Kyl has "confidence" in Rumsfeld!?

It's hard to imagine how or why anyone could seriously continue to stand behind Donald Rumsfeld any more.

He's been proven to be absolutely wrong on his war strategy, completely in error about WMDs and Saddam/Al Qaeda contacts. He completely underestimated the insurgency threat, he thoroughly undermined the advice of his generals and deliberately did not plan for the post-war occupation, while even threatening to fire staffers if they even spoke about the need for a post-war plan.

There are 20,000 Americans wounded, nearly 3,000 Americans killed, and probably more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead and many, many more wounded and displaced. It's widely recognized now that there is no effective plan in Iraq beyond platitudes and soundbites. There has been nearly a half a trillion dollars spent. And it's also now known that our whole fiasco in Iraq has actually INCREASED the terror threat and made us less safe!

All of this would have most reasoning people surmising that there's someone that needs to be held accountable for the biggest military planning botch-up in our nation's history. As reports come out now that everyone from Laura Bush to Colin Powell to the Commander of the 1st Armored Division to the Commander of the Transportation Command wanted Rumsfeld to go, it's long past time that became a reality.

But Senator Jon Kyl, who never served in the military, still has confidence in Rumsfeld's military strategery. And he urges not that we should redeploy to get our men and women out of the shooting gallery and force the Iraqis to stand up and take care of themselves, but instead urges us to send MORE of our troops into the growing civil war.

At some point, rational people just have to recognize that Rumsfeld and his enablers like Bush, Cheney and Kyl, have got it completely, dead wrong. Arizona needs a Senator that will exercise sound judgment on behalf of our State and our Country and Jon Kyl just isn't doing it.

Our country is in great jeopardy.

This short video of a special report by Olbermann outlines exactly what the Bush Administration did or did not do in the eight months leading up to 9/11. It is incredibly damning to the Bush Admin.

It also puts the lie - the outright lie - to Rice's assertion that they did everything they could, and that they were not given a plan for dealing with Al Qaeda.

Our President and his administration has been grossly negligent in keeping our country safe, and his negligence and bad judgment have led to monstrous consequences for our country. And it's only getting worse, as he tries to dig his way out of his hole by digging deeper.

As Andrew Sullivan recently said: if the President thinks that Torture is a powerful and useful tool in the War on Terror and that Habeas Corpus is a quaint relic of history, then things are more dire than our worst imaginings. Our President is systematically undermining our country and Congress has abdicated its responsibility to check him.

Fellow Americans, I sincerely believe our country is in serious trouble. Trouble that transcends our political differences. And our President has shown that he is worse than simply "not up to the job" - he's actively destructive in his role.

Lots going on, lately!

Not much time to post lately, as so much has been going on. In addition to moving back to the States and getting re-settled, there have been some other major events in my life this past month. Chief among them was Mom's passing and all the final arrangements involved...

Also, I've been remodeling my house to make it handicapped-accessible so my parents could move in. The remodel is a major undertaking (tile floors, wider doors, ramps, grab bars, roll-in shower, ADA toilets, etc.). I've had help from dozens of folks, without whom I simply couldn't have done it - I'm very grateful for everyone's help. And though Mom unfortunately won't be moving in as we'd planned, my Stepdad Troy moved in last week.

Troy is a great man. He served in the Navy in WWII and in the infantry in Korea as an enlisted man. He was wounded and earned a Purple Heart in both wars. He's a staunch Democrat and holds that Clinton was the best President of modern times. Life has dealt him some rough cards, most recently with the passing of his wife of 27 years. We have a great relationship and I'm honored to be able to help take care of him.

Speaking of which, we both got a kick out of Clinton's recent interview with Chris Wallace. If you haven't seen it yet, you should check it out. As Troy said, "Old Bill kicked his ---".

Ahem.

I'm also enjoying two classes at CGCC: American Government and Statistics. Both are pretty much review courses for me, but I need to take them as pre-requisites for beginning the Master's of Public Administration program at ASU next year. I'm enjoying the courses, too. Not only are they educational, but after one AmGovt class last week, I registered two new Democrat voters!

***

Finally for today, a few painful observations on recent news on Iraq:

1. Less safe: Seattle Times--A stark assessment of terrorism trends by U.S. intelligence agencies has found that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. Our war in Iraq has made us LESS safe.

2. More money: CBS News--The Pentagon is in the early stages of drafting a wartime request for up to $100 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, lawmakers say, a figure that would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars.

3. More torture: Guardian Unlimited--Torture in Iraq is worse now than it was under the regime of Saddam Hussein and "is totally out of hand", according to a United Nations investigator. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," said Manfred Nowak.

4. More troops: LA Daily News--The U.S. military is likely to maintain and may even increase its force of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top American commander in the region said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of when troops may come home.

