More Troops?

Here is a great article that I found online about the "possibility" of more troops being deployed into Iraq....after the election. Wow...big surprise this will happen AFTER the election. See what you think.

More Troops To Iraq...After the Election
By Ray McGovern
Wednesday 29 September 2004

It's not an "if." It's a "when." Pentagon officials have indicated that they plan to send as many as 15,000 additional troops during the first four months of 2005, and the President George W. Bush continues to insist "we will stay the course" until Iraq is stabilized. (I do wish his advisers would provide a different vocabulary so that those of us steeped in the mistakes regarding Vietnam could be spared painful flashbacks.)

Where will the additional troops come from? The Bush administration insists there will be no draft, but its credibility has been badly tarnished. The "backdoor draft" that has kept so many from the Reserve and National Guard on active duty has backfired, as quotas for new enlistments have not been met. So plans are already advanced for fully mobilizing the Reserve and National Guard.

Senator John Kerry states the obvious in calling such steps "temporary measures" that have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the basic reality that the active duty Army is too small. He proposes adding 40,000 troops to the Army and offsetting the cost by reducing expenditures on highly expensive projects like National Missile Defense. (Kerry might have added that the WMD boondoggle, for which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and defense contractors have pushed so hard and so long, is now actually being deployed without having been adequately tested-not to mention its dubious utility in the priority struggle against terrorism.)

Let's Be Honest...Finally

But how many troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq? The well respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, before which the president spoke last November, says 500,000. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress publicly before the war that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed. It turns out he was asking for 400,000, fully aware that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was planning to attack and occupy Iraq with just a fraction of that. Rumsfeld gave him the back of his hand.

At this point, to be unaware of the requirement for additional troops while watching the burgeoning chaos in Iraq, requires a PhD in denial and a child-like, faith-based trust in the administration's PR rhetoric. Indeed, cracks can be seen within the president's own camp regarding what is happening in Iraq and what to do about it. And some truth is now peeking through those cracks.

While the president promotes the bromide of "months of steady progress" in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) calls this a "grand illusion." And on Sunday, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave tacit, but unambiguous support to the gloomy conclusions reached in the recent National Intelligence Estimate.

President Bush says he will provide more troops if commanders ask for them. But it would mean early retirement for any general making such a request before the election. And, sadly, as was the case in Vietnam, the top military brass appear to be giving priority to their careers over their duty to support and protect the troops they send into battle.

Who's the Enemy?

We also need honesty about whom we're fighting in Iraq. Disingenuousness persists about the resistance to U.S. occupation. The president assured us last week that there are only "a handful of people who are willing to kill" in order to thwart U.S. aims. And those interested in learning more about these people are malnourished by "intelligence." Instead, they are forced to resort to Iraqi newspaper listings of the various groups who have claimed credit for hitting the invader.

The reality in Iraq was far better captured by retired Army Special Forces Col. W. Patrick Lang, former Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. In an informal email, Col. Lang wrote:

"The sad thing is that US combat intelligence in Iraq does not seem to know who the insurgents are, where they are, how many they are, or what they plan to do. This in spite of all the happy campaign talk about how well things are going."

Another retired Army colonel, a well respected military strategist and educator, Sam Gardiner, writing recently for salon.com, reacted bitterly to reports-now confirmed by Secretary Powell-that military operations into the "no-go" areas in Iraq have been postponed until after the election.

"There is certainly no commander in the field saying, 'Let's give the bad guys another 60 days to operate freely inside their sanctuaries before we attack.' Such a decision would be particularly bizarre when attacks against coalition forces are more frequent than ever, attacks on oil pipelines are on the rise, and the U.S. is suffering increased casualties."

Needed: Patriotic Leaks

Daniel Ellsberg makes a poignant appeal to conscience in an op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times, noting with great regret that he wished he had made unauthorized disclosures 40 years ago as he worked on plans to expand the war in Vietnam even as President Lyndon Johnson campaigned for president on a platform of "no wider war."

Ellsberg neglects to mention a key juncture four years later when he, with the help of another patriotic leaker, was able to prevent a disastrous widening of the war that threatened to bring in China as an active combatant.

In the election year of 1968, Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam was proving a master at playing the political game. He put an artificial limit on the count of armed Vietnamese Communists. As a result, U.S. Army Intelligence carried on its books less than half the actual number of 500,000. The countrywide Tet offensive in early 1968 gave the lie to Westmoreland's fictitious figures-at great cost to our troops.

