IF ONLY ....

IF ONLY....

Cleaning out some old e-mails, I ran across this one which was sent to the Washington Post OP-Ed (they didn't run it) about a week before President Obama's inauguration -the first one, in January of 2009. Re-reading it, one can only wonder "what if" this had actually happened. I don't get points for predicting the future, because I was really only recounting what had happened in the past (a newly elected president gets about 90 days max to govern- the rest of his tenure will be spent cleaning up messes- some of his own making, and holding the fort on accomplishments from prior presidents). Anyway, in all its glory, here it was- never having run in the Washington Post, and even if it had, no one in the Obama White House would have realized that they only had a few months to accomplish anything useful. I don't count Obama Care as an accomplishment, because with one simple phrase: "Medicare for all" he could have fixed the health care insurance mess, avoided months and years of acrimony, obfuscation by the opponents (remember "death panels?"), a battle all the way to the Supreme Court, and a State by State fight on whether to expand Medicaid coverage. As an aside, my proposals for cutting medical costs and fixing the budget can be found at buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com: http://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/2012/10/saving-nation-s-money.html and http://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/search?q=worker%27s+comp

Anyway, imagine for a moment that the President had had the hindsight (not foresight- remember, the pattern keeps repeating) to figure out that there was one essential piece of legislation he should put in place before trying anything else.

*OBAMA WON'T BE THE "CHANGE PRESIDENT" UNLESS HE FIRST ENACTS MEANINGFUL ELECTION REFORM *

President-elect Barack Obama is coming into office facing the greatest crises since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, who dealt with both the Great Depression and World War II during his tenure. By the same token, Mr. Obama has the same rare opportunity that President Roosevelt did to effect real, positive, lasting changes in the American government, economy, and foreign policy- but his window of opportunity will be a short one, only a matter of months after he is sworn in. If Mr. Obama acts quickly and decisively, he can take steps which will end the costly and counterproductive "war on drugs," insure every American against the expenses of a catastrophic illness while providing preventive care that will greatly reduce the trillion dollar outlay for medical expenses, cut our defense budget by hundreds of billions of dollars without sacrificing one iota of national security, restore the freedoms provided by the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, provide the nation with an uncluttered, more efficient, and vastly less costly tax system, and put the nation on the road to energy independence.

None of that will happen-- unless Mr. Obama does one essential thing first: take advantage of his unique opportunity provided by the rout of the Republicans in the last election coupled with his incredible fund raising ability that allowed him to forego public funds and outspend John McCain by hundreds of millions of dollars. If Mr. Obama proposes a total ban on private campaign contributions, replacing them with full public financing of all federal elections, then all other things become possible. Meaningful, comprehensive campaign finance reform will free candidates for federal office from the continuous campaign cycle of raising money for the next election before the winners of the last election have even taken their oaths of office. Changing the ground rules for television and radio advertising will mean that legislators will be able to vote on controversial proposals to decriminalize drugs or cut defense spending without having to worry about the 30 second attack ad in the next election that will distort reality and hammer them with accusations of supporting drug dealers or leaving the nation open to a new terrorist attack.

During the last election voters in Georgia were treated to a Senate campaign in which one of the candidates- Democrat Jim Martin, a soft spoken, decent and honorable man, a Vietnam veteran with a long history of selfless government service- was falsely accused by Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of being fired from his job as head of the Georgia Department of Human Resources because two foster children died. During the presidential election, John McCain ran an ad which falsely claimed that Barack Obama's "one accomplishment" as a state senator was "legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." A Chambliss ad accused Mr. Martin of opposing legislation cracking down on child molesters. A mildly amusing but nonsensical McCain ad conjoined photos of Mr. Obama with two attractive white blondes, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, in a thinly veiled attempt to provoke a racist reaction plagiarized from the movie /*Blazing Saddles*/-- -- the black man is coming and he wants your white women! During Mr. Chambliss' 2002 bid to unseat Georgia Senator Max Cleland, he ran an infamous television ad which linked Senator Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and accused Mr. Cleland of selling out the nation's security. Last Fall Elizabeth Dole, the Republican Senator from North Carolina, ran a desperate 30 second ad in her unsuccessful bid to retain her Senate seat which falsely implied that her opponent, Democrat Kay Hagan, was an atheist, repeatedly linking her to "godless Americans."

