Is George Bush a Troll?

In the Internet community, a "troll" is a person (or a message) that does nothing but annoy, disrupt, or provoke an online discussion. Trolls are not interested in sharing points of view, convincing others of their point of view, or even providing factual information, but simply want to send out messages that are deliberately annoying or insulting in order to provoke flame wars, disrupt conversations, or simply for the pleasure of seeing what kind of disruptions they can cause. Although the origin of the usage might lie in a way of catching fish, trolls are also like the hairy, ugly creatures of fairy tales because they are mischievous at best and malicious at worst.

In President Bush's most recent radio address (1/20/2007), and in the State of the Union Address he is expected to give tonight (1/23/2007), he has proposed (or is about to propose) to address the problem of health care in the United States through (a) income tax deductions for health insurance premiums and (b) imposing income taxes on "excessive" health insurance benefits. The first proposal is largely meaningless except as a tax break for the rich, but the second proposal is simply ridiculous and, taken together, the two proposals look like a troll.

The first proposal is largely meaningless because most of the people who now have no health insurance also pay no income tax because their incomes are within the standard deduction and personal exemptions. Giving them a tax incentive is buy health insurance shows a total disconnect from reality. So the only people helped by the proposal are the upper middle class who are already paying for health insurance and will benefit from the tax deduction.

The second proposal is ridiculous, because it is based on the idea that it is possible to have too much health insurance. One of the bizarre delusions of a handful of conservatives is that health care costs are rising in part because health insurance encourages people to use more of the health care system resources than they really need, and that there really are people who go to the hospital, or go to the doctor, just for fun and not because of any real illness or medical condition.

The worst thing about the second proposal is that it would probably not affect the wealthy, who don't really need health insurance because they can pay for health care needs out of their own funds, but union workers who have been able to negotiate generous health care benefits through collective bargaining. It is, therefore, not a tax increase for the wealthy, but a tax increase for the working class.

Given the present control of both houses of Congress by the Democratic Party, the odds of these proposals being enacted as law are only slightly more than zero. So why propose them? Because Bush is a troll.

The war in a Iraq is a continuing disaster for the United States, and Bush's approval ratings continue downward toward record lows. What better way to distract Congress and the American People than by trying to change the subject.

And an even better distraction is one that might help to inflame idealogical and party differences. If Bush can get Republicans and Democrats (or moderate and conservative Republicans, or moderate and liberal Democrats) fighting over a domestic issue, all the better.

If this were an isolated instance of what looks like a troll, I would agree that I might have become somewhat paranoid. But the Bush administration has often changed the subject, or made what seemed like antagonistic proposals, that seemed to serve no purpose other than creating disruptions. Why talk about a surge in troops in Iraq when the American people have voted to end the war? Why talk about sending a Democratic Congress re-nominations of federal judges who have already been blocked by a Democratic minority? Why talk about more tax cuts when Congress and the voters are expressing concern about enormous deficits?

There may be complicated political reasons for these actions, but it sure looks like plain and simple trolling.

Guantanamo and Legal Ethics

Has the top Pentagon official in charge of the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo committed a breach of legal ethics in his comments on the lawyers representing the detainees?

On Jan. 11, Charles D. "Cully" Stimson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Office of Detainee Affairs, was interviewed on "Federal News Radio," during which he made some remarkable statements:

I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking.

Mr. Stimson then rattled off the names of some of the top law firms in the United States, concluding with:

I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.

"We want to watch that play out"? He wants to watch lawyers being pressured to withdraw from representing detainees? He wants to watch lawyers suffer financially for opposing his detention policies?

And it gets worse. He was then asked who might be paying these lawyers, and he replied:

It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving moneys from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.

The insinuation is that many of these lawyers are being funded by terrorists (or terrorist sympathizers) and are either hiding the source of their funding or lying about whether or not they are being paid.

But there is no reason whatsoever to believe that any of these high-priced lawyers have any motive to represent detainees other than their belief in the value of constitutional civil liberties and their professional obligations to the public.

Stimson is a member of the Maryland bar, and the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers say that every lawyer has a "professional responsibility to render pro bono publico legal service." (Md. RPC Rule 6.1(a).) And "pro bono publico legal service" is defined to include the representation of "individuals, groups, or organizations seeking to secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties, or public rights." (Md. RPC Rule 6.1(b)(1)(C).) Similar provisions appear in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association and in the rules adopted by most states. In casting aspersions on the lawyers representing the detainees, Stimson was not only displaying any appalling lack of professional courtesy; he was also disparaging lawyers who were actually complying with the rules of professional ethics and adhering to some of the highest aspirations of the profession, which is to guarantee equal access to justice for all.

