All's Quiet on the Iraqi Front

I note the headline, 'US toll in Iraq hits all-time low as month ends'.

And, 'Iraqis also are dying at dramatically lower numbers with the war in its sixth year'.

11 Americans and 510 Iraqi civilians and security personnel died in Iraq this month. Just think, that's an average of 16 Iraqis dying a day, compared with 65 each day in the same month last year. Only 16 men, women and children, compared to 65. Just 16.

And only 11 Americans. Just 11 families have lost a son, daughter, father, mother, uncle, aunt, cousin this month.

Only 11. An all-time low.

All's almost Quiet on the Iraqi Front.

A Stunningly Sneaky Run for the Presidency

If there's anything I really dislike, it's slimy dealings. For the American media to harp incessantly on the 200,000 people who attended Senator Obama's speech in Berlin, all the while omitting the preceding two concerts by favorite European bands, AND free pizza, beer and bratwurst, is simply repugnant.

Evidently, this sort of modus operandi is not without precedent in the Obama camp. With respect and thanks to justsaynodeal.com, I excerpt a fragment of their comment on this mucky affair, and another, similar one:

“While coverage of Senator Obama's Berlin speech provided audiences here at home nothing less than a visual "shock and awe," it neglected to mention that the well-hyped speech had an opening act: a gratis concert by two wildly popular groups....

While we appreciate the Obama Campaign's hospitality, on behalf of furthering US-Germany relations, offering free bratwurst, pizza and even beer for three hours during the free rock concert, we question whether or not the monies might have been better spent here on financially strapped US citizens.

Similarly, back on May 20, 2008 in Portland, Oregon, Senator Obama took the stage following the critically acclaimed local band The Decemberists, who gave a rare free concert for 75,000 fans. While news stories generated by both appearances focused on the enormity of the crowd size, few mentioned the accompanying perks, leaving some to question whether revelers are showing up for Senator Obama or for free food and entertainment.

Without this additional information, Just Say No Deal contends that Americans are being misled about the presumptive Democratic nominee’s true popularity."

Misled? I'd certainly say so. Remember when we learned that a lie is still a lie when it's a fully cognizant omission? Guess the media missed that lesson.

An Escalation of The Surge

What a two-edged sword is language. It can express the finest of details in the most exquisite of manners. Or it can twist the truth into contortions of ugliness and mendacity.

The whole business with 'The Surge' falls into the latter category. I truly thought, at the outset of this blatant attempt to hide a dastardly deed behind a reworked word, that the deceit would be exposed.

Silly me.

From its inception in January 2007 till now, we have been 'surged' so thoroughly, that it would seem everyone has forgotten that what really happened a year and a half ago was an obscene ESCALATION of troops. Remember that word when it happened in Vietnam?

What we didn't have in the days of troop escalation in Vietnam, though, was a media so willing to sacrifice the integrity of the Fourth Estate in sycophantical deference to the Executive Branch. They've been so successful at it, that one can tune in to any radio frequency or TV news spot and hear 90% of the speakers enthusing over the excellent outcomes of The Surge, while 10% still hang back in their praise of The Surge.

But never will you hear the word 'escalation' uttered. It's been a true Newspeak success.

George Orwell would have been impressed.

Governing...On the House

Over at wexlerwantshearings.com there are a quarter of a million people who've declared their desire for impeachment hearings against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. There's also an exhortation to contribute to the effort.

So, the American populace must sign on and contribute to the goal of impeachment.

Really.

Here's the way I thought it was supposed to work:

Article 2, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall...have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

According to our Constitution, it appears launching of impeachment hearings is the sole purview of our House of Representatives. And despite unassailable evidence that there's been some pretty dicey goings-on in these past seven years, the House is disinclined to even ask questions about them, in the form of hearings. Oh, yesterday saw a half-hearted stab at it, but it was more an effort to pacify the undeterred Wexler and Kucinich than any real attempt to DO THEIR JOBS.

In fact, doing their jobs, or the lack it, seems to be the real problem here. Let's look at just a couple of their duties—for which, incidentally, they receive hefty compensation, the best, free medical care to be found in the United States, and an unending stream of perks:

To declare War...This duty was handily handed over to the Executive Branch a few years back.

