January 2006

STATE OF THE UNION TRANSLATION

Bush's stuff is in italics. My stuff isn't. Scroll carefully and enjoy.

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong -- and together we will make it stronger. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: I pray every day people don't realize the two-party system as it stands deprives people of a real voice. I pray even harder an armed rebellion doesn't break out, because me and my family would be the first to go to the firing squad.

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We are going to conquer the world and take all the oil for ourselves. Don't get in our way, or we will cut you.

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom's cause. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: This is misguided idealism, but I have to sound positive, or you won't be suckered into the neo-conservative goal of conquering the oil-producing regions of the world and installing puppet governments. To all the dictatorships we currently support, fear not. This speech is for domestic consumption only. We plan to try and kill every terrorist your oppressive regimes create so long as you keep the natural resources flowing to our ever-consuming nation.

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we're writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: There are 122 democracies, but most of them are horribly corrupt and ramshackle. The ones that aren't scare me deeply, particularly the democracy that produced Hamas as the Palestinian leadership. Afghan women are still oppressed by our standards and millions of Iraqis plan to deprive millions others of their ability to be an effective political force. I put Iran on the list of undemocratic nations because, even though they're a democracy, I don't like them.

I WILL NOT PUT CHINA OR SAUDI ARABIA ON THE LIST OF UNDEMOCRATIC NATIONS. So help me, if China wanted, they could make our dollar their plaything faster than you can say, "prison sex". And if the King of Saudi Arabia called me up and said to appear on national television with underwear on my head, I'd have all three networks carrying live footage of me with cotton jockeys on my noggin within half an hour. The demands of my deficit spending programs and our voracious consumption of oil require I keep my mouth shut on how their peoples require their freedom, as well. (Dead, stunned silence.)

No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder -- and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder.

TRANSLATION: Islam is the new Communism. Except for the radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. If the King of Saudi Arabia told me to carry a donkey across the Potomac, I'd have a snorkel, donkey, and naval escort whipped together faster that you can say "Sport-Utility Vehicle". Lord, I hope the Saudis aren't buying nuclear weapons from starving Russian military personnel. That would be so embarrassing.

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Maybe if I mention Beslan, the Russians will help me get the UN to order an invasion of Iran. Then again, we're trying to screw them out of oil and gas money by having the Kazakstan reserves get pumped through Afghanistan or across the Caspian to Azerbaijan and Georgia. Azerbaijan. Damn. There's another hellacious dictatorship we've got to support. We love our SUVs, and we will keep third world nations oppressed to keep them. (Grumbles of discontent.)

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: This is my justification for invading the oil-producing regions of the world we can't buy. And Saudi Arabia. Lord have mercy on us all if they ever stick it to us again like they did in '73. Anyway, since there aren't enough soldiers to go around, we're going to need to bring back the draft to invade Iran and maybe a few other places.

I have no idea what will replace Islam as a bogeyman after we wipe it out and bring them all to Jesus. Can't take on the Chinese. They're financing our debt. We're one exchange rate adjustment from becoming the next Paraguay. (Short selling on the stock market.)

America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace. We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders -- and for the others, their day will come.

TRANSLATION: I am referring to FDR. As in the Grand-daddy of Big Government, or "gubbmint" as we like to call it in Texas. If I make a reference to Lincoln, you know you're all going to be collectively screwed as a nation. That's been the case in every State of the Union Address since 1945.

We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy. We're on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we're helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.

TRANSLATION: We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan against the terrorists. That means we cut sweet deals with the opium growers and heroin producers. They'll help us kill terrorists if we keep them safe from prosecution. In Iraq, we're scared as hell everyone figures out the current government, such as it is, is bringing back the secret police networks of Saddam Hussein. This insurgency is going to last another 5-8 years according to our predictions, by the way.

Second, we're continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we're striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy. Iraqis are showing their courage every day, and we are proud to be their allies in the cause of freedom. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Let's not mention the Kurds and Arabs getting ready to kill each other over Kirkuk. Or how the Shia in the south are leaning close to Iran and could kick the British out of that sector faster than you can say "Running-Dog Capitalist". We're only in Iraq as long as we serve the ends of the Kurds and Shia. So help us, if they turned against us, we'd have to bomb them into the stone age, and that makes for terrible television. If this Iraq thing becomes a full-blown civil war, my administration would have been responsible for creating even more bloodshed and instability in the Middle East. (Fear-filled quiet.)

Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Everyone's brutal in Iraq, but we're now getting the Iraqis to do all the torturing and extrajudicial killing so our troops look clean again. Like I said, 5-8 years, tops. And don't worry, only the poor people of America actually get wounded and die. (Uneasy shifting, a few hesitant claps that quickly taper off to silence.)

The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Remember the Pentagon Papers? We're trying the same strategy and hoping that doesn't happen again. (Dark muttering from portions of the audience.)

Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. (Applause.) Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: OK, so we screwed up. Shut up already. (Someone in the audience cries an obscene phrase.) Yeah, well [OBSCENE VERB] YOURSELF, TOO, BUDDY! And I know my VP Dick Cheney won't mind me paraphrasing him. (Obscene gesture at the audience, met by increasing murmuring.)

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country, and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: You know if we bail, they'll all kill each other. A slow burn for 5-8 years is preferable to a massacre, right? Nobody has trusted America since we broke every treaty we made with the Native Americans, but we do have to show the world that when we show up to chew bubble gum and kick some ass, we mean it. So shut up and stand with me, or we're all gonna get killed by the families of people we've needlessly killed. They're not going to give you a questionnaire to see who's side you're on when they come looking for blood. (Angry grumbling.)

Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices -- and showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear. They know what it's like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb. And those who know the costs also know the stakes. Marine Staff Sergeant Dan Clay was killed last month fighting in Fallujah. He left behind a letter to his family, but his words could just as well be addressed to every American. Here is what Dan wrote: "I know what honor is. ... It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to.... Never falter! Don't hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting."

TRANSLATION: I'm so glad it's them and not me out there. I'm also so glad I can wrap realpolitik in a US flag and convince young men like this guy that they're dying for freedom when they're really dying for control of oil.

Staff Sergeant Dan Clay's wife, Lisa, and his mom and dad, Sara Jo and Bud, are with us this evening. Welcome. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We're not inviting the families of dead soldiers who criticize the war. We're not even gonna talk to them. (Sounds of people trying to get in from outside the chamber.)

