Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown,KY
May 24, 2007

Listening to George W. Bush answering questions about Iraq from reporters in the Rose Garden today was an incredible experience.  That's because his answers are not credible.

Bush says we are there at "the invitation of the Iraqi government".  Really?  Does anyone remember Saddam Hussein asking us to invade Iraq with approximately 150,000 troops, and overthrow his government?  Didn't we overthrow the previous government of Iraq and help create the government that is now there?

Further, was Al-Qaeda based in Iraq when they attacked New York City?  No.  They were based in Afghanistan.  Is Osama bin Laden in Iraq today?  No.  He is in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region by all accounts.  Now Al-Qaeda is stirring up significant trouble in Pakistan, and helping the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan.

Bush says that Hussein deserved to be overthrown because he was a brutal tyrant.  As opposed to what:  daily bombings and daily massacres of Sunnis and Shiites by each other?  Can Bush really say the Iraqi people are living in better conditions today than they were under Hussein, as terrible as he was? 

Bush says we must stay in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda and prevent them from establishing a safe haven there.  Doesn't Bush realize that by invading Iraq, he has created the greatest motivation to--and the strongest magnet for-- terrorists to enter Iraq and fight what they see as the "American infidels" occupying an Arab country?

Bush says if we leave Iraq now, it will cause a catastrophic disaster in Iraq.  Yes, there will probably be an all-out civil war, with the Shiites crushing the Sunni minority.  As opposed to what, the American Civil War , in which there were 10,000 military engagements, 203,000 killed in action, 618,000 total dead, and 412,200 wounded? Did any country intervene in our civil war to put a stop to the killing? No.

Reporters who ask Bush questions never pin him down on such statements.  If they had the guts, they would ask questions like the following:

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that you wanted to avenge threats made against your father by Saddam Hussein?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that you want to control access to oil in the Middle East?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President--as evidenced by the oil "agreements" being pushed on the Iraqis-- that you not only wish to control access to the oil there, you also want our big oil companies to suck up most of the profit from the oil being produced there?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that far from hurting the cause of anti-American terrorism in the world, the invasion of Iraq has given more motivation to terrorists, and created a great recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and other anti-American terrorists?

Isn't it your goal, Mr. President , to establish what will be basically a puppet government in Iraq, under the control of the U.S.?

Didn't you miscalculate terribly, Mr. President, by failing to recognize that the huge Shiite majority in Iraq would feel more comfortable with the Shiite majority in Iran than with us?

Isn't your policy of "pre-emptive" action and "regime change", Mr. President, really just your belief that the United States has the right to dictate the form and nature of other governments around the world?

Would you agree, Mr. President, with any other country--say China or Russia--using its power to invade another country to effect regime change when it disagrees with or dislikes the current rulers and/or governments?

Hasn't history now shown, Mr. President, that you and your administration "cooked" the so-called "evidence" you presented to the American people and the world to "justify" your invasion of Iraq?

Aren't you being disingenuous, Mr. President, by claiming that you are basing your policy on advice from "military commanders on the ground", when everybody knows they work for you, their boss?

President Bush has his answers well-rehearsed.  After all, he has been saying the same things and pursuing the same strategy for five or so years now. 

Bush's rhetoric and reality are far apart.  Unfortunately, most Republicans still reside in the ether of the president's disconnect.

That's why the president is able to continue dragging our country and our troops through the muddled sludge of his great mistake.

The national media has become a flock of sheep, with little courage.  It rarely challenges the Bush administration with any vigor.  It not only accepts Bush's pablum on Iraq, it is remaining strangely quiet on what appears to be a coming war with Iran.

It is bad enough our president is failing us.  Now--as before the Iraq War--a toothless national press is as well.

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown,KY
May 23, 2007

In one of the most disappointing days since Democrats were elected to a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrats backed down and will send President Bush a war funding bill without an initial withdrawal date for bringing our troops home from Iraq.

Without enough votes in the Senate to override a ...   more »

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown, KY
May 20, 2007

One thing is clear:  President Bush isn't looking for compromise from Congressional Democrats on the funding bill for Iraq--he's demanding surrender.

The latest funding bill sent by Congressional Democrats Friday was rejected by Bush, even though it offered the president the flexibility to waive a deadline for an initial withdrawal of  U.S. troops from Iraq.

The ...   more »

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown, KY
May 17, 2007

The Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives may not have the votes to override the president's veto regarding legislation to get our troops out of Iraq, but they are leading the way nonetheless.

With Democrats constantly pressuring the White House to commit to a timetable for the war's conclusion, they have put many Republicans burdened with the war's unpopularity on the spot.

It is no coincidence that eleven Republican congressman met with the president to tell him that they could not continue to back our continued presence in Iraq if there is not a considerable turnaround of the situation there within a few months.

Now, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is beginning to sing a new tune, with his re-election bid looming in the near future.  The Iraqi Parliament gave McConnell the wiggle room when 144 of its members expressed a desire for the U.S. to leave soon.  McConnell used that as a reason to say that if the Iraqi government did not want us there that he thought we could accommodate them.

But make no mistake about it.  Without a vocal and persistent Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, and an equal  Democratic voice in the Senate, it is doubtful that the White House, McConnell, or even the eleven congressman who met with Bush last week would be doing and saying the things they are doing and saying.

That is because it is the voters who gave the Democrats their voice in last year's elections.  And when it comes to getting action from an elected official, a looming election is the strongest motivator.

Here's hoping congressional Democrats don't back down.  They must make it crystal clear that it is Bush and the Republican Party that has no plan to get out of the quagmire in Iraq. 

