Tours of duty shortened but caffiene still necessary for (my) normal functioning

Now, given both my limited knowledge of war strategy & the military in general and my lack of caffiene this morning as there was no coffee left in the pot in the office kitchen, I can easily be misinterpreting this article.

But CNN is reporting that Bush is calling for a shortening of tours of duty in Iraq "from 15 months to 12 months as U.S. troop deaths have declined to their lowest level since the war began in 2003."

Are you telling me that the main reason that we are sending people over there for shorter periods of time is because fewer of them are dying?
So, before, there was a much higher chance of them dying, so the plan was to keep them over there, just to increase the odds?
Although I am hugely relieved to hear the news of the shortening, I fail to see the logic of their reasoning behind it.

I guess at the same time, the fact that fewer people are dying is a sign of more stability (and it is noted that of the 9 who died this month, 5 were due to non-combat related causes). The article continues on to say

Bush said the United States is "making progress" in its discussions with Iraq "on a strategic framework agreement," which would "serve as the foundation for America's presence in Iraq" once a U.N. mandate authorizing multinational forces expires at the end of the year.

As anyone who has ever had to meet with a TF about a paper they haven't yet started knows, "making progress" may be the single most vague statement one can make when talking about getting anything done. For instance, right now, I would consider getting a cup of coffee "making progress" (if only I could...).

But putting aside potential coffee progress, if real advances are being made in these negotiations, how would that affect November? If any legitimate advances are being made, the fear of McCain's thousand year war might be unnecessary, or at the very least Bush might be able to resurrect his "legacy" in its final hour and go out on a strong note, and...you know where I'm going.

I can't think about this.
I really need to go find some coffee immediately.

Presidential Relations: You think Bush-Clinton is a dynasty?

Ok, so a lot of people used the "do we want Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?" argument in the primaries, as if there was some dynasty thing going on.  Well, I think, looking to the Bush family alone, the concept of Bush-Clinton being a dynasty is a joke.

Current President George W. Bush is related to other presidents as well as Pierce, who he is also related to on his father's side via Daniel Brewer. He is also a cousin of Fillmore (via Millards), Lincoln (via Gilmans), Grant (via Lathrops). Hayes (via Smiths, Footes, Parmelees, and Huckinses), Garfield (via Wheelers, Carpenters, Cookes, Warrens, Holbrooks, and Arnolds), Cleveland (via Smiths and Stanleys), Theodore Roosevelt (via Schuylers), Taft (via Holbrooks, Thayers, Haywards, Cookes, Footes, Ravenses, Waterses, and Shermans), Coolidge (via Phillipses, Hortons, Garnseys, Pulsiphers, Ravenses, Richardsons, Moores, Bulkeleys, and Morses), Hoover (via Brookses, Reades, Wheelers, Richardsons, and Shermans), Franklin Roosevelt (via Beekmans, Hutchinsons, Popes, Jenneys, Richardses, Palgraves, Lathrops, and Howlands), Nixon (via Lippincotts, Footes, Traverses, Morses, and Howlands), and Ford (via Vanderburghs, Wheelers, Marvins, Gilmans, and Howlands).

Ewww...Nixon.

Elaborating on YES YES YES

So this was going to be a comment on Markus' previous blog, but it became so long and detailed I felt it deserved its own blog page.  Sorry Markus, I still give you credit for bringing this up.

So some nutty people want to have George Bush written in for the presidency again.  Please read the previous blog to see what that's about. 

Anyway, two things about that website:

one of the reasons they say you should vote for GW is: 3. To give Bush one more chance, now that he’s just getting the hang of it.

That sounds like a gross overstatement.  It's simply stupid.

Another thing is that is says, which is much more nerdy but legally interesting is this:

Presidential term limits are not in the Bible. And they were not in our Constitution until added by an activist congress in 1951.

Umm, maybe  they should have just looked at wikipedia for this:

The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947.  It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.

