Good news and bad from Iraq

From Congressman Adam Schiff:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the War in Iraq. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome your input.

In December, I traveled to Iraq with a Congressional delegation to assess the situation on the ground firsthand. It was my fourth trip to Iraq since 2003. These trips are always enlightening—it is deeply moving to meet and speak to the men and women serving in our armed forces. It's such an important reminder of the sacrifices they are making and courage they display every day. We had a lengthy meeting with General David Petraeus and other military commanders, as well as State Department personnel. The trip also gave me a chance to speak to the troops actually patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Anbar Province and elsewhere in Iraq to get their sense of the security situation and how it has evolved.

It was apparent to me in speaking to soldiers and commanders in Iraq that the security situation in the country has significantly improved over the past six months. The "Sunni Awakening," the turning of Sunni Sheiks against al Qaeda in Iraq, seems to be the primary cause of the decline in violence. Sunni leaders who had been deeply involved in supporting and sheltering the insurgents who were attacking U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have found common cause with our coalition against al Qaeda. The brutality and indiscriminate violence of al Qaeda in Iraq seems to have convinced many local leaders that assisting U.S. forces is their best option. The security situation has also improved because of a decision, however temporary, by Iran to curtail the supply of some of the more lethal improvised explosive devices (IEDs). And finally, the terrible ethnic cleansing of many Baghdad neighborhoods has resulted in a de facto separation of some of the warring Sunni and Shia tribes.

The increased number of U.S. troops have worked hard to consolidate the security gains, but unless political progress is made soon, none of these gains may be sustainable in the long term. I have maintained for the past three years that any lasting solution in Iraq will come from political progress, not military force alone. The hope was that the improvement in security would create breathing room for political change, allowing the sort of hard bargaining and compromise that is inherent to true democratic government. Tragically, however, there is precious little evidence that Iraqi leaders are willing to make those concessions, and little evidence of progress towards reconciliation.

Our military is doing its job, but we face an endless occupation unless the ethnic and sectarian groups that make up Iraq—the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds—agree to negotiate through the political process rather than through armed conflict. When I met with State Department officials privy to high level discussions within the Iraqi government, they had very little good news to report. A budget measure and minor reform of the de-Baathification process were all they could point to—almost all of the the political benchmarks set by the President and Congress are yet unfulfilled.

While my time in Iraq was eye-opening and inspirational, it did not fundamentally alter my understanding of the situation on the ground, or my support for an orderly drawdown of our combat forces. The indefinite presence of U.S. troops will not force Iraqi political leaders to make the compromises necessary for lasting peace and stability. We can and have created the conditions in which reconciliation can take place, but we cannot force the Iraqis to live peacefully as one nation. Moreover, if we commit to stay in Iraq for years to come, the Iraqi people will have little incentive to work out their differences on their own, knowing that U.S. troops will always be there to tamp down the violence and discourage mass reprisals. Serving as a permanent police presence in Iraq is not in our national security interest.

We had to cut our trip short to rush back to Washington, D.C. for a vote on a bill that would provide another $70 billion in unconditional funding for the War in Iraq. I support funding measures for Iraq which set out our plans to draw down our combat forces, but opposed this "blank check." The House approved the unrestricted funding on a vote of 272-142, and it was signed by the President. I will continue to fight to change our course in Iraq at every available juncture, including the appropriations process.

It is my most fervent hope for 2008 that we will see continued reductions in violence in Iraq , and that the political deadlock will be broken. It remains clear to me that we should be planning for our withdrawal, not making plans to stay for years to come. Please be assured that I will fight for change and accountability in the weeks and months to come. Finally, I encourage you to visit my website, schiff.house.gov, to read my account of the trip on my blog, and to view photos from Iraq. Thank you for your thoughts, I will keep them in mind as this debate continues in the House.

Of primaries and documentaries

My email to Versen (Hugo Zoom):

Thanks for commenting on my last blog post. You did bring up an interesting point about how much money could be made from political ads if the CA and NY primaries were first. Ya wonder why they're passing up the bonanza.

