Is there an English teacher in the house?

Perhaps Attorney General Troy King should let retired school teacher and Secretary of State Nancy Worley proof his letters before he sends them out.

 

The Associated Press reported on King's letter to John Giles of the Christian Coalition. According to The AP, King said to Giles

"I invite you to roll up your sleeves and join us in the fight - ... in the Legislature - where it is hard work, not grandstanding or casting of unwarranted dispersions."

I'm pretty sure King meant call out the casting of an unwarranted aspersion (an unfavorable or damaging remark) rather than dispersion (the act or process of dispersing or the state of being dispersed). 

 

Perhaps King is just getting in touch with his inner Bush.

 

 

Grimacing for the Gov

The state of creative talent at Governor Riley's campaign has already been mentioned on this blog. However, a Montgomery correspondent has recently sent a new photo that draws that campaign's sense of style and panache into question.

Lucy Baxley's slogan ("We Love Lucy") has grown tired. Many thought it was catchy, despite being a cheap rip off of Lucille Ball's old television show. I'm not sure why at this point in the game, Riley would feel a need to co-opt the basic idea of Baxley's slogan, much less why he would do so in such a feeble way.

Governing Legal Authority

Pete Turnham, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party, is wringing his hands over Don Siegelman's candidacy and court troubles. Turnham is worried about what the party must do if Siegelman wins the June 2006 primary and then is subsequently convicted in federal court.  Turnham outlines a few options.  The party's executive committee could hand-pick a replacement nominee. Or the party could call for a nominating convention to name a replacement nominee. Or, as Turnham seemingly prefers, the party could call for a new primary election to be held statewide. According to The Birmingham News article, such an election would cost around $3 million dollars.

 

Turnham didn't even speculate on the fourth option. Siegelman could voluntarily bow out of the primary election if his federal case is not completed by 6 June.  Siegelman could then take the high road and say that he wanted to do what is in the best interests of Alabama's taxpayers. He could further explain that since he cannot speak for what the Democratic Party would do upon a conviction, he is making the only choice that is his to make: to step aside.

 

Of course, that option wouldn't preserve Siegelman's candidacy and would effectively usher in the close of Siegelman's political career, regardless of whether a federal jury convicts him.

 

What is more likely to occur, if Siegelman wins the primary and he is convicted, is that Siegelman will file an appeal to his conviction and will then claim that while his conviction is on appeal, the conviction is not final and does not affect his right to vote or his ability to be a candidate. And that's before we even get into the issue of whether his conviction (if it happens) is for a felony involving moral turpitude.

 

 

Worley Watch: Special Christmas Entry

"May your Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Boxing Day, etc., be SUNNY - send MONEY!

"May your New Year be a blast - send CASH!

"Your contribution will be worth a bushel and peck - send a CHECK!

"This Secretary of State hopes you won't be late - please mail before January 10! Once every four years,a donation envelop falls out of your card which you may consider "tacky"; however, it saves me another stamp/letter asking you for campaign contributions."

And so goes Nancy Worley's holiday letter that she included in her Christmas cards this year.

And some thought Roy and Kayla were a bit crass and opportunistic in their holiday fundraising?

You can read the full text of Worley's Christmas message (Pages 1 and 2):

Worley Watch

The Birmingham News reported Wednesday that Nancy Worley has been sued for alleged violations of voting rights.

The article states:

The suit says the state constitution is clear that people convicted of certain felonies including DUI and drug possession - unlike murder, rape or robbery - do not lose their voting rights and do not need to apply for an eligibility certificate from the board.

The situation is an interesting twist on the voting rights issue. On one side, Troy King, the Republican Attorney General, has stated that under the state Constitution, some convicted felons do not lose their right to vote. On the other side, Nancy Worley, a Democratic Secretary of State, insists that all felons lose their right to vote upon conviction.

Article VIII of the Constitution was amended in 1996 and now says this:

No person convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude, or who is mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil and political rights or removal of disability.

