Sunday, January 28, 2007

Proof, Wingnuts are stupid.

Back on December 22, 2006 I wrote:

Dubya, after hearing Commander Milquetoast, Harry Reid, say that a "suge" of 20,000 to 30,000 more American soldiers into Baghdad might be a good thing, has coyly been tossing around the idea of, somehow, increasing the size of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. But how to do that without either recourse to a draft or increasing pay and sign-up bonuses?

I have the solution: illegal immigrants.

Now look, according to the likes of Congressman Steve King, there is something like 11 to 12 million of these illegal critters running around the country. And even he acknowledges that our country is dependent on this hoard of undocumented, and unwashed, to kill our beeves, roof our houses and wipe our butts when we go to the nursing home. They, for the most part, would like to remain here as "legal" immigrants, but the system now in place for legal immigration is so labyrinthine and Byzantine as to make it all but impossible.

So here's what we do. Have the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, gang round up every illegal, undocumented immigrant, alien, work they possibly can; tell'em they can be "legal" if they serve a minimum of five years in the Army or Marines; and ship their asses to Iraq! Hell, they can take their families too!

Simple, no?

This is so evil, I don't know why Ollie North never thought of it.

So this morning I received this e-mail, twice!
Bush wants us to cut the amount of gas we use. The best way to
stop using so much gas is to deport 11 million illegal immigrants! That
would be 11 million less people using our gas. The price of gas
would come down. Bring our troops home from Iraq to guard the border.
When they catch an illegal immigrant crossing the border, hand him a
canteen, rifle and some ammo and ship him to Iraq. Tell him if he wants to
come to America then he must serve a tour in the military. Give him a
soldier's pay while he's there and tax him on it. After his tour,
he will be allowed to become a citizen since he defended this country.
He will also be registered to be taxed and be a legal patriot. This
option will probably deter illegal immigration and provide a solution for
the troops in Iraq and the aliens trying to make a better life for
themselves. If they refuse to serve, ship them to Iraq anyway,
without the canteen, rifle or ammo. Problem solved. If you think this is a
good solution to both the problems, forward it to your friends.
I just did.
What I orignally wrote was satire. Soon after that I posted something very similar at The Huffington Post. Shortly after that I read an article written by Jorge Mariscal posted on January 5, 2007 at claiming that the Pentagon already has a program to accomplish this called the DREAM Act.

It's a stupid idea for many reasons, not the least of which is that it would do nothing to stem, slow or stop illegal immigration. But from the tenor of the e-mail I received the Pentagon is selling DREAM and the wingnuts are eating it up.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Bush wins, Iraq occupation goes on, get over it.

Actually it's very simple, really. Despite Democratic wins at the ballot box back in November, and the recommendations of the so-called Iraq Study Group, chaired by Bush Family consigliari James Baker, III, President George W. Bush will do exactly whatever he wants in Iraq.

Look, Bush is probably the most ignorant, ill-informed...aww hell, he's just plain stupid...president in the country's history. But some one has been coaching Dubya on Constitutional history; undeclared wars have long been a feature of American government and a prerogative of presidents*. Add to this toxic brew of Constitutional precedent and magalomania, within the form of "our" president, the modern mainstream media, a pack of fat, pampered lapdogs, plus "bi"-partisan Democrats (Joe Lieberman) and you have the receipt for more of the same in Iraq.

Here's what I mean. In the New York Times ,"...Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania...said he expected Congress to move to restrict funding for new troop deployments — or at the very least tie approval to a set of stringent conditions the White House would have to meet first.

But a couple of paragraphs down Democratic chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, says, "...he did not believe Congress should 'use the power of the purse' to halt the president’s plan and should go no further than approving non-binding resolutions opposing it."

Got that. A U.S. Representative, the power of the federal purse resides in the U.S. House, predicts, not a cut-off but a reduction in funding for new troop deployments. What that really means is that funding for American forces in Iraq at present levels will continue, just nothing for throwing additional fresh bodies into the mix. Meanwhile across the Capitol Hall, a supposedly staunch Senatorial critic of the president says Congress should do nothing more than wag its finger at Bush.

This same article then goes on with a prescient observation by pretty-boy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, after disclosing there already exsists a sufficient funds to carryout the presidnet's wishes of an Iraq troop increase,“I think once they get in harm’s way, Congress’s tradition is to support those troops[.]” And so they shall.

And so shall this bloody, pointless conflict will spiral down to its inevitable conclusion, whatever that may be. My best quess is that it will end in some sort of defeat of American forces concentrated in Baghdad, along the lines of Stalingrad or the Tet offensive of 1968 or the the Black Hawk Down incident of 1993. By that I mean claustrophbic, urban warfare, brutal and bloody.

But defeat in the streets of Baghdad would never prevent the United States from wandering into future ill-favored military advesntures. Our history is replete with military debacles, disasters and defeats that are transformed, through the magic of time, prejudice and propaganda, into heroic feats of arms in the face of a superior foe, usually foreign or non-White.

The best possible course to conclude the Iraq adventure would be a general mutiny by the soldiers stationed in Baghdad; a general refusal to leave their bases or pick up their weapons. I believe the majority of the American people would support a mutiny at this time since the president and political leaders of both parties have failed to admit a monumental mistake. And if Marines stationed in Iraq's Anbar province were sent in to resort order, I do not think the American public would stand for the sight of American Marines turning their weapons on American soldiers. Nor do I think the American people would support mass drumhead courts martial of mutineers.

I hold out little hope of a mutiny. Historically mutinies by disaffected troops have toppled more corrupt governments than elections, coups d'etat or revolutions combined. I don't think our troops in Iraq have the stomach for mutiny though, they don't have the guts. They'll go on griping and bitching and doing their duty of killing some people while oppressing the rest, and dying. And this thing, Iraq, will not end in a bang but a whimper and our leaders will have learned nothing.

*America's first undeclared war was the so-called Quasi-War against France during John Adams' administration. The United States Senate never officially declared war against the Confederacy.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Wow, I haven't posted since the second

But, then again, there's a pall that's dropped over time and history. We are collectively waiting for the other shoe to drop. We are collectively waiting for Dubya to roll the dice. We are collectively waiting for the cards to be turned in. We are collectively waiting for the armies to be massed.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

LTE: January 2, 2007

For as long as I have lived in Des Moines and Iowa, which is all my life, a host of boosters, both elected and never-elected, have tried to "snazz up," "jazz up," and "polish up" the state's image.

Many attempt to make Iowa, and Des Moines specifically, some sort of tourist/entertainment destination. But most have come to a sorry end because they were either not original (the "they do it in California" syndrome) , under funded, under attended or just plain harebrained.

Under the harebrained rubric comes the "caucus TV spectacular" idea promoted by Greater Des Moines Convention and Visitors Bureau president Greg Edwards and Blank Park Zoo director Terry Rich, "TV special can jazz up caucuses, backers say," January 2, 2007.

Citizens of the United States are cynical enough about the political process without the likes of a Britney Spears shaking her booty for ballots or a Lee Greenwood patriotic salute to corn and the Iowa caucuses.

The Iowa caucuses were intended as the first serious look at both parties presidential candidates, with the emphasis on serious. Let's not turn them into another tawdry television special.