Was Stimson trying to embarrass or intimidate the lawyers who are opposing the government in court? If he was, then he may have committed a violation of professional ethics. Rule 4.4(a) of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct (which are, once again, similar to the ABA Model Rules) reads in relevant part as follows:

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, ...

Stimson has therefore not only embarrassed himself and the Bush administration, but he has probably violated the rules of his profession as well. (There is a technical issue as to whether Stimson is "representing a client" in his employment by the federal government, and it would be ironic for him to avoid the application of an ethical rule by what amounts to a technicality.)

I hope that one of the lawyers for the detainees files an appropriate complaint with the Maryland Office of Lawyer Discipline. I would want to watch that play out.

(For more information on this story, see The New York Times.)

Staying the Course

Faced with mounting violence and casualties in Iraq and increasing voter dissatisfaction with the entire mess, the Bush Administration has taken the logical first step from it's George Orwell playbook: Change the rhetoric and rewrite history.

"Stay the course" is an expression that has long been popular with Republicans. According to William Safire ("Safire's New Political Dictionary"), the phrase was popularized by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 Presidential campaign. It was also a favorite of Bush41, and Bush43 has used it repeatedly to try to drum up support for his ineffectively policies in Iraq.

Well, all that is going to change now. Not the war, of course, just the use of the phrase.

During an interview on "This Week with George Stephanopolous," in response to questions about Iraq, President Bush declared that "Well, listen, we've never been stay the course, George." (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2594541&page=2) Yes, it's time for Bush to ignore what he's said and done in the past and rewrite history.

The new history of the Iraq war, which is somewhat different from the one you might remember, was more formally announced during a White House press conference on Monday, October 23, in which White House Press Secretary Tony Snow explained that the policy in Iraq was never "stay the course" but "a dynamic policy that is aimed at moving forward at all times on a number of fronts." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061023-2.html)

Snow was later asked "Has anybody told the President he should stop calling it 'stay the course' then?" He replied that the President has "stopped using it."

And then the question of responsibility. "Is the President responsible for the fact people think it's stay the course since he's, in fact, described it that way himself?" to which Snow responded "No."

So, there you have it. The policy of the United States in Iraq is not "stay the course," has never been "stay the course," and the President is not responsible for any misunderstandings that might have arisen from his repeated use of the phrase "stay the course."

And so the Bush Administration attempts to change course by staying on the same course it has always taken: Manage perceptions, deny any responsibility for the past, and ignore the reality of the present.

Terrorism: Things to Do and Not Do

Most of the commentaries to date on the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism, portions of which have been released by the President (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/nie20060926.pdf) have focussed on questions such as whether we are "winning" or "losing" the war on terrorism, and whether the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists than it is killing, but there is a more important point made by the NIE that seems to have escaped notice.

The NIE concludes that the "jihadist movement" is spreading among muslims, and will continue to spread "for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate" for the following reasons:

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit.

The current policies of the Bush administration actually add to those factors:

1. The U.S. currently supports some of the most corrupt and unjust muslim governments, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and continues to try to exert more and more military power in the mid-east, leading to greater fears of Western domination.

2. The U.S. allows the Iraq jihad to continue by maintaining troops and military operations there.

3. See #1. The U.S. does nothing to help reforms in Muslim nations, and actually hinders reforms through its support of oppressive governments and its attacks on progressive countries. For example, there is real economic and social progress in Iran, which the U.S. is threatening with military action over its nuclear program, and there was real progress in Lebanon until the U.S. allowed (if not supported) the Israeli bombing of southern Lebanon.

4. And why is there anti-U.S. sentiment among Muslims? See #s 1, 2, and 3 above.

The NIE then goes one to present the "vulnerabilites" of the jihadist movement that the U.S. could exploit:

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

• The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution—--an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the Muslim world--—is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.

(Emphasis added.)

All of the above "vulnerabilies" are political, not military, but the Bush administration's solution to every problem is more military force. And the reason that military action is the only solution is because its the only solution that they believe in, understand, and can unilaterally control.

And when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Which means that the chances of the Bush administration being able to exploit these vulnerabilities range between slim and none, while the chances of the Bush administration continuing the war in Iraq and the other policies in the mid-east that fuel the growth of the jihadist movement are a near certainty.