Originally, Article VIII said:

The following persons shall be disqualified both from registering, and from voting, namely: All idiots and insane persons; those who shall by reason of conviction of crime be disqualified from voting at the time of the ratification of this Constitution; those who shall be convicted of treason, murder, arson, embezzlement, malfeasance in office, larceny, receiving stolen property, obtaining property or money under false pretenses, perjury, subornation of perjury, robbery, assault with intent to rob, burglary, forgery, bribery, assault and battery on the wife, bigamy, living in adultery, sodomy, incest, rape, miscegenation, crime against nature, or any crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or of any infamous crime or crime involving moral turpitude; also, any person who shall be convicted as a vagrant or tramp, or of selling or offering to sell his vote or the vote of another, or of buying or offering to buy the vote of another, or of making or offering to make a false return in any election by the people or in any primary election to procure the nomination or election of any person to any office, or of suborning any witness or registrar to secure the registration of any person as an elector.

A court has already issued an initial ruling suggesting that Worley is wrong. We'll have to wait to see how the courts sort out the issue.

Worley Watch

According to The Huntsville Times, Secretary of State Nancy Worley admits once again that she will fail to meet the 1 January 2006 for implementing a new statewide voter registration system. However, she provides no explanation as to why she has shrugged off the mandate, offering only that she has set a schedule that will meet the deadline 10 months late.

Accomodating the Gimme Culture

So, let's see.

When a city decides to call its "Christmas tree" a "holiday tree," Jerry Falwell had this to say:

"There's been a concerted effort to steal Christmas."

However, when two large Baptist churches in Atlanta decided they would close on Christmas Day this year and not hold usual Sunday services, Falwell had this to say:

"It's a mistake. It clearly is an accommodation of culture. Some churches would justify that by that we're honoring the family by not interfering with home celebration. But there's no reason why you couldn't have both."

Is it just me, or is there a markedly different tone in Falwell's two sets of comments?

Falwell is much more outspoken against the "accomodation of culture" when it comes to having a "holiday tree." I guess we aren't supposed to be accomodating to non-Christians who take part in holiday festivities that are largely not Christian.

Falwell does say that it's wrong for the churches to be closed on a Sunday. But he appears to accept the "accomodation of culture" more readily when it's Christians wanting to stay home to receive and revel in their Christmas booty.

Perhaps Falwell is a bit more forgiving when the transgressor is a fellow minister as opposed to radical liberal elite secularists. One of the churches what will be closed is Atlanta's First Baptist Church, headed by Charles Stanley of InTouch Ministries national fame.

Cartoon of the Moment

National vs. Spiritual

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on his show that aired 15 December 2005. Rumseld, in talking about developments in Iraq, made a point that caught my attention. He said:

"And what we've got to count on is that the Iraqi people are, even the Shia, are more Iraqi than they are Shia and that they're not going to want Iran influencing their elections."

Did he really mean to say that he hopes that Iraqi citizens affiliate more closely with their national identity than with their spiritual identity?

Can you imagine asking Christians in America to consider themselves first and foremost Americans -- and then Christians?

Oh, wait. We have asked them to do that by respecting the First Amendment's mandate that government not be used to endorse or establish a national religion. And the religious right roundly rejects that they should honor that mandate.

Worley Watch

As the Times-Journal out of Fort Payne reports, it seems Nancy Worley continues her efforts to alienate local officials.

BR ... 549?

Is it just me, or is this a weird sticker for the Riley campaign?

At least George W. Bush has the nickname "dubya." I have never heard of anyone calling Riley "BR".

If Bob paid someone to come up with that, he needs to get his money back and have that person committed.

"Bonk!"

What image does that exclamation evoke?  If you are like me, it usually makes me think of someone getting hit on the head.

 

So, it seems quite ironic that this guy with the last name of "Bonk" was charged with hitting his mother over the head with a steel pipe.

Money on Trees

The Riley Administration reports that the Education Trust Fund may have as much as $300 million extra. As The Birmingham News reports, the Governor has suggested that the surplus could be given back to "the families of this state."

