does that, then I would bet everything I have that she will be the nominee.  Iowa is Hillary's big hurdle and the biggest obstacle in her inevitability at becoming the nominee.  Hillary started out this year behind Edwards in Iowa, but by mid-July she began topping the Iowa polls.  She maintained her lead, although not a huge one, until November, when Barack Obama began pulling ahead.  Now, just a little over a week to go, Clinton is creeping up on Obama's lead.  In fact, Real Clear Politics has averaged the last 6 polls from Iowa, and the result is a literal tie between Clinton and Obama.

But just because Edwards isn't tied for the coveted first place spot in Iowa polls, he is, as Newsweek put it, the wild card in this caucus.  The reason for this is that Edwards has the most support among traditional caucus goers and hence his support is the most solid of the top 3.  Edwards is also the leading choice among caucus-goers when asked who their second choice is.  If I had to pick right now who had the best shot at winning Iowa, I would have to say Edwards.  Clinton has strong support, as does Obama, but both are counting a great deal on first time caucus goers, especially Obama.  

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Obama may actually perform the worst out of the top 3 in Iowa.  Why?  As I mentioned in a previous article (available here), Obama's support comes mainly from younger voters, the group that is historically the least likely to actually show up on caucus night.  Obama might have the momentum in Iowa right now, but the question that we'll have to wait to have answered is whether his supporters actually get out and take part in the grueling caucus process.  In short: Obama may be 2008's Howard Dean.

Going back to Edwards, the sad thing about him is that he could win Iowa by a large margin and still lose every other primary/caucus.  Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is lacking in the financial resources to take his campaign through Super Tuesday.  Indeed, an Edwards' win in Iowa could all but guarantee that Clinton will be the nominee.  

So while this race is as unpredictable as ever, I will say with rather certainty that if Clinton finishes ahead of Obama in Iowa, then she will be the nominee.  On the other hand, if Obama finishes better than Clinton in Iowa, he will most likely be the nominee.  Sadly for him, Edwards has no real shot at being the nominee, although he has an excellent shot at winning Iowa.  

CIA: Still Out Of Control

The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for Jose Rodriguez, a former CIA official who directed that secret video tapes of two captured terrorists be destroyed.  Those tapes contained interrogations that some have speculated show torture.

 

Mr. Bush wanted the Congressional panel to defer its investigation until an inquiry by the CIA and Justice Department is completed.  The panel's chairman refused to do so and rightly so.  Mr. Bush can get to the bottom of the destruction of these tapes if he really wanted to, just like he could have taken care and got to the bottom of the Valarie Plame case if he so had chose.  The two people involved in that case were Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, who happened to be working for the White House and were good friends of Bush.  Bush knew of their involvement, but let Ms. Plame get dragged through the coals.

 

History has proven the CIA can not investigate itself.  They cover their own tracks and flat out lie.  We know that from previous investigations.  It took the Church committee and the Iran-Contra hearings and other hearings to bring to the public the lies and dirty tricks and the violation of the law by the CIA.  The Justice Department is just as bad under this administration.  Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was one of the attorneys, along with others, who knew about those tapes according to recent reports.  A self serving statement was recently made by the administration saying that they recommended the CIA not destroy the tapes.  Recommended?  They should have told CIA not to destroy the tapes.  In fact, the President himself should have ordered the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

 

There is only one reason to destroy evidence, especially when a court ordered the CIA to preserve all records.  Why? Yea, you guessed right.  I wonder why the CIA failed to inform the courts of the tapes' existence, and like wise failed to inform the 9-11 commission.  Why?  Yea, you guessed right again.  This is the same game the CIA played during the Warren Commission's investigation of President Kennedy's death.  They withheld information from the Warren Commission that was not specifically asked for, even though they knew it related to the President's death and the investigation.  This was documented in the House hearings concerning Mr. Kennedy's death.  It really is time to break the CIA up in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.  If the new Director of National Intelligence can't control the CIA better than it is doing, that too needs to be taken care of. 

GOP's Hypocrisy Continues At Bush Press Conference

At his news conference on December 20, Mr. Bush threatened to cancel earmarks (pet projects) that Congress passed in legislation.  He claimed that he ordered his budget chief to review options for not implementing them.  This is the same President who signed every single earmark legislation by the Republican controlled Congress for the first 6 years of his administration.  It is a phony issue by a President who is so small of a person, he still can not tell the truth.  

 

The Democrats, who took over control of Congress, said they would reduce earmarks and they did exactly that in this bill Bush referred to.  A count by "Taxpayers for Common Sense", a group that fights earmarks, reported that the bill sent to Mr. Bush has 25% less earmarks and is less costly than the all time high set by the Republican Congress and Bush in 2005.  Regardless what the subject is, this President just can't tell the truth.

 

Ever since the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist, Mr. Bush has sent his own earmarks to Congress and outside the budget process at that.  As of this writing, his Iraqi earmarks have totaled close to a half trillion dollars.  Not only is Bush's deficit spending paying for those earmarks, but so is the money borrowed to pay interest for the dramatic increased in the national debt that he has run on the taxpayers.

Once again, President Bush and the Republicans have demonstrated why they are hypocrites.  They utter not one word about their own, record-high earmarks, but when the Democrats cut earmarks by 25%, they cry foul.  

Hillary Still Strong

The media, as of late, has been really hitting Sen. Clinton hard and presenting only one side of a very complex story.  But I'm not into the game of "blame it all on the media".  Rather, I like to look for facts, and quite frankly, the facts show that Hillary is still a very strong candidate, both nationally and in the early states.  The media has been highly critical of the Clinton campaign, focusing on what they want you to think is a huge, sudden downfall for her in the polls.  The polls that show Hillary looking strong are all but forgotten.  So here is the most up to date polling available and, as you'll see, Hillary isn't in all that bad of shape after all.

First, let's take a look at the national race.  The two national polls that keep being shown over and over again on CNN and MSNBC are the two that show Obama very close to Hillary.  A Hotline poll from 12/10-14 has Obama trailing Clinton by just 5 points, while a Zogby poll has Obama just 8 points behind.  But here are the polls that aren't getting play, mainly because they don't make for as interesting of a story.  The very latest poll from Fox (12/18-19) has Clinton with a staggering 29 point lead over Obama.  An ABC poll from earlier this month has Clinton with a 30 point lead.  A NBC poll conducted just this past week has Clinton with a 24 point lead.  As you can see, Clinton's national lead is still strong.  Her peak was 30 points over Obama back in October.  Still, despite what the media would have you think, that lead is still very much in place.

Next up is Iowa.  Just today I heard talk on CNN and MSNBC about how dangerous Clinton is to coming in a distant third in Iowa and how horrible she is doing there.  Here is a fact: the last 3 out of 4 polls from Iowa have Clinton in the lead.  The American Research Group and Rasmussen give Clinton a 4 point lead.  CNN gives her a 2 point lead (interesting how CNN doesn't even report on their own poll).  Real Clear Politics, a great website that averages recent polling, indicates that Obama and Clinton are tied in Iowa with 28.3% each.  Does Clinton have Iowa locked-up?  Of course not.  But she is certainly doing better than the media lets out.

Another poll which has been given a ton of airplay today is the USA Today/Gallup poll from New Hampshire which shows Clinton and Obama tied.  What the media fails to mention is another poll which was conducted during the same time frame as the Gallup poll and gives Clinton a 14 point lead.  The latest CNN and Fox polls give her a 12 and 9 point lead respectively.  Real Clear Politics averages that Clinton has a 6.2 point lead; certainly not great, but far from horrible.

Clinton may not be at her peak, but no one realistically expected that she would be right now.  It is a historical fact that the closer to the primaries a Presidential election gets, particularly on the Democratic side, the more the race tightens.  Again, my point in writing this is not to attack the media, but rather to get the other side of the story out there.  It seems that over the last few months the MSM has turned violently against Clinton and is doing everything possible to pump up Barack Obama.  But facts are facts.  This is a very close race, but Clinton is still the frontrunner and is either winning or tying for first when you average the most recent data.   

Future Iraq Funding

If President Bush asks Congress for more money for Iraq next year, other than what has already been approved, here is how the Democrats need to handle any such request.

 

Since Bush has always requested money for Iraq outside of the budget process without any plans to pay for the war except to continue his deficit spending, the Democrats should handle it as a separate item and not mix it with any other legislation.  Bring it to a vote and let the Congress vote.  The Republicans can't muster the 60 votes needed in the Senate so the legislation would fail.  Bush will then go into his self serving statement about Democrats not supporting the troops.

 

The Democrats need not be afraid of that any more and should repeat over and over it is Bush who does not support our troops; he sent them off to fight a war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  The reason Bush's approval rating is between 29-30% is because the people understand the way Bush has lied to the country and that it is his own actions that does not support our troops and in fact he is using our troops as pawns to play God in the Middle East. 

 

Keep in mind, if neither Republican or Democrats in the Senate can reach 60 votes, the measure is dead.  There is enough money in the pipe line to bring our troops home safe.  No more funding.