5. No plan: Washington Monthly--According to retiring Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq. Scheid is the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps and, as such, was in charge of much of the logistical planning for the invasion.

"I remember the Secretary of Defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."

Scheid's assertion today has been corroborated by retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste, who commanded the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq. So: the lack of postwar planning wasn't merely the result of incompetence. It was deliberate policy, so as to dupe the American people into supporting it.

So...stay the course? I don't think so.

Never forget.

Are elections really about issues?

One of the more frustrating things about elections is that we all talk about "issues" as if they are the crucial point, yet so much of elections is based on charisma, image and style-over-substance. It's a strange disconnect I've noticed. It's almost as if electioneering is just a kabuki show, where the issues become the tropes and vehicles for the candidates to display their personal likeability or other characteristics.

Having spent a lot of time working in community development in extraordinarily challenging situations in various parts of the world, I've noted that this is almost universal human tendency. It's a kind of tribalism, where the right-or-wrong of a given issue becomes less important than who is espousing the view and how it's presented.

Thus, a member of the in-group (say, a member of one's own political party) is given every benefit of the doubt that they are right on the issues, as long as they identify with the in-group. And their style and presentation is palatable enough to not be entirely off-putting.

I think J.D. Hayworth, for example, trades heavily on this. Just about every moderate/centrist I've spoken to privately about him - Republicans, Independents and Democrats - recognize that he's something of a blowhard, shallower than most when it comes to actual understanding of governance, prone to destructive partisanship and demagoguery and is something of an embarrassment to our state. Yet, he is given a free pass by many people because of his slick image and is supported avidly by Republicans election after election because he has that "R" behind his name.

Then you have a man like Harry Mitchell, who is literally considered a hero (he had a statue erected in his honor by the people of Tempe for his public service), but who isn't all glossy and glib. Mitchell speaks from the heart, his sincerity is palpable and his competence at governance is so overwhelmingly evident that he immediately gives one a sense of confidence in the future. And, oh yes, he is right on the issues, too.

All this in mind, I ran across this interesting op-ed, with the following quote that I had to share with you:

If there's one thing Republicans have understood and Democrats haven't, it is that politics is not about issues. Politics is about identity. The candidates and parties that win are not those aligning their positions most precisely with a majority of the electorate. The winners are those who form a positive image in the public mind of who they are (and a negative image of who their opponents are). Issues are a vehicle to create that identity, one that combines with symbolism and narrative to shape what the public thinks about when they think about Democrats and Republicans.

Think about what happens in campaign after campaign. The Democrat comes before the public and says, ``If you read my 10-point policy plan, I'm sure you'll vote for me. Let's go over it point by point." The Republican then comes before the public, points to the Democrat, and says, ``That guy is a weak, elitist liberal who hates you and everything you stand for. I'm one of you and he's not." And guess who wins.

After it's all over, Democrats wonder why they lost, when a majority of the public favors nearly all the items on their agenda. Americans want a higher minimum wage, legal abortion, strong environmental protections, universal healthcare, and a tax policy that isn't tilted toward the wealthy, to name a few. But voters don't read policy papers, and they don't make decisions with a checklist of issues in their hands. That's why Republican campaigns operate on a different level: Whom do you identify with? Whom can you trust? Who is strong, and who is weak? These questions transcend issues, which is why Republicans -- who know they are at a disadvantage on the issues -- spend so much time talking about them.

Here's hoping that voters in November will see through Hayworth's slick veneer to the hollow shell beneath. And that Mitchell's integrity, sincerity, competence and, yes, more constructive position on the issues that agree with most of us in the mainstream will encourage voters to recognize him as the far better choice to represent them.

CD5 Debate: Hayworth slick, but Mitchell wins on substance

This afternoon, I had the pleasure of watching my taped version of the Mitchell-Hayworth debate on Horizon (aired last night). If you're giving points for glossy camera-readiness, Hayworth gets points. But in just about every other area, Mitchell was the clear winner on content and personality.

To begin with the style question, I'm not sure why it is that Hayworth always strikes me as a used-car salesman. He has that fake smile, the broadcaster's voice, and just about everything he says seems cleverly gauged to sell you something. His responses vary between glib and condescending, and I've never felt at ease around that kind of oily, affected personality.

In contrast, Mitchell comes across as a warm, sincere, avuncular and competent man. He's rougher around the edges, not so slick and polished, and all the more real for it. Unlike with Hayworth, I don't get the impression that he's trying to boost his quota or make a commission off of me when I listen to Mitchell. Mitchell's someone I'd feel comfortable asking for advice, and he's clearly well informed on the issues.

When it comes down to content, Hayworth wasn't all that substantial. He seemed to reiterate his talking points in a condescending way. He used a cheat sheet to remind himself of key points which, one would think, should be pretty familiar by now. He completely evaded addressing the issue twice, and once he even lied outright by denying that he'd suggested a 3-year ban on immigration (which he'd written in his book).