 

Governor Riley also said "We're going to fund education. We're going to fund our programs. We're going to do things that we have never done before."

 

Paul Hubbert (D-AEA) raised the obvious point when he questioned returning education dollars to taxpayers when Alabama spends less per public school student than most other states. I'm wondering, though, if Alabama should be sending this money back when so many schools lack funding to properly stock basic supplies like toilet paper.

 

As much as Alabamians may like the thought of getting some kind of extra refund from the state, it seems we should be meeting all of our obligations in schools before we reap some kind of personal windfall.

Some are more equal than others ...

On tonight's O'Reilly Factor, Bill chastised a group who is encouraging people to protest Bush's State of the Union speech next month. They are calling for people to make a lot of noise when Bush's speech starts. Obviously, the general public who would do this won't be in the U.S. Capitol; so, apparently, the idea is for people to make noise wherever they are. Bill was complaining that these folks are trying to deprive Bush of his right to speak.

Now, I may be wrong. If I am, please send me a source that proves that - but I don't think O'Reilly has too much heartburn when the Secret Service does advance work to quarantine non-violent, peaceful dissenters, even when these dissenters are doing nothing more than wearing a t-shirt or button.

Lit

I was sitting at a traffic light in the left turn lane waiting for traffic to clear so I could proceed. A motorcycle cop was across from me, also waiting to turn left (in the other direction). Surprisingly, he turned his flashing lights on. I thought maybe he had seen someone do something something dangerous or who was speeding.

The traffic coming toward me cleared. He then proceeded to not return to the straight lane and pursue whatever he saw, but rather he made a right turn all the way from the left turn lane. He had to cross two lanes of traffic to turn into a different strip mall. I watched him as I turned in behind him, wondering who or what caught his attention to make such a turn. Oddly, he circled the parking lot, nonchalantly.

I'm thinking I observed something crazy. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps something was radioed to him and he had to scope out the parking lot.

Then, the brilliance of this came to me! I wish anyone who has a habit of making crazy turns into traffic - or who weaves in and out of traffic - or who pulls out in front of oncoming traffic - I wish these people would have warning lights they could flash just like this cop.

Worley Watch

The Huntsville Times reported Saturday that Ms. Nancy will indeed miss the 1 January 2006 deadline for implementing a new statewide voter registration system.

 

With $43 million in pocket, Worley has had over 2 years to get the system in place, hasn't done it, and now she and her staff are blaming the problem on the governor's office.

 

Stay tuned.

Happy Holidays, Pt. 2

Since various conservative groups have determined that the Christmas tree is an integral part of celebrating the Christian anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ, will they now deem it sacrilege if anyone replaces an actual tree with a "rosemary Christmas tree"?

Since Christmas were originally evergreens, such as Fir, and the long-time tradition in America has been to use pines or firs ... can we really allow the subsitution of of an herb? Is this not yet another attack on the sanctity of the holy Christmas tree?

And an herb? Is it rosemary today, and then a much different "herb" tomorrow?

(And you are well-advised to not get me started on artificial trees, be they plastic, aluminum, or whatever else.)

Happy Holidays, Pt. 1

Am I the only one who grew up thinking that the phrase "happy holidays" referred to the entire holiday season that begins with Thanksgiving and runs through New Year's Day?

Words Up (and out)!

If schools are going to start suspending kids for talking Spanish outside of class but during the school day, can they also root out words like "bling bling"?

Of Tigers and Trees, Part 2

The AU SGA president has sent this e-mail to the AU community.

 

---- begin AU SGA e-mail ----

 

Dear AU Community,

In 2000, Auburn University's Student Government Association (SGA) began
an official Holiday Tree Lighting tradition. Recently, false information
spread that the Auburn University Student Government Association changed
the name of this celebration from a Christmas Tree Lighting to a Holiday
Tree Lighting and banned a Christmas tree on campus.

