Nancy Pelosi's Thoughts

This video is brought to you courtesy of Fort Hard Knox, my new favorite political blog. Though it was launched just recently, it has already amassed a library of links through their daily "Blog Honor Roll" that should keep any intelligent reader engaged for hours. Warning to liberal wackos, Fort Hard Knox might cause you to break out in convulsions.

Nancy Pelosi’s recent speech on the House floor provides us with an opportunity to understand her “real” position on the war, Iraq, Bush, and the troops. This video will help you to understand the “real” motivations of Nancy Pelosi.

read more | digg story

Lieberman needs to switch parties if he hopes to be heard...

The Hill: Lieberman calls for wider use of surveillance cameras

Senator Joesph Lieberman has been one of the few lawmakers in Washington that speaks the truth always, rather than taking whatever his staff tells him is the most popular position. One might think that it is only too obvious that the truth would take precedent over all, but sadly our culture has allowed the politics of opportunism to prevail and there is little evidence that anyone cares. It is almost as if we are living in collective denial, choosing to see things as we hope they were instead of how they actually are. Fortunately, there are still a few who hold themselves above such petty partisan posturing, but sadly these principled individuals are dismissed by most of the media as less relevant or somehow crazy and off-base.

Senator Lieberman has called for the US to seriously consider air strikes against Iran because of the refusal on the part of the Iranian government to cooperate with the international community and cease all uranium enrichment. As a result, he has been dismissed by the mainstream media as a psycho, hell-bent on waging war all across the Middle East. Rather than having a serious discussion about how important/essential it might be to strike the Iranian regime, it is taboo to even raise such an issue and thus no serious consideration is even possible.

We all accepted Bill Clinton at his word that it was absolutely necessary to strike against Saddam's WMD facilities the day impeachment proceedings began against him in the House of Representatives. In fact, anyone who dismissed the president's decision as a diversionary tactic was accused by the Democrats and mainstream media as failing to take national security seriously. Yet any discussion of striking Iran, a country that is developing nuclear weapons openly and without shame, is considered crazy.

Now Senator Lieberman has gone off the deep end by suggesting that we should institute a similar closed-circuit television (CCTV) system as the one used in London to track the perpetrators of the recent terror attacks in our own large cities here in America. "Oh my goodness, how dare he suggest something so Orwellian!", is the typical response we should expect from the mainstream media and Democratic presidential candidates. Only the Republicans, at least at the national level, are willing to discuss such measures seriously and Lieberman would do himself and the country a huge favor by switching parties officially.

Tags: Senator Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Iran, Democrats, Republicans, Politics

New Orleans Congressman William Jefferson officially indicted on 16 federal counts...

ABC7 Chicago: Grand jury to indict Rep. Jefferson in bribery investigation...

In the months leading up to the midterm elections last fall I was shocked and confused when Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and the majority of the Republican Conference came out in support of New Orleans Congressman William Jefferson, whom had recently become the first member of Congress ever to provoke the FBI into performing warranted searches of his Capitol Hill offices.

Hastert and his colleagues were motivated to stand with their colleague from across the aisle on the grounds that such an investigation violated the underlying principle of separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government.

At the time it was easy to criticize Hastert for his decision to stand on principle, even in the face of an inevitable Democratic ascension and the dissolution of the Republican majority, largely due to the GOP's own "culture of corruption", and I doubt a Republican member of the minority would receive the same unconditional support of Speaker Pelosi if a similar situation were to arise during the current Congress. While I can understand Hastert's motivation, I do not understand how he could have thought it politically advantageous to so firmly stand with an obviously suspect Congressman who was basically caught red-handed with his hand in the corporate piggy bank.

The day I met the Speaker while working as an intern in his Washington office during the summer of 2005 he confided in myself and my fellow interns that he had just had a troubling conversation with a Republican member, whom he did not name at the time but later turned out to be Duke Cunningham, regarding real estate transactions that were under investigation in California. As it turned out, Cunningham was speedily indicted, convicted and sentenced to what will likely amount to the rest of his life in prison for those shady dealings, which along with other Republican ethical lapses was the primary impetus for the rise of the Democrats to the majority in the House. Hopefully Hastert didn't go too far in his defense of Jefferson, because if the Republican's are to win back the House or Representatives in 2008 they will have to reestablish the moral high ground over their Democratic colleagues. Jefferson's indictment is surely a good start toward that end, but many more liberal heads will have to roll before voters are likely to forget the disastrous record of the 109th Congress.

