Red State Renegade

As we have now discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan, ‘Hope is not a strategy.’ (I believe that is an actual quote from a US General).

But as with Iraq, Katrina, Global warming, and their take on various scientific issues, the administration’s position on the deficit has never been ‘reality-based.’

In a February 6 address, George Bush continued to push his TCAADRSATW policy (tax-cuts-above-all-despite-runaway-spending-and-the-war):

“Low taxes means economic vitality, which means more tax revenues. And so the fundamental question is, what do you need to do to keep the economy growing, in order to make sure the tax revenues keep coming in to the Treasury? Step one to balancing the budget is to keep taxes low…As a matter of fact, not only do I think we ought not to raise them, I think we ought to make every tax cut we passed permanent.”

But last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report warning that the latest simulations on America’s fiscal outlook show “a federal debt burden that ultimately spirals out of control,” and stated bluntly that without either grave spending cuts or tax increases, “the Nation’s long-term fiscal future is ‘at risk.’”

The report painted a bleak picture, emphasizing that any delay in addressing the budgetary balance could have results that are “disruptive and destabilizing.” The solution, as described, sounds less than hopeful:

“if we were to invest enough today to pay off these amounts over the next 75 years, the sums needed would amount to about $87,000 to $182,000 per person, or about $208,000 to $435,000 for each full-time worker.”

In an obvious rebuttal to George Bush’s delusionary position, the GAO stated that:

“The projected fiscal gap is so great that it is unrealistic to expect we will grow our way out of the problem.”

I’m worried. But I’d be REALLY worried if I had kids….

Personally I’ve always felt that the real roots of the Iraq war lie in Dick Cheney’s Energy Task force 2001 meetings, which he went to great lengths to keep secretive.

Despite pressure from the General Accounting Office, a lawsuit from Congress itself to force open the records, and Freedom of Information Act suits reaching the Supreme Court, only limited records have been released. Even the members comprising the Task force are shrowded in secrecy, though it is known that the panel included prominent Oil company executives, as well as representatives from Enron (quite possibly the fallen Kenneth Lay).

Some of the earliest leaked (not released) documents included maps showing ALL Iraqi oil fields (the largest undeveloped Oil fields in the world are in Iraq) and tables documenting companies and countries holding contracts to those oilfields.

Yet administration officials have discounted and even belittled any suggestion that our invasion had anything to do with Oil.

Well, this week sections of a new Iraqi Oil law were leaked and began to swirl around the internet, fueling lingering suspicions that our foreign policy has more to do with Energy and money than commonly admitted (imagine that!).

From the NY Daily news:

A proposed new Iraqi oil and gas law began circulating last week among that country’s top government leaders and was quickly leaked to various Internet sites - before it has even been presented to the Iraqi parliament.

Under the proposed law, Iraq’s immense oil reserves would not simply be opened to foreign oil exploration, as many had expected. Amazingly, executives from those companies would actually be given seats on a new Federal Oil and Gas Council that would control all of Iraq’s reserves.

In other words, Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum and the other Western oil giants could end up on the board of directors of the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, while Iraq’s own national oil company would become just another competitor.

The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop policies and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all exploration and production contracts.

Since most of Iraq’s 73 proven petroleum fields have yet to be developed, the new council would instantly become a world energy powerhouse.

“We’re talking about trillions of dollars of oil that are at stake,” said Raed Jarrar, an independent Iraqi journalist and blogger who obtained an Arabic copy of the draft law and posted an English-language translation on his Web site over the weekend.

Ever wonder why half of America doesn’t know who Scooter Libby is? Or thinks things are going well in Iraq? Or is unaware that our constitution is being raped?

Well here is what passes for “Breaking News” for the last hour!

It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad:

From the Times Online (UK):

Rise in attacks

- A new report says there has been a sevenfold increase in jihadist terror attacks worldwide since the invasion of Iraq

- Comparing terrorist attacks between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, and then March 21, 2003, to September 30, 2006, it found that even when Iraq and Afghanistan were excluded, attacks have increased by 300 per cent in the rest of the world

- Peter Bergen, an expert on al-Qaeda, and Paul Cruickshank, of New York University, based their report on figures provided by the Rand Corporation

Thanks to my friend Joe T for alerting me to this one:

Joe asks if when the GOP says they are ‘Strong on Terror,’ do they mean:

“creating it, financing it, stirring it up, planting the seeds for it, ‘bringing it on’ to places it never was, using it to create fear and drum up support, or what?”