Still, Westmoreland and President Lyndon Johnson dissembled, as the general secretly asked for 206,000 more troops to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos, and up to the Chinese border-perhaps even beyond. They then ran into the troubled conscience of Ellsberg, who leaked the 500,000 figure to the New York Times after another patriot had leaked the 206,000 request.

On March 25, 1968, Johnson complained to a small gathering:
"The leaks to the New York Times hurt us...We have no support for the war...I would have given Westy the 206,000 men."

The moral of the story? Leaking can be patriotic; can prevent a wider, longer war.

The Next Four Years

Some say that perhaps the administration's plan, if it gets four more years, is to "clean out" Fallujah and other resistance strongholds, despite the heavy casualties that would result, and then turn the fight over to Iraqi forces and withdraw.

Not a chance. If, as I believe to be the case, the actual objectives of the war on Iraq have mostly to do with achieving military dominance over that oil-rich region and eliminating any conceivable threat to the security of Israel, four more years will mean a still larger U.S. military force there for the duration. Among other things, to leave sooner would leave Israel less safe than it was before the war, something the president's advisers are very loath to do.

President Bush insists, "You can understand how hard it is, and still believe we'll succeed." No you can't-not if you really understand how hard it is and are honest about what would be required.

No matter how much the president may try to disparage as "just guessing" the more accurate intelligence estimates he is now getting, this time the experts have got it right. Even Colin Powell acknowledged on Sunday "we have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world" since the war began, and the insurgency in Iraq is "getting worse."

It is high time the administration explained how it is going to "win" this war with a troop force widely recognized as inadequate to the task.

----------

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and has authored "A Compromised CIA: What Can Be Done," a chapter in Patriotism, Democracy and Common Sense published this month by the Milton Eisenhower Foundation.

Uh Oh...Not Again

I saw this posted over at MSNBC in the Hardblogger section of the site. All I could think of was "Here we go again?!?". Hope you find it interesting.


November in the Buckeye state? (David Shuster)

Four years ago, on the morning after the 2000 presidential election, I received a 4am phone call from the assignment desk at my previous employer instructing me to get on the next flight to Tallahassee, Florida. The sunshine state was headed towards a "recount." I would spent the next several weeks covering Fla. Secretary of State Katherine Harris, asking questions of James Baker and Warren Christopher, reporting on court decisions, and explaining ad nauseum, the intricacies of punch card ballot counting machines and why there were different types of "chads."

As an american, the entire episode left me deeply embarassed. We are the greatest nation on earth, a true beacon of democracy. And yet, for more than a month, our election "irregularities" (to put it politely) prevented us from determining who won. The US election system had become a world wide laughingstock. And even the US Supreme Court, as it settled the matter wrote, "it is likely that legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting."

Hmmm. Well, I suppose it was "likely" that Florida would re-examine things. And in fact Florida outlawed the punch card ballot system and replaced it. Congress felt the need to do something as well. So, in 2002 lawmakers passed the "Help America Vote Act," which was supposed to prompt state legislatures to update their voting systems and get away from "chads." But, the Act also allowed states to keep using punch cards. And guess what? For this coming presidential election, 19 states will use punch cards. Ohio will use punch cards in 70 percent of the state.

Ohio scares me. If you look at the latest polls, buckeye land is a "toss-up state." That means the Ohio is "too close" for pollsters to predict. Furthermore, if the electoral college vote is close again... neither candidate will likely be able to cross the 270 vote threshold without Ohio's 20 electoral votes. Under Ohio laws, a recount is mandatory if the statewide vote is within one quarter of one percent. So, let's say President Bush receives 48.5% of the Ohio vote... and John Kerry gets 48.3%. Hello recount!!! And by the way, it's not just a recount in some counties... it would be a recount across the entire state... State officials have said privately that such a recount in Ohio would be a "total trainwreck" and would make Florida 2000 look like a walk in the park.

None of this will matter of course, unless both Ohio and the nationwide election are close. But, watch out...

Dumbest Election Ever

I found this on a website I frequent. It was posted on September 10th, but the information contained in it is still pretty good. Let me know what you think.

Dumbest. Election. Ever.

"I hate television. I hate it as much as peanuts. But I can't stop eating peanuts." - Orson Welles

The clearest indication that the country is coming out from under the massive psychological concussion of September 11 is the fact that we are all enduring the stupidest Presidential election season in recent memory. If we were all still walking around in the cat-like state of readiness we operated under for at least a year after the attacks, we wouldn't put up with this garbage.

