* * political doodle * *

LUCILLE: Back to the Future

Now the going it going to get hot. . . as though it hasn't been for the last several months. But now you're going to see some sharp differences between the two major candidates who - despite what you may hear - are at very different ends of the spectrum.

You can only guess who my choice for President is. . . okay, you know it's Barack Obama. I tried not to tip my hat during the primaries, but he has been my choice almost from the beginning, based on his ability to create consensus in a  terribly divided country. . . you know, a uniter, not a divider (I opine that he'll do a better job than you-know-who; who couldn't?). Obama is also eloquent, and since the strongest power the President has is his/her ability to influence, this skill is not to be taken lightly.
Even with a majority Democratic Congress, which we will no doubt have, a consensus builder will be needed now more than ever, and this is Obama's forte.

Do I doubt his ability to fight? Hey, this is a guy that worked all the parties in Chicago, and that is a tough town, even by NJ standards. This guy is no shrinking violet.
Why else do I think he's the man? Hey, he beat the giant, the Clinton machine; no mean feat.

So, the campaign will take front and center - but not all. Have subjects you want me to broach? Email me at lucille@politicaldoodle.com. I write about what irks me, what surprises me and what engages me.

Stay tuned.

LUCILLE: Let's Hear What John McCain has to say. . .

LUCILLE: George W Bush has approved this message of Torture

This is absolutely incredible to me. George Bush's top advisors - Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney,  Condi Rice - not only approved torture but choreographed exactly what could be done to whom, how often. They decided who should be physically hurt, who should be waterboarded, who should be attacked by trained dogs.

But that's not the worst.

George Bush told ABC News that he personally approved of the approval of torture by his top advisers. Our President personally approved torture. Have you heard about it in the news? Only if you're watching  The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or Countdown. No front page stories. No replaying the news clip, over and over on Fox News. Not a peep from most of the media.

Well, it makes me sick. And maybe these pictures will make you sick, too. Now that we know - because he admitted it himself - that torture in Iraq wasn't the work of a "few rogue soldiers" but approved and choreographed by the sickos inhabiting the White House - I want you to look at these pictures - a chronology of one night of torture in Iraq approved by George W Bush - and tell me that this is your America.  

Abu Ghraib prison, Baghdad Iraq
December 12, 2003 10:47:25 PM





December 12, 2003 10:47:30 PM




WARNING: THE FOLLOWING PICTURES ARE GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING



 

December 12, 2003 10:48:03 PM





 

December 12, 2003 10:48:09 PM











December 12, 2003 10:48:13 PM








December 12, 2003 10:51:44 PM






December 12, 2003 10:52:45 PM








December 12, 2003 10:55:47 PM













December 12, 2003 10:59:08 PM






 

LUCILLE: Let's Not Talk About Iraq

We need to stop talking about Iraq. It's not really an issue in this presidential campaign. We need to talk about everything but Iraq. Why? Because  Republicans know that they have to take that issue off the table if they have  prayer in hell of winning this fall.

But I'd like to talk about someone who took unilateral military action with virtually no strategic planning, using way too few troops resulting in an embarrassing failure. Not  George Bush (fooled you). I'm talking about Iraqi Prime Minister, Maliki who planned (if I can loosely use that word) a failed assault on the Shi'ite militia in Basra late last month which left Sadr more secure in his position of power than before.

Maliki is like Bush's twin; arrogant, divisive and none too smart. His little romp down in  southern Iraq  has absolutely weakened him and, by association, weakened the US. Of course, George Bush praised him. After all, it's what he would have done.

The most amazing thing is that while Bush is calling it a "defining moment in the history of a free Iraq" GOP presidential nominee John McCain seems to be unaware of what is happening.

So, was it really a debacle? Consider this: There were huge casualties. American and British forces and air power had to come to the rescue. About 1000 Iraqi soldiers either defected or just went home in the midst of the fight. And Mr Maliki's boys sought a cease fire. 

By Bush standards, that was a victory.