Our nation is grateful to the fallen, who live in the memory of our country. We're grateful to all who volunteer to wear our nation's uniform -- and as we honor our brave troops, let us never forget the sacrifices of America's military families. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We're grateful, but don't expect any raises anytime soon. Or medical benefits for National Guardsmen pressed into active duty service. You're lucky we decided to finally reimburse soldiers for body armor. That stuff's useless, anyway. You sit on it to protect yourself from mines. Your helmet is for scooping up your guts. Your only friends are your fellow soldiers and you are going to die. What you do will determine if they piss on your grave or pour vodka on it. You are pawns and don't forget it. (Angry shouting from veterans who are getting the run-around from the VA.)

Our offensive against terror involves more than military action. Ultimately, the only way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat their dark vision of hatred and fear by offering the hopeful alternative of political freedom and peaceful change. So the United States of America supports democratic reform across the broader Middle East. Elections are vital, but they are only the beginning. Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law, and protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote.

TRANSLATION: We will continue illegally detaining suspected terrorists and flying them to cooperative nations who will torture them for us or let us torture them without tattling. We want elections, but not the kind that elect Hamas. Good grief, why can't these people figure out how to rig an election? It's easy. Just have a brother who's governor of Florida or use them cool Diebold machines. Too bad folks figured out they were hackable. Would have been nice to use them again in 2006.

The great people of Egypt have voted in a multi-party presidential election -- and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace. (Applause.) Saudi Arabia has taken the first steps of reform -- now it can offer its people a better future by pressing forward with those efforts. Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Suck it, Hamas. You're going down. We're bringing back the draft and we're gonna drive you guys into the sea. (Confused noise.) I'll mention Saudi Arabia in a nice way, but not get into too many details. That's crazy. But I will cover my ass by saying those Middle East democracies will not look like our own. That way, they can get away with all kinds of crazy stuff, like we used to let the Taliban do before they decided to quit negotiating the pipeline deal. (Disgusted silence.)

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end. (Applause.) The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. (Applause.) America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.

TRANSLATION: So help me, I hope they don't already have nukes, or we're gonna have a lot of soldiers get killed when we go into Iran in a few months. (Sporadic angry shouting.) We'll nuke their asses right back, though, so at least we wouldn't have to deal with a bloody occupation. But all that oil... damn. (More profuse angry shouting.)

Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: You're next. This is what we said to Iraq before we went in. Get ready, 'cause you're next. (Outraged demands of "Impeach him!")

To overcome dangers in our world, we must also take the offensive by encouraging economic progress, and fighting disease, and spreading hope in hopeless lands. Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. We show compassion abroad because Americans believe in the God-given dignity and worth of a villager with HIV/AIDS, or an infant with malaria, or a refugee fleeing genocide, or a young girl sold into slavery. We also show compassion abroad because regions overwhelmed by poverty, corruption, and despair are sources of terrorism, and organized crime, and human trafficking, and the drug trade.

TRANSLATION: OK, disease scares the hell out of me. Diseases can kill rich people. That's just wrong. We have to get rid of those. Drugs have to go, unless the drug dealers are helping us get rid of the terrorists so we can take over the world's oil supplies. Gotta take the bad with the good.

In recent years, you and I have taken unprecedented action to fight AIDS and malaria, expand the education of girls, and reward developing nations that are moving forward with economic and political reform. For people everywhere, the United States is a partner for a better life. Short-changing these efforts would increase the suffering and chaos of our world, undercut our long-term security, and dull the conscience of our country. I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America.

TRANSLATION: Get ready to provide more foreign aid. Sure, the dictators we support are going to buy weapons instead of vaccines, but we don't have to mention that just right now, do we?

Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives, protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks. (Applause.) They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Quit dissing the TSA. They're here to stay. They make us look safe, even though they don't make a hell of a lot of difference in actual security. (Groans.) I want to be able to do all kinds of things without worrying about civil rights, so reauthorize the Patriot Act. Or I'll have you on a plane to a CIA prison in Romania. (Wild, enthusiastic applause.)

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack -- based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute -- I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: It's all your fault for whining about civil rights that the WTC went down. Freedom is slavery, just like Orwell said. Clap now, you lackeys! (Applause.)

In all these areas -- from the disruption of terror networks, to victory in Iraq, to the spread of freedom and hope in troubled regions -- we need the support of our friends and allies. To draw that support, we must always be clear in our principles and willing to act. The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world. Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders -- from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan -- rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.

TRANSLATION: Not yet referring to Lincoln. I'm warming up, though. Anyway, war is peace. That's the second thing Orwell got right.

Our own generation is in a long war against a determined enemy -- a war that will be fought by Presidents of both parties, who will need steady bipartisan support from the Congress. And tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Yes, I know Hilary Clinton will win in 2008, but I'm certain she's as much of a warmonger as I am. Ignorance is strength. That's the hat trick for Orwell. Two minutes' hate, now. (Applause.)

Here at home, America also has a great opportunity: We will build the prosperity of our country by strengthening our economic leadership in the world.

TRANSLATION: We're screwed if we can't sell our debt. Interest rates are going to have to go higher.

Our economy is healthy and vigorous, and growing faster than other major industrialized nations. In the last two-and-a-half years, America has created 4.6 million new jobs -- more than Japan and the European Union combined. (Applause.) Even in the face of higher energy prices and natural disasters, the American people have turned in an economic performance that is the envy of the world.

TRANSLATION: We're in hock up to our eyeballs. We can't keep this up forever, but maybe the crash won't happen until after Hilary's sworn into office in 2009. I'll be good and gone by then. (Hesitant applause.) Guards! (Weapons getting ready.) (Obviously forced enthusiastic applause.)

The American economy is preeminent, but we cannot afford to be complacent. In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors, like China and India, and this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people's fears. So we're seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy -- even though this economy could not function without them. (Applause.) All these are forms of economic retreat, and they lead in the same direction -- toward a stagnant and second-rate economy.

TRANSLATION: China and India are why we have to grab the oil first. And we need immigrants as a source of cheap labor or we're screwed. That's the only reason I'm in favor of them. You already know my stand on civil liberties. Heh. (Sounds of people outside screaming, some indications of a struggle.)

Tonight I will set out a better path: an agenda for a nation that competes with confidence; an agenda that will raise standards of living and generate new jobs. Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it.

TRANSLATION: Here it comes.