No such banning or name change has occurred since this tradition began.
Furthermore, it is important to stress that Auburn originally chose to
call its celebration a Holiday Tree Lighting not to deny the beliefs of
anyone, but, instead, to be inclusive of all of its more than 23,000
students and their traditions and beliefs.

Now, because the facts of Auburn's celebration have been misrepresented
to certain well-intended individuals and organizations, Auburn finds
itself in a controversy it did not seek. Fortunately, this controversy
has caused Auburn's student leaders to begin to thoughtfully examine the
annual celebration in hopes that it can continue in a way that is
agreeable to all. This year's lighting has already taken place, so there
is time for an examination that is not hasty, but is deliberate and
intent on a lasting solution.

I can assure the Auburn family and others who have expressed their
concern that this examination has begun. I believe student leadership at
Auburn is intent on finding a way to hold a celebration and to call a
Christmas tree what it is - a Christmas tree - but, at the same time
embrace other faiths and belief systems.

I ask for patience in allowing the SGA to do its work. I believe that,
when our work is complete, everyone will be pleased.

Sincerely,

John Tatum
SGA President
Auburn University

 

---- end AU SGA e-mail ----

Of Tigers and Trees

It's cliche' to invoke Mr. Harvey's signature line, but it seems we now have the "rest of the story."

 

The reactionary right has had a field day pointing out the evil perpetrated by men and women when referring to a tree formerly known as "Christmas" as a "holiday tree".  For an example, see this.  Even Alabama's beloved Auburn University has been dragged through the mud on this issue by conservatives that, apparently, jumped to a conclusion not supported by the facts they didn't jump from. The American Family Association went so far as to say that Auburn had banned the Christmas tree

 

The Birmingham News reported today that Auburn has, in fact, not renamed the "Christmas tree" a "holiday tree."  Whereas protestors considered the lighting event a " 'holiday tree' lighting ceremony", Auburn has clarified that the event is in fact a "holiday 'tree lighting' ceremony".

 

For those of you who didn't benefit from SchoolHouse Rock and the like, the word "holiday" is an adverb that tells us when (during the holidays) a particular type of ceremony (tree lighting) is being held (during the holidays). Auburn was not holding a lighting ceremony for a "holiday tree."

 

Lee Johnsey of the SGA noted that everyone took for granted that it was a Christmas tree. He want on to say that "[w]e are in the holiday season and we are lighting a tree," he said.

 

Kudos go to the SGA for rejecting a petition that demanded the SGA rename the tree lighting as a "Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony."

 

Max Coblentz, an SGA senator and Code of Laws Committee chairman, is reported as saying that most senators were upset at the way the issue was raised. He also pointed out there will likely be some clarification next year that the tree is indeed a Christmas tree.

 

Perhaps Mike Adams would have benefited from doing the same reporter's footwork that Thomas Spencer of The Birmingham News did:  actually talking to people involved to determine what the facts are before making strident accusations and wagging a finger.

 

By the way, Mike Adams needs to avoid using Auburn's proud imagery and symbols if he can't get it right. "War Eagle" is singular and people in the Auburn Nation are not called "War Eagles".

 

 

Trees and Bowls

As we couldn't have guessed it would be coming, the cause celebre of this holiday season ... do I mean Christmas season? ... is the hand-wringing over the fate of the world because some places are calling their  evergreens "holiday trees" rather than "Christmas trees".

 

Jerry Falwell is in a leather about. As are writers on the al.com Auburn Tigers "Free for All" forum. (It seems Auburn has chosen to have a holiday tree on its campus.)   A search on Google using the phrase "holiday tree" and "politically correct" returned a listing of over 22,000 entries! (... in only .14 second, no less!)

 

If we really want to address the breaking down of traditions and community though, we should take on another change that was inflicted upon us many years ago.  As our friend at Red State Diaries reminds us, college football bowl games were not always named for their corporate benefactors.

 

What happened to the good old days when bowl games were the cap on the college football season played at host sites that had their own aura of greatness because of the exciting match-ups that pounded out wins and reputations and legends on the gridiron?