Congressman Jefferson faces charges surrounding alleged kick-back payments he accepted, $90,000 of which he subsequently attempted to conceal in the freezer of his Washington DC apartment during an FBI raid, the discovery of which led the FBI to seek warrants to search his Congressional offices, which had theretofore been beyond the Bureau's jurisdiction. If convicted Jefferson faces nearly 200 years behind bars, which makes it seem unlikely that the unprecedented constitutional circumstances surrounding the tactics used by FBI agents when gathering evidence against Jefferson will provide the legal leverage he needs to beat the wrap on bribery and corruption charges.

Two of Jefferson's associates have already been indicted and negotiated plea bargains for their roles in the conspiracy. Brett Pfeffer, a former-Jefferson aide plead guilty to soliciting bribes on Jefferson's behalf and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Another Jefferson confidant, Kentucky telecommunications executive Vernon Jackson, plead guilty to paying $400,000 to $1,000,000 in bribes to the Congressman in exchange for his assistance securing business deals in Nigeria and other African nations, and was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.

Both former-Jefferson associates agreed to cooperate in the case against the Congressman in exchange for their plea deals, which substantially lessened the hard time they faced for their role in the alleged bribery.

Tags: House of Representatives, William Jefferson, Congress, FBI, Denny Hastert, Democrats, Republican Party, Washington DC, Corruption, Capitol Hill, New Orleans, Separation of Powers, Duke Cunningham, Brett Pfeffer, Vernon Jackson, Congressional Scandal, Bribery

Shut up and wait until 2008!

Wired News: E-Vote Memo is a "Smoking Gun"

In the months leading up to the November midterm elections, Democratic operatives were all over the cable news channels screaming FOUL and pointing fingers at Karl Rove, whom they all insisted was lurking in the shadows recruiting and dispatching his team of GOP hackers around the country to rig the ballot 'drives' (I guess) to ensure a Republican majority. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and their radical kin were more than willing to oblige, giving these political hacks unchallenged airtime to spew their slanderous preemptive damage control, while barely even pretending like they might doubt the truth behind these baseless accusations.

Sure enough, the Democrats won on the merits and for the most part, discussion of voter fraud, disenfranchisement and e-vote tampering almost, ALMOST evaporated from the political airwaves. However, Democratic candidate Christine Jennings from Florida's 13th Congressional District has been unable to come to terms with the certified results of her narrow 400-vote loss to Republican Congressman Vern Buchanan. She went to Washington and made her way into the group photo of Democrats elected to the 110th Congress, even though she had yet to be elected by anyone, and ever since she had her moment in the spotlight Jennings has aggressively pursued every and any course of action to try and get the courts to agree with her determination that e-Vote fraud led to a suspiciously low turnout and handed the election to her opponent.

First of all Ms. Jennings, why don't you save the money you have been wasting on legal fees and publicity in your futile attempt to get into a Congress that has left you behind. Instead, put that money toward your 2008 campaign and try to win the seat back with your IDEAS and POLICIES, instead of your legal tap dancing. Have some pride. Sit down and shut up, it is only another 6 months before election season will be back in full swing.

Has anyone ever heard a single Republican bitch about voter fraud and electronic vote tampering? I don't doubt that someone has, but they certainly haven't done so on any of the major national news networks.If memory serves me accurately, there were a dozen or more Congressional races that came down in favor of the Democrats by a margin of 1,000 votes or fewer. If we are going to recount the ballots in Florida's 13th Congressional District, why not recount the ballots in all of these races too? Who knows what would happen if we actually did count all of those ballots manually. One wouldn't be out of line at all to suggest that there might be several Democratic Congressmen and ladies who find themselves backing there bags early and forfeiting their seat to a GOP opponent who had so quickly become a distant memory. I live in Cook County. Nobody needs to tell me about the voice of the dearly departed and kinda-sorta citizens who proudly cast their ballots for the Democrats in my city, and have in some cases for the last 50+ years. Someone needs to remind the Democrats that it is always wise to quit while they are ahead.