As noted above, the NIE concludes that the "jihadist movement" is spreading among muslims, and will continue to spread "for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate." Cynic that I am, I immediately wondered if the authors of the NIE were making the subtle (and snide) suggestion that the jihadist movement would continue as long as Bush is President.

Clarification

The President's proposal for trying the detainees previously held in secret CIA prisons contains several instances of unintentional (we hope) humor (if you like your humor on the dark and cynical side).

One of the most controversial parts of the proposal would "clarify" the meaning of what is known as "Common Article III" of the Geneva Conventions, which applies not only to prisoners of war but also to civilians detained by foreign governments in times of war, and prohibits "[o]utrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." The concern of the Bush Administration is that this quoted phrase is "susceptible to uncertain and unpredictable application." See "Fact Sheet: The Administration's Legislation to Create Military Commissions," http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-6.html (9/6/2006).

The irony (and humor) here is that under the Bush Administration the Constitution of the United States, and most of the laws enacted by Congress, are of "uncertain and unpredictable application." Maybe the President will comply with them, and maybe he won't.

To clarify the meaning of the phrase "[o]utrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment," the administration wants Congress to declare that the standards for detainees should be the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." So a provision in the Geneva Conventions that prohibits "degrading treatment" would be clarified through a statute that prohibits "degrading treatment"?

And the Bush administration also claims that other practices prohibited by Common Article III, such as "violence to life," "murder," "mutilation," and "torture," are "universally condemned," and yet one of the practices that has been employed by CIA interrogators in the past (and which will presumably be employed in the future) is "waterboarding," which is generally considered a form of torture. (Television reporters frequently describe waterboarding as a technique which makes the detaineed think he is drowning. The reason the detainee "thinks" he is drowning is that (a) his face is covered by water and (b) he can't breathe. It's gentler than strangling the detainee, but the end result is the same.) If the Bush administration thinks that they can suffocate people to make them talk, why the concern with "degrading treatment"?

The answer might lie in the history of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which is Title X of Public Law 109-148, 119 Stat. 2740, H.R. 2863 (12/30/2005). In the "signing statement" issued by the President for H.R. 2863, he stated:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."

"President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863, the 'Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006'," http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051230-8.html (12/30/2005)

In other words, President Bush might not comply with the Detainee Treatment Act if he believes that he has the constitutional authority not to comply.

So the President wants Congress to define the rules for the treatment of detainees by reference to a statute that the President has announced that he doesn't necessarily need to comply with. Isn't that amusing?

Of course, the Supreme Court pretty much rejected the President's claims that he could ignore the Constitution, Congress, and the Geneva Conventions when it held that the President was bound by the Common Article III in its treatment detainees. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006). But that could be part of the plan. By getting Congress to define the application of Common Article III by reference to the Detainee Treatment Act, which the President publicly announced did not necessarily limit his authority, the President can then claim that Congress has agreed with him that he has the constitutional authority to ignore Common Article III.

If that sounds far-fetched and paranoid to you, it's only because you haven't been paying attention to the practices of the Bush administration.

Fall of Castro

Ronald Reagan will go down in history as the President who happened to be serving as the Soviet Union collapsed and claimed credit for the coincidence (much as a rooster claims credit for the sun rising).

Now that Castro is reported to be ill, is there any doubt that Bush43 will claim credit for the "spread of democracy" in Cuba?

Remember, you read it here first.

What is Terrorism?

The question "what is terrorism" might seem to be an exercise in semantics or philosophy, except that we are supposedly engaged in a "global war on terrorism" and it might be appropriate to decide what or who we are fighting, and why.

And it seems particularly appropriate to ask this question now that Israel and Hezbollah are trading munitions. Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israel and so they are "terrorists" according to Israel and the Bush Administration, while the Iraeli bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon, destroying homes, roads, infrastructure, and private industry, and killing civilians, is described as Israel's "right to defend itself."

This is a clear dichotomy. Hezbollah is practicing terrorism, while Israel is exercising its right to exist, while both are killing civilians and destroying homes and other private property of people having nothing to do with the conflict. How to explain the difference?

1. Cynically: "Terrorism" is the tactic of people we don't like. (I.e, we don't like Hezbollah and we like Israel.)

a. More gently: "War" is for something we support, while "terrorism" is for something we oppose.

b. More specifically: Israel has a right to exist and defend itself by killing people outside of its borders, while Hezbollah has no right to exist and is not allowed to kill any people at any time or any place.