Everyone is discussing whether or not Obama has the wherewithal to operate on the big stage, whether Hillary is "more experienced." My friend Monty wants to put the Iraq War on the back burner and talk about the economy and free trade and probably gay marriage.

But what I (and millions of Americans) want to know, with George Bush on the way out,  is how does McCain - Mr Experience himself - see the war?

I'll tell you how he sees it - through rose colored glasses.

LUCILLE: Osama Bin WHO?

Notwithstanding the "success" of the surge (almost as successful as my attempt to regain my virginity), I found myself arguing with a co-worker about the original decision to go into Iraq. He gave the usual reasons - Saddam was a terrible person, we thought they had WMD (don't even go there); and, then he brought up 9/11. My former brother-in-law (my niece's father and a friend of mine), Rod Coppola was in the WTC on that day and was one of the victims. It was a terrible, tragic event and a  very sad time for all of us. It hit me and my family personally.

But what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

And, why can't my co-worker - and so many of you - remember who attacked us on that day?

It was the Saudi, Osama Bin Laden, with the help of mostly Egyptian co-conspirators, calling themselves Al Qaeda and working in tandem with the Taliban. . . centered in Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan? Where the real "war on terror" is being fought? And where the violence is growing at an exponential rate. . .  like the amount of money spent in Iraq? And where Osama is quite close to, in the border region of Pakistan (according to military intelligence experts)?

LUCILLE: Welfare Kings Rule!

Let me see if I understand: Bear Sterns employed lax lending practices and ended up with about $46 billion in risky mortgages and related securities. And it lost billions for its clients last summer when two hedge funds that invested heavily in mortgage securities crumbled. Do I have it right so far? Last Monday Bear put out a press release claiming, "there is absolutely no truth to the rumors of liquidity problems that circulated today in the market." Three days later, the Welfare Kings had their hands out for one of the biggest welfare payouts in history, a $30 billion dollar bailout. . . from your tax dollars.

LUCILLE: George Bush's "Romantic Adventure" and other True Stories

Here's one for the books. George Bush actually called the war in Afghanistan a "romantic adventure" when speaking to troops there last Thursday. He even claimed he was "a little envious" of them.  I have an idea; why doesn't he have his own adventure and finish his military service (cut short to help Daddy get elected) and join the troops over there? It's interesting how the loudest supporters of war - Iraq as well as Viet Nam - feel it unecessary to actually fight them. By contrast, even Prince Harry made it to Afghanistan to fight - by choice. George Bush's choices have all been a little more self centered.

Speaking of choices, who in God's name is choosing his words for him? Or have they just given up and let him speak for himself? He was absolutely giggly over the economy, calling the news on the US's economic meltdown "a interesting moment." (My high school English teacher, Dan Flynn, must be apoplectic over that interesting grammar.)

Any economist will tell you that the price of a currency reflects the country's overall economic health. And our has been diving for so long that pretty soon we'll be lucky if we can afford to even buy stuff made in China. Oil has gone up to over $110 a barrel, the Dow has been hovering under 12,000 and retail sales fell by 6/10ths of a percent last month.

"I'm coming to you as an optimistic fellow" was what Bush had to say to the Economic Club of New York just this past Friday, while acknowledging that we poor folks "are concerned about making their bills." Can he have fallen off the wagon or is he just trying to act like Herbert Hoover after the crash in 1929?

LUCILLE: MY State of the Union

It's time for a REAL State of the Union address, from someone who not only has been paying attention, but will tell you the truth for a change.

The Economy
Let me ask you the same question the GOP demi god Ronald Reagan asked when he was running for President: are you better off than you were 8 years ago? Believe it or not, the GOP candidates (except Huckabee and Paul) actually tried to claim you are. But let's look at the facts:

• George Bush was bragging in his speech about "a 52 month streak of uninterrupted job growth". . . Well, the new jobs report shows a 17,000 decline in jobs in January. Oh, and that was coupled with the  Commerce Department's report of infinitesimal growth of the economy of .006%. The long term unemployed (unemployed at least 6 months) are up 16.2% from a year ago. And, yet, Bush doesn't feel the need to extend unemployment benefits as part of his "stimulus" package. I guess it's more important to make that Paris Hilton tax cut permanent.