I couldn’t have said that better myself…

This week a New York man was indicted on multiple charges including terrorism financing, material support of terrorism, and money laundering. Interestingly, Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari (also known as Michael Mixon) was raising money for the Republican party as well as for terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Alishtari had donated about $15,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) before 2004, and, according to a resume listed under his name (on a company website), was named a National Republican Senatorial Committee “Inner Circle Member for Life,” was appointed to the NRCC’s “White House Business Advisory Council,” and was named the NRCC’s New York state businessman of the year in 2002 and 2003. He also claimed signed photos from President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush thanking him for supporting the party.

Ironically, the press release announcing his appointment to the NRCC Business Advisory Council states that Alishari “has long supported Republican Ideals.”.

But Alishari is not the first from this Council to be indicted for terrorist activities. Yasith Chhun, indicted in May 2005, was also, according to the LA Times, a sitting member of the NRSS Business Advisory Council. As head of an organization listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization (the Cambodian Freedom Fighters), he raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for terrorist activities in Cambodia, while also raising tens of thousands of dollars for the NRCC. He was indicted for:

“…attempting to kill the prime minister, attack government buildings and launch small-scale attacks on karaoke bars and fuel depots in an effort to galvanize opposition to the Phnom Penh government.”

In both cases the NRCC has stated that it will not rush to judgement in returning the tainted funds, but will return the funds to charity in the event of a conviction.

Stay tuned: The trial of Yasith Chhun begins next month…

‘The surge’… In itself it sounds undoubtedly manly and powerful (not unlike ’shock and awe’). So no doubt we need to support it, and I hope I can convince all (1-2) of you! As much as I rarely agree with this administration, this is something we all need to fully back them on. After all, we can’t just walk away and allow the region to (god forbid!) turn chaotic. And we can’t afford to turn on our backs on our young men and women so bravely fighting in Iraq now.

Which is why I support the ’surge’…but with one rule. We cannot ethically ask these brave men and women (many of which have done 3…4…up to 6 tours in Iraq) to extend their stay yet again. Let them have a break - let them come home to see their mothers, fathers, wives, or children, get their sanity back (if that’s possible), and visit their one-armed or one-legged buddies.

So instead let’s enlist (and send) the sons and daughters of all the chest thumping republicans who insist on the ’surge’ and the sons and daughters of all those whose sole sacrifice has been to stick a yellow ’support the troops’ ribbon on their SUV (after all, its much easier to buy a $2 sticker than to send a child off to war or forgo a tax cut).

First on the list could be be the sons and daughters of the most prominent supporters of ‘the surge.’ Let’s see, the Bush Twins, Barbara and Jenna, could dodge mortars in the Green Zone…Cheney’s two daughters could oversee the town of Abu Ghraib, home of the notorius prison…Joe Lieberman’s kids could be patrolling Haditha, and we’ll send MacCain’s family to Anbar province. That’d be fifteen right there, and if we tap into the grand kids we can cover the Fallujah brigade. Those that survive will come home and report what war is really like, since ALL their parents (except MacCain) got multiple deferments to avoid service!

For the remaining forces, we can tap into children of Congress and the other 30% or so of the country (dwindling as time goes on) who still support the Chief Chimp - those who still can’t see the writing on the wall - who even now support killing more americans (and Iraqis) for the deranged visions of a handful of scary but powerful men. With their ‘most-likely-drinking-the-kool-aid-anyway’ offspring armored up, hell, we could send more than the 48,000 troops necessary for the surge.

‘What’s that?’ you say? ‘I thought the surge was $21,000 troops?’ Well incidentally, a report by the Congressional Budget Office says that sending the brigades the administration wants would actually mean sending 48,000 (including support personnel) rather than the 21,500 claimed by the Head Chimp. As always, the dollar figures are understated as well - rather than the claimed $ 5.6 billion, the report says that “costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment.”

To cover the additional costs I suggest the government issue special yellow ’support the troops’ stickers at a cost of $5,000 apiece and make the ’surge’ supporters buy enough to pay the difference. And as the deployment time is extended, they simply have to buy more. Let’s see how many of them support our Commander-in-Chief then!

…Stay the Course!

Quote from Army Corporal Victor Langarica, to his mom, upon being deployed to Iraq:

“I don’t understand why Bush is doing this to us…If I die, I won’t know why I died, if it was for oil or for revenge.”