Swift Boats? 527s? Who served or didn't serve, and how and why and when and where? They're talking about a war that ended 29 years ago. Bush v. Dukakis was close - a mythically stupid race, to be sure - but this current crapgasm is pinning the needle on the Dumb-O-Meter. It is no small thing that the guys who ran Bush's race against the Duke are the same guys running Bush's race against Kerry today. In '88, the thing turned on flag-burning, Dukakis in a tank and the racist meta-message of Willie Horton.

This entire election, thus far, has been about television. All the issues widely discussed stem from television advertisements. For the television news media, this is like free money falling from the sky. They cover to the hilt any story stemming from a television advertisement - which they can show, and then talk about, and then show, and then talk about, lather, rinse, repeat - and so the campaigns make this garbage the focus of their whole act. It's like a Mobius Loop for really dumb computers.

The entire Presidential debate thus far, performed in 30 seconds:

The Swifties! Denounce the ad! I denounce all ads! But denounce that ad! I denounce all ads! He didn't denounce the ad! I like eggs! 527s! Response ads! The ad said you lied in Vietnam! How dare that ad say such things! You must react more strongly to the ads! He's not responding strongly to the ads! Shakeup because of the response to the ads! Guard duty scandal revived to respond to the Vietnam angle in the ads! The documents are forged! No they aren't! Yes they are! Vote Bush or die! We need another ad!

Not to make this too personal, but I blame the Boomers. The fact that the Baby Boomer generation is the most important demographic in the country right now - both economically and politically - is really the only way to explain this. Think about it. The first generation raised by television is slogging, along with the rest of us, through a campaign where the only issues discussed have to do with television advertisements. Let's not forget, as well, the fact that the two main candidates spring from that particular demographic, as well.

I'm kidding. I think.

Marvin Minsky once said, "Imagine what it would be like if TV actually were good. It would be the end of everything we know." Let's spool that thought out a bit. If TV was good, three of the major news networks (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC) wouldn't be owned by a defense contractor that profits from war. If TV was good, another major news network (CNN) wouldn't be wedded to the outsourcing of technological workers to cheap-labor nations because its parent company lives and dies by paying pennies on the dollar for geeks. If TV was good, another major news network (Fox) would require its anchors to say, "We are an auxiliary wing of the Republican Party, deal with it" every fifteen minutes.

In other words, if TV was good, that would mean TV news would actually be informative, and not a commercial platform for the handful of corporations that own and distribute all the information we the people need to intelligently run the show. If such a thing were to exist, it would indeed be the end of everything we know. It would be the end of non-issues. It would certainly be the end of this amazingly stupid election.

Issues we are not hearing about because we have spent so much time talking about television advertisements:

-Millions of jobs lost in the last four years;
-Unbearably expensive health care;
-A total loss of confidence within the international community in our moral leadership;
-The underfunded farce that is the Department of Homeland Security;
-The underfunded farce that is the No Child Left Behind bill;
-The fact that military assault weapons will soon be making a perfectly legal return to a neighborhood near you;
-The deeply illegal outing of a deep-cover CIA agent by Bush administration officials, who did it because they wanted to silence a critic;
-The rape and torture of men, women and children in the Abu Ghraib prison, horrors that were sanctioned in writing by Bush's own lawyer and the Secretary of Defense;
-The allegation by Senator Bob Graham of Florida that Bush torpedoed any aspect of the 9/11 investigation that came within spitting distance of his friends in the Saudi royal family;
-The allegations by several generals that Bush's people started stripping necessary troops and resources from Afghanistan to bolster their ill-conceived charge into Iraq;
-The myriad accusations by a dozen insiders that Bush and his people ignored the terror threat until the Towers fell, and then used the attacks to scare the American people into an unnecessary war in Iraq and a mammoth payday for their friends in the weapons and oil business;
-The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq;
-The fact that no connections between Hussein, bin Laden and 9/11 have been established beyond the bloviating hyperbole of a few senior Bush officials who haven't yet gotten the memo;
-Does anyone even remember Enron?

Tomorrow is the third anniversary of September 11th. We deserve better than this.

Yesterday, we ran a feature article that carried a photograph of every soldier who has died in Iraq. The article read, "The men and women whose faces fill the page below were not told this. They were, in fact, told the exact opposite. They raised their hands and took the oath, they donned their uniform and picked up their weapon, they boarded a plane and flew far from home, and they died. They were doing their duty, and they believed their President."