I have been thinking that the reason for the hype for the Iowa and NH primaries on CNN is to manufacture drama. They treat it like it's a big story, and it becomes a big story because they draw so much attention to it. This, of course, has the benefit of making their advertising minutes cost more, but the upside is that more people turn out to vote. The more hype and drama, the more voters. Isn't CNN a wonderful company? (Just like Wal-Mart.) Still, I couldn't believe CNN's coverage of NH. It looked as if it were the actual election. They seem to have an unlimited budget for graphics and display screens.

Did you read the second comment on my post? The commenter was named Kalliope. (I hope that's a user name and not her real name.) She said breathlessly "The results were uplifting for all the reasons that you believe Iowa isn't relevant." You and I could dismantle the logic of that statement fairly easily, but at least her candidate won and she's happy.

I've never seen Trembling Before G-d. It would be just too annoying to sit through. The plot outline on IMDb says "...how to reconcile their passionate love of Judaism and the Divine with the drastic Biblical prohibitions that forbids homosexuality." Passionate love of Judaism? How can they love a religion that forbids meat and dairy being on the table at the same time? That allows eating meat only from the front half of the cow? That forbids eating without handwashing so that on a plane, where handwashing is nigh impossible because the restroom is so frequently occupied, one is required to wear plastic gloves when eating? (You knew you'd get me cranked up by sending me that article.) But then again, it's a religion that tells its followers that they are superior to everyone else in the world. Who wouldn't love that?

However, I've recently read three novels set in Israel as research for the story I want to write. (The Genizah at the House of Shepher, Bethlehem Road Murder, and The Last Secret of the Temple) The novels present both the Israelis and Palestinians sympathetically and honestly. Both have been brutalized and both have committed atrocities. Reading the books has been a good experience.

I also watched the documentary To Die In Jerusalem on cable recently. A young Israeli woman has been killed by a young Palestinian woman in a suicide bombing. The Israeli mother wants just to talk to the Palestinian mother to find out how such a thing could happen. After four years of trying to meet in person, they finally meet via a satellite hookup. It's a moving film. It follows the Israeli mother primarily, and she's likeable and one feels for her and what she's experiencing. But what I kept thinking through the whole film was that the key to the whole bloody mess, and what the Israeli mother couldn't begin to grasp, was that the invasion in 1948 should never have happened and that the Israelis shouldn't be there. One of the novels I read mentioned that some Palestinian families still have the deeds to their houses (the houses they were forced out of and which are now occupied by Israelis) and they've framed the deeds and have them hanging on a wall in their living quarters in the camps. That image pretty much sums it all up for me. Yes it's a simplistic answer from someone who is not physically or emotionally involved in the conflict, but it all does eventually go back to a framed deed on a wall and what it represents.

It will be interesting to see how you dissect my logic.

What's new with you?

JG

Hey Iowa! We don't care what you think!

Why should you set the pace for national campaigns? Are your 3,000,000 residents representative of the whole rest of the country? That's a tough one, I know, so let me help you with the answer: NO.

Only 3,000,000 residents? Mostly white and still fairly bigoted? And you set the pace for the rest of us? Chicago alone, the third-largest city in the U.S., has a population equal to all of Iowa. The population of the U.S. is now 300,000,000. What percentage of the whole country do Iowans represent?

1%

So why did you move the date for the caucus up from 19 January in 2004 to 3 January in 2008, when around 20 states scheduled their primaries for 5 February? So you could retain your role as the pace car? Did you ask us if we wanted you to be the pace car? Why didn't it occur to you to join the other states on the new Super-Duper Tuesday in February? Because you like the limelight and don't want to give it up? You really make important decisions based on what's good for the country. You are to be commended.