Keeping America competitive begins with keeping our economy growing. And our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest. In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. (Applause.) Yet the tax relief is set to expire in the next few years. If we do nothing, American families will face a massive tax increase they do not expect and will not welcome. Because America needs more than a temporary expansion, we need more than temporary tax relief. I urge the Congress to act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: If you don't pass the tax cut, you're going to get lynched. (Golf claps.)

Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: I am lying. All the discretionary spending took off like a rocket, but I've cooked the books for you all. And if we don't cut the deficit by 2009, we won't be able to stay in business as a nation. Them's the breaks. Remember what happened to Mexico and their peso crisis? Well, act confident or it's gonna happen to us. You know how investors get spooked! (Applause.)

I am pleased that members of Congress are working on earmark reform, because the federal budget has too many special interest projects. (Applause.) And we can tackle this problem together, if you pass the line-item veto. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Pork away! But give me the line-item veto so I can starve the Democrats' pork and have only Republicans get elected. (Applause from the Republican side only.)

We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements. This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad's favorite people -- me and President Clinton. (Laughter.) This milestone is more than a personal crisis -- (laughter) -- it is a national challenge. The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices -- staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending. Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause) -- yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (Applause.) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.

TRANSLATION: Come on, we're all rich people in charge, so why should we have to give all that money to the poor? I'm sure there's some way we can cancel welfare and divert that pile of loot to ourselves. (Laughter, then applause.) Otherwise, we'll go bankrupt because of laws passed by that sonofabitch Roosevelt. (Shock.)

So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan solutions. We need to put aside partisan politics and work together and get this problem solved. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Figure out a way we can get ourselves out of this mess without having to also get out of Iraq and cancel the invasion of Iran. (Uneasy muttering.) Guards! (Spineless, fawning applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires us to open more markets for all that Americans make and grow. One out of every five factory jobs in America is related to global trade, and we want people everywhere to buy American. With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: With luck, our oligopolies can crush foreign competition. We'll claim it's fair trade, but you all know there are some big checks from lobbyists coming your way if you can make this happen. (Applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires an immigration system that upholds our laws, reflects our values, and serves the interests of our economy. Our nation needs orderly and secure borders. (Applause.) To meet this goal, we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. (Applause.) And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the border. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Let's shoot all the bad immigrants and have the others pick lettuce and program on the cheap. Man, that tunnel from Mexico into California really freaks me out. (Mutters of agreement.)

Keeping America competitive requires affordable health care. (Applause.) Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility. (Applause.) For all Americans -- for all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and help people afford the insurance coverage they need. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: I know Republicans shot down Hilary's health care plan a few years ago, but she's coming in 2008, so I figured I'd take the credit for it by getting it passed myself. Steal her thunder. Ha ha ha. (Applause from the Republican side only.) (Dirty looks from Senator Clinton.)

We will make wider use of electronic records and other health information technology, to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors. We will strengthen health savings accounts -- making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big businesses now get. (Applause.) We will do more to make this coverage portable, so workers can switch jobs without having to worry about losing their health insurance. (Applause.) And because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice -- leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB/GYN -- I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Expect more junk mail. Lots of it. And my doctor friends want me to throw them a bone. If we let the lawyers sue the fast food companies, maybe they'll cut the doctors some slack. (Hesitant applause.)

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.

TRANSLATION: We're not going to conserve. That's what got Carter kicked out of office, talk like that. No, we're going to divert $10 billion to my buddies in the energy industry to figure out that there really isn't any fuel as efficient as gasoline, which is really scary when you think about it.

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: It's a done deal. $10 billion from the back pockets of American taxpayers and into the bank accounts of people too rich to pay any real taxes. (Applause from all of Bush's oil buddies.)

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: All this stuff can really mess up the environment once you get beyond consuming waste materials, which is only enough to meet a fraction of our energy demands. Hell, we burn almost 9 million barrels of gasoline every DAY. That's way the hell more than any other nation on the earth, even when adjusted for population discrepancies. But we're gonna go with the ethanol so all the Big Oil companies can get even bigger farm subsidy checks. (More applause from all of Bush's oil buddies.)

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Dream on. We're still gay for Saudi oil. What do you think all these damn wars are for, anyway? Why would we be occupying Iraq if it wasn't all about the oil? (Silence.)

And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people -- and we're going to keep that edge. Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Ignorance is strength, just like I said. If I can bog down the public school system with enough people who should have dropped out, the deadweight will eventually make them all non-performing and the whole thing falls apart. More money for us! Yay! (Applause.)

First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.

TRANSLATION: OK, so we need a few geeks. This is for them.

Second, I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit -- (applause) -- to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology. With more research in both the public and private sectors, we will improve our quality of life -- and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Tax credits... the ultimate bait and switch! Your voters are gonna love this. Your corporate campaign contributors are gonna love it even more. (Wild applause.)

Third, we need to encourage children to take more math and science, and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We've made a good start in the early grades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores across our country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: We'll throw money at schools for now, but No Child Left Behind leaves them all doomed to failure. Aren't you glad all your kids are in private school, where they don't have to mix with all the riff-raff the law says we can't let drop out of school? (Applause.)

Preparing our nation to compete in the world is a goal that all of us can share. I urge you to support the American Competitiveness Initiative, and together we will show the world what the American people can achieve.

TRANSLATION: No details on this. They're better left unsaid. You know why.

America is a great force for freedom and prosperity. Yet our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another. So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society.

TRANSLATION: Blah blah blah. Nobody's paying attention now. I'll say some fluff just to wrap things up.

In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Blah blah lies about drug use blah blah blah fudging of numbers blah blah blah (Perfunctory applause.)

These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation -- a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies, such as welfare reform and drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Blah blah blah pat yourselves on the back (Applause.)

Yet many Americans, especially parents, still have deep concerns about the direction of our culture, and the health of our most basic institutions. They're concerned about unethical conduct by public officials, and discouraged by activist courts that try to redefine marriage. They worry about children in our society who need direction and love, and about fellow citizens still displaced by natural disaster, and about suffering caused by treatable diseases.

TRANSLATION: Blah blah blah why do Muslims get to be the only religious extremists in the world?

As we look at these challenges, we must never give in to the belief that America is in decline, or that our culture is doomed to unravel. The American people know better than that. We have proven the pessimists wrong before -- and we will do it again. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Seriously, let's bring back some of them cool Old Testament laws. (Applause from all the religious extremists.)

A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. (Applause.) I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Alito was a slam-dunk Ha ha ha. Now we can have the court reinterpret "civil rights" into what Alexander Hamilton wanted - nothingness.