Candidates for federal office have had to raise vast sums of money to propound these absurd attack ads- or respond to them when aired by their opponents. Senate races now cost tens of millions of dollars, and even races for the House of Representatives routinely cost millions. Mr. Obama can and should end this vicious cycle of office holders selling their souls (and sometimes their seats) by using most of their productive hours raising money or responding to the needs of their contributors. The fatal defects in our current election finance system explain why health care reform failed in the Clinton administration. They explain why every rational office holder who knows that the war on drugs is a failure and a sham will never vote to follow Switzerland's model to decriminalize and regulate drugs, even though the "drug war" has increased drug use and violent crime in America while providing billions of dollars to Afghan warlords, the Taliban, and South American drug cartels which have devastated and terrorized Mexico and other Latin American countries.

Effective campaign reform can be accomplished without doing any damage to the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech while being politically palatable to both major political parties. Simply put: declare every private contribution to any candidate for federal office as a bribe and every request for funds, goods, or services from a candidate as a solicitation of a bribe. After all, a massive bribe is exactly what occurs when a trade group hosts a thousand dollar a plate fund raising event for a Senator or a Congressman. When a president can rent out the Lincoln bedroom for hundreds of thousand in campaign contributions, that's not democracy at work- it's bribe-ocracy. Public financing can and must replace every private contribution, freeing up those elected to do the public's business to actually do the public's business without fear of losing millions with a vote that might offend special interests like big oil, hospital corporations, banks, or insurance companies.

As for toxic television attack ads- the First Amendment won't let us curtail them, but we can make them virtually useless to those who have paid for them by delaying their airing until public interest groups and the opposing candidate have had a chance to preview them, and allowing the attackee to tape a response that will be twice as long, free of charge, which will run immediately following the first ad. Doing this does no damage to the First Amendment; it simply means that a vicious lie like the attack ad on Mr. Cleland could be immediately followed by an outraged response by a Vietnam Veterans group and Mr. Cleland which would reveal that Mr. Chambliss ducked military service in Vietnam, claiming a knee injury, while showing Mr. Chambliss during his morning jog along the Potomac. Devastating responses like that would quickly end the baseless attacks and allow elections to be decided on real issues like how best to insure 40 million uninsured Americans or what programs to cut to reduce trillion dollar deficits.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR....

Without one of these, above, the object below is just an unwieldy club incapable of mass murder.

Most of us have heard a paraphrase of the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes quote in a 1919 Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of Charles Schenck, a printer who helped create pamphlets urging men not to register for the draft in World War I. Holmes' opinion, upholding the conviction, included the rationale that freedom of speech under the First Amendment "would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." My question is: why should the Second Amendment give modern day criminals the means to use high velocity ammunition in large magazines to "fire in a crowded theater," killing 12 people, injuring 58, and, yes, causing a panic. The point may seem facetious, but when President Obama and Congress take up the issue of gun control, they may be missing the point: solutions exist which will greatly reduce the number of deaths and the amount of mayhem caused by firearms without infringing one iota on the literal terms of the Second Amendment. That amendment, one of the famous 10 which comprise the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 as a fulfilled promise to the States which ratified the Constitution of 1787, reads as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing in there about magazines containing 30 rounds or rifled weapons capable of firing metal coated bullets at an initial velocity of 4,000 feet per second with a range of over a mile. In fact, in that era, most firearms were front end muzzle loading single shot muskets which fired a ball with an effective range of under 100 yards. A proficient reloader might fire two or three shots in a minute. Nothing in there about a firearm owner being allowed to sell or transfer his gun, or to allow small children easy access to it.

