Running On Empty

US government warns it's running out of cash
Fri Dec 30

"In a letter to Senate leaders Thursday, [Treasury Secretary, John] Snow said the statutory debt limit imposed by Congress of 8.184 trillion dollars would be reached in mid-February and the government would then lose its borrowing power. "At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations," said the letter, seen by AFP. Snow warned that even if the Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions" to avoid breaching the ceiling, "we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March"."

Maybe Iraq wasn't that good an investment after all.

The Economics of a Bad War and Needed Intelligence

Spy chief planning to curb spending
But critics urge continued growth to meet increased demands since 9/11

By Siobhan Gorman
Sun reporter
Originally published December 26, 2005

"The current intelligence budget is $44 billion, according to one of [Intelligence Director, John] Negroponte's senior aides, Mary Margaret Graham, who let the classified number slip at a conference in October. That is an increase of nearly 50 percent over the estimated $30 billion spent on intelligence five years ago, said John Pike, who tracks the intelligence budget at Globalsecurity.org. Some intelligence veterans say $44 billion a year is not enough to meet the growing demands placed on U.S. intelligence agencies since Sept. 11. Cutting growth in spending for the intelligence agencies would stunt the growth of a nascent intelligence reform effort, they contend. "This is so incredibly short-sighted," said Mark Lowenthal, who served as a top manager at the CIA until earlier this year. The proposed reduction in growth of intelligence spending is a sign that the Bush administration is paying for the Iraq war with money that should be going to intelligence, particularly for the hiring and training of spies, he added."

Fight Terror; Don't Pretend

Text of Bush speech on Iraq war
The Associated Press

"This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims — a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals — to demoralize free nations to drive us out of the Middle East to spread an empire of fear across that region and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al-Qaida to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat."

First, who is endorsing "a policy of retreat"? There is not a person in Congress or otherwise who does. Next, while the President's vision of a terrorist utopia is truly frightening, it is equally as frightening that we are spending $6 billion a month dodging IED's and fighting battles over and over again in the same cities, essentially spinning our wheels and not accomplishing the right goals. If the right goal is fighting terror, then specialized troops must accomplish this and not the national guard troops that comprise 40% of the US fighting force in Iraq. We have been far too distracted with fighting "Saddamists" and "Foreign Fighters" far too long and not focused enough on annihilating terror in Iraq. Finally, terrorists were not in Iraq until we invaded Iraq and would have engaged us whenever and wherever we chose to send our conventional troops. While the world may be a battlefield against terror, it is the covert operation that will defeat terrorism; not squandered funds and resources like what is happening in Iraq. Consequently, fight terror in Iraq if that is our mission, but don't pretend as if that is what we are doing.

President Bush: The Iraq War is Unwinnable

On the Campaign Trail

"Bush Tones Down Talk of Winning Terror War"
In Tour of Swing States on Way to GOP Convention, President Elaborates on Goal of Fighting

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 31, 2004; Page A06

"Bush has given a spate of interviews in the run-up to this week's Republican National Convention in New York, and he was asked by Matt Lauer of NBC's "Today" show, in an interview taped Saturday in Ohio and shown on the convention's opening day, if the war on terrorism can be won.

"I don't think you can win it," Bush said. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way.""

Does this statement reveal President Bush's unwillingness to win in Iraq or does it reveal that he does not know how to win in Iraq? If the war in Iraq is the front line in the war on terror and the war on terror is unwinnable according to the President, then how is the war in Iraq winnable? Despite his Administration's spin to the contrary, his policy has not changed over the year since stating the war's being unwinnable. Perhaps the Bush Administration's view converges more with Representative Murtha's than it is willing to admit.

An Unwilling Administration Makes for A Lost War

As long as there are not enough troops in Iraq to maintain a capable security and support beyond what is now possible, the oil infrastructure, which is two-thirds of the Iraqi economy, will remain under significant threat from insurgents and terrorists. That threat hampers oil production. Consequently, oil will still go unproduced and electricity will remain under produced. The oil industry needs significant electricity. However, our troops are currently unable to keep the lights on throughout the day for the Iraqi populace. As long as we are refighting battles in cities we once secured, we will not have the troops available to allow Iraqis to rebuild their heavy industry. If the Bush Administration is not willing to provide the right amount of troops to accomplish the badly needed rebuilding mission, then there is no reason to expose to senseless peril the troops we now have in Iraq. We must not expose our troops to the failure of a war that the Bush Administration is not willing to win.

The Public Is Misguided?

The Defense Secretary suggests the American public should not define failure in Iraq by the number of American casualties. It is rather unfortunate that this Administration believes that its own people cannot discern success from failure in Iraq. Not only does the public understand that young Americans are losing their lives for a poorly planned and misguided war, but it understands that this Administration leaped headlong into war without a success strategy. The public understands that this Administration is not willing to do what is necessary to succeed: to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure so Iraqi forces can stand alone. It understands that protracted war is not in the nation's interest: that it is bankrupting the nation's wealth, resources, and emotions. Above all, the public understands that failure has everything to do with the Administration's unwillingness to win and has little, if anything, to do with the public's perception.

A Diverted Public Attention

When your enemy is winning, redirect the fight. That is precisely what the Bush Administration is doing leading up to the mid-term elections. There is a direct correlation between diverted public attention and institutional injustice. The media is flooding public attention with relatively inconsequential issues on which the Bush Administration is trying to capitalize. The death penalty, for instance, has not been a significant political issue since the early 90's. Since the death penalty, regarding Stanley Tookie Williams, is primarily important for Californians, it is not something about which the President has to worry. Why did he comment about his position on the death penalty then? It is a debate anyone in his shoes would want to start to divert attention from the Iraq fiasco and the corruption permeating throughout the Republican controlled Congress. The President can talk ceaselessly about immigration, the death penalty, the economy, or the Supreme Court, but the Bush Administration and its supporters cannot readily escape reality. The public's attention will not be diverted from how the Administration propagates bad policy and encourages apathy and mismanagement.

Letter To Senators Lieberman, Clinton, and Nelson

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Anyone can understand your desire to keep Iraq stable. It is our moral obligation. Still, we currently have 160,000 troops there, which is an unnecessary amount needed to conduct counter-terrorism operations and to train Iraqi forces. Special Operations is better suited for the job. Additionally, 160,000 is not enough to maintain after-action security for extended periods. Now, leaders are discussing a slow withdrawal to keep from destabilizing Iraq. The truth is that leaders must weigh endangering our troops by slowly diminishing its ability to protect itself in opposition to a rapid and potentially destabilizing withdrawal. Iraq, however, is prone to destabilization whether we stay or leave because we never started with enough troops. Not only is it in our troops' best interest, but it is in the American interest, to bring this Iraq war to as swift an end as possible. Thank you.

Stifling The First Amendment

The public's ability to criticize government policy is an essential check against abuse. Since policy must be open to debate and war develops from policy, war must be open to debate. The Administration calling criticism irresponsible is tantamount to censorship since it essentially suggests that if the criticism is irresponsible, then the person making the criticism is irresponsible. Irresponsible people and irresponsible actions, as the reasoning follows, are not allowable in a well ordered society. Consequently, criticizing the war and those that criticize the war are not allowable in a well ordered society. However, Americans know that stifling freedom of speech for the wrong reason is irresponsible. The Administration, therefore, acts quite irresponsibly, intolerably, and un-American in calling criticism irresponsible.