Today marks the official retirement of a very special American. For 24 years of faithful service to our nation, the United States is grateful to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Blah blah blah some chick in a robe blah blah blah (Applause because it's almost over.)

A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: Sure, I said I wanted more science, but not the stuff that goes against my extremist, obscurantist religious views.

(Hopeful blather...)

A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency -- and stays at it until they're back on their feet. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees. We're providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived.

TRANSLATION: $85 billion in rigged contracts. More money for my buddies. Ha ha ha.

In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country. The answer is not only temporary relief, but schools that teach every child, and job skills that bring upward mobility, and more opportunities to own a home and start a business. As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: So help me I don't want all those dusky peoples to start rioting.

A hopeful society acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be prevented, and treated, and defeated. More than a million Americans live with HIV, and half of all AIDS cases occur among African Americans. I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act, and provide new funding to states, so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America. (Applause.) We will also lead a nationwide effort, working closely with African American churches and faith-based groups, to deliver rapid HIV tests to millions, end the stigma of AIDS, and come closer to the day when there are no new infections in America. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: PLEASE DON'T RIOT! I'LL GIVE YOU SOME MONEY! JUST DON'T RIOT!!!

Fellow citizens, we've been called to leadership in a period of consequence. We've entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite. We see great changes in science and commerce that will influence all our lives. Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing.

TRANSLATION: I'm wrapping up. Haven't referred to Lincoln yet, so maybe you're not so bad off, after all.

Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?

TRANSLATION: BAM! GOTCHA! Referred to Lincoln AND I had the brass to toss in MLK, too. You're all screwed worse than you ever dreamed possible. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. MU HU HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage. Like Americans before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom's advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land. And so we move forward -- optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident of the victories to come.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

TRANSLATION: If there is a God, I'm going straight to hell. I'll take my chances. In the meantime, I'm having one sweet ride at your expense.

Beating Around the Bush

CBS News aired an interview between Bob Schieffer and President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, I wasn't invited to provide my insightful commentary and razor-sharp observations.

So, here's the next best thing. I'll post Bush's comments in italics, followed by my comments. Not everything he said was comment-worthy, so I'll skip over the parts where he talks about his dad and stuff like that. I'll also remove sections of Bush's comments that don't really impact the gist of what he's saying. I'm not going to talk about Bush's style of delivery or malapropisms, as I find that inappropriate to the conversation at hand. Let's consider the policies above the presentation. Heck, I'll even polish up Bush's comments so we can focus on what's really important: the agenda of the executive branch of the United States of America.

ON HAMAS: "... they've got to get rid of that arm of their party which is armed and violent, and secondly, they have got to get rid of that part of their platform that says they want to destroy Israel. And if they don't, we won't deal with them.... Aid packages won't go forward. Well, that's their decision to make... we won't be providing help to a government that wants to destroy our ally and friend. I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you don't renounce violent aims. The other thing that's interesting about the elections, though, that I found fascinating is that it reminded me that the elections are window panes into the actual condition of society.... In other words, a lot of us were assuming that maybe life was this way or that way, and all of a sudden the people showed up to vote and said we want something different, we want good, honest government; we want people to listen to our needs; we want people to provide services so our families can grow up and be prosperous."

Yes, Hamas ran on a law and order ticket and won big. They got rid of an entrenched corrupt lot and are ready to turn the system on its ear. This has to be scary to any Republican or Democrat. Bolivia's coca-farming president is making waves, too, so one hopes the masses rise up and send home the entrenched aristocracies. Nice dream, that. But, yes, Hamas was elected democratically. It's proof the Arabs do embrace democracy and want it very much. The fact that they plan to use it to run Israel to the wall and stick it to the US is where the goal of making countries friendly to the US through more democracy breaks down. Looks like one can have a pro-US regime or democracy, not both.

OK, back to Hamas being violent. We all know Hamas wants to do to Israel what Israel's been doing to the Palestinians for 50+ years. The US will cut off aid to a Hamas-run Palestine if they don't renounce that platform. The EU's said as much, as well. But Hamas has ties to Hizbollah and Iran and might also pick up funding from disgruntled anti-Zionists from around the Arab and developing world. Hamas has floated the idea of building a Palestinian army, perhaps one with some air defense capability for the next time Israel sends in an attack chopper to fire a few rockets into an apartment block where they suspect terrorists to be located. That's the real threat to Israel: a hostile Palestine not restricting terrorists based within its territory that can also enforce its borders and airspace to keep out or, more likely, delay Israeli retaliatory incursions.

The deeper problem is that time is on the side of the Palestinians. They outnumber the Israelis and, unless the Israelis engage in actual hardcore genocide, will eventually remain standing in superior numbers when the Israelis finally run out of bullets. That's why Israel initiated the peace process and why Sharon didn't abandon it, much as he hindered it with his policies. Israel left Gaza the same way it left Lebanon, and Hamas may be speculating the West Bank could be returned in much the same manner. If Hamas thinks it can succeed without American and EU help, the same way Hizbollah succeeded in Lebanon, then it'll keep the violent plank and damn all.

The question I'd like to ask Bush is, "Will the US consider deploying forces to directly aid and protect Israel from Palestinian actions?" or "Will the US tolerate Israel using nuclear weapons against a hostile Palestine?" Of course, the US neither confirms nor denies that Israel has nukes, so I'd like to ask that last question partly for shock value alone. Which leads us to another issue...

ON IRAN: "The Free World cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, not just the United States, but those of us who value freedom, and that is why our strategy is to present and hold together a united front to say to the Iranians your designs to have a nuclear weapon or your desire to have the capability of making a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. It's very important that we speak to two groups: One is the government, and also the people. And in speaking to the people, my message is this: You know, we're not going to tell you how to live your life, but we would like you to be free. We would like you to be able to express yourselves in the market, in the open, without fear of reprisal. We want you to be able to vote and elect. To the government, our message is, is that if you want to be a part of the family of nations, give up your nuclear weapons ambitions. Now, one of the things we have done is they have said they want to be able to have a civilian nuclear capacity, we want to be able to have our own nuclear power plant, and we've said we understand that. But because you're a nontransparent government, because you've openly stated your desire to destroy one of our allies, that you should be able to have a plant, but the uranium for running that plant will come from Russia, and Russia will provide the fuel, you will burn the fuel, and Russia will collect the fuel under IAEA safeguards."