To define and punish...Offenses against the Law of Nations..With respect to the Geneva Conventions, which tenets have been dismissed by the Bush administration, this duty requires the convening of impeachment hearings, which were pronounced 'off the table' in 2006.

Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...and provide for the...general Welfare of the United States...They've got the first part of this down but virtually ignore the second.

And here's a limit on the duties of Congress:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it...This evaporated when our Congress blithely passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006. With a margin of 65–34 in the Senate and 250–170 in the House, our elected officials not only made it possible for our president to declare any one of us 'unlawful enemy combatants' and thereby forfeit our rights to habeas corpus, they defied the Constitution. They did the opposite of their jobs.

It's worth noting here that this Congress, since 2006, has a Democratic Party majority, albeit razor slim. Our loss of habeas corpus occurred on the Democrats' watch. The refusal to impeach has been on their time. One is battered consistently by the remonstrance that the Republicans are filibustering all good actions, but one must then wonder, where was the Democratic filibustering in the preceding Republican majority? If the Republicans are utilizing the tools of the minority to their advantage, I can only applaud the resourcefulness of one party and bemoan the lack of it in the other.

I'm not a fan of what our two-party system has become, but with a tip of my hat to reality, at the very least I'd like our elected officials to make a stab at doing their jobs, and quit asking us to do them for them...while they head off to their doctor visits—on the House.

Dear Readers of my Blog,

I'd like you to know how honored I am by your visits to my infinitesimal niche in cyberspace. I know very little about you, just that you've reached me on the great global computer brain in the last month not only from around the United States, but from India, Germany, South Africa, Israel, and Canada. My thoughts may not amount to more than a hill of bytes, but it means a lot to me that you're taking the time to read them.

Thanks. Write back if you like. I'll keep writing, if you keep listening.

Salut!
Cathylee

The Better Part of a Valorous Run for the Presidency

I'd like to ruminate a bit about Senator Obama's faux state visits abroad.

It would be doing him a disservice to paint his efforts as distasteful, tasteless or in poor taste. Preposterous, embarrassingly offensive, asinine and inexcusable are more to the fore.

It's reported that official Obama campaign posters have appeared everywhere—including the most holy Western Wall--, his 'Change We Can Believe In' banners have accompanied his visits, and a spokesperson for the German chancellor has gone so far as to say officially, 'It is unusual to hold election rallies abroad. No German candidate for high office would even think of using the National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for a rally because it would not be seen as appropriate.'

Discreet, fact-finding visits to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Germany, and more would have been not only helpful to Senator Obama's application for the presidency, but would have indicated an individual who understood the powerful delicacy of the position he sought. Sadly, sentience and discretion would not seem to be players in the senator's vocabulary.

I have traveled the world and lived overseas many times and I find it personally discomfiting that a candidate for our presidency would campaign in countries other than the one he hopes to lead. Even my teenaged son compared it to a wannabe chancellor of Germany taking his or her campaign to New York, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Haven't we been mortified and shamed enough by our Bush years?

If this contretemps is any indication of what lies ahead, our public opprobrium may continue unabated.

Euphemisms, Lies, and Leaders

Voilà, a sampling of rhetoric to gloss over Senator Obama's crafty, calculated, and utterly impolitic MOVE TO THE CENTER.

'The conversation is rising about what the left should properly do when the presumptive nominee appears to emphasize his moderate side...'

'Senator Obama is a nuanced, sophisticated speaker.'

'He's a good politician. He's doing all he can to make sure people know he would govern as a post-partisan moderate.'

'He’s being proactive by taking centrist stances on issues that are important to a lot of people in this country...Obama is doing what he has to do in order to win.'

What tripe.

I'm getting downright fatigued with the unscrupulous manipulation of language to disguise actions by politicians that are entirely self-serving and ineffably stupid.

Let's just speak plainly. The Senator from Illinois has lied. Either he lied when he laid out his stances on public campaign financing, wiretapping, the death penalty, free trade, diplomacy, immunity for telecoms, handguns, the 'surge', and more---or he's lying now.