So why not attack the problem in a creative way? We can pass laws that don't infringe on the right to "keep" and "bear" Arms, but protect the sane and responsible among us from the mayhem that the arms industry and NRA have inflicted on this country. Recently I suggested to a college intern in my office that we could have guns that required the fingerprint of the registered owner before they would fire, only to be informed that this was a technological plot device in the new Bond movie, Skyfall. (I claim first ownership of the idea, as I proposed it as a campaign idea to a friend of mine back in 1994 when he was a liberal running for Congress in a deep South state. He didn't use my suggestion, and he lost- no cause and effect between the two statements, I'm sure).

As for ammunition: why not take the lethality out of it by reducing three things: caliber, composition of the bullet, and muzzle velocity. My idea is that ammunition be no more than .22 caliber (that's 22 hundredths of an inch, just under half the diameter and probably a quarter of the overall size of a .45), that it be composed of nonlethal substances like rubber (rubber bullets have long since been used by riot police in some civilized countries) and that muzzle velocity be about 100 feet per second (air powered bb guns have a velocity of about 175 feet per second to a high of about 400 feet per second). Congress could pass a law tomorrow mandating that all ammunition manufactured or sold in the U.S. have those characteristics without doing any harm to the Second Amendment rights of individuals who want to "keep and bear Arms."

I salivate at the thought of watching a talking head debate with an NRA fanatic who would be forced to defend gun owners being allowed to continue to possess guns that can be easily used by a thief or a small child. I want him to explain how the Second Amendment gives him the unfettered right to buy and use ammunition that could put a hole in an elephant versus being restricted to buying ammunition that might deter or scare off a mugger or home invader without doing lethal harm. He would still get to keep his cherished toys and assert his manhood with a really big gun. He just wouldn't be able to fanatically protect a toxic hobby that causes thousands of deaths annually.

SAVING THE NATION............. 'S MONEY

The caption under the photo is: "House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan pushes for harsh budget cuts ..." Personally, I think it should say: "Eddie Munster finds a new career after television"

So I got this e-mail the other day from a fellow lawyer, a really nice guy in real life who comes across as a bit of a Tea Party kind of guy in writing (but ain't that always the way? They are much harsher sounding when railing against generalities like immigrants or welfare queens, but they could never pass a stranded motorist or a wounded dog on the road without stopping to help. So there's hope for our country yet.)

So anyway, here's the generic e-mail touting Paul Ryan's and Republicans' deficit cutting plans to eliminate certain programs. Note that the defense budget is nowhere mentioned. Nor Social Security. So already, you know the plan isn't seriously attacking the deficit but it's more of a political manifesto to go after programs they'd like to kill even if we were running a trillion dollar surplus every year and taxes on billionaires were at zero.

But read on after the Republicans' plan to see my simple solution that will, guaranteed, work. And work for generations to come. Because it depends on the same engine that has run this country since the first colonists landed here: greed (a/k/a "self interest.")

So here's the e-mail:

FINALLY!! Someone is looking to cut some of the unnecessary spending. Even if it is all not cut (liberals will scream), every little bit will help.
Thanks, Buddy.



This almost took my breath away.....read carefully!!!!

PAUL RYAN'S PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

A List of Republican Budget Cuts

Notice S.S. and the military are NOT on this list.

These are all the programs that the new Republican House has proposed cutting. Read to the end.

* Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy -- $445 million annual savings.
* Save America 's Treasures Program -- $25 million annual savings.
* International Fund for Ireland -- $17 million annual savings.
* Legal Services Corporation -- $420 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Arts -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* National Endowment for the Humanities -- $167.5 million annual savings.
* Hope VI Program -- $250 million annual savings.
* Amtrak Subsidies -- $1.565 billion annual savings.
* Eliminate duplicating education programs -- H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
* U.S. Trade Development Agency -- $55 million annual savings.
* Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy -- $20 million annual savings.
* Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding -- $47 million annual savings.
* John C. Stennis Center Subsidy -- $430,000 annual savings.
* Community Development Fund -- $4.5 billion annual savings.
* Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid -- $24 million annual savings.
* Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half -- $7.5 billion annual savings
* Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20% -- $600 million annual savings.
* Essential Air Service -- $150 million annual savings.
* Technology Innovation Program -- $70 million annual savings.
* Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program -- $125 million annual savings..
* Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization -- $530 million annual savings.
* Beach Replenishment -- $95 million annual savings.
* New Starts Transit -- $2 billion annual savings.

 Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts -- $9 million annual savings
* Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants -- $2.5 billion annual savings.
* Title X Family Planning -- $318 million annual savings.
* Appalachian Regional Commission -- $76 million annual savings.
* Economic Development Administration -- $293 million annual savings.
* Programs under the National and Community Services Act -- $1.15 billion annual savings.
* Applied Research at Department of Energy -- $1.27 billion annual savings.
* Freedom CAR and Fuel Partnership -- $200 million annual savings..
* Energy Star Program -- $52 million annual savings.
*Economic Assistance to Egypt -- $250 million annually.
* U.S.Agency for International Development -- $1.39 billion annual savings.
* General Assistance to District of Columbia -- $210 million annual savings.
* Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority -- $150 million annual savings.
*Presidential Campaign Fund -- $775 million savings over ten years.
* No funding for federal office space acquisition -- $864 million annual savings.
* End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
* Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act -- More than $1 billion annually.
* IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget -- $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
*Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees -- $1 billion total savings.WHAT THE H.... IS THIS ABOUT?
* Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees -- $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
* Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of -- $15 billion total savings.
*Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.WHAT???
* Eliminate Mohair Subsidies -- $1 million annual savings.
*Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- $12.5 million annual savings WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL
* Eliminate Market Access Program -- $200 million annual savings.
* USDA Sugar Program -- $14 million annual savings.
* Subsidy to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- $93 million annual savings.
* Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program -- $56.2 million annual savings.
*Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs-- $900 million savings.
* Ready to Learn TV Program -- $27 million savings..
* HUD Ph.D. Program.
* Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
*TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

My question is, what is all this doing in the budget in the first place?

Maybe this is why the Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan. .

Please Send to everyone you know..


If you won't defend your rights don't complain when you lose them


Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson



“The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!”. George Washington


If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace. -- Thomas Paine

JIM'S RESPONSE:

You know, I'm always skeptical when savings are projected over 10 years. This one is "2.5 trillion dollars over 10 years" That's 250 billion a year, or still a small percentage of the deficit-- about 19% if it's running at $1.3 trillion annually- which leaves 81% of the deficit intact.

If you really want to save money, going after PBS and Big Bird would be like saying you're going to save gasoline by eliminating the cup holders in your car to save weight. It won't do jack. Save money by changing the incentives to spend money without consequence and by rewarding savings.

Here's how, without having to propose specific targeted cuts that special interests groups will fight tooth and nail to keep, or posture like Mitt Romney did in going after PBS, which isn't even one percent of the annual interest we pay on the national debt.

(1) Eliminate all campaign contributions to candidates for federal office and define bribery and solicitation of bribery to include any candidate or elected official asking anybody for anything of value, including campaign contributions (which would be outlawed) or any person to offer anything of value to candidates or elected officials. In one fell swoop, that takes the special interests out of the loop in getting money spent or preventing savings or taxes that target their interests/industries.

(2) Reward every member of Congress and the President by giving him/her a portion of the savings each year in deficit reduction. Say, 10% of the reduction in the deficit each year will be divied up.among all 536 of them. So if they can knock $100 billion off the deficit, 10 percent comes to $10 billion, and every member and the Pres. will get $18,676,716. I have no doubt that this would work, and bi-partisanship in saving money will happen so fast that Rush Limbaugh will be left speechless. You'd be amazed at how self interest can achieve miracles.

FOLLOW THE BOUNCING BALL.... ALL THE WAY TO THE GUYS WHO GAVE US THE WAR IN IRAQ

I received a link to an article by the "Media Research Center" blasting Obama and praising Mitt Romney while "exposing" the coordinated attack on Romney by the "liberal" media (quotes are all mine).