Thus, it was not the 82nd Congress, with both houses of Congress being Democratic, which passed the amendments to be ratified by the states.  It was the 80th Congress which passed the amendment.  I think you know where this is going:

The Eightieth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1947 to January 3, 1949, during the last two years of the first administration of U.S. President Harry S. Truman.  The apportionment of seats in this House of Representatives was based on the Sixteenth Census of the United States in 1940. Both chambers had a Republican majority.

Yes, people, it was a Republican Congress that passed it.  Let's also note this tidbit:

After Franklin Roosevelt's death, the newly Republican 80th United States Congress desired to establish a firm constitutional provision barring presidents from being elected more than twice. The rationale was a concern that without limits, the presidential position could become too similar to that of a benevolent dictator lasting not just four years but a lifetime, and that the position could become too powerful and upset the separation of powers.

So in essence, the 22nd Amendment was not a sign of legislative activism; it created a barrier to help government adhere to the principals of the Constitution.  Man, remember back when the Republican Party was about adhering to the principals of the Consitution?....me neither.

Interesting enough, two states actually rejected the amendment in their state legislatures: Oklahoma and Massachusetts. 

So we see this: this stupid website is run by people who are afraid of the word "activism."

HOWEVER, if they really did want George W to be president again, what they should do is elect him to Congress and make him Speaker of the House when the Republicans get a majority, elect Republicans to the White House and have them both resign.  He would be able to become president this way because while the 22nd amendment makes him ineligible to be ELECTED president or vice-president, under the 2nd Article to the Constitution and the 12th Amendment, he would still be able to SERVE as president or vice-president because he was born here, over 35, 14 years in the country.  The 22nd Amendment does not actually prohibit George Bush from being president again, it only makes him unable to be elected president again.

But I would seriously argue against the Republican Party doing that.

Sarbanes Preview

So John Sarbanes is coming this Saturday! Yay! 5:30 P.M. in Ticknor Lounge.

He is a really kick ass Congressman. Here are a couple of highlights from his Freshman Term that point the intellect and integrity that make people so optimistic about his future.

First, (this made the daily show), he throws down on Bush appointee Lurita Doan about grammar! grammar! He is breaking out the "future pluperfect" and "hortatory subjunctive" in the middle of an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.

Awesome.

Second, this is his speech against the troop surge back in February.

It is one of the more eloquent articulation of a solid Democratic position on the issue that I have heard. Especially with the whole "Respecting ROTC" thing going down right now, this is a good example of how Democrats should talk about the military. That is why he is considered a rising star in the Democratic Party.

Be there on Saturday! 5:30, Ticknor Lounge, FREE GREEK FOOD

He Shall Take Care That The Laws Be Faithfully Executed

Impeach Bush.

He has broken the law. He has probably broken many laws, but this cannot be brushed aside: President Intervened In Dispute Over Eavesdropping.

Specifically, the NSA wiretapping program was (is?) illegal. The Justice Department said so itself. Yet the President overruled the Justice Department and continued with the program. Even if he was outside of the law for only a few weeks (if we was outside the law before the program was "fixed" then it was a few years, not weeks, actually), that is more than long enough.

Spying on Americans was the reason Nixon was going to be impeached. I can think of no greater reason to get rid of a president then because she/he illegally violated the civil liberties of Americans.

(The impeachable offense aside, the conduct of the President, Andrew Card, and Alberto Gonzalez is absolutely despicable in this affair.)

If you think a president should not be impeached for what Bush did here (and I don't mean the spying program on its own, I mean conducting the spying program even after the Justice Department ruled it illegal), I can't imagine what you think a president should be impeached for.

Why is Norah Jones Sad?

....because of President Bush, and his...well...existence. 

On Norah Jones's new CD is a song "My Dear Country" about how sad and confused she was after Bush won reelection in 2004.

Besides having good lyrics, it's also got a great melody.

Check it out here. 

American Hysterical Overreaction Syndrome

CAPE CORAL, Fla. (AP) - A man who tried to keep bees off his property accidentally set fire to his house instead, causing at least $500 damage.

Franklyn Pigott Jr. set his home ablaze Wednesday while attempting to destroy a nest of bees that had formed outside the home, the Fort Myers News-Press reported Thursday.

When Pigott, 38, mixed a product called Real Kill Indoor Fogger with WD-40, it became a "flame-thrower" and melted the home's vinyl siding, according to a police incident report.

"Goddamn bees! I'll show YOU!"

--

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, facing opposition from both parties over his plan to send more troops to Iraq, said he has the authority to act no matter what Congress wants.

"I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I've made my decision. And we're going forward," Bush told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview to air Sunday night.

[..]The White House also said Sunday that Iranians are aiding the insurgency in Iraq and the U.S. has the authority to pursue them because they "put our people at risk."

"Goddamn terrorists! I'll show YOU!"

--

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Then what do you call doing the same thing, with increasing intensity, and expecting it'll eventually work -- without ever admitting that it didn't work in the first place?

...ol' man Digby is quite insistent that the White House is subtly beating the drums for war with Iran, and that there are deep psychological pathologies under it. (The line that sticks: "[wingnuts] and Bush and Cheney might just need a fix that only a bright shiny new war can provide.") It's a question of fulfilling some basic need for aggression, or vindication, or just a mindset that sees war as naturally productive. ---His Iran theory seems a little tinfoil-hat, to be honest, but the "Surge" and the President's blind aggression against Congress do feel an awful lot like Mr. Pigott's wicked-awesome bee-destruction machine.

I stumbled on a Canadian columnist today, using a typically condescending Canadian tone to describe what she called "American hysterical overreaction". If you can get past the smugness it's worth a look -- there is a tendency, in American government at least, to scream and yell and KILL KILL KILL at any kind of problem. Certainly Washington is not a place where cooler heads prevail.

And between the Iranian weirdness, the scarily stupid Iraq strategy, and generally what we know about Bush's executive judgment, I'm increasingly worried that the president -- in the process of swiping at some serious bees -- is about to set our national house on fire.

Which in this case means a lot more damage than $500.

Turnout Among 18-24 Year Olds Could Break Records, IOP Survey Released

The IOP has just released the results of its Fall 2006 Young Voter Survey.

For the first, time we polled college students AND non-college 18-24 year olds.

LINK: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/

HIGHLIGHTS

• Midterm election turnout among 18-24 year old could reach record levels in 2006.

• A strong majority of likely young voters favor Democratic control of Congress.

• A near-majority of young people favor total troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next year.

• 18-24 year olds trust the military and the United Nations more than Congress and the federal government.

• President George W. Bush gets “C-” grade on seven key issues.

• President Bush’s handling of Iraq, clearly the issue that is driving this election and the President’s second-term agenda, is viewed by more than two-in-five (43%) young Americans (and 67% of young African Americans) as a
  failure or “F."

Obviously, this is big. Youth voter turnout for midterm elections is usually very low. High turnout next week would represent both an individual record-breaking event as well as reveal a trend of increased youth involvement in politics.

Also, as the poll clearly shows that young people are strongly siding with the Dems, high youth turnout could confound the pollsters who always weight their polls based on expected demographic participation.

Check out the rest of the poll results. It's a treasure-trove of interesting data. For one, I can't get over how much young Americans HATE the media.

Nice guys they are...

FROM THE POLITICAL WIRE:

White House Dismissed Evangelicals as "Nuts"

David Kuo, who worked in the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives, "says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as 'the nuts.' National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.'"

"More seriously, Kuo alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly 'nonpartisan' events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races."

------------------------------------------------

And I always thought they were on the same team. As much as I'm not crazy about voters who make their decisions on a purely religious basis, the Administration is treating people like trash--"their" people. In any case, those the White House deems 'nuts' are still people. Don't get me wrong--it's not like I don't think politicians use people. But this is just despicable.