I have two problems with that.
1.How am I to impress on my teenagers the dishonor brought to their lives by lying when our would-be leaders spew lies like stock in trade?
2.How can I vote for someone who lies, bold-faced and with impunity?

There's another thing I teach my children: when you compete in any venue, do it with honor. Win, but win with honor. Without it, any win will be empty and will do justice to no one. Witness the 'win' to which we've been subjected these last, long eight years. We are all the poorer, even those with lots more in the bank.

Is it too much to ask that our leaders possess an iota of integrity?
Can we not have a win with even the outward perception of honor?

A Plea to my Neighbors

Here I am, on again about this quaint idea of following the rules...

What might possess an elected official, upon taking leadership of a body of legislators, to proclaim one section of the Constitution negated?

It's rather like telling one's new boss in the firm, 'I will abide by all the rules here, except the one dealing with habeas corpus. That's off the table.'

Or perhaps it's like telling one's sergeant at the precinct, 'I will abide by all the rules here except the one about search and seizure. That's off the table.'

How about the second lieutenant who arrives at her new post, only to state, 'I'm happy to be here, eager to get to work, but don't even think about deploying me anywhere. That's off the table.'

I'd guess anyone reading this has figured out by now who's in my sights here. And of course this is all well-traveled territory. I bring it up now, not only because our disappointment of a Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had the misbegotten temerity to preemptively sweep the only constitutional remedy for high crimes and misdemeanors off the table, but because...

...she's up for re-election.


Dear friends in my neighbor state of California,

TOSS HER OUT!

PLEASE!

Love, Cathylee

An Intention That is Almost a Promise...But Not Quite

To all who visited my inaugural post, and especially those who took the time to comment--
I truly regret the hiatus in blogs since. Life got hectic. But I've been brimming over with thoughts and things, and this blog silence just won't do. So I'm intending to write every day...or thereabouts...even if it's just a bit.
Thanks to all who have and will land at Fiery Side!
Be talking with you soon.

The Right Answer to the Real Question

When Senator Obama declined federal campaign funds totaling $84 million, there was a bit of a hue and cry. Some of the questions that flew included,

• Why did he offer to take the federal funds?

• Why did he turn them down, when his conditions for accepting them were met?

• Why did he flip-flop?

• What changed between the time he said he'd take them and then refused?

I got to thinking about those questions. And one very important one occurred to me but no one really asked it. And the more it wasn't asked, the more troubled I became. The answers to the well-trod questions seemed obvious.

In answer to the first, he said he'd 'aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.' We know now that at its most aggressive, it was a 45-minute discussion between counsels for Obama and McCain.

Why did he turn the funds down, flip-flop​? Because he wants more money and he figures we'll soon forget the promise he made in November.

What changed since he said he'd take the federal funds? Nothing changed. Just his mind. Perhaps that's the one real Change We Can Believe In.

Simply put, Senator Obama refused the $84 million, squandered our trust, and lied about the reasons for it because he's convinced he can rake in record amounts of money by asking us for donations.

And what I mean by 'us' is we, the less-than-wealthy. That's how he managed to break all fundraising records in the first place. Almost half his donors are middle and lower working classes who gave less than $200. The ceiling for giving to a campaign is $2,300. The senator's campaign is positively gleeful about the fact that they can go back to these same donors for more.

I find this contemptible. And thoughtless in the extreme. At the end of eight long years, when the middle and lower classes have truly suffered and are continuing to do so, this man who would be president has no compunction about asking us to give over two grand of the precious little money we must stretch between soaring costs for almost everything.

So I'm going to ask the important question, the one that just keeps troubling me.

Why...

• when gas is approaching $5 a gallon,

• when grocery bills have doubled and tripled,

• when health care is simply unaffordable for so many and so expensive for so many more,

• when traveling has become prohibitive because our dollar is in a subterranean hole,

• when so many of us are losing the roofs over our heads and whatever savings we've managed,

• when we have already given enough of our small salaries to the Obama campaign to have allowed it to break all fundraising records,

• and when so many of us must refuse our children so much,

why, why should we be asked to give more because Senator Obama slammed the door shut on $84 million in public funding?

The arrogance boggles the mind.

The exploitation of the electorate is shocking.

But the lordly, vainglorious callousness is unforgivable.