Iran later backed away from the Russian plan, but Bush is clear: The US will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. Or any more of them, if they've already clandestinely acquired them from the former Soviet Union. Bush went on to say that sanctions and military force remained options he'd consider against Iran after the US and its allies "exhaust all diplomacy".

Bush's comments about Iranian democracy sound odd in light of the fact that the Iranian election was pretty much like the Palestinian one. The "wrong guy", as far as US interests go, got elected and is now rallying the population to pursue policies counter to those of the US. The head of Iran is another guy who upset the apple cart in his nation and plans to raise a little hell with the powers that be. If Pakistan is any guide, the people of Iran would love to have their nation get nuclear weapons. Nukes are a status symbol, a sign that your nation has arrived. A sign that the US can't unilaterally invade your nation without risking losing a huge number of troops and/or civilians in a nuclear strike. Nukes mean your nation can't be pushed around. It can have a cold war with its neighbors and do all kinds of James Bond type stuff, but it can't be invaded or bullied. The same way two guys with AK-47s on the street have to respect each other or die, nuclear-armed nations have to be respected.

Is Bush's allowance for a military option credible? Not at current US troop levels, unless he plans on a nuclear attack on Iran, which would be an absolute disaster. Should he introduce a draft, that would also be a disaster of a different sort. Short of war, the US is left with only a few other options, to paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appelby from Yes, Minister. The US can't cut off diplomatic ties or cut off aid, because all that happened back in 1979. The US could lodge an official protest with the UN, which probably wouldn't go anywhere. The US could issue a statement deploring Iran, which would be ignored. Or, the US could do nothing at all, which would make them look foolish.

If, then, the US is backed into a corner and considers an attack on Iran, it'll have to start a draft, and it'll be the nation's poor who will go to Iran and do the garrison duty, complete with the death and injuries that go with it. Oil prices would spike and the US economy would splutter - possibly leading to a dollar crisis. If the US is not already overreached, action against Iran would do the job.

ON THE US BEING OVERREACHED: "Well, I would disagree with that. I think we've got plenty of capability, but the first option, of course, is to solve this problem diplomatically, and that's where we are working to do."

So help me, I want the translation in the subtitles at the bottom of the screen to say, "We're going to bring back the draft and plunge into Central and Southwest Asia."

ON WHY THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ IS LOSING IN POPULARITY: "My job is not only Commander-In-Chief but educator-in-chief. And I needed to say to the people, you bet it's tough. And the enemy is using their own weapon effectively, which is the destruction of innocent life... I think a lot of people are wondering whether or not we had a plan to win. Some people say we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and I understand that. Some people said, you did the right thing going in there, but I'm not so sure you've got the desire or the plan to win, and that's what I've been trying to articulate, is we do have a plan to win, and we are winning. And progress on the ground is beginning to back me up. I mean, the political process has been amazing when you think about it. These elections are truly outstanding."

I'll deal with this and then have Bush speak again. I'll also point out that Bush dismissed any connection with the government's admittedly poor response to Hurricane Katrina and a resultant lack of faith in the government's ability to effectively carry out its Iraq policy.

Bush praises the elections and cites progress on the ground as proof the US is winning the occupation of Iraq. I want to stress that it is not an actual war in Iraq, in spite of the violence. The US is supporting the government of Iraq, not warring against it. Therefore, it is an occupation, not a war. But is there really progress in Iraq? Yes, the government there is indeed increasing in its effectiveness in fighting the insurgents, but it is doing so through reliance on factional militias incorporated into the police and armed forces and secret police networks, almost identical to those that existed under Saddam Hussein. The Sunni areas are where the police and army of Iraq are weakest, which is why the crime and violence rage on there. But Sunnis in the Kurdish and Shia areas are living in a police state, and the Shia areas have taken on a definite conservative religious air, much like in neighboring Iran, but with higher rates of mosque attendance.

I'd have to disagree with the president's assessment of progress: the Iraqis elected a government friendly to the US only so long as the US serves its needs and which has proven to be every bit as brutal as Saddam Hussein's towards unpopular minorities. And while the Iraqi constitution protects minority rights, we all know a constitutional right is only as good as the government interpreting that right.

ON US TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ: "... our troop levels are going down from about 168,000 to less than 138,000, and part of that is because our commanders are confident the Iraqis are going to be able to take more and more of the fight.... [in response to a question about a timetable for pulling out US troops] I can understand you wanting to ask that question and the American people want me to give the answer to that. I can't give the answer to that because I'm not the decider. What I can assure the American people of is that we've got a strategy to victory. We got a plan to see that the Iraqis take the fight. More and more Iraqis are taking the fight, and I'm going to listen to our commanders.... One of the interesting lessons from the Vietnam era was it seemed like to me that politicians all were making the decisions and not the commanders on the ground a lot of times, and I have vowed that the American people, and I will follow through on that if General Casey and the generals there in Iraq that will be making the decisions as to the troop levels... I would hope to say that we have fewer troops there over the course of the year."

I confess I'm a bit at a loss on how best to tidy up the President's comments here, particularly the Vietnam one. Be that as it is, it sounds like he wants to have a reduction in the total troop level by the end of the year, but is reluctant to put his commanders in a position that is militarily untenable. This is at odds with the original invasion plan in which the politicians insisted on a lower troop level than originally requested, which quite likely resulted in a rapid descent into chaos for Iraq. Leaving aside the question of whether or not Iraq should have been invaded, the military community was nearly unanimous in judging Iraq should not have been invaded with so few troops as the US deployed. Order broke down and the US did not have enough men on the ground to stop the situation from deteriorating.

All right, so he's leaving war up to the generals, in spite of what Clemenceau said. He claims to have learned from Vietnam, but I have to question that lesson: It was clear in the war that the commanders in the field did not have accurate data on the Viet Cong or NVA regulars in South Vietnam. They were as clueless at times as their commander-in-chief. This happens in wars and other conflicts. The responsibility of the elected government is to be "the decider", a role Bush abrogates in his statement above. Whether it's a decision to withdraw, as JFK made, to escalate troop levels, as LBJ made, or to reduce troop levels while expanding the scope of the conflict, as Nixon made, it's up to the president to make the big decisions.

I'm sorry, I'm with Clemenceau: War is too important to leave to the generals. Unfortunately, I also feel war is too important to leave to the Bush administration, but that's the situation the US is in.

"I would like to get troops home, but I don't want to get them home without winning, and the definition of winning is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and a country which will not become a safe haven for the terrorists. The terrorists have made it abundantly clear they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can have a safe haven from which to operate-- that would be Mr. Zarqawi-- and that's why it's very important for us not only to train the Iraqis, but to stay on the hunt for these people."