What I expressed hope for in my 1 July 2005 post about the primary system was that all primaries would take place on a single day so that earlier small-state primaries would have no influence on later large-state primaries. Well at least the primary for my state, California, has been moved up from 2 March to 5 February. It's better than nothing, but it still allows Iowa and New Hampshire to have inappropriate influence on each candidate's momentum.

Maybe it's the media's fault. Maybe the media should just ignore the Iowa caucus so that trailing candidates would stay in the race longer and let the more representative larger states have a say in who is eventually nominated. The Iowa caucus is about as nationally significant as the election of the senior-class president at a rural high school.

A Case for Impeachment Hearings

By Representatives and Members of the Judiciary Committee:
Robert Wexler (D-FL), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

On November 7, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As Members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

Now that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent to report to the American people, it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice. Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to “unknowingly [pass] along false information.” In addition, recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction—this time about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton’s personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment—where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations—would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise.

The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal. They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70% of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43% say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.

Some people argue that the Judiciary Committee can not proceed with impeachment hearings because it would distract Congress from passing important legislative initiatives. We disagree. First, hearings need not tie up Congress for a year and shut down the nation. Second, hearings will not prevent Congress from completing its other business. These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President – not our commander in chief – and the resulting impact on the nation’s business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings. Also, despite the fact that President Bush has thwarted moderate Democratic policies that are supported by a vast majority of Americans—including children’s health care, stem cell research, and bringing our troops home from Iraq—the Democratic Congress has already managed to deliver a minimum wage hike, an energy bill to address the climate crisis and bring us closer to energy independence, assistance for college tuition, and other legislative successes. We can continue to deliver on more of our agenda in the coming year while simultaneously fulfilling our constitutional duty by investigating and publicly revealing whether or not Vice President Cheney has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence—not politics—should determine the outcome. Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.

Huckabush (or is it Bushabee?)

Great men never change their minds and never admit mistakes

Dear Governor Huckabee:

In 1984, a young boy living in Indiana was diagnosed with AIDS. At the time, that boy, thirteen-year-old Ryan White, had no idea that his life would become a testament of courage and bravery responsible for opening the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout our country and around the world. Six years later, in 1990, Ryan’s life ended—a dear, precious life cut short.

But Ryan’s death wasn’t the only tragedy in this well-known story in our country’s history. Ryan and his family’s battle with HIV/AIDS was also a stark reminder of what happens in our country when fear and ignorance go unchecked. Governor Huckabee, the Ryan White family was ridiculed, shunned and ostracized by people who thought the answer was to “isolate” them far away from the rest of society. In 1984, this belief was purely based on ignorance. But these same beliefs, which you espoused in 1992 and have refused to recant today, as a candidate for President of the United States, are completely beyond comprehension.

When you answered the Associated Press questionnaire in 1992, we, in fact, knew a great deal about how HIV was transmitted. Four years earlier, in 1988, the Reagan Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services issued a brochure assuring the American public that “you won’t get the AIDS virus through every day contact with the people around you in school, in the workplace, at parties, child care centers, or stores.” To call for such an oppressive and severe policy like “isolation,” when the scientific community and federal government were certain about how HIV is transmitted was then, and remains today, irresponsible. Such statements should be completely repudiated, not simply dismissed as needing to be slightly reworded.

This was not and is not an issue of “political correctness,” as you state. Rather, this is an issue of valuing science-based evidence over unfounded fear or prejudice.

Have we not learned the difficult lesson of how devastating these statements based in ignorance and fear can be to American families? Has it been so long ago that we have forgotten how our neighbors had the backs of entire communities turned on them? Governor Huckabee, those dark moments in American history are the direct result of ignorant views that stifle discussion, hinder resources and delay action. We have a moral obligation as a nation to never allow ourselves to repeat the shameful mistakes of the past. And we cannot sit idly by when a candidate for President of the United States tries to lead us back down that path of ignorance and fear.