Hayworth was completely adrift when Mitchell pointed out that JD had done nothing in 12 years in office on border security, despite all of Hayworth's high-blown rhetoric. And when Mitchell pointed out that Hayworth's immigration bill was so extremist that not even his own party would ever let it see the light of day in the House, Hayworth had no effective response except to try to obfuscate.

It really says something about your inability to govern when your own party thinks your bills are too extreme, impractical and out of touch with the mainstream.

Mitchell stumbled a bit once, when Hayworth tried to mis-frame a guest worker program, but rallied well. He made good points when he noted that Hayworth's plan would be - according to businessmen - a big detriment to business. He also elucidated his position on Iraq, which is quite different from what Hayworth has been trying to misrepresent. And on the stem cell question Mitchell made an excellent points which Hayworth was unable to respond except in platitudes.

Repeatedly, Hayworth condescendingly tried to downplay Mitchell's distinctives by saying "I'm glad to hear that Harry agrees with me on this..." The false-agreement fallacy is an old trick and extremely patronizing, but not at all surprising coming from Hayworth.

In all, one is left with the profound impression that Hayworth is a slick huckster who has managed to weasel his way into a position of power by virtue of a silver tongue and a large Republican voter registration advantage, but who otherwise is uninterested in addressing issues of governance in a mature, bipartisan way. (I'm reminded of the poll of congressional staffers that named Hayworth "Biggest Windbag".)

Meanwhile, Mitchell is an accomplished and sincere public servant, has the competence and understanding of the issues, the right values and priorities, as well as the ability to function in a bipartisan manner to get much-needed results for Arizona.

After the debate, I was left with an even greater desire to see Mitchell win in November and represent CD-5 with a degree of competence, maturity and comity which we have not had for many years.

Update: Tim Wilson has an excellent rebuttal to Hayworth's risible claim at the end of the debate that he's "not a rubberstamp" for President Bush:

It looks like J.D. likes to point to the P.R. pieces the Bush Administration shot through Congress, failed to fund properly, and then touted as accomplishments. He is proud he put his vote behind those bills. He is proud of being a rubberstamp.

But he's not a rubberstamp because he's the immigration rebel. It's that one issue that seperates J.D. from other Bush Rubberstamps. Let us all be thankful that J.D. is on the wrong side of Bush on this one.

Indeed.

Update 2: I thought blogger cpmaz also expressed it well:

Both campaigns claim victory, and they're both right, at least partially. Hayworth won on style points, Mitchell easily won the 'substance' part of the program.

All that I have to add at this point is to note that with the candidates' different styles, that JD came off looking like a seasoned TV performer (which he is) and Harry certainly did not.

The differences can be summed thusly -

JD looked like someone used to looking directly into the camera;

Harry looked like someone used to looking directly into someone's eyes.

Guess which one I think is a better qualification for office?

D20 races offer little excitement in the primaries.

I voted early in the primary today. Not terribly exciting, since most of the positions are unopposed. I'm disappointed that D-20 is fielding no Democratic candidates for State House. Only Gratehouse is running for State Senate, against Huppenthal. It seems like, with the exception of her candidacy, the Dems are pretty much ceding D20 to the Republicans.

More here:

District 20 candidates say immigration and education will be the top issues in November’s general election.

As for the Sept. 12 primary, there’s nothing for voters to decide. All of the candidates are running unopposed — so the showdown will happen in November.

...Huppenthal will face Democratic activist Donna Gratehouse in the November general election. The veteran senator takes a hard stance on immigration, favoring stricter border controls and cutting illegal immigrants from the state’s welfare rolls.

“I voted ‘yes’ on every bill to control immigration,” Huppenthal said.

Gratehouse, on the other hand, said Arizona should focus on reversing a trend that places the state near the bottom nationally in education funding. With the state’s tremendous economic growth, particularly in high-tech industries, the Legislature should invest in education, she said.

“A work force that is skilled and readily available is crucial to high-tech and business investment,” she said. “Plus, ensuring that any child has access to an excellent public education is just good policy and the right thing to do.”

***

Also, I'd like to say thank you for the many prayers and expressions of sympathy I've received following the passing of my Mother last week. It's been a difficult time for the family and we continue to grieve. I was in crisis-management mode all week and gave the eulogy last Friday, but the emotional impact seems to have hit me this week now that most of the critical logistics have been resolved.

Thankfully, we have a sure knowledge that Mom is with the Lord now.

We continue to prepare for my Step Dad to move into my home next Saturday. He's a disabled veteran - wounded in WWII and Korea - and a great guy. I'm looking forward to his moving in.

Much more to do to the house to prepare, still, to make it handicapped-accessible. We're making good progress, though, thank God.

Anyway, thanks again for your condolences.

In mourning.

Mom passed away last Sunday afternoon.

It's been a very long, very draining week.