This is not something I accept as genuine. Yes, the Shia and Kurds will wipe out any al-Qaeda among them, but they're perfectly willing to harbor terrorists for their own cause. The Kurds in Iraq would love to have their countrymen in Iran, Turkey, and Syria join with them in an oil-rich state. The Shia are hostile to every other Gulf state except Iran. The US is picking and choosing whom it labels as a terrorist, but even so, there's an indefinite timetable on pacifying the Sunni center of Iraq. The British left a bomber wing in Iraq until they were kicked out forcibly in the 1950s - a presence measured in decades, not years. Is the US headed down the same path?

I will pass over Bush's ability to hunt for terrorists. I will instead let Osama Bin Laden speak for himself on that count.

ON EAVESDROPPING WITHOUT COURT ORDERS AND OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES: "I don't think a president can order torture, for example. I don't think a president can order the assassination of a leader of another country with which we're not at war. Yes, there are clear red lines. The extent to which a president, during war, can exercise authorities in order to protect the American people, and that's really what the debate is about. I made the decision to listen to phone calls of Al Qaeda or suspected Al Qaeda from outside the country coming in or inside the country going out because the people, our operators, told me that this is one of the best ways to protect the American people. And it wasn't an easy decision to make, but as I thought through the decision-making process, I asked a couple of questions: One, do I have the authority to do it? In other words, will I just act without determining if I have authority. And so, in other words, I was convinced by the legal department of the White House and the Justice Department that I did have the authority, and we looked at it very carefully. And secondly, I wanted to make sure that civil liberties were guarded. In other words, that by unleashing this program there wasn't checks and balances on--inside the NSA so that they would circumvent my order, which was listening for phone calls outside the country and in vice versa; in other words, not listening to the phone calls within the country. It is important that this program go on. I understand the debate, and I understand the need to make sure people discuss and debate whether or not I have got the authority to do it, but as I told the American people--and I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this--if somebody is talking to Al Qaeda inside the United States, we need to know why, and that's what this program is aimed to do.... I asked the people designing the program. I said, how come we can't use the [existing] procedures, and they said it won't work. It doesn't fit in with what Mike Hayden described as "hot pursuit." I have looked at this program from all angles, and my dilemma and my problem is I can't explain to you how it works in order to justify your question without telling the enemy what we are doing. And this debate is an interesting debate. I'm troubled by it only because the enemy listens, and they see what we are doing, and these are smart people, and they will adjust. And one of the interesting questions about this whole debate is whether or not people think we are at war or people think this is kind of an isolated group of people that may or may not hit us.... Perhaps because I remember my words going to Congress just saying I'm not going to ever forget what took place, and I will use all the power and my authority within the Constitution to protect the American people, but I view this situation we're in as war, and therefore I must protect the American people with the tools available to me."

All right, I allow there are people who desire - justified or not - to kill lots and lots of American citizens, preferably in America. These are Bad Men and, yes, I do not want any of them to kill me or those I know and love. I don't even want them to kill people I don't know or love. I'm against killing, make no mistake on that.

So how do I stay safe from the Bad Men when my government is provoking them to extreme anger? By surrendering my civil rights? Well, I'm not really surrendering my civil rights: the COINTELPRO project from the Vietnam Conflict era proved that. My civil rights exist at the pleasure of the sitting president and his executive branch officers and if one of them - any of them - chooses to negate my rights in a particular case, my ability to fight city hall is limited to nearly nil. True, the odd case does eventually make its way up the legal ladder to the Supreme Court, but all the while, the victim of the roughshod government remains in jail or, more likely, watched and harassed. Bush's move on civil rights just means the already remote chance I could fight a rogue government legally has been made that much more impossible.

The US is experiencing an Imperial Presidency, and has been experiencing one since at least Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not also at times previous to it. The inalienable rights Jefferson enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are no more guaranteed by the sitting president's administration than they were by another George... King George III.

ON THE US AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: "I'm against a huge gas tax. Secondly, I agree... that we have got to become independent from foreign sources of oil. In other words, we have got to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons. And the best way, in my judgment, to do it is to promote and actively advance new technologies so that we can have different driving habits. For example, there is--I'm a little hesitant because I don't want to tell you what's in the State of the Union, let me put it to you that way.... I agree with Americans who understand being hooked on foreign oil as an economic problem and a national security problem. I couldn't agree more. For example, I'm convinced with more research we'll be able to develop additional ways to make ethanol. There is about 4.6 million cars in America now that are flex-fuel cars. They could either use regular gasoline or fuel derived from corn. I'd like, for example, to not only advance that technology of deriving fuel from corn, but also deriving fuel from waste materials, and I'm convinced we could do that with a good push, a technological push. In other words, I want to see different kinds of cars on our road that don't require (sic) upon crude oil from overseas, but we have got a serious problem, and now is the time to fix it, and I'm going to address it again at the State of the Union."

Translation: The agricultural subsidies already going to Chevron and other Big Oil companies are going to get more massive. Also look for huge amounts of pork to head over to General Electric and other nuclear reactor companies for hydrogen-cell research - it's the reactors that will make all that hydrogen, don't you know.

For the waste fuels, I wonder if he's referring to biodiesel. That's a ground-level solution that could actually work, but which would break the back of the Big Oil companies. Watch for environmental concerns on biodiesel to creep into the picture, which would necessitate many billions' worth of safety and cleanup procedures, so the Big Oil guys would still be the only energy players.

America's energy problems are not limited to foreign oil dependence. They're also due to an oligarchical energy sector with massive political influence, subverting and corrupting the political process for their gain. But given that the US bases in Afghanistan follow the proposed pipeline route across that nation and that the current president of Afghanistan is a former Unocal employee and a whole lot of other Big Oil-related coincidences, I doubt seriously America's other energy problem will be dealt with, which means the first one, foreign oil dependence, will remain an issue for years to come.