Governor Huckabee, if you need a reminder of how calls for “isolation” can shatter a Mother’s heart, you only need to turn to Jeanne White-Ginder. Today, we respectfully ask you to sit down with her and allow her to share with you Ryan’s story. Ms. White-Ginder continues to be active in AIDS advocacy as a member of the board of The AIDS Institute. We hope that, even in 2007, Ryan’s story can continue to open hearts and minds.

We would be happy to facilitate a meeting between Ms. White-Ginder and yourself, or a member of your staff. Please feel free to contact Brad Luna, Communications Director for the Human Rights Campaign, at (202) 216-1514 at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Joe Solmonese
President
Human Rights Campaign

A. Gene Copello
Executive Director
The AIDS Institute

Rep. Schiff on national security and impeachment

Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for introducing articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome your input.

I share your concern about the policies and actions of Vice President Cheney and I am deeply troubled by the potentially precedent-setting expansion of executive power at the cost of our system of coequal branches and the civil liberties guaranteed to all Americans. The Executive Branch is an extraordinarily powerful one; in order for the checks and balances to function properly, both Congress and the Courts must resist an excessive assertion of executive power that is at odds with the interests of the American people or violates the Constitution. Despite the challenges that our nation faces, we must not cast aside the values and ideals that our people have defended for centuries.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with the intention that no one branch of government should become too powerful. With the oppression of monarchical rule only recently behind them, they sought to prevent the rise of a too-powerful executive by crafting a calibrated system of checks and balances that allows for interplay between the three branches of government. Congress has an important legislative function, but it has an equally vital role in providing oversight and we must continue to aggressively exercise this prerogative.

One of the most important areas in which oversight has been lacking involves the terrible mistakes that have been made in the prosecution of the war and the reconstruction of Iraq . After more than 4 years of bloody combat; after our Nation has lost more than 3,700 of our military's finest; after thousands more of our brave men and women have been wounded; after we have spent almost $600 billion; and after finding no weapons of mass destruction, the very basis of that war, it is clear that no one in the Administration has been held accountable. This is beginning to change, and the new Democratic Congress has held an unprecedented number of oversight hearings since it took power. It is my hope that these oversight hearings will provide the basis for a dramatic change in direction in our Iraq policy.

Another area which cries out for strong Congressional oversight and action involves the revelation that the executive secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on Americans on American soil. On May 11, 2007, the House of Representatives responded to the President's assertion of inherent authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant or any judicial review. By a vote of 245-178, the House adopted an amendment that I offered with my colleague Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to reiterate that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) provides the exclusive authority to engage in domestic electronic surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information. T he President and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) recently returned to Congress with a legislative proposal ( S . 1927) that would make it easier for the NSA to collect intelligence on Americans and groups abroad. I strongly opposed this bill, which nonetheless passed the Congress and was signed into law on August 5, 2007. This measure is set to expire in six months, and I will be working hard to reinstate the type of court supervision that is essential to protect our privacy.

I continue to believe that we must be aggressive in combating terrorism and offer terrorists no quarter. However, the suggestion of the Administration that we can only do so by subverting the law and giving up our constitutional rights is seriously misguided. Instead, I support a different approach. We will use every tool to go after those who wish to harm us. But Americans who are law-abiding citizens of this country should have the confidence of knowing that a court is overseeing what the government does when it comes to our privacy rights.

On the specific remedy of impeachment, the Founding Fathers established a high standard requiring the determination of high crimes and misdemeanors. After witnessing the misguided, destructive and polarizing impeachment of President Clinton, I can well understand why they raised the bar so high. There is no question that the Vice President has done a great disservice to the country in many ways, and I am deeply troubled by his views of executive authority and performance in office. We must continue to do vigorous oversight and let the evidence lead us where it may; at the same time, we must not be deterred from the highest imperative of changing our Iraq policy, reversing the Administration's intrusive surveillance policy, meeting the challenge of global climate change, and other critical priorities.

Please be assured that I will do my part to ensure that Congress provides such a check and ensure that the Administration is held accountable for its actions.

Sincerely,

Adam B. Schiff
Member of Congress

The Matthew Shepherd Act lands in Purgatory

Regarding the Matthew Shepard Act (S 1105) which is included in the conference report of the Department of Defense Authorization Act (HR 1585) to be sent to the President's desk for signature:

I'm mystified that legislation like this has to be fought for and strategically maneuvered to keep it from dying. Bizarre. Like hate crimes are okay as long as they're confined to certain federally approved minorities? And verbal or physical abuse of those minorities is a form of free speech and must be protected? I wish I understood the complex logic behind the resistance to hate-crimes legislation. I wish I understood why the absence of such legislation is essential for the safety and well-being of the nation. But I don't.

DiFi, D'ohFi

Versen (of Hugo Zoom):

You are the Bad News Bear.

Why...oh why didn't I read the blue article? (A reference to that darn movie again.) First I read the Greenwald article you pointed me to, and then (can you believe this?) I clicked on "getting richer" and read the CNSNews.com article. Now there's this very stern email/blog post percolating in my head calling for DiFi to switch parties and offering whatever assistance I can to the investigation into her conflicts of interest so that she will end up resigning from the Senate in disgrace. How long has this been going on? She's been in California politics forever, since before Harvey Milk was assassinated. If I were a political junkie I'd research her entire political history to see how long she's been a Republican in Democrats' clothing (dark-blue Chanel suits, as opposed to Nancy's blood-red Chanel suits). But I have other things to work on, like getting my second CD of Xmas music into the online retail channels preferably before Xmas. I probably won't even write the stern email/blog post expressing the hope that they run DiFi and all of her cases of L'Oreal Dark Ash Brown dye out of town.

"Bring me somethin' I can use, but don't nevah, nevah bring me...no bad news!" (From The Wiz)

Madam Speaker, listen up!

I'm appalled to learn that Cheney is still pushing for an invasion of Iran. Why is he persisting in this? Do people occasionally hear him say things like "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"

Impeachment hearings would bring to light for the entire country what laws were broken in the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq, by whom they were broken, when and how. Do you remember how much TV airtime was given to Ken Starr over Whitewater? Impeachment hearings now, in contrast, would be good for the nation because we would learn specifics about how government operates and about the ways a government can be derailed. An impeachment doesn't have to succeed. The impeachment hearings would provide a classroom in which the nation could be re-educated in the subject of ethics. It would also be a demonstration to other nations that the U.S. is able to admit its mistakes and take steps to correct them. As it is now, we are about as morally credible as the Pharisees in the time of Christ.

It is alleged that Cheney committed serious crimes regarding the justification for war, and it appears that there is some significant proof that crimes were committed. (I could point you to websites for the proof, but you yourself know of far more sources of credible proof than I do.) In a situation like this outside of government, of course there would be legal proceedings to determine guilt or innocence. A trial isn't avoided because prosecution doesn't think they can win. A trial is held, regardless of potential outcome, to determine if crimes were committed. A federal official should be held to at least the same degree of scrutiny, if not more.

If you are reluctant to push for impeachment hearings because it would deeply divide the nation, you need to rethink that. The nation is already fatally divided. Impeachment hearings would provide catharsis and healing.

H.Res. 333

Congressman Schiff:

Please support Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney, H.Res. 333.

I don't understand the reasoning behind not going forward with impeachment proceedings because there aren't enough votes for it to succeed. You yourself know how important it is to be seen as taking a stand on an important issue. Not going forward with impeachment proceedings, regardless of the reason, communicates to the rest of the world that we as a country condone Cheney's criminal actions. It is the attempt itself to bring the lawbreaker to justice that is important. Impeachment must be attempted. If it doesn't succeed, at least the attempt to bring justice will have been made.

When Speaker Pelosi said that if anyone can show her that any crimes were committed by the Vice President she would consider the evidence seriously, I imagine her email inbox was flooded with long, exhaustive emails explaining in exacting detail what laws were broken, by whom, how, and when. It's incredible that she would say, much less believe, something like that. The message Congress is now communicating to the world is that impeachment proceedings will not be undertaken because the Vice President did nothing wrong.

Please support H.Res. 333. The effort itself is extremely important. Making no effort at all looks like collusion.

DiFi, listen up!

Senator Feinstein:

Regarding Judge Mukasey, is it your age? Is it your ethnicity? I honestly don't know what you're thinking. It may actually be that you have been working too long past the traditional age of retirement. Born in 1933, you are currently 74? It may be that your impressive cognitive abilities actually have begun to slow down in the normal aging process. Nothing to be ashamed of, but something to be considered in an office as important as yours.

Is it your ethnicity? You believe that torture is wrong, unless it's Muslims who are being tortured?

Regarding waterboarding as torture, you yourself know that it has been prosecuted as torture in military courts in the U.S. since the Spanish-American War in 1898. What's to be unsure about?

I see from a quick glance at Wikipedia's profile of you that there has been some concern over an alleged conflict of interest regarding your voting billions of dollars in appropriations to your husband's firms. You know from observing the Bush Administration that denying any ethical conflict is not the same as there being no ethical conflict.

Not long ago I learned from one of the political commentators on CNN that, because you will be 80 in 2012, you will not be seeking reelection. Does that mean you will be spending the next five years being unrepresentative of the people you represent? I do believe that the possibility exists, since you now truly have no real need to be concerned about voter approval. Your voting with the Republicans in August to modify FISA to allow bypassing the special intelligence court established by FISA may be an indication of that. Your voting for Mukasey as Attorney General will also be an indication of that. As the New York Times put it, "He believes the President has the power to negate laws" and he hasn't committed himself "to enforcing Congressional subpoenas." Why would you even consider voting for him as Attorney General?

I feel betrayed by you in what I perceive as your migration to the right. I feel betrayed by you in what I perceive as your declining interest in voter approval. Along with all the other Californians who elected you, I request that you listen to us and vote No on Mukasey's nomination, and continue listening to us for the remaining years of your term. We. Hired. You. Get it?

$2 trillion??

America's Favorite GameshowWORLDWIDE PREEMPTIVE WAR

From PeaceTeam.net:

Announcer: [cue peppy marching music] Here it is, the exciting TV game all America is playing . . . whether they like it or not . . . Worldwide Preemptive War, where members of our studio audience compete for fantastic prizes, like getting out of here alive without a serious injury. Our first contestant is Joe Grunt, from the Topeka, Kansas National Guard . . . COME ON DOWN!

Contestant 1: Hey, wait a minute, I just signed up for a weekend a month.

Announcer: [laughing] Read your contract, son, including the part about stop loss extensions. And our second contestant is George W. Bush from the Texas Air National Guard . . . COME ON DOWN!

Announcer: George W. Bush, COME ON DOWN! . . . [pause] Now they're telling me he never reported for duty after he was transferred out to Alabama. OK then, Dick Cheney, COME ON DOWN!!

Announcer: [pause] What do you mean he said he had other priorities? Hell, just grab three more people without an "R" after their name . . . And now . . . here's the star of our show . . . Booooooooob BURKA!

Bob Burka: Welcome to Worldwide Preemptive War, and the first item we have up for bid is an invasion and occupation of Iraq, estimated to take 6 days, or 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. Who will guess the closest to the real cost plus, without going over?

Contestant 1: I don't even want to go. I bid 100 billion, Bob, it could never possibly be that much.

Contestant 2: 5 billion.

Contestant 3: 20 billion.

Contestant 4: One dollar, leave me out of it too.

Bob Burka: And the actual final cost of the Iraq war and occupation to the American taxpayer is . . . at least 2 TRILLION DOLLARS. Contestant 1, you WIN! You get to play our first game, "Kill An Insurgent." And if you do, what do we have to give you today?

Announcer: It's a NEW CAR!! . . . The latest model armored Humvee with stylish V-shaped underbody to try to deflect some of the many roadside IED explosions you're sure to encounter in your daily patrols. The fact is, you'll be getting one of the very few of these actually out there. A prize worth 150,000 dollars, for which the Pentagon paid five times that much.

Bob Burka: You know how the game is played, you have 15 seconds to open fire on anything that moves, and if you kill an insurgent, you WIN! Go.

Contestant 1: STOP! [rat-tatta-tat] HALT!! DON'T MOVE!! [ker-pow, boom]

Bob Burka: Well, let's see how you did . . . Oh, I'm so sorry, you killed 19 civilians, including a family of four who could not understand the commands you were shouting at them in English, but you didn't get any insurgents. But wait . . . our judges have ruled that because some of their RELATIVES will now join the insurgency . . . you WIN! Let's have another contestant.

Announcer: Rush Limbaugh, COME ON DOWN!

Announcer: [pause] What are you talking about he had an ingrown hair follicle on his butt, and can't have a job where he has to sit for extended periods of time? Look, just draft . . . uh, I mean take, some high school student with no other chance of sustaining employment in this globally outsourced economy.

Bob Burka: Let's tell our contestants the next item up for bid.

Announcer: Now that we're in Iraq, next we want you to guess how many more years we're going to have to stay there.

Contestant 1: One year, Bob.

Contestant 2: Three years.

Contestant 3: Two years.

Contestant 4: Bring the troops home now! [gets tackled by a dozen security guards and dragged off the stage]

Bob Burka: And the actual length of the occupation is . . . at least 10 years, since none of the leading presidential candidates will even promise we'll be out of there by 2013. You're a winner, Contestant 2! And what do we have for you in our next game.

Announcer: It's a fabulous vacation in sunny Ramadi! . . . Yes, you will be sent on an ENDLESS deployment to the city where the action never stops, conveniently located in the famous Sunni Triangle, with all your expenses paid EXCEPT for long term medical care and rehabilitation, courtesy of the Walter Reed Army Hospital bureaucracy. Estimated cost to the American taxpayer 36 thousand a year, unless you're a contract mercenary, in which case as much as ten times that.

Bob Burka: Now, to win this prize all you have to do is guess which of these quotes is a lie.

[Recording 1] We don't torture.

[Recording 2] We don't eavesdrop without a court order.

[Recording 3] We have not yet decided to bomb Iran.

Contestant 2: But, Bob, they're ALL lies.

Bob Burka: See how easy it is. You're going to Ramadi! And now we come to our final Showcase. Behind one of the doors is an exit strategy, but behind the other is yet more senseless and counterproductive death and destruction. Contestant 1, you have
selected door on the left. Let's see what you've won.

Announcer: It's a hopeless quagmire!! . . . The proportion of the Iraqi people who approve of attacks on Americans will increase ultimately from the current 60 percent to a full 100, while the homegrown insurgency continues to defeat billion dollar technology with weapons improvised from the massive explosives stockpile they looted just after the initial invasion.

Bob Burka: And behind the door on the right, what do we have for Contestant 2?

Announcer: It's a full on regional conflagration precipitated by an attack on Iran without evidence or justification, including the possible fall of Pakistan to jihadist militants, putting operational nuclear weapons in their hands immediately, plus collapse of the global economy from skyrocketing oil prices, and asymmetric terrorist attacks against American interests all around the world.

Bob Burka: Hey, let's give everybody BOTH showcases!

Contestant 2: But you promised there was an exit strategy.

Bob Burka: So I lied. We're not planning on leaving ever.

Bob Burka: [cue music out] Be sure to tune in tomorrow for another Worldwide Preemptive War show. Until then, rest in peace! I mean, bye bye!

Regress is the new progress in Iraq

From MoveOn.org:

This was one of the bloodiest summers for US troops in Iraq, Iraqi casualties are running at twice the pace of last year, and 15 of 18 of President Bush's own benchmarks remain unmet.