Tags: 2006 Election, 2008 Election, eVoting, Voter Fraud, House of Representatives, Christine Jennings, Vern Buchanan, Florida Politics, Election Fraud, Chicago, Democrats, Washington DC

Imagine the violent response this poster would receive on an American campus...

What type of physical violence and ridicule do you think these two guys would be subject to if they brought their poster over to an American college campus?

I agree completely with there sentiment, and I don't think I would have the guts to hold that sign up on my college campus. On election day in 2004, my friend John and I both wore Bush-Cheney gear around campus, and the response we received was nothing short of hostile. John had a cigarette flicked in his face, and was spit at.

In my office in the Lewis Center, DePaul University's Law School, one of the professors has on his door a post-it note with a number under the heading, "Number of days until the end of the reign of terror," clearly a reference to the Bush presidency. What type of school hires idiots like that?

Ignorance is bliss I guess, but maybe it isn't safe to allow these morons to vote? I guess I shouldn't say that.

The world needs more men like John Howard too! I love Australia!!

The return of Tom Daschle?

With Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota undergoing intensive rehab at George Washington University Medical Center, the question of whether he will be able to run for reelection for his Senate seat in 2008 has yet to be asked, primarily out of respect. However, while I was thinking about this very question the other day it occurred to me that the former Senate Majority and Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who was ousted from his Senate seat in 2006 by John Thune, could make an easy trip back to Washington if he were to run for Senator Johnson's seat. I have not run across anything so far in the media indicating that Daschle has even considered retaking his seat, but I assume it has at least occurred to him.

If he were to run again, Daschle could throw a wrench in the gears currently running the Democratic Majority, which has scored its first electoral victory in over a decade. I am not sure how the Democratic caucus accounts for temporary absence when determining seniority, but it could make for interesting C-SPAN drama if a Daschle return sparked a battle among Dems for party leadership.

Hanoi Jane and Susan Surrender lead the sheep to the Mall, again...

TheStar.com - News - Fonda leads anti-Iraq War rally

I am young, far too young to remember anything about the Vietnam era, but if the actions of the 1970's hippie, peace movement were anything like the pathetic, intellectually devoid demonstration that Hanoi Jane and Susan Surrender led on the Mall in Washington yesterday, then we should all chip and send them to Baghdad so they can organize the "insurgents" to peacefully repel the "illegal occupiers". I've seen the pictures of Miss NVA 1968 sitting on top of the anti-aircraft cannon, in fact, I felt compelled to include one of the better ones. I understand the principle of free speech, and I am not entirely opposed to peace, but can anyone seriously imagine a scene similar to the one caught in the black and white on the right being replicated in Iraq today? I just don't understand. How ignorant are these people?

I have no doubt that the enemy we face today in Iraq, and throughout the world for that matter, is of a far different breed than the one we stood toe-to-toe with in the jungles of Vietnam. If Fonda tried to get a photo-op with one of the leaders of the terrorist insurgency in Baghdad, I doubt they would oblige her with the same courtesy she was afforded by the Vietcong. Odds are, she would have her head sawed off by masked men screaming "Allah Wekbed" (Praise God, or something disgusting like that). I doubt the last thing that would go through her head would be an image of the American aggressors. It would be almost surreal, wouldn't it? Maybe I should start a not-for-profit that takes donations to purchase one-way airplane tickets for these wackos to use to fly to Iraq or Afghanistan, not to meet with the troops, whom they obviously couldn't care less about, but to meet with Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi militia, or with the commanders of the Taliban. These thick-headed hippies will never understand until they come to terms with the nature of the enemy.

Stop Hillary PAC gets headstart on Democratic frontrunner...

There are few people, let alone politicians, in American that inspire a passionate opinion from nearly everyone you run into on the streets of every American cities as Hillary Clinton, having spent most of the 1990's as America's First Lady and subsequently serving in the US Senate from New York. Though her supports are vocal and well financed, so too are her enemies. Stop Hillary PAC has announced that they will be launching 60-second television spots in Iowa as the wife of America's most dynamic and crafty politician in a generation or more. After months of silence about her future plans and possible ambitions of a run for her Hubby's former job, Hillary has finally announced that she is in, and she is "in to win." As if she was in for some other reason.

View Stop Hillary PAC's most recent ad here.