ON THE REPUTATION OF THE US IN THE WORLD: "There is no question that Abu Graib pictures not only--we were disgraced, and I know it caused a lot of people that want to like us to question whether they should, and equally important it gave the enemy an incredible propaganda tool. No question. That's why it was important for us to investigate, to expose, and to hold people to account so people see there was a consequence for the behavior.... The actions we take in our own country or elsewhere help define America to others, and that's why it's important for us to constantly remind people that we have got a wonderful heart and we are a compassionate nation. Our HIV/AIDS initiative on Africa is saving lives, our anti-malaria initiative on Africa is saving lives. We feed more of the hungry in the world. I mean, we are doing marvelous things, and it's while we address and deal with issues like Abu Graib, at the same time we have always constantly got to tell people, we care about them, we're not going to impose our form of American-style democracy on you, but we want you to be free, and where you hurt we want to help. And a classic example of that is what took place in Pakistan. When the United States military, upon notification that there was a need for help as a result of the earthquake, moved choppers and aid and equipment and food and tents in and saved a lot of lives, it's by far the best public relations we had in that part of the world in a long period of time. And so, you're right, we need to be conscious about our public diplomacy not only in how we behave at home but our ability to be able to sell that which we are doing around the world."

Sorry, Mr. Bush. The world does not believe the Abu Ghraib scandal was properly investigated. Only small people took the hit for it. The higher ups, and we all know higher ups were involved, escaped public censure because of either their wealth, position, or connections. There was no consequence for those who ordered it, only for those who carried out the orders. You previously criticized Iran for not being transparent: Abu Ghraib and the eavesdropping issue leave those charges squarely in your face. You have met the enemy and he is us, to tip one's hat to Pogo Possum.

And, yes, there is good news in Pakistan over the earthquake relief. The bad news is it got blown all to hell when the US fired rockets into a northern Pakistani village, hoping to kill a few terrorists, but instead destroying innocent families.

Yes, there is good news in Africa over how diseases are beaten back. The bad news is that gets shot up every time a major oil company hires local cops or soldiers to shoot up protesters around its polluting rigs and refineries.

The US continues to turn a blind eye to major heroin traffickers in the world in return for their not opposing the US occupation of parts of Afghanistan. The US continues to turn a blind eye to Israeli nuclear weapons and torture prisons. The US itself is guilty of creating legal ambiguities to torture and abuse people without a trial. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to hold out in the Cobell v. Norton case to the tune of $17.2 billion dollars of money stolen from Native Americans.

The US government does not behave well at home or abroad. As long as Bush tries to sell the Pollyanna stuff, I'll be here to ask something real be done about the rest of the sorry state of affairs.

America remains an undemocratic nation that holds out the possibility of smiting its foes with nuclear weapons, in the last stages of changing over from a supposed republic into a real imperium.

War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Look into Bush's comments and you'll see Orwell's sentences, in so many words.

This all comes back to democracy: America is in no position to produce a Palestinian surprise, where the people rise and vote out the gang of corrupt politicians in the back pockets of oligarchical corporations and aristocratic money men. Therefore, Bush's supporters will blindly see only what he wants them to see and I will remain in my prison, whose bars are made only of the ignorance and apathy of others.

Forward this and discuss it: set me free with education and enlightenment and, in doing so, set yourself free.

Hamas and Israel: Will There Be Peace?

Hamas is pledged to the destruction of Israel. Israel exists because of the destruction of the Palestinian population within its borders, dating back to the 1947-48 war.

So will there be peace?

Probably not. Best case, the current low-level carnage continues indefinitely. Worst case, someone decides to go nuclear and take the other side down to hell. Hamas doesn't have any nukes. Israel already does. Some of those right-wingers in Israel already have a Masada complex, so look out for the West Bank and Gaza to glow first.

Gasputin, Part II: The Chechens and the Ukrainians

As Russia troubleshoots the pipeline explosions that cut the flow of natural gas to Georgia, it's stopped the flow of gas to Chechnya

Way to really endear the Russian cause to the Chechens. The pro-Russian Chechen leader in Groznyy has a short enough lifespan without the rebels there getting a boost from Russia freezing Chechnya to death along with Georgia.

Meanwhile, Italy has joined Hungary, Poland, and Turkey in accusing Ukraine of siphoning off natural gas meant for Europe. Ukraine denies it's stealing gas, but if it wrote a book, I've got a suspicion Oprah would love it, in spite of its lies.

Iran, meanwhile, is ready to step up and offer more gas to Europe and the Caucasus. Totally not what the US was hoping for as it tries to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Iran Nixes Nuke Deal

Right after the US says it'll support the Russian HEU plan, Iran backs away from it. Condi says Iran's just blowing smoke to make time for itself. She's right.

But there won't be any sanctions. China needs the oil. And the only way the US can invade Iran is to get involuntary conscription up and running again.

So which happens first? Involuntary conscription or Iran makes its own nuclear weapons?

The Official Denial

Bismarck once said to never believe anything in politics until it had been officially denied.

Today, the US government officially denied the release of female prisoners in Iraq was in any way tied to the demands of the kidnappers of journalist Jill Carroll.

And who says the US won't negotiate with terrorists?

Can't Beat 'Em...

So now the US endorses the Russian plan. Bush added a fillip to the plan, but it's essentially a case of the cliche used to title this entry. Sanctions aren't going to happen, the US has to back away from pissing off the Indians, and Russia wins this round.

There are no superpowers so long as any of them depend on imported petrochemicals.

Hamas Not a Surprise Here

OK, so it's pretty cheeky of me to say I predicted a Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, but I did. Now they're winning, it seems, so there you go.

I don't particularly like Hamas. I don't like Fatah, either. But I'm not voting, so like either of them care. What was important was that Palestinians liked Hamas. Nearly every Palestinian I've met either says nothing about which party he backs or whispers, "I'm a Hamas supporter." Nobody comes out for Fatah. The reasons are complicated, but generally boil down to intense dissatisfaction with the corruption in Fatah.

The Palestinians, in general, are a pissed-off people. Over 50 years of conflict with Israel can make a group intolerant. That intolerance extends to their politicians. They're not about to let some bunch of fat cats move in and set up shop, not yet. They're not yet comfortable enough to accept an aristocracy, so it's mob rule for the time being, and the mobs like Hamas.

Hamas may be a terrorist group in the eyes of the US government, but to the Palestinians, they're a group that delivers the goods. They've fought on against Israel and set up welfare networks when it looked like Fatah was more concerned with embezzling aid money. Their leadership has close ties with Lebanon's Hizbollah, another terrorist success story, and they hope to do to Israel in Palestine what Hizbollah did to Israel in Lebanon.

Not a good time to be a moderate in the Holy Land. I don't plan on making a trip there anytime soon.

Eurasia and Eastasia vs. Oceania

China just made a statement that it will back a Russian plan to provide assistance to Iranian nuclear research. Even if the deal falls through, China's willingness to openly side with Russia in this affair shows a gathering diplomatic network opposed to increased US power in the world. It's not an Axis of Evil. It's a Balance of Power.