2. Objectively: "Terrorism" is poorly-funded, while "war" is well-financed and better equipped (i.e., with uniforms).

3. Democratically: "Terrorism" is violence by a minority against a majority. There are more Israelis than members of Hezbollah, so Hezbollah is terrorist while Israel is not.

4. Some combination of the above.

How to differentiate "terrorism" from what would otherwise be described as war, civil war, revolution, or simple criminality?

At present, the very vagueness of "terrorism" works to the advantage of the Bush administration because it is a one-size-fits-all kind of label that can be applied to any real or perceived opponent that the Bush administration wishes to vilify.

The Commander-in-Chief

The Department of Justice has released a new (longer) rationalization for the President's decision to ignore the warrant requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and it's simply more of the same old "inherent power of the President" song. But what about the explicit powers of Congress?

The Constitution makes the President the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." (Article II, Section 2) The Constitution also says that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties..." (Also Article II, Section 2) From those two provisions come the general idea that the President is responsible for foreign relations, and the defense of the country, and has the inherent power to carry out those duties. Which, as a general proposition, makes sense.

But what about the powers of Congress? Even the power to make treaties requires the "Advice and Consent of the Senate," so Congress has a role in foreign affairs. More importantly, Article I, Section 8, clause 14, states that Congress shall have power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

In FISA, Congress expressed it's power by declaring that officers of the United States government shall not eavesdrop on the people of the United States except when certain procedures are followed. And FISA expressly recognizes the changed conditions that would apply in time of war, providing that the normal rules for search warrants would be suspended following a declaration of war, but only for 15 days. (See 50 USC section 1811) The President does not even seem to pretend that FISA does not apply, or that he is not in violation of FISA, but is arguing that he does not need to comply.

If the President were taking extraordinary actions in response to an extraordinary crisis, such as the 9/11 attacks themselves, or Hurricane Katrina, or an outbreak of avian flu, then a great deal of latitude would be allowed, because one of the roles of the executive is to be able to act quickly, without the need for legislative deliberation. But it's been more than four years since the 9/11 attacks, and the President has had more than four years to consider the procedures required by FISA and, if they were no longer appropriate, he could have asked Congress to change them. In fact, Congress did amend FISA after 9/11 to improve surveillance procedures against suspected terrorists. But the President chose to ignore FISA rather than ask Congress to change the law.

This issue might be resolved by the courts, but it's not likely, for the simple reason that it will be difficult for any particular person to show that they were harmed by the President's failure to comply with FISA. Which may mean that it is up to Congress.

If the President is willfully disobeying a Congressional directive, Congress has a remedy, and that remedy is impeachment. If the President's illegal surveillance were a single instance of willful disobedience of the law, that would be a rather extreme step. But the President has shown a repeated inclination to ignore laws that he doesn't like. He has allowed the physical abuse, if not torture, of prisoners in US custody, contrary to the laws and treaties of the U.S. He has held American citizens in custody without trial, contrary to the Constitution. He has held foreign citizens in custody without allowing them any hearing to determine their status, contrary to the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S. Senate. And he has allowed the seizure and transportion of persons for interrogation (and possible torture) in foreign countries (the so-called "extraordinary renditions"), contrary to U.S. and international law.

Impeaching the President does not yet seem to be the "politically correct" thing to do. But eventually Congress will need to decide which is more important, the rule of law or politics.

Torture Redux

When Alberto Gonzales was appointed to become the next attorney general of the United States, he pledged that, as the highest law enforcement official of the United States, he would not support the use of torture.

Very reassuring.

Now, the United States is reportedly revising the procedures to be used in trying terrorism suspects now held at Guantanamo Bay, and one the changes (according the New York Times) is that the commissions established by the government of the United States will be "barring confessions obtained by torture".

Is this really necessary?

Is it really necessary for the officers and government of the United States to promise that they don't intend to obtain and use "confessions" obtained by inflicting as much pain as is necessary for a prisoner to say whatever it is you want them to say?

I thought that that we settled that with the Revolutionary War, the rejection of the "Star Chamber", and the adoption of the 5th Amendment.

Did the present administration somehow skip the lecture on basic civics, humanity, and morality?

Schiavo v. Schindler: Round Two

From the NY Times on 3/25/2005:

"If Ms. Schiavo dies, her parents, Roman Catholics, want her buried at a cemetery in Florida. But Mr. Felos [attorney for Michael Schiavo] said she would be cremated and her remains interred at her husband's family plot in the Philadelphia suburbs."

It's a relief to know that Ms. Schiavo's death will not end the disputes, and that her husband and parents will be able to continue to litigate even after her death.