Look into the eyes of those 1,000 lost faces and tell me they don't deserve better than this stupid election and its stupid public debate.

New Focus

Howdy again y'all. Yes, I just used the words "howdy" and "y'all". Bite me. Anyway, I am back and hopefully if all goes well, I will make a post every night from now on. My goal is to look around online and in the real world for those things that you may miss. Stories and information that I think you should see and read. You might agree with it; you might not. Post you feelings about the things I post. Lets get some feedback.

Anyway, here is the first one. Post any thoughts you have about this topic:

Mr. Bush and His 10 Ever-Changing Different Positions on Iraq: A flip and a flop and now just a flop.

I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you!

Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your current thinking:

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because 'The Donald R.' went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddam's right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:
"I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously." - October 3, 2000

2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:
Powell: "We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." --February 24, 2001
Rice: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." --July 29, 2001

2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.

2003: WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!

2003: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!

2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.

Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.

And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president.

That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.

We can't take another minute of it.

Heheeh

After a little more reseacrh, (just call me CBS), the last post is actually an online Urban Legend. Found it over at Snopes.com. Oops...thats what I get for trying to rush a post to get something up online.

Anyway, I heard last night that the company that is responsible for Twinkies is filing bankruptcy. Wow. Think about that for a moment...Twinkie company....bankruptcy? What kind of sicko world do we live in today that this kind of horrible situation is allowed to happen?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6070188/

Another link for ya

http://bash.org/GODvsBUSH.gif

I have been saying the exact thing that this link shows for a while. People thought I was loopy, but here's the proof. See what you think. Remember, nothing has been doctored to illustrate the point.

Cool Link

Hey all. Been a few days, but I thought I would stop by and drop this link on you. Seems like a good idea to me...but then again, what do I know?

http://www.votergasm.org/

War on Terror?

I read this online a little while ago, and I thought I would post it in case anyone else missed it. I hope you will find it as interesting as I did.

Report Shows Bush Neglecting Hunt for al Qaeda

In the months after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised America he would make the hunt for al Qaeda the number one objective of his administration. "[We] do everything we can to chase [al Qaeda] down and bring them to justice," Bush said. "That's a key priority, obviously, for me and my administration."1 But according to a new report, the President has dangerously underfunded and understaffed the intelligence unit charged with tracking down al Qaeda's leader.

The New York Times reports "Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden than it did at the time of the attacks." The bin Laden unit is "stretched so thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to 90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any meaningful work."2

The revelation comes months after the Associated Press reported the Bush Treasury Department "has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's" financial infrastructure.3 It also comes after USA Today reported that the President shifted "resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq" in 2002. Specifically, Bush moved special forces tracking al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Iraq war preparations. He also left the CIA "stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan."4 That has allowed these terrorists to regroup: according to the senior intelligence officials in July of this year, bin Laden and other top al Qaeda leaders are now directing a plot "to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States" and are overseeing the plan "from their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."5

Sources:

1. "President Calls for Ticket to Independence in Welfare Reform," WhiteHouse.gov, 5/10/02.
2. "C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells Lawmakers," New York Times, 9/15/04.
3. "More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden," Common Dreams News Center, 4/29/04.
4. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA Today, 3/28/04.
5. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.," CNN.com, 7/08/04.

Some lighter stuff

I don't want people to think that I only post political or opinionated things in the ol blog. The post about the war in Iraq was pretty involved, and hope people take a minute to check it out. However, I thought that for my post tonight, I would go a little lighter. These are a few things that I came across that made me smile, and I hope you will too. Hope you like.

-----

People in northern India are paid an extra 65 cents a month for wearing mustaches, which officials believe projects an air of greater authority. Plus, they get the added bonus of looking like Magnum P.I.

-----

The percentage, by state, of people 65 and older who have lost all their natural teeth (bottom five):

46. Louisiana-33.8%; 47. Mississippi-35.1%; 48. Tennessee-36.0%; 49. West Virginia-41.9%; 50. Kentucky-42.3%

Make your own joke....

-----

To celebrate the 100th birthday of Harley-Davidson, a sculptor carved 300 pounds of butter into a full-scale replica of a Harley V-Rod. Talk about a greased hog...

-----

The French eat 500 million snails a year. Ugh...

-----

53% of Americans think there's more truth in Eminem's lyrics than in George W. Bush's speeches.