It is the effect that such a reality will have on the upcoming elections that may get Republicans to do the right thing by joining Democrats in demanding the removal of our troops from the unjustified no-win situation in which President Bush placed them.

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown, KY
May 9, 2007

President Bush and his supporters in the Republican Party keep saying that if we leave Iraq now we will have failed and accepted defeat.

The question is:  at what will we have failed, and how will we have been defeated?

The U.S. won the military combat.  That was over when Bush stood below the "Mission Accomplished" banner on ...   more »

Elizabethtown, KY---March 18, 2007

The Republican Party portrays itself as the party of "family values".

Perhaps the party needs to change its slogan to "families values."

It is not being judgmental to state facts.  In fact, it seems that since Rudy Giuliani is currently the leading prospect for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, very few Republicans find the facts disturbing.

The fact is that Giuliani has been married three times, and is estranged from his children.  In the Republican wings-- and still pondering a presidential run-- is the self-enamored Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich has also been married three times.  He told one of his wives he was divorcing her while she laid in a hospital bed diagnosed with cancer. 

And now Gingrich confesses that at the very time he was blasting Bill Clinton as a man "[who] has . . . done more to debase the presidency . . . particularly the moral and biblical principles upon which it is based. . . ",  that he--Gingrich himself--was having an extra-marital affair.

Gingrich "confessed" to the Reverend James Dobson, who thanked him for confessing to what many had been whispering behind Gingrich's back.

Evidently Dobson co-ordinated this confession with Gingrich so that Gingrich could put this transgression--like his first two wives--behind him now;  in order to diminish its impact should he decide to run later.

It seems then--for Giuliani and Gingrich at least--to really practice their brand of family values, it is necessary to divorce and remarry several times;  in order to have several families upon which to practice those values.

The situation would be laughable if it was not so dangerous.  

Republicans claim they are the party of the religious, and normally have the backing of the religious right. 

But when one examines the practices of many leading Republicans--from Tom DeLay, to Randy Cunningham, to Representative Mark Foley, to Ralph Reed, to Scooter Libby, and to the party's leading presidential nominee prospect--it would take someone purposefully looking the other way not to see how mistaken that claim is.

President George W. Bush, still wildly popular within his own party, is the worst of all.  After all, he knowingly lied to every American citizen and the world in order to invade a country without justification or true reasons of national security.  This has only led to unnecessary death and destruction of an epic scale.

And whom did we see defending Bush for his actions on national television this morning?  Why, DeLay of course, a man who had to resign from Congress for ethics breaches.

What is dangerous about this?

It is dangerous for any party's constituency to wear blinders when considering where to place its allegiance.

It is dangerous to place allegiance in persons who are so plainly devoid of loyalty to their own family. This lack of loyalty and commitment to others--with its accompanying devotion to self over and despite others--can not speak well to devotion to other things:  like principles, laws, truth, the Constitution, and the nation itself.

For voters to ignore the flaws of disloyalty, dishonesty and self-love in order to support a party's nominees in spite of them, speaks of an intellectual and moral blindness on the part of those voters.

No party or individual is perfect.

But the people we entrust with the leadership of our country should be held to a standard higher than party membership or fame.

Is every person who has ever had a divorce unqualified for public office?  Of course not.

But someone who has made and broken an oath of "until death do us part" several times is not a loyal or trustworthy person, and does not deserve to lead us.

Elizabethtown, KY--March 07, 2007

Am I the only one who is stupefied by the tongue-tied answers Democratic senators are offering in response to the Republicans challenge to: "I double-dog dare you" to cut funds for the troops?

That is the Republican answer to every Democratic proposal that makes it to the Senate that would change George Bush's course in Iraq.

In essence, the Republicans are saying they are not going to agree to anything the Democrats are proposing to change course in Iraq.  Instead, they keep saying that if the Democrats don't believe in the war, then the Democrats should vote to cut the funds for our troops.

Well, how ridiculous and illogical is that?  If the board of directors was opposed to the way a manager was running a business, they wouldn't cease paying all the employees. They would instead either fire the manager and hire a new one, or make the manager change the way he was running the business.

Since George W. Bush can't be fired (unfortunately) for the way he has and is conducting the war in Iraq, the only thing left to do is to require him to change his strategy.

Now, how simple was that?  That's all there is to it, and the disingenuous manner in which Republican senators are trying to change the subject is laughable.

What Democrats should be saying is: 

"Look.  Stop asking us to fire the troops. We are not going to do that. We love the troops as much as you do and we aren't going to do anything to hurt them.

Since we can't fire the president for doing such a lousy job, for having such a terrible strategy, and for being unwilling to correct his course of action, we're just asking you Republicans to help us give the president a change order.

If you want to continue to support a failing course of action, then by all means, that's your right.  But stop trying to paint us into a corner, and admit you don't have any solution for the present quagmire."

Even more to the point, I would love to hear a Democratic senator say  the following to his Republican counterpart the next time this comes up on a news interview show: 

"Ah, cut the crap.  I know you think its clever to keep asking us to cut funds for the troops, but we're not about to do that.  If you want to cut the funding for troops serving in Iraq, go right ahead. It seems to be on your minds a lot.  But Democrats are not going to that. 

We are offering solutions to being bogged down in a civil war in a country that did not have anything to do with 9/11.  If you want to railroad any chance of getting our troops out of this quicksand, then let it be on your conscience."

Its time for Democrats to quit pussy-footing around and call the Republicans' hand on this weak and dishonest dare. 

Who has the moxie to do it?  I nominate Joe Biden.  Its right up his alley.