Russian Oil/Freedom

Yesterday (3/21/2005), in Brussels, President Bush urged European leaders to put more pressure on Russia to maintain democratic freedoms, saying:

We must always remind Russia, however, that our alliance stands for a free press, a vital opposition, the sharing of power, and the rule of law -- and the United States and all European countries should place democratic reform at the heart of their dialogue with Russia.

On the evening news, it was suggested that European countries are reluctant to take tough stands with Russia because many of those countries are heavily dependent on Russia oil.

It's good to see President Bush taking a tough stand, uncowed by the politics of oil.

But I wonder when he will apply the same toughness to his friends in the Saudi royal family?

What is Nader Thinking?

With the decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court to bar Ralph Nader from the ballot in Pennsylvania, Nader's campaign for President has moved from the comical to the pathetic.

Supported by Republicans who hope that Nader will allow Bush to "win" with a bare plurality of the vote (or perhaps not even that), Nader employed a less-than-ethical group of people to collect signatures to put his name on the Pennsylvania ballot. The court reviewed each of the 51,273 signatures submitted, and found 32,455 of them (63.3%) to be invalid because of forgeries, fictitious addresses, and other reasons.

The court characterized the signature gathering process as "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court," and stated that the conduct of Nader and his running-mate "shocks the conscience of the Court."

(The full opinion can be found at http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/CWealth/out/568MD04_10-13-04.pdf)

It's one thing to engage in a futile campaign for President. It's another thing to accept the aid of the Republicans and become their pawn. But to become a party to fraud and corruption of the ballot process itself?

Has Nader no shame whatsoever?

Kerry's Threat

One of the bizarre claims by many right-wing Republicans is that Kerry as President could endanger or damage the country.

But what could he possibly do?

Could he:

1. Invade another country and get the US enmeshed in a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives?

2. Ignore threats of a terrorist attack, resulting billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths?

3. Run up an enormous federal deficit through a combination of tax breaks for the wealthy and unchecked federal spending?

4. Increase the size of the federal government while both (a) reducing environmental controls and other regulations of businesses intended to protect the public and (b) increasing the intrusion of the government into state and local governments and the private lives of citizens?

Of course, George Bush has done all of those things already.

So the biggest threat posed by Kerry is that he *might* do the same things in the next four years that Bush *has* been doing in the last four.

That's some threat.

Kerry's Threat

One of the bizarre claims by many right-wing Republicans is that Kerry as President could endanger or damage the country.

But what could he possibly do?

Could he:

1. Invade another country and get the US enmeshed in a war costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives?

2. Ignore threats of a terrorist attack, resulting billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths?

3. Run up an enormous federal deficit through a combination of tax breaks for the wealthy and unchecked federal spending?

4. Increase the size of the federal government while both (a) reducing environmental controls and other regulations of businesses intended to protect the public and (b) increasing the intrusion of the government into state and local governments and the private lives of citizens?

Of course, George Bush has done all of those things already.

So the biggest threat posed by Kerry is that he *might* do the same things in the next four years that Bush *has* been doing in the last four.

That's some threat.

Showing Up

I've heard that 80% of life is just showing up.

So some of the controversy about John Kerry's military service is a little hard to understand.

Most of the controversy seems to be whether or not he "deserves" the medals he got, and there are some people who were in Vietnam at around the same time (although not on John Kerry's boat) who seem to have some strong opinions about that.

But he was there, right? He showed up.

Can George Bush say the same?

Terrorism in Iraq

The idea that there are terrorists in Iraq seems to have come as a great shock to the Bush Administration.

And the Bush Administration is now THE authority on terrorism. They know best how to protect us from terrorists.

And yet the idea that there might be terrorists in Iraq seems to have come as a surprise.

Let's see, we'll invade a mid-east country that is predominantly Muslim, and they'll greet us with flowers and happily do whatever we say to build a western-style democracy. Attacks on American soldiers? Attacks on the government installed by the United States? Anti-American terrorism by Muslims in the mid-east? Who would have thought such a thing? Who could have guessed?

Even weirder is that there are reports that the Israelis PLEADED with the Bush Administration to seal the Iraqi border after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, saying that there were foreign activists pouring into the country. But we couldn't be bothered. After all, what harm could a few foreigners do?

Well, now we're beginning to find out. And the Iraqis are beginning to hate us for it.

President Bush keeps talking about the number of innocents that Hussein killed during his years in power. How many have we killed during our months in power?

Do we get to leave when we have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein?