It's a new strategy for the GOP: everyone loves the underdog. The party that currently holds sway over all three branches of our government will spend the next few weeks blaming the diminished returns of the American economy, the failed Road Map process in the Middle East, and the woeful state of American national security on their critics in a bid to fashion themselves as underdogs in the upcoming election. The President and his top advisers this past week framed critics of the administration - morally and intellectually confused adherents to the "blame America first" school of thought - as the chief cause of domestic and foreign policy failures.

In a stunning invocation of Godwin's Law, President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld equated those who oppose the administration's handling of the War on Terror with Nazi appeasers and Communists sympathizers. It was an attempt to portray to the public a well-meaning administration hamstrung in its efforts to fight the good fight not by sheer incompetence and hubris, but by feckless naysayers who just don't "get it."

For the first time in six years the GOP is approaching the American voter like a ne'er-do-well spouse asking for just one more chance to make things right. Without a single successful venture to point to in six years of power the GOP is blaming everyone but themselves for failures under their watch.

Will it work? Can the election spin machine turn a brash-talking cowboy president into a sympathetic Joe just trying to do right by his heart? It's already started. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough - a former GOP member of Congress - led off the first salvo with his "Is Bush an Idiot?"(video) piece a couple of weeks ago. The normally hawkish Scarborough caught some flack for the piece but it served its purpose. Those inclined to defend the President did, and the undecided in the crowd stopped thinking of President Bush as world's only nuclear armed six-gun slinger and started to wonder if maybe folks were being too hard on the guy. Phase one was complete.

Phase two came with the announcement that more GOP Congressional seats than previously believed are up for grabs in this year's midterm election. These members of Congress don't need to associate themselves with the president or his administration - that's a losing proposition - they only need to follow the President's lead and attack their morally and intellectually confused opponents who either don't get it, or simply don't take threats to American national security seriously.

Which leads me to phase three: seriously. Expect to see this buzzword, or at least the concept, in more frequent use. The electioneers know they have a major problem with satirists like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and Stephen Colbert(video). These commentators reach an audience of tens of millions of people showcasing the failures and ineptitude of the administration weekly. In the GOP underdog strategy, their impact will be marginalized by the notion that their dissent is a stumbling block to what might otherwise be successful GOP policies. Furthermore their criticisms will be wholly discounted not because they are without merit, but because they come from comedians out only for laughs. In short, these critics of the administration do not take the threats America faces seriously. The goal of this phase of the underdog strategy is to diminish, if not neutralize, the impact of any observations contrary to the GOP party line: stay the course, no matter what.

If you see the underdog strategy at work in your own state races post relevant links and your observations in the comments section below.

When criminals in this world appear,
And break the laws that they should fear,
And frighten all who see or hear,
The cry goes up both far and near for
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog,
Underdog!

Labels: Donald Rumsfeld, economy, FUD, George W. Bush, war on terror

It's Presidents' Day Weekend. A time of reflection and relaxation for most. I know that I'll be doing some of each myself. Today, I'm reminded of Nixon's trip to China. It was a legendary diplomatic achievement, one of our nation's finest. Despite the transgressions of Watergate and the ensuing scandal, no one can take China away from Nixon. So how will scholars and historians view the current administration? I have a theory.

Based on everything we've seen so far, the incompetence, the bold faced lies to congress and to the American people, the political manhandling of our nation's scientists, the blatant violations of international law and treaties to include the Geneva Convention, and the current struggle to consolidate more power in the executive branch than has ever been allowed, I think that they'll view the current administration as the greatest our country has ever known.

George W. Bush, will be celebrated as a visionary leader who laid the foundations for a peaceful, democratic middle east. His administration, though dogged by an overly critical class of digitally enabled navel gazers and fringe elements of the mainstream media, will be universally recognized for its efficiency, competency, and fiscal acumen. By the end of the century, George W. Bush will be immortalized on Mount Rushmore.

Let's face it. The GOP currently controls both houses of congress, the white house, and the supreme court. They have successfully managed the media portrayal of every political topic from abortion to the environment to the economy to the extent that the average American thinks things are OK right now. This is bad.

How bad is it? Let's put it this way, last weekend, the vice president shot a man in the face, and this was enough to set the news media into enough of a frenzy that that the unwarranted wiretapping of perhaps millions - and at least thousands - of Americans will escape a congressional investigation. Not only that, but Congress is now drafting a bill which will exempt NSA wiretapping from the 1978 FISA laws.

As a former service member specializing in communications intercept and translation I was subject to these laws. I know very well the guidance and restrictions they provide to protect American civil liberties. And to those who consider the current circumstances of the so called War on Terror to be grounds to waive strict adherence to these laws, I say this:

These laws were designed during the Cold War. The United States waged this war against an enemy who threatened not the destruction of one of our cities, but a war of such profound proportion as to promise the swift and sure eradication of human existence as we know it. And yet during this war the FISA laws were proposed, enacted and adhered to by the NSA and every other intelligence gathering agency in the United States of America because that's who we are.

The world DID NOT change on September 11, 2001. We have ALWAYS been under threat, and yet have maintained the faith that every individual in this nation is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

If we turn a blind eye to FISA now, we might as well start chipping away at Rushmore today.

Labels: 9/11, fisa, George W. Bush, war on terror, warrantless wiretaps

At dawn on April 25, 1915 soldiers from Australia and New Zealand landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula. It was the beginning of one of the bloodiest battles in modern human history.

While our allies in the South Pacific remember those who gave their lives so long ago, we should consider the sacrifices being made by our own service members today.

Anzac Day is more than a day of remembrance; it is also a day of reflection. What is the nature of war? How does it come to be? Can it be avoided? And if not, can a war ever be truly won?

In this consideration we must be mindful of our history. Is our current situation in Iraq comparable to Vietnam as some claim? Perhaps, but I think the Bush Administration's broader global, generational war on terror is much more like World War I than any conflict since.

Terrorists - both state sponsored and otherwise - have attacked nations, and our nations have responded in the only way they know how. The aftermath of World War I saw the Middle East reshaped by the West; Something the Bush Administration would very much like to see happen again. But at what cost?

As our troops are fighting and dying today - nearly a century after "the war to end all wars" - are we as a race any closer to knowing the peace our ancestors thought they were fighting for?

Labels: Anzac Day, war on terror

An appeals court recently upheld a decision allowing the U.S. government to hold individuals as detainees in the so-called War on Terror without making their identities public. The ruling has many human rights organizations up in arms.

Those who support the government’s new secret arrest and detention powers claim these are necessary measures to effectively fight the global war on terrorism. Releasing the names and status of those held would give terrorist sleeper cells too much access to information vital to ongoing investigations. That information could possibly be used to thwart efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Sounds fair enough, right?

Why then has the U.S. media been flooded with reports of the capture of the so-called Ace of Spades, General Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti. This gentleman - Saddam Hussein’s top advisor, body guard and secretary – is believed to have knowledge of the location of Iraqi’s weapons of mass destruction and Saddam himself. If this man has yet to be interrogated, wouldn’t it have been wise to keep news of his capture secret as the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are so determined to do with their prisoners?

Instead Saddam Hussein, his sons, and their supporters now know that the former General is in U.S. custody. They also now know exactly where not to go if they wish to avoid capture. In the words of one correspondent this morning, “If Saddam has 100 hiding places, Mahmud knows about 90 of them.” Well you might as well cross those off the list of places to look for Saddam, because he won’t be there.

This type of incompetence is unacceptable. Is disclosure of the identities of prisoners who may have knowledge integral to the security of our nation permissible or not? Either the Administration is bungling its efforts to keep Americans safe, or they are riding rough-shod over the Constitution of the United States.

Our President has committed our nation to an unprecedented, first-strike military policy. It’s more important now than ever before that we have the trust of the international community. That trust – not our motives or intent – will be the deciding factor in whether history remembers the United States as a global leader or a global tyrant. Furthermore, we need to be able to trust our government. But how can we with such blatant contradictions in policy? Contradictions which may – in the long run – endanger American lives.

Mr. Bush, please pull your head out of your ass. Soon.

Labels: General Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, George W. Bush, patriot act, saddam hussein, war on terror, wmd