 

Now we have the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. The Capital One Bowl. The Nokia Sugar Bowl.

 

Whatever happened to the old time names followed by the "proudly sponsored by whatever corporation" message? Whatever happened to corporations being willing to let their ads do the talking, rather than believing they are the king in whose court our teams play.

 

 

 

 

Doing It Religiously

I'm not sure what to make of the editorial that The Birmingham News ran today regarding a bill to permit public school teachers to sign on for a particular "Bible as literature" curriculum.

The News' basic point is sound; that teaching the Bible's influence on literature is fine as long as teacher's are careful to not infringe upon the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the prohibition found in the Establishment Clause.

However, the News' makes some comments that seem strange. Perhaps they are just the result of slopping writing or trying to meet an pending printing deadline.

First, the News' says that "more caution is needed when a public school teacher or administrator is involved in religious activities with students." Actually, if the Bible lit class is crafted properly and taught correctly, this curriculum would not be a "religious activity." Public schools do not exist to conduct religious activities and in fact are prohibited from doing so. The case Wallace v. Jaffree, which originated in Alabama, makes this point clear.

The News' also makes the point that public schools in Alabama already have the legal ability to teach "Bible literature" classes. (In fact, I remember my high school having such a class.) However, the News' editorial board goes on to say that "school boards that adopt the course in their bill would get help training teachers about how to teach the subject the right way," apparently suggesting that the bill provides for training that schools cannot get unless it adopts this curriculum.

It would seem odd to think that schools could only get specialized training on this area of First Amendment concern if they adopt some curriculum that has received the blessing of the Alabama Legislature. And, as a point of fact, the Attorney General provides guidelines for conducting religious activities in public schools.

We know that politicians (Guin? Hammett?) will use symbolic issues like this one to curry favor with particular groups of voters. So, it's not a surprise the pols would put forth some proposal for which there is no burning need.

It's not so clear why The Birmingham News printed what seems to be slip-shod editorial writing.

Taking a Chance on It

The Birmingham News ran an editorial 3 December 2005 commending Jefferson County authorities for for "cracking down" on illegal gambling operations.

Regardless of whether you think gambling is an egregious sin or just a fun way to (maybe) make some quick cash, one can't help but take note of the "Chuck E. Cheese" law that permits games of chance for children. If you've been in a pizza establishment, like the law's namesake, or stopping in an arcade at your mall, you would have seen these games. They seem simple and innocent. What adverse affect could they have on kids.

Perhaps ... none.

But let's look at it from a different angle. Children are prohibited from participating in many of the serious vices while adults are allowed to participate at will: smoking; drinking alcohol; sex (read: statutory rape); reading pornography (softcore or hardcore).

Gambling is the one vice that our society has decided should be open to children but not adults -- unless the adult wants to play the children's games.

It's somewhat strange to me that a majority in our state wring their hands over gambling but then turn around and allow their children to gamble -- presumably because it's just harmless fun.

Zealotry

In response to this entry I made on 30 October, a correspondent replied:

"Expecting the ADP blog to be objective is the basic misunderstanding I think. They are admittedly a Democratic schill, so I am not sure they can be rightly criticized for not attacking their own."

Another reader replied:

"Do you expect us not to be biased? It is the party blog after all. Do you think that AL GOP's website would be any fairer? I am a Democrat, I am easily more likely to take up for my brother than someone else, and my party before another one."

What continues to keep party politics in the gutter is these kind of perspectives.

Yes, in the real world, party folks are zealots for their cause and will say whatever is necessary to win. Trust me. I've been around politics long enough to know that.

Regardless, that doesn't mean I cannot make a prescription for elevating the discussion about government officials in hopes of being more statesman-like.

If accepting reality and rolling over is the proper protocol, then Democrats should accept that Bush's denials about the problems in Iraq - and with the very reason we went to war there - are what's to be expected of a sitting administration and stop compaining about it.