See if you can follow the bouncing ball- or connect the dots, from the "Media Research Center" to the "Project for a New American Century" who were the people in the 1990's who wanted Clinton to invade Iraq and set up permanent military bases to control the oil in the Middle East, who later took power or wielded influence during the Bush Administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Kristol) and who concocted the lies that brought us the Iraq War, over 4,000 dead Americans, over 30,000 wounded, and a few more trillion dollars in debt.

http://www.mrc.org/press-releases/mrc-exposes-medias-coordinated-attack-romney

MRC Exposes Media's Coordinated Attack on Romney
Bozell Rips Cover Up Of Obama's Jimmy Carter Moment
Published: 9/13/2012 3:51 PM ET

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center

The MRC has received financial support from several foundations, including the Bradley, Scaife, Olin, Castle Rock, Carthage and JM foundations.[3] Bob Ward has said that it also receives funding from ExxonMobil.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Scaife_Foundation

The Sarah Scaife Foundation is one of the American Scaife Foundations. It is controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife. The foundation does not award grants to individuals. It concentrates its efforts towards causes focused on public policy at a national and international level. From 1985 to 2003 the organization awarded over $235 million to other organizations.

The organizations it has supported include the George C. Marshall Institute and Project for the New American Century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years

The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the 1997-2000 Iraq disarmament crisis.[6][7]

Richard Perle, who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[8] Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC - Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton - "were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein."[8]

http://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/search?q=Project+for+a+new+american+century

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq.

The PNAC plan calls for the US to take control of the Gulf region with overwhelming and deadly military force. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," the PNAC document explains, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." In other words, Saddam is little more than an excuse for "maintaining global US pre-eminence... and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." After the PNAC document was leaked to the Sunday Herald, Tam Dalyell, the British Labor MP, hit the nail right on the head when he declared, "This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war."

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK

This is an undoctored photo of a Republican governor who has been valiantly trying to prevent eligible Democratic voters from casting a ballot in the next election.

Recently I made an offer to a relative of mine who is a physician and a Republican: "I'll pay you $1,000 for every ineligible voter who showed up at the polls under a registered voter's identify and voted in 2008 (nationally) and you pay me $10,000 for every number less than 10 nationally, with a $100,000 cap. If the kind of voter fraud exists which the voter ID laws were allegedly designed to prevent, that should be easy money for you. Burden of proof is on you to provide the names, States, and local precincts where they voted. Offer expires in 24 hours. I'm not even limiting the offer to [your home state]- you get the whole country to choose from."

Twenty-four hours went by without a reply other than "I'll discuss it with my Governor," referring to one of the more controversial Republican governors who has been active in attempting to suppress legitimate voters (his recent attempt to purge "ineligible" voters in his state was opposed in a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice when it was revealed that thousands of those to be purged were legally eligible to vote).

Democrats have missed the boat on this issue, and by issue, I mean a massive, coordinated, deliberate attempt to discourage and prevent eligible voters from casting ballots-- the voters targeted being those who statistically are likely to vote for a Democrat. If nationally prominent figures- politicians, celebrities, business leaders- would put out a national bet, but add a few zeros, say $10,000 for every vote cast greater than the number 10 with the voter ID law proponents paying $10 million for every vote less than 10, with a $100 million cap, this whole controversy would be over in a minute. Since they were the ones who got state legislatures they controlled to pass the ID laws to solve this "problem," the Republicans would have the burden of proof on providing the names of the ineligible voters who actually voted in person at the polls in 2008 under a registered voter's name, which is the only kind of identify fraud that the laws are purported to prevent.

Fun with Facebook

Melissa Stockwell, who lost a leg in Iraq in 2004, dancing with former President George W. Bush. Make up your own ironic caption here: ______________

A few months ago during a trip to my homeland-- about 2,000 years removed-- my intrepid son set up a Facebook page for me to post the photos from my trip. Heretofore I haven't been a Facebook, social networking, kind of guy. I don't text; I talk. I don't live my life on a computer- I spend enough time there at work when I'm not in a courtroom- and even, sometimes, when I'm in a courtroom. But Facebook, like all of our technological advances, has had unintended- unimagined- consequences on human development. I almost wrote "progress," but that judgment may be too soon. It very well might be regress.

So here's a snapshot of contemporary American political views, via a Facebook post of a photograph of a wounded warrior- a woman who lost a limb while stationed in Iraq in 2004. She's dancing with former President George Walker Bush. It's a photo subject to much interpretation, as the comments on the post reveal. What is most revealing is the mindset of the people doing the posting. There are those upon whom facts can not change their version of reality. Then there are those who were emotionally scarred by the actions of the Bush Administration, 2001-2009, and those wounds have not healed.

My opinions- based on facts, not fantasy- are in this Blog. I wrote several lengthy essays (published in the Albany Journal) on the causes of our going to war in Iraq, going back to the "Project for a New American Century." http://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/search?q=American+Century

Everything I wrote upon was sourced, and startling to me, most of the facts have never been in dispute. There was no covert conspiracy to embroil America into an unnecessary and self-destructive war in Iraq. Any conspiracy, such as it was, was overt, and the damage to the United States, in blood, morale, divisiveness, and money, has also been up front and undisputed.

What has been instructive to me has been how reality has NOT been changed in the minds of the people who supported the war and who were not disillusioned when the facts came to light. Their minds haven't changed even after the false pretenses were publicly admitted by the very person who made the case for war before the United Nations in 2003- then Secretary of State Colin Powell. (A quick internet search with the phrase "Colin Powell misled in United Nations Speech") comes up with
over a million and a half hits, including this u-tube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs and the taped interview I saw on The Daily Show a few weeks ago where he publicly admitted his embarrassment and the blot that it was on his career. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-12-2012/exclusive---colin-powell-extended-interview-pt--1

I haven't responded to any of the comments below directly- my observation that it is a variation on the Stockholm Syndrome was my only comment. But to those who argued after the fact that we attacked Iraq because it had nothing to do with 9-11 so that we could distract the terrorists from us, I have two responses, one light hearted, one serious: first, if we were going to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 attacks, why not Bermuda? It's a much nicer climate and would have been way cheaper. Second, if the reason we were attacking Iraq was to distract terrorists so that we would fight them there, then why didn't President Bush and his top officials ever make that case before we launched the greatest foreign policy and human rights mistake in American history? Probably because if a person says it out loud, the idea will sound as stupid as it actually is.

Here's the Facebook post:



President George W. Bush dancing with warrior Melissa Stockwell. Melissa was injured in Iraq in 2004 and became the first female ever to lose a limb in combat. That's class! Obama would have just sent her an e-mail asking for a donation to his campaign..
Like   Share  1,694209485  14 hours ago 

*** and 1,693 others like this.
506 shares
50 of 218

Clem Harrisson Ironically, it was GW who sent her to "war".

3 hours ago  Like  2

Deborah Hardin Mr. And Mrs. Bush are true Americans. They live their commitment to this country and her people every day. God bless them and their whole family!
3 hours ago  Like  3

Heidi Kraus und wer Tanzt mit den Toten ?
and if you dancing with the dead? (Translated by Bing)
3 hours ago  Like

Wendy Aker House You dumbasses, wars have been forever, thats whats made our country a free country. You should think about what our military is all about. Without them, which may be coming, what will we do?
3 hours ago  Like

Nathan Manthe Do you ever notice...how PROUD the veterans seem to be when W is around. They respect him...the man that called them to duty. they don't resent him...they don't resent their country....They knew the potential...they volunteered to serve America...and did so bravely...proudly..and wonderfully! God Bless President Bush, for his ongoing displays of gratitude and appreciation for the selfless service that our AWESOME Military displayed for so long in our ongoing battle with terror, and may He also continue to bless both the amazing troops that serve to protect us and promote freedom across earth, and the country that they so deeply love.
3 hours ago  Like  3

Mark Buckeridge what a load of shit
3 hours ago  Like  1

Jeri Harms oh please
3 hours ago  Like

Greg Stewart baby george , or is czar bush? or caesar george.... either way we are a democracy not a monarchy. nixon impeached but not baby george? pathetic... him and rumsfeld should be strapped to the front of a m1a1 and lead every recon or assault.... imo
3 hours ago  Like  1

Brenda Bettinger Sene It was a classy story until the last line, which was unnecessary.
3 hours ago  Like

Mike Irwin One tough gal. Keep the spirits high, LT!
2 hours ago  Like

Mike Walsh Bailie President Bush has always been a class act!!!
2 hours ago  Like

Anne Willey Surprised he did this since he sent her there. Hmmm.
2 hours ago  Like

Dave Sinclair He got her leg blow off for a lie. Class my ass.
2 hours ago  Like

Don Henry Given the fact that Bush started that war for good reason, it seems like the least he could do. Do you honestly believe that this somehow makes up for the horrendous damage that dirt bag did to this country?
2 hours ago  Like  2

Randy Koger No, George Bush would have charged her a fee and taxed it just to have her dance with him and then claim that there was no war going on and foreclose on her house.
2 hours ago  Like  2

Wendy Grandestaff B... S...
about an hour ago  Like

Justin A Gamache yes G W Bush started that war, he is a raging drunk.. someone should shoot him now.
about an hour ago  Like  1

Jim Jaissle No Joe, Obama wouldnt have sent her off to an illegal bullshit war in Iraq in the first place.
about an hour ago  Like

Brenda Santiago Classy Bush sent her to a war zone justified with lies, I bet him and his buddies own plenty of stock in protheis companies
about an hour ago  Like

Justin A Gamache America didn't abandoned Bush, we got sick of his bullshit!! He is under restrictions that if he leaves the USA he will be arrested for war crimes against Humanity. I say turn this fucker over to authorities now..
about an hour ago  Like  1

Victor Villegas obama would have not sent her to war in the first place
about an hour ago  Like

Kieran O'Hagan I love reading the comments here from the brainless Obama drones. The asshat in the office now couldn't give a shit about soldiers. Bush has gone out of his way for the men and women who fought those wars. He cared about them. This scumbag in office now doesn't. If you think this president has class, then you have no class yourself.
about an hour ago  Like  1

Chris Doades People are quick to blame ONE MAN for ruining our country, while we sit here on our computers doing nothing but complaining about it... Don't forget all the other people in office who make decisions too... The president is just our representative...
about an hour ago  Like

Karen Rocky Cunningham-Howe As a matter of fact President Obama did more then send her an email: http://disabilitynetwork.org/independent-living/white-house-highlights-melissa-stockwell-as-lets-move-and-physical-activity-champion-of-change/
White House Highlights Melissa Stockwell as Let’s Move! and Physical Activity “Champion of Change” |
disabilitynetwork.org
The White House honored Melissa Stockwell as one of ten leaders being recognized...See More
about an hour ago  Like  2

Ben Holstad There is a big aweful mouth about THESE AMERICANS. However, here is scientific fact. THESE GREAT AMERICAN PEOPLE took the mess away from HOME~ for US. Have you ever seen a bird distract a predator from the nest? They make themselves available to the predator at a place away from the home. And then take them on.
about an hour ago  Like

Charley Stewart This is an awesome picture. Of course you know Marcia how near & dear to my heart this post is. Mr. President thank you for you care & concern. Melissa, I don't have the words to say how much you mean to America. You truly are a warrior! I wish I had a fraction of your strength! ~~~CharleyMon~~~
about an hour ago  Like

Todd Lampone When will people finally clue in that none of our politicians represent us. It is depressing that people actually think George W Bush is a classy person who gives a shit about any one of you. He always wanted to go to war and made up lies to get there and this woman lost her leg ultimately because of his incompetence.
about an hour ago  Like  1