LUCILLE: Let's Get to the Meat

 

Everyone is focused on the primaries but one subject that is strangely absent from the Republican debates is the one most Americans agree on: the war in Iraq. The Bush Administration - and many of my right-wing friends - insist that things are so much better now, since the surge began. But what exactly has the surge accomplished and how does it compare to what we were promised a year ago by President Bush when he asked us all to be patient and allow his "New Way Forward" to work? At the time, he said "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people and it is unacceptable to me." Let's see just how acceptable it is now.

In his speech one year ago, President Bush outlined a new strategy for Iraq, unveiling the "surge" in U.S. troops — and more American economic aid. Bush said the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged to do more to heal his country's divisions.

In January 2007, when Bush made his "New Way Forward" speech, violence in Iraq was rising, especially in Baghdad and there were car bombs exploding, shootings taking place and ethnic cleansing. This is what he promised the surge would accomplish:

1. The Iraqis would boost their own troop levels
2. Sectarianism would  "not be tolerated"
3. Iraqis would take control of their streets
4. Iraqis would pass an oil law that allowed revenue sharing among the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis
5. Provincial elections would be held in 2007
6. Reform de-Baathification laws
7. Iraq would spend more of its own money
8. The United States would hold the Iraqis to certain benchmarks
9. Decrease in violence
   

Since then, some of what Bush envisioned has been accomplished - but not much.

JOHN: War Rules for Bush But Not For The Clintons

Yesterday, the New York Sun reported that Hillary Clinton is backing legislation that would require Congressional approval before President Bush could order military action against Iran.

The article went on to explain that Senator Clinton had recently voted on a nonbinding resolution that designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. This has left her open to political attacks from the left that she might have given the Bush Administration permission to strike at the Tehren regime, since Congress granted Bush wide authorization to pursue terrorist organizations in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

ABE: The Dems Gear Up To . .What?

The Good Old Days
Nancy Pelosi Reassuring Ba'athist Dictator Bashar Assad

O’ the thanklessness in being today’s Democratic strategist.

For the past few years the Democratic playbook wrote itself. With the seemingly fruitless loss of blood and treasure in Mesopotamia, all an aspiring Democrat had to do was utter a single word—repeatedly and loudly: Iraq. It also helped to talk about America’s “falling standing” in the world and the supposedly resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. If you were looking to pick up Black votes you sprinkled appearances with rhetoric about Katrina; if the fringe was your thing you mentioned Halliburton, and so on.

ABE: “John Edwards – Twice As Lovely (Half As True)”

“If your eyes were half as bright, they still would light my way,
If your heart were twice as true then you'd be mine today.
That's why I often wish that you were half as lovely, twice as true.”
-Sammy Gallop
Half As Lovely (Twice As True)

In October 2004 I clicked on Andrew Sullivan’s blog to get his take on the then-recent debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards. Sullivan thought Edwards had Dick Cheney beat on the articulation of ideas. I disagreed. But that wasn't the assertion that really stunned me.

ABE: "The Defeat-Junkies Sweat Out Withdrawal-Withdrawal.”

On July 8th The New York Times printed an editorial entitled “The Road Home.” A document of breathtaking moral cowardice, it called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, genocide notwithstanding. The piece stated:

"It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”

And went on:

“Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide.”

In other words, we need to leave and stay out, even if this means the institutional statewide slaughter of our allies.

Talk about winning hearts and minds.

Abe: "Hillary Wants To Invade"

I once shared a marvelously strange New York moment with former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton. A friend and I were enjoying a post-lunch stroll on West 23rd Street when I sensed an approaching disturbance. It became clear that two men were walking towards us, and that these two men were engaged in a very bizarre, mildly frightening conflict.  The younger man lumbered along in dead-faced silence, while the older berated him in a manner and amplitude so explosive it almost seemed like performance art.