Bogeyman du jour

A resident of Bessemer recently wrote to The Birmingham News' editorial page and commended the paper for its series on immigration. In her comments she said:

[Immigrants] come from many countries, and some of them are probably terrorists.

To reference an old saying, when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Apparently it is not enough to encourage enforcement of immigration laws for the sake of immigration policy. We must now enforce the immigration laws because of all the terrorists slipping across the border from Mexico.

Now, I'm not saying that terrorists aren't smart enough to exploit a real hole in our nation's borders (although obviously we have not encountered waves of terrorism imported from Mexico). And I'm not saying that we shouldn't be imaginative when trying to determine our national security weaknesses.

But I grow tired of hearing that defeating the bogeyman du jour (e.g., terrorism, communism) is a primary reason for any and every conceivable action government may take.

Immigrant Workers Compensation

I' m sure a wealth of 2-cents has been shared on this topic already. I'm a week or so late commenting.

The AP reported on 22 November that a state judge has ruled that an illegal immigrant is eligible for workers compensation benefits from his employer despite being in the country illegally. The worker, a teen, was paralyzed while working on a home construction site. The Home Builders Association of Alabama intervened in the case, citing the immigration status of the worker when it asked the judge to deny the benefits. The employer disagreed with the judge's decision but said it would not appeal.

Note note that is was not an "activist" federal judge but an popularly elected circuit judge who reached this conclusion.

As illegal immigration continues to be of growing concern, I think it is only fitting that a business who hires illegal immigrants must pay these kinds of benefits if the worker would otherwise qualify for them if he or she was in the country legally. One of the draws - the main draw - to America for illegal immigrants is the work and the money they can earn. It is illegal for employers to hire these individuals and they should use due diligence in doing so. And if they don't, then there should be penalties the business has to pay.

For the court to have said a legal American could have gotten these benefits but not an illegal immigrant would have given businesses just one more incentive to use foreign labor to replace workers who are here legally - by birth or by choice.

The article includes the following:

[blockquote]An official with the Home Builders Association, W. Russell Davis, said the organization encourages members to hire only legal immigrants, but added that there is no way for contractors to check the immigration status of everyone working on a construction site. Paying benefits to illegal immigrants, he said, "is just part of it."[/blockquote]

This guy wants to spin this issue both ways. First of all, that Association said that the worker wasn't eligible for the benefits. Then he states that since his businesses have "no way" to check the immigration status of every worker, he accepts the payment of benefits as a cost of doing business.

He is, of course, being disingenuous. There are ways for a business to exercise due diligence in determining a worker's immigration status. Yes, some prospective employees may have fraudulent credentials that can be used to scam an employer. But in general an employer is able to ensure the legality of its employees' immigration status.

In this case, it seems that this construction business should be investigated for immigration violations. Unfortunately, that will probably not happen; if you find it has, let me know. But at least the business will be punished by having to live up to its moral - and legal - obligation to this worker.

Compare and Contrast (mostly contrast)

Looks like Nancy Worley could take a few lessons from the Department of Public Safety on deploying a statewide computer system and meeting federal compliance deadlines.

 

Read the report by The Huntsville Times here.

The AP reported yesterday that Colorado has cancelled it's contract with Accenture for a new statewide voter registration system. Colorado is now at risk of not complying with the mandate in the Help America Vote Act that requires that system be operational by 1 January 2006.

 

As readers of this blog will know, Alabama is running the risk of not being in compliance either. But at least in Colorado, the state has an argument that their vendor has not performed pursuant to its contract.  Last we heard, Nancy Worley had not even signed a contract for Alabama's new system.

 

And you thought we had become distracted from following the antics of Surly Worley.

 

CNN reported that Bush, in his speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, stated that "[a]s Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."

 

So, basically, Bush is stating that as long as their continues to be insurgent/resistance/terrorist activity that overwhelms the Iraqi military and keeps some some level of instability in Iraqi politics, America will continue to have troop presence in Iraq. For those keeping a scorecard, let's see how Mr. Bush's conceptualization of our military involvement in Iraq has evolved.