-----

And to wrap up, the farthest a frozen cricket has been spit by a human: 37 feet, 9.75 inches

The Opportunity Costs of the Iraq War

I'm back. It's been a few days since I posted something on the ol blog, but here I am. I have been surfing around online, looking for some good stuff to post, and I came across this article. On the third anniversary of the attacks on America, I thought that some of the things contained in this article were timely and raised a few good points. I found it an interesting read, and I hope you will too.

The Iraq war continues to be a drain on the American taxpayers' pocketbooks. So far, the war has cost the United States $144.4 billion, including $25 billion in the administration's FY05 defense budget signed into law earlier this month. An additional $60 billion is expected in a supplemental request after the November elections. According to the Defense Department, the cost of containing Saddam Hussein over 12 years was only $30 billion.

While no one disputes the evil and oppressive nature of Saddam Hussein's regime, as the 9/11 Commission made clear in its final report, Iraq was not involved in the planning or execution of the September 11 attacks and did not have a "collaborative operational relationship," according to its final report. The September 11 attacks necessitated an increase in homeland security funding – the administration's request for the coming fiscal year is $47.5 billion. However, many homeland security priorities are presently under-funded or unfunded – port security, airline cargo screening and community policing programs.

More could be done to better secure or eliminate nuclear weapons, material and technology to prevent terrorists from developing and exploding nuclear or dirty bombs. While progress is being made in Afghanistan, increased aid faster will give democracy its best chance of taking hold and help eliminate the flourishing drug trade in Afghanistan that funds global terrorist activities. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken their toll on our troops. A larger Army and more special operations forces would take some of the current strain off the National Guard and reserves and improve the military's ability to eliminate actual terrorist safe havens in the future. These are just a few proposals that would have represented a better investment in America's security than the $144.4 billion Iraq "war of choice."

The question lingers: Could the $144.4 billion spent on Iraq been better used to protect the American people from terrorist threats? Here are some alternatives:

--$7.5 billion to safeguard our ports. The Coast Guard estimates that $7.5 billion is needed over 10 years to implement the requirements of the 2002 Maritime Transportation Security Act, which aims to protect America's ports and waterways from a terrorist attack. Since 9/11, the federal government has allocated less than $500 million to counter this threat.

--$4 billion to expedite upgrading the Coast Guard fleet. This investment over the next five years would cut in half the 20-year timetable for replacing and upgrading the Coast Guard's fleet of cutters, patrol aircraft, and communications equipment.

--$2 billion to improve cargo security. This would help cover costs associated with the Cargo Security Initiative, which deploys customs inspectors to ports around the world to screen cargo before it goes to the United States.

--$10 billion to protect all U.S. commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles. These systems, based on existing military technology, would help reduce the danger from the estimated 100,000 shoulder-fired missiles circulating in the world's black markets.

--$5 billion to purchase state-of-the-art baggage screening machines. This would fulfill the Congressional mandate to install in all commercial airports new systems that integrate baggage screening and baggage handling. Only eight of the nation's 440 airports have the new machines, and the administration has requested only $250 million for equipment this year.

--$240 million to equip the airports with walk-through explosive detectors. According to the 9/11 commission, it's still too easy for passengers with hidden explosives to make it through airport security.

--$7 billion to put 100,000 police officers the nation's streets. $7 billion would fully fund for five years the 1996 Community Oriented Policing Services program, which was designed to put 100,000 new community police officers on America's streets. The administration has cut the funding for the program to $97 million in the proposed FY05 budget.

--$2.5 billion to increase funding for fire departments. This would double the size of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for each of the next five years. President Bush requested only $500 million for FY05, a drop from $750 million in FY04. Money from the program goes for trucks, protective clothing, hoses, and other equipment.

--$350 million for integrating emergency radio systems nationwide. Equipment to patch together existing police, fire, and other public safety radio systems throughout the country would cost $350 million.

--$3 billion to secure major roads and rails. $3 billion would secure all the major roads and railways in the nation's largest metropolitan areas. Improving surveillance, training railway workers, and developing new explosive detection equipment would increase passenger safety. The administration has focused its funding on aviation security, but has provided less than $200 million in last year's budget.

--$30.5 billion to secure from theft the world's nuclear weapons-grade material. Securing the world's fissile material would enormously reduce the chance that lethal weapons-grade material could be made into nuclear and radiological weapons. A 10-year $30 billion program would ensure material security and weapon dismantlement in the former Soviet Union. Another $500 million would fund a "global cleanout program," aimed at removing dangerous nuclear materials from the most vulnerable nuclear sites worldwide.

--$2.25 billion to expedite the work of the Nunn-Lugar Threat Reduction program. Doubling this program's budget each year for the next five years would accelerate Nunn-Lugar, which has helped deactivate over 6,000 nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union and the United States. The FY04 Defense budget provided only $450 million for the program.

--$24 billion to add two divisions to the Army. With commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army is increasingly stretched thin. Two additional divisions could be added to the Army over the next five years at a cost of $4.8 billion a year. A larger army would help take the pressure off America's overtapped National Guardsmen and Reservists.

--$15.5 billion to double the number of active-duty troops in the Special Operations Forces. The United States has roughly 25,000 Special Operations Forces. These elite military fighting units played a critical role in Afghanistan and continue to be highly effective in tracking down terrorists. Doubling the 25,000 troops in the Special Operations Forces would cost $7 billion and an additional $8.5 billion would help maintain the new forces over the next five years.

--$8.6 billion to rebuild Afghanistan. The government of Afghanistan has said it needs $27.6 billion for reconstruction activities over the next seven years such as rebuilding infrastructure, education, health, and disarmament programs. The country has received to date only $2.9 billion of the $19 billion pledged by the international community. $8.6 billion over the next seven years would make up this shortfall and help Afghanistan from reverting to a haven for terrorists.

--$11 billion to buy Afghanistan's opium crop. Afghanistan's illicit opium drug trade brings in a profit of $2.3 billion each year, much of which goes to fund terrorist activities. A five-year program to buy Afghanistan's opium crop would provide initial and continuing funding for farmers to permanently shift from growing opium to cultivating other crops or starting microenterprises.

--$10 billion to increase U.S. development assistance to the neediest countries. The current foreign assistance budget is $19.27 billion, including foreign military funding and the State Department's operating budget. $13.8 billion goes to countries other than Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. Increasing the non-military development assistance budget by $10 billion over the next five years to countries other than Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, would help improve economic opportunities, health care, and education worldwide.

--$775 million to dramatically increase public diplomacy. $775 million would quadruple America's public diplomacy efforts in the Arab and Muslim world, as well as triple funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, each year for the next five years. The United States could use this funding to build bridges in Arab and Muslim communities and nations.

That equals up to about 144 billion, over the course of a few years. Thoughts anyone?

Nothing to say

Not a whole lot going on today. Sleep, eat, work, relax...same ol same ol as they say.

The Unfit for Command demand has calmed down a bit at the store. First, we couldn't get the book in the store; now we cant sell it. Demand has dropped sharply in the past week. Maybe since it isn't featured in every other news story on TV, people have stopped worrying about it. I dunno.

I read a great book today while I was on lunch. Birth of a Nation: A Comic Novel by Aaron McGruder and Reginald Hudlin and illustrated by Kyle Baker is a humor filled hardback graphic novel that details a section of St. Louis that secedes from the US and forms its own nation. It is a great quick read and I highly recommend it to all. If you are a fan of the Boondocks comic strip, you will love this book.

President Clinton seems to have made it through his heart surgery ok. Great news there. Its kinda funny that the former president gets to experience the health care system in the US first hand and maybe see some of what the rest of the country gets to see everyday. Then again, he is a former president, so I imagine his experience isn't quite the same. I once slept on the cold floor in my dad's room cause we couldn't afford a long hotel stay. I highly doubt Hillary is doing that.

Why is it that no matter where you are in a house, if there is a fly in that house, it will find you and annoy the living hell out of you?

Just a quickie

Im just going to post something I read at another website today that I found interesting. Maybe you will too:

Consistent with the Republican theme this week (not to mention, the past four years) of shaping facts to conform to fantasy, it now appears that the core of Arnold Schwarznegger's endearing personal account of his political awakening was fabricated.

Arnold told the rapt delegates that, as a boy, "I saw Soviet tanks in the streets" and "experienced communism with my own eyes." That's very impressive, but Arnold was born in 1947 and, as historians point out, the Soviets left that region of Austria in 1945. (In fact, if Arnold saw foreigners, they were more likely to be English, since he was living in the British zone.) Furthermore, that "socialist state" that Arnold claims to have grown up in is also a ruse. From 1945 to 1970, the country was run by either a conservative government, or a coalition of conservatives and Social Democrats.

Damn it...I knew something didnt sound right about that when I heard it. D'oh!!!

Hurricane Frances

Hey, another hurricane is hitting Florida, this time from the east side. Looks like it is going to do some major damage and a lot of people will be affected. My wife has some family down in the area, and I know a few people there as well. Hopefully, all will be ok down there, and nothing serious will happen. I keep thinking that this is mother natures way of getting back at Florida for the 2000 election. I'm kidding of course...

A major dust-up today at one of my favorite online hangouts, ENWorld. Seems the owner of the site got fedup with the way some people were treating him and the site, and he ranted/vented on the front page. Man was it a good rant too. I'm just hoping, like a lot of people are, that things calm down after some time has passed and things aren't affected too much.

I read in a book today at the store that there are several reports that state that the worlds oil reserves will be almost if not completely depleted by the year 2040. I also read that out of the entire worlds military funding (close to 800 billion), the US accounts for half of the number (almost 400 billion). That got me thinking. If we took part of the amount we spend on our military budget, even 1%, and spent it on research and development of alternative fuel sources, wouldn't that seem like a pretty good investment? If we could cut through our dependence on foreign oil, and became more self-sufficient, wouldn't that help our country in the long term?

I also read in the same book that the companies that develop weapons and other military type things for the government are allowed and encouraged to sell these products to other countries and groups, almost as soon as they produce them. In effect, as the book states, "the US is in an arms race with itself." The better the weapon we develop and sell to other countries, the better the weapon we need to develop to beat it. Doesn't that seem a little counter productive?

People like Negativity

The first poll is out after the convention and our President has leaped up by about 10-12 points. A lot of time from the convention was geared toward attacking Kerry, sometimes very forcefully so. Bush was hardly mentioned at the Democratic convention. Does this signal that everyone was wrong and that people dont want "warm and fuzzy"? Do people actually want "down and dirty"? Sure seems so.

President Clinton was admitted to the hospital today with chest pains, and we now find out he will undergo bypass surgery early next week. Whether you liked him or not, he is in that select group of people we call "former" presidents, and anything adverse that happens to that group is a major deal. I can speak with a little knowledge on this subject due to the fact my dad has gone through two bypasses. No matter what the experts say, it is a big deal. There is always that small chance that something could go wrong. Speedy recovery Mr. President.

I had a customer today praise my employer for "standing up to the Democrats and their efforts to stop the Unfit for Command book from beingh sold." Huh? First, we are hiding the book and its a huge conspriracy to help Kerry get elected. Now, we are the only ones selling the book and we get praise for doing so. All of this, and we havent done anything different. I really wish people would get on the same page, cause we are really getting fed up with EVERYTHING related to this book. Good grief....

Why is it that the more money you make, the less money you have?

Oops

WOW.

That's all I can say about the President's speech tonight. It is honestly the first time since he was elected that I can say he looked presidential. He didn't seem smug, arrogant, bumbling or anything of the like. He was clear speaking and seemed human. I have to give him high marks for it, as it truly was the speech of his political life and made be briefly think that I could vote for this man.

Then I remembered all the stuff that his administration has and hasnt done, and I snapped back to reality.

Now that the convention is over, we get into the heart of the campaign season. I think this is going to be one of the nastiest campaigns ever, but I hope I am wrong. There are real issues affecting real people in this country that need to be discussed. I hope they will be.

I titled this post Oops for a reason. I made a big oops today. It seems that I was supposed to work the opening shift at my store today. The only problem is I thought I closed, so I wasn't there. I was in bed...asleep. That is till my wife called me because my employee Pam had called her to see where I was. Lets just say, I got to the store as quickly as possible after the phone call, which is a quite a chore since I live about 20 minutes away. Luckily, Pam was able to get up with one of the other managers who lives a lot closer and she came in and opened the store. We ended up opening about 20 minutes late, so we might get fined by the mall, but who knows. All I know is it wont happen again.

Especially since I am the one that does the schedule. You would think I would know what I work.

OOPS!!!

Unfit for Command update: We actually received 36 copies of the book today, 19 of which were special orders. So, of course as soon as we got them, I hid them in the back room where no one would see them, just like Rush and Sean said. I'm kidding of course. They went immediately to the floor, and after the 19 special orders were pulled out, the rest went on the New-Non-Fiction table, right in the front of the store and on the Bestseller wall.

Too bad Rush and Sean don't come in my store.

The more and more I see the "undecided swing voters" they keep trotting out in these polling focus groups, the more I bang my head against the wall. They come out with comments that just make me shake my head. Were these people watching the same speeches I was? Some of the comments they make simply make me go...Huh? If these are the people that will ultimately decide this election, like all the experts are telling us, we are in trouble. If they cant even make intelligent comments about a speech they just got finished watching, how are they going to make an intelligent decision when they step in the booth? Scary stuff....

I'm confused

I watched tonight's convention coverage and I'm confused. The night started off with a wonderful tribute to the favorite son of the Republican party, Ronald Reagan. Then listening to his son, Ron Reagan on MSNBC say that there wasn't a mean bone in his body firmed up the point that was made in the video tribute. He knew people didn't agree with some of the stuff he did or believed in, but he never resorted to personal attacks or anger or anything like that when referring to his opponents. He was an honest man that wanted to inspire the best in people and the best in America. It was a great message to put forth.

Then Zell Miller and Dick Cheney spoke.

And I was left wondering why they started the night with the Reagan tribute. It just didn't seem to fit the night. People say that Bush and the new Republican party has inherited the "Mantle of Reagan" with the way they govern. I don't see it. It is one thing to cut taxes or build a strong military. But if you want to accept the Mantle of Reagan, you also need to look at his personal attributes and strive for those as well.

I just didn't see that tonight in the speeches that were given. Maybe its just the political atmosphere we live in now. If it is, we have fallen a long way since Reagan, which is quite sad.

The kids made out well at school today. Both are excited and I love seeing that excitement on their faces.

A friend of mine was cleaning out his attic to make some room for something, and ended up giving me a huge box of old D&D stuff. Modules and books from 1st and 2nd edition plus maps and a huge stack of Dragon and Dungeon magazines. I am still reading through the stuff he gave me. Most of the stuff I own is from AD&D 2nd edition and 3rd edition, and I have a pretty big collection. But looking through the stuff he gave me gives me chills and spurs all kinds of new ideas for adventures. Its great to have friends like that.

Man, I cant believe its already September. Christmas is coming on fast. Look out!!!

I decided to sort through my D&D miniatures tonight and came to discover something. I have quite a few. More like a lot. Four big tackle boxes full, one for each set released so far. Wow!!

Question of the day: Why do people automatically believe the things they see on TV in ads or whatever, without even checking the facts first? Two of the best websites I have found is factcheck.org and spinsanity.org. If you havent surfed by those, check em out.

Well, back to work tomorrow. I wonder how many copies of Unfit for Command we have now.

Probably none.

A few hours to go

In a few hours, my kids will be setting off onto their first days of school for this year. One heading into 5th grade; the other 1st. Everyday, they get a little older and I get a little more proud of the people they are becoming. I also get a little more jealous and envious that they have a long journey still ahead of them. I guess I just hope they make better decisions in their lives than I have along the way. Then again, I will be here to make sure they do. Oh well, life goes on.

Man, listening to Ahhh-nold tonight at the convention, I started to think I was a Republican. Then I started to think. Wait a minute. Why cant I believe in the things he was saying, and be an Independent? Why if I believe in education or fighting terrorism or free enterprise or whatever else do I have to be a Republican? Ill be the first to admit, that speech was very powerful. But when you look at it closer, wasn't it just another "your either with us or against us" speech that we have heard before? I dunno...Ill just be happy when the conventions are over so we can get back to watching campaign advertising from both sides that stretch the facts more than a rubber band.

I feel kinda bad this evening. I usually play Dungeons and Dragons with a close group of friends every Tuesday night, but I didn't tonight. I developed a severe migraine about 3 o'clock today and it didn't pull back its grip on my head until about 9:30. Even then, it still hurt, but I was able to actually move and not feel immense pain. The only thing I can do when I get a migraine this bad is take some meds, lay in a completely dark cool room with pillows on my head to block out any noise and just hope for the best. I guess there is always next week, but I still feel bad about it.

The more and more I see Joe Scarborough and Ron Reagan, the more I like them. Keep up the good work on MSNBC.

Rusty Wallace announced that he will not be an active driver anymore after the 2005 season. Big loss for NASCAR. One of the reasons he cited was the affect of Earnhardts death in 2001 on him personally. It will be interesting to watch the 2005 season and Rusty's "Last Call" tour. Cant wait.

Things that are pissing me off lately: people in politics who cant just answer a damn question without sounding like they are reading a prepared statement; people questioning everything I am because I'm not a Republican; headaches; people who cant drive; bills

Things I can be happy about: my kids going to school again; meds for headaches; a really good flavorful chili; having a job

Question for the day: Anybody ever think that the people who make computer viruses are actually connected to Anti-Virus companies so they can sell more software?