Read about the Stop Hillary campaign here.

Surge of 20,000 may just be the beginning...

Telegraph | News | N Korea helping Iran with nuclear testing

This story popped up on Drudge a few minutes ago and if this is true, and the Iranians are about to test a nuclear device underground in the desert, there is absolutely going to be a showdown in the desert. Such an escalation would be unquestionably met with a swift response of heavy airstrikes and full ground assault. I can't possibly imagine anything other than an all out ass whoopin'. That said, we've seen what happened in Iraq. Iran has been our enemy since they held our diplomatic presence in Tehran hostage in the late-1970's, so I doubt it would take much to get Bush to reign hellfire and brimstone and grant Amadine-jihad's apocalyptic premonitions upon his government and the Ayatollahs. Amadine-jihad only seems to be further emboldened, even after suffering political defeats in key local elections in the nation's capitol.

If this is accurate, I am joining the Marines and I would urge everyone else to consider following suit. If the military isn't your bag, you may have an option to join a Civilian Corp. soon, which Bush proposed in his speech last night. The next phase of WWIII may be on the horizon.

Bush sounds good (and right), Webb sounds great (but wrong)...

60 percent of the active duty military view Bush favorably, at least according to the military newspaper Military Times. Freshman Senator Jim Webb, in his rebuttal of president Bush's State of the Union, asserted that a majority of the American people and the military do not support his (W's) strategy on Iraq. (I clarify to emphasize that W is the only person, as of yet to actually offer a strategy for achieving significant progress in a short term, except of course me.) He's a rookie, though there is a theatrical quality their that is at the level of Reagan, so I think its fair to forgive the novelist turned Senator for embellishing. This is not the first time the Senator has been bold when the issue of Iraq and his feelings with the president's policy. About a month ago, before the Senator was sworn in, he was invited to a Christmas party at the White House and when he was mingling with Bush, the president asked him how his 'boy' was doing. With Karl Rove buzzing in your ear, it is likely that Bush was well aware that Webb's son is serving in Iraq currently, so he was asking out of respect and I have no doubt with a heavy heart. I can only imagine the look on Bush's face when Webb had the audacity to respond with a sharp, "My son wants to come home." Aghast, W retorted, "That's not what I asked you." Doesn't it make your stomach churn to imagine someone at the president's Christmas party walking in like a bully with a chip on his shoulder. Respect.

I look forward to the next six years with Jim on the Hill. It is telling that the Democrats put Webb out to rebut, I think it was just last year that recently retired Virginia Governor Mark Warner was rolled out to give the Democratic response. One could argue that this was the turning point for Bush's presidency. I sincerely hope that this night will be the rallying point the White House was looking for, but I have learned not to hold out hope.

Also, I thought it was hilarious was Bush gave his cute little bit to make the new Madam Speaker blush, and he shook her hand at least three times. I didn't notice at first, but I did not see Dick Cheney so much as glance the Speaker's way. He didn't even make the slightest congratulatory gesture, not even when SHE reached over and grabbed his arm after Bush had already started speaking again. I am sure the VP's cold welcome was motivated by nothing less than a personal revulsion. And why not hate, she has after all taken over the government by running all over the country spewing crap about how the president is a liar. She has no class and I hope she was humbled by the way the president honored her big night, but the unspoken tension and hostility on the back bench was obvious. It looks like Cheney has got his game face on and has W's back all the way. Bush kisses ass really well, and Cheney is a great hit guy (remember his "hunting trip"), so I wonder if the Bush in front of the camera was suppressing an inner hostility that was conveyed through his #2? Maybe, but I suspect his ALL CLASS reputation will prevent him from stooping to the level of petty attacks and name calling. I doubt they will soon understand, or rather rediscover, the old fashioned principles of American politics which has finally after 12 years given them some momentum.

Hastert jumps on the Romney train...

I was surprised to learn during the State of the Union preview that the former-Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert today signed on to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Apparently the former-Massachusetts governor has been courting Congressmen aggressively as he prepares to take on several formidable challengers in the Republican primaries beginning roughly one year from today. Though Hastert no longer wields the same power and influence that he once possessed as the most powerful legislator in the nation, he will always be one of, if not the most respected members of the Republican Party. I would not be surprised to see many other Republicans also join the Romney camp, which should help boost the Governor's campaign as it begins its long up hill battle against front-runners Rudi Giuliani and John McCain.

Bush authorizes offensive against Iranian networks; is a larger strategy emerging? Let's hope so...

Bush and Rice dropped a bombshell today, admitting that the offensive against Iranian elements in Iraq is now several months old, a realization that, in my opinion, only gives greater credibility to Bush's assertions of Iranian meddling. This the day after hearing reaction from the president's speech which now puts the democrats in the position of having to defend what now looks like an uninformed posturing. They may actually end up looking childish, as long as the American people are willing to believe Bush is serious when he makes accusations and levels consequences on Amedine-jihad's doorstep. Guess what Senator Nelson, they were keeping you out of the loop because they knew you were reckless enough to manipulate issues for national security for political purposes and they didn't want to create the impression of an Iranian confrontation without understanding the playing field. If Bush had been supported universally by the Republican members of the Senate, I honestly don' t think he would have even exposed the operation at all. Truth is, Bush has always listed Iran at the top of his list of enemies. I really think Bush pulled the ace out of his pocket here, at least politically speaking. Sounds like classic Karl Rove to me.

It is outright embarrassing to hear how the president has made progress recently with in the diplomatic and legal fronts against the Iranians, as Howard Dean sheepishly admitted on Chris Matthews, or to hear young, bumbling freshman Congressmen talk about how Iran is our greatest enemy and should be our number one focus, but on substance there was nothing. Only sophomoric rhetoric stating that the Iranians are still years away from developing a nuke (we think) and it should be left to the next Administration (presumably a Dem) to deal with the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. Oh yeah, but first we need to pull our military completely out of the country that borders Iran (maybe the most ideal strategic position), bring them back home to their families for a few years, and then we can send them back to start from scratch when the Iranians decide to press full steam ahead because they no longer face the threat of military retaliation. Pretty soon this logical blunder and political failure will become obvious, or at least I hope.

As fascinating as the last three days have been, the best is undoubtedly yet to come. If this strategy is implemented properly, I think we are going to the streets with 400,000 American marines, trained to roll Baghdad over, and the rules of engagement have been tossed to the curb. I understand the Secretary Gates indicated that the surge in Iraqi troops will be 'phased' over the next six months, but after three years of training I suspect we should have high hopes for the quality of performance. Civil Wars should not be allowed to fester, they should be won and the country should be restored to the order it was given by the voters of Iraq. I foresee a whole bunch of ass-whooping, and I think the Iranians are unlikely to take it well. On his heels after setbacks in local elections, Amadine-jihad is going to likely be provoked to try to persuade the Ayatollahs that offense is their best defense, and our fate is in the hands of the 9th profit and the Persian Muslim rebirth fantasy which believes (maybe) but more importantly has convinced millions of its young citizens to join the martyr's brigade, akin to the Japanese kamakazi pilots. That is one long sentence, but it is also one helluva scary situation.

What has been the most shocking aspect of the whole week, at least to me, is the efforts of the press to pro-actively rally the cause for the politicians who are hootin' and hollarin'. The "Bill O'Reilly Effect" on the prime time media has inspired all of the finger-pointers on the left, who wanted to brand the top-rated cable news host a right-wing hack, too abandon their translucent veils of impartiality, and now Bill O'Reilly really might be the most "fair and balanced" pundit on television.

What if the capitalist revolution has reached its climax. Why don't we talk about the economy, the shrinking deficit , the record closings three times a week for a month on Wall Street . If this is what is to emerge from the recent midst of Washington posturing and intellectual opportunism amongst the major media distributions and pundits, I find it highly unlikely the noise is going to calm and give Bush an inch anytime soon. This leaves many questions about who is posturing themselves where today, literally, for 2008. These next two weeks will tell you who is going to win. S/he quick out of the gate, Guiliani and McCain put all their chips on Bush, and Dems put theirs on Pelosi. SMACK THAT BITCH UP.

There aren't many true believers in Bush left out there, for one reason or another, and the country is trending toward a dangerous Clintonian ignorance of what a world embroiled in a war against terrorism would look like if we walk away after its only super-power failed to give the effort and make the sacrifices we have made in previous commitments, such as in Japan, Western and Eastern Europe and South Korea. Instead we have been subdued by the same pussy-footing that inspired the incredibly disastrous decision to leave Somalia after two helicopters and a couple dozen Marines were killed, which resulted in a Somalian state frozen in a state of uncertainty and a haven for terrorists. I wish Bush was a bit more articulate, but thankfully, responsibility for carrying the torch is soon to be passed to more able orators as anticipation of 2008 heats up.

Responding to the pathetic response to Bush's speech in the media and on the Hill

George W. Bush has clearly evolved in his approach to winning the war in Iraq, and it seems that an escalation in the war against Middle Eastern radicalism is at hand. Listening to the media and Congress react to the speech delivered by the president from the White House last night has confirmed my long suspicions that the Administration is ready to take the Iranian issue to the next level. As I see it on MSNBC siting here now, with Joe Scarborough, Joe Klein, Pat Buchanan and Chris Matthews already turning the scare machine up to full volume. At least Buchanan is level-headed, admitting that such a radical policy change is bound to prove effective either quickly, or not at all. For Klein to call the address the biggest blunder he has ever seen in his 35-years of covering politics is absolutely ridiculous, and clearly he is not a very deep thinker on matters of military strategy. I know you are probably going to call me a chicken hawk, or you think I am unqualified to comment, but Joe Klein's ignorance has without question given every armchair general across the country a position worth 5 minutes on Scarborough Country. For the host's part, he did a great job of reminding the viewers that the US military invaded Iran by default when it raided their countries consulate in Northern Iraq, without once recognizing the Administration and military's shared opinion that the enemies of the coalition are being financed and logistically supported by the Iranian government. Bush has never pretended that he views the Iranian government as anything other than pure evil, a terrorist state, and I have never heard a credible refutation of that assertion. I think it is unlikely that, as the pundits seem to be implying, the administration is only putting pressure on the Iranians to divert attention from the failure that is Iraq, but rather I believe that Bush has always held viewed the Iranians as the greatest challenge to America's interests in the Middle East. To this point, the president has employed the very same diplomatic and multi-lateral methods so vehemently asserted as a better alternative to war with Saddam, and the Iranian response has been to simply reject the will of the "world community" and our "European allies". It only seems appropriate that the president respond to the to defiance by taking measures to protect against the threats posed by a defiant terrorist state, which has been supporting terrorist attacks that have killed scores of US troops.

I must give Klein a bit of credit, he closed well, reiterating almost verbatim one aspect of the proposal I put forth earlier this week, that the US pull out of Baghdad and into the mountains and desert regions, so as to allow the Iraqi military (now some 220,000 strong and fully trained) cut the head off of any civil war that foments in the vacuum that is created following troop redeployment. But I have heard very little reasoned analysis tonight, instead hearing little more than pompous opportunism by pundits who are more concerned with what the polls say than what the military and Bush Administration have presented as the facts on the ground. I have been thinking quite a bit about the current state of political discourse, particularly in Washington in modern times, and I have been hoping to write a post dedicated to the topic, but from the first minute the thought occurred to me I new that it would be entitled The Age of Opportunism. There is no word more suited to characterizing the reckless, self-inflated and shock driven personalities that currently inhabit what is popularly known as the "mainstream media". Though it took nearly six years to hack away at Bush, whom they so obviously view with a disdain and sense of intellectual superiority, they have finally succeeded at melting the brains of enough American's to aid in the emergence of a more progressive political order that shares their snobbish perspective on the current president and his policies. It is almost impossible to even watch prime time cable news anymore, with a few exceptional exceptions, because it increasingly feels like either a evangelical infomercial or a goom-by-a peace rally.

It appears as if the American embassy has come under attack tonight in Athens, and I can't help but wonder- is this Hezbollah striking back at the US for today's raid on their consulate? My suspicion is yes, but I doubt it will be fully understood soon enough for it to even have any bearing on the debate, but I also suspect this is far from the end. If today's raid on what is technically Iranian territory and the air strikes against terrorist elements in Somalia don't signal a very serious, and focused escalation of the war against global extremism and terrorists, I am at a loss for what exactly would. It has been difficult to sit-by and watch the president squirm in the run-up to and the aftermath of the November election, but the fact that he only accepted Rumsfeld's resignation the day after election day and waited until the new Congress was seated before announcing his new policy, is indication that he is a man driven by principles that are largely unheard of in the deeply partisan legislature.

I realize that I may sound irrational in my ranting, but I am absolutely amazed by the utter rejection of everything Bush proposed as empty, misguided rhetoric. Last time I checked, the executive branch made and implemented foreign policy, so the disregard for deference, in my opinion, is nothing more than another indication that politicians are more driven by opportunism than by finding solutions to our problems. I distinctively heard the president challenge the Democrats to propose an alternative, detailed policy for winning in Iraq. Where in all of the pontificating today did we hear such a proposal? That is absolutely right, we didn't, but were rather fed crap talking points about "seeking a new course" or a "new way forward".

In my mind, several questions are now unavoidable and should have been seriously addressed in the committee hearings that were so effectively hijacked by presidential hopefuls this afternoon. Most obviously, are we headed into another invasion of a large, hostile Middle Eastern country? Are we prepared to do whatever it takes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program? What type of involvement have the Iranians had in supporting and cultivating the chaos in Iraq? What do we do if the Iranians strike first? Where do I sign up for a machine gun and a plane ticket to Tehran?

A real strategy for victory in Iraq...

I have thought long and hard about the best options available to the coalition forces as they attempt to combat a seemingly unrelenting terrorist insurgency, which has fomented sectarian strife and successfully (though ironically) won the "hearts and minds" of American voters, as evidenced by the results of the recent midterm elections and daily public opinion polls. My opinion of the US-led effort to date is more favorable than most, but it is hard not to notice the opportunistic undertones in many of the recent converts to the anti-war bandwagon. Unfortunately, because of unforeseeable consequences of US post-war policy, the situation has become impossible to rationalize through the media and the Administration is likely to face growing opposition unless it can take radical and innovative steps toward achieving a viable long-term solution to the violence that has ravaged Iraq. At the same time, it is essential for and change in military strategy to take on the increasingly bold regime in Iran, which has decided to defy international consensus and press forward with its nuclear program, not to mention the constant infiltration of suicide bombers and arms the country has been supplying the Iraq insurgency.

The most important goal of the the coalition should be to figure out how the fledgling Iraqi military could most effectively take over control in major urban areas. I have concluded that the most practical and potentially effective option would be a two phase redeployment of forces. First, the Iraqi police forces should be tasked with rounding up every single male Iraqi over the age of 16 in the areas of Iraq that have seen the most terrorist activity, and then they should release them slowly after each has been given a thorough background check. A story I have recently read in Forbes suggests that this is exactly the type of strategy that the coalition is now considering. The second phase of my strategy would have the US forces still in the Baghdad area pull out completely, along with all other coalition forces, and set up new bases along the border with Iran and Syria, where most of the terrorists are infiltrating the country.

There are several potential political and military victories that could be achieved by employing such a strategy. First, if the Democrats hold true to their previous political tactics, they will predictably oppose such a radical change in tactics, likely invoking Iraqi civil rights in a pathetic attempt to stand against Bush at all costs. I doubt very much that such an argument would carry much favor with the American people, so by taking this seemingly radical step, Bush could reshape the debate here at home and put his party back in the position of being the most trusted on the issue of combating terrorism.

Another potential benefit is that by realigning the American presence in the war torn country, the president can effectively argue that his policy is focused on reducing the military's presence over the long term. It would be logical to assume that fewer troops would be needed to patrol the Iraq's borders than are currently needed to patrol the streets of Baghdad. Additionally, by increasing the US presence in the northern regions of the country the unspoken message sent to Tehran will be unmistakable. I am not a fan of the so-called McCain Doctrine, or the troop surge which the White House has been floating in the media recently as the centerpiece of their strategy adjustment. Having recently deployed another aircraft carrier to the Gulf, the White House has shown it is serious about putting Iran on notice that it won't put up with its defiant posturing for very much longer.

I don't think that I have all of the answers, but at least I am attempting to come up with an innovative solution to the problems facing our forces in Iraq. I hope the ideas put forth in this article will spur similar thought and critical analysis from those of you who are as interested as I in finding a realistic policy option that will help us win the war against terrorism.

View Comments on this article at BlogCritics.org