 

First, we were primarily launching a pre-emptive attack against a country alleged to be hostile to America and supposedly in possession of weapons with which that country could launch an attack on the continental United States. 

 

Then, when the infamous weapons of mass destruction which threatened us could not be found, the war was justified on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a vile, brutal dictator whose regime needed "changed."

 

We are now in the latest of these phases in which our military is being used to facilitate nation-building by providing homeland security for the metamorphosed Iraq.

 

Whether we consider each of these goals as attainable serially or in parallel, it seems that that we already have victory for items one and two. We have neutralized the WMD threat (okay, the threat was "neutralized" by Saddam no longer possessing such a threat) and we have removed the dictator and instituted regime change. 

 

That leaves us with only the last goals of nation-building and and Iraqi homeland security.  Victory with regard to these aspects is a bit trickier to define. But it's also debatable that the definition of victory for the Iraqis in this area is the same as the definition of victory for U.S. forces.  At some point, Iraqis must take over full responsibility for their country and its government. Unless we are to make Iraq a U.S. territory, we have no responsibility to ensure comprehensive success of that country's political reform. Nor should our military be responsible for the national security of Iraq for some indefinite period of time.

 

Which of course, brings to the latest goal that the Bush Administration has woven into its story of Iraq:  defeat of terrorists.  Bush and Company have alleged that we must defeat terrorists in Iraq to prevent them from posing some threat to us on our soil here in America.

 

I guess things have come full-circle. We started out in Iraq to prevent an attack on America. And to this day, Bush contends we are still there for the same reason. We apparently are in pursuit of a goal so elusive that the only thing more elusive is the Bush Administrations credibility regarding this whole operation.

 

Osama bin Castro?

I'm wondering if the Bush Administration's real strategy on Osama bin Laden is not to capture him or kill but rather to limit his sphere of influence by marginalizing him  -- while also keeping him as the bogeyman who can be resurrected from time to time when Bush and Company need a terorrist scare to distract attention from his or his political party's problems.

About the Iraq War

The Iraq situation will continue to fester as long as the general public has doubts about why we invaded Iraq in the first place and as long as they continue to be presented evidence that the post-war effort to stabilize Iraq has not been effective.

 

It is important to evaluate the justification for the war that was given to us before we invaded Iraq. Most certainly Americans will tend to support a military action to ensure our own safety and national security. But I don't think that they would have agreed to the invasion if our primary goal was mainly to topple Saddam so that a democratic government could be constructed.  Americans have a tendency to address real problems but we do not usually have a stomach for imposing our vision of utopia on other countries.

 

The Bush Administration says that we need to remain in Iraq so that we can address the terrorist threat there. I generally agree with him that we need to do what we can there to ensure that Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorists that could threaten our national security. But I also think that we need an honest assessment of the United States' role in making Iraq fertile ground for such breeding. And, unfortunately, we have done more than the Bush Administration wishes to admit in applying the fertilizer.  I know I'm not the only one who sees a problem with our justifying our continued military presence in Iraq by citing conditions that were created largely by our own actions.

 

Yes, let's address those problems. But we cannot stick our head in the sand (no pun intended since we are talking about a country with abundance supplies of sand) and not hold accountable those who failed America in pre-war intelligence gathering and analysis and pre- and post-war planning.

 

It's easy to say we shouldn't point fingers and assign blame. The reality though is that you need to understand what went wrong to effectively craft a solution to address the failures. And though some may not like it, a side effect of finding out what went wrong is oftentimes finding out who did wrong.

 

There may be honest disagreement about the causes of the problems we are experiencing in Iraq. For example, was the intelligence supporting invasion manufacturered or cherry-picked to justify a predetermined course of action? Or did one or more people simply make a mistake despite good faith efforts to do the right thing?

 

When the government -- one that is allegedly by and for the people -- has a terrible record like the one in evidence in Iraq, only those officials with something to hide would insist that we avoid finding and correcting problems.