Patty Parker McPeek When I worked for the Wounded Warrior Project, I was honored to meet Melissa and many of our other wounded warriors in person . . . their stories & their strength are amazing ! ! !
about an hour ago  Like

Henry P Kaestner aint that the truth
about an hour ago  Like

William K. Stuart You really do need tp get a clue Bsuh cared not a dam about her or you, wakem up pull your head out. Dont sweat it ignorance angers me so Im blocking you anyway
59 minutes ago  Like

Michael Melcher He sent her over there to die in his bullshit made up war..... Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?
56 minutes ago  Like

Brennan Dennis We Americans had better quit all of this silly bickering and stand together to remove this maniac we have in Office. Or there will be no Americans!!! Romney 2012!! Anybody but Obama!!
53 minutes ago  Like  2

Danny Hurst aint that the truth
51 minutes ago  Like

Lisa Sulavka if it wasnt for bush she would still have her leg dummy
45 minutes ago  Like

Bill Mello Caroline I am not an Obama fan, but I am not sure that was a fair comment.
32 minutes ago  Like

Russell Morse she wouldn't have lost the limb if bush didn't get us into iraq
30 minutes ago  Like  1

George Monaghan Well it's not like Acorn or the the Black Panthers, are looking to recruit her...
29 minutes ago  Like

Camaro Sport What a Great Photo!!!
27 minutes ago  Like

Steve Wandt Pres Bush truly loves his troops and proves it all the time! Love the flag deco on her leg
23 minutes ago  Like

Edna Mccann thats not true our president is very careing person. i will vote for him again
20 minutes ago  Like

Robert Zajicek the 9/11 king,,,,
15 minutes ago  Like

Kurt Singer Obama never would have sent her there, in the first place!
14 minutes ago  Like

Terry Owsiany McHugh i was okay with this until the obama comment....low class and baseless.
10 minutes ago  Like

Elizabeth Ann McAdam below the belt PEGGY... NOT NICE...
10 minutes ago  Like

James Finkelstein I attribute this occurrence to a variation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
9 minutes ago  Like  1

Ruby Barler love this!!
8 minutes ago  Like

OUR "SOCIALIST" IN CHIEF? NOT BY MY DICTIONARY!

If more people did this, Americans would be healthier and health care costs would go down. So, tin foil hat wearers: emulate your Prez. and get out and exercise! That will show the Socialist in Chief!

"socialism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

The next time you read a comment by a tin foil hat wearer decrying Obama as a "Socialist" for advocating the expansion of health insurance to the heretofore uncovered, you might consider asking that person if he or she intends to sign up for Medicare on his/her 65th birthday. Because Obama Care (the Health Insurance Reform Act, or "Affordable Care Act"), is decidedly the most un-socialistic program that the Democrats and President Obama could have devised. Early on, before any legislation had been introduced in Congress, President Obama met with the top honchos in the hospital and pharmaceutical industry and assured them that there would not even be a consideration of a public option (allowing uncovered individuals to purchase health insurance from a government source, as opposed to private enterprise- for profit insurance companies), let alone the very simple and efficient "Medicare for All" proposition. Expanding Medicare gradually from both ends (young and old) would have been the preferred means, because the system is already in place. Obama did not even consider a "single payer plan" which would have saved billions in administrative costs for health care providers.

So, here's the deal: Obama = capitalist/free enterprise advocate. He devised and implemented a plan which will shuttle billions of dollars of private funds (via the dreaded "mandate") and public funds (via subsidies) to private enterprise, i.e. insurance companies (via the dreaded "mandate"), drug companies, hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers. Had he been a "socialist," the plan could not have been attacked in the courts, would have cost far less (suppose we simply allowed people to buy into Medicare at a price set at the average incremental cost of the coverage- the net tax expenditure would have been zero, yet more people would be covered), and those ridiculous attack ads we are going to see more of would have no traction.

One more time, tin foil hat wearers: do you plan to sign up for Medicare at age 65? That makes you a willing participant in Socialism! Welcome to the 20th (not 21st) century!