Hats off to Orwell, who only got the names of nations and the year messed up in his novel 1984. It probably started back in 1945, and he wrote not science fiction, but current observation.

Iran supplies lots of oil to China, so that may also have been a factor in China's ability to put aside past differences with Russia and back its diplomatic move.

Homina Homina Homina Homina

The US is in damage control mode over its remark to India about how it might lose a technology deal with the US if it doesn't vote against Iran on the UN Security Council. The remark has been downgraded to a "personal opinion... taken out of context."

Like hell.

In the spin, the US still didn't completely decouple the deal from the vote, but put it in terms much less blunt than the previous statement. I'll bet India is still miffed about this arrangement and will likely request much more in order to secure its vote, or perhaps side with Russia and back their plan against the US policy.

The Emperor's New Soldiers

Well, two reports just came out about the US Army. One said it's spread too thin and the other said it's not meeting recruiting goals. While the Bush administration pooh-poohs the reports, they ring true.

Worse, the US Army is seeing shortfalls in equipment stockpiles. That is not a good thing. It seems likely that the army won't be able to outlast the insurgency in Iraq. It's also quite likely it could not respond to another major threat, say, a war in the Caucasus or intervention against a nuclear-bound Iran.

While the US already puts its National Guardsmen through coimbat duties like the Tsarists of old treated their troops, there simply aren't going to be enough soldiers to meet all the US' commitments overseas. Where will the new soldiers come from?

Here's your first hint: They will not be the sons of families whose wealth places them in the top 5% of households by income or assets. When the drafts of war blow, they chill the homes of those who can't afford the cost of insulation.

How much sadder that the wars themselves are waged primarily to benefit the very families and interests that decline to participate in the sharp end of things. But, then again, wasn't the greatness of Rome built upon the backs of its slaves? Far be it from me to suggest something as unpatriotic as the notion that the poor of America should be anything but proud to plunge headlong into a conflict fought to make the world safer for someone else's money. Far be it from me to suggest something as unpatriotic as the idea that the benefits given to soldiers pale miserably to the profits being generated in the wake of their efforts.

Instead, I shall be the true patriot and suggest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are undemocratic, imperialistic, and that they have no place in a true democracy. Current administration policy is a blatant affront to the decency of humanity and an insult to the equal rights Americans are supposed to have.

Soldiers are necessary to keep a nation safe: this I know. I'm not ignorant of my Hobbes. It's a nasty, brutish world out there. But soldiers are not necessary to keep my aristocrats fat and happy. Those ventures make my nation less safe and cause blood to be shed in vain. No US soldier in Iraq died to keep my freedoms. They died to enhance the bottom lines of profiteers and to boost the fortunes of politicians. It is truly wretched how men without any conscience at all will commit people willing to die for freedom and justice into a battle for nothing more than a little bit of money.

Push, But Not Yet Shove

The US wants the UN Security Council to refer Iran for sanctions over its nuclear development. India's holding back. The US is now threatening to scuttle an arrangement to share nuclear technology with India if it doesn't vote to hit Iran with sanctions.

India's holding back because the last time it censured Iran, the government took a beating in constituencies with high Muslim concentrations. They don't want to go through that again. India's also made rumblings in the past about being able to take a permanent seat, complete with veto power, at the UN Security Council. This heavy-handed move by the US can only serve to strengthen those desires in India to have a place in the sun, as far as the major nations of the world go..

So if India doesn't come through for the US, they lose the deal on technology sharing. The US loses backing and credibility for its policies on the world stage. In the aftermath, who would India turn to for nuclear assistance? Not China or North Korea. China's a rival and the North Koreans are nuts. Not Iran or Pakistan for what should be obvious reasons. Israel officially doesn't have weapons, but they're not likely to assist the guys who didn't go against Iran. Europe probably wouldn't go there, either.

But what about Russia? The more I watch things, the more I see Russian maneuvering to build a system of alliances to counter the ring the US is constructing around Russia. Oil and natural gas are at play, and although India lacks those resources, it is nevertheless a strategically located nation with a vast population. And if India leans Iran's way, that can't hurt on negotiating deals to receive petrochemicals from that nation.

The US burned a lot of bridges when it went into Iraq. Now it's desperately trying to build them back because it really can't go it alone in the world.

The Devil Went Down to Georgia

It's no secret Russia wants to see Georgia go to hell. At least it's no secret to people following Georgia. In the geopolitical game between the US and Russia in the Caucasus, Azerbaijan and Georgia are in the US orbit and Armenia bound to the Russians. Any pro-US oil and gas pipelines get routed through Azerbaijan and Georgia, deftly avoiding existing Russian pipelines and direct routes through Armenia. Russia fosters breakaway movements in Georgia, and would love to get a pro-Kremlin group in Baku. US forces and agents in the region are seeing to that the Georgian and Azeri security forces get loads of US-financed equipment and training to keep things as they are.

One thing the US can't provide, though, is a flow of natural gas. A set of recent explosions shut down the gas pipeline from Russia into Georgia. While Georgia gets plenty of oil from Azerbaijan, the natural gas pipeline from Central Asia and Azerbaijan isn't finished. Georgia, therefore, is still beholden in some way to Russia. Unlike Ukraine, Georgia doesn't sit astride a pipeline bound for strategic European customers. Russia can shaft the Georgians all it wants, up to the point it risks the ire of the US.

But with the pipelines going right through Chechnya, it's easy to blame the blasts on those damned Chechens, right? Well, Georgia pins the blame on Russia. Russia calls the Georgian claims hysterical. The Chechens aren't phoning in responsibility for the blast, so I'm thinking the Russians are probably guilty of blasting their own pipelines. It's not a ludicrous idea in the Caucasus, home of interminable, insane feuds.

In the meantime, Georgia can't wait for the US-backed pipeline bypassing Armenia to be built. Of course, that all depends upon Azerbaijan staying in the grip of Aliev the Younger, but that's for another article.

Taleban Not Yet Smoked Out

Four and a quarter years on, the US has not yet gotten rid of the Taliban In fact, they're resurgent in some areas of southern Afghanistan. No need to be surprised about this: quite a few people expected this to happen, including anyone who followed the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. If the Evil Empire at its Evillest couldn't lay the ultimate smackdown on the Afghans, what made folks in the US think they could have a kinder, gentler occupation?

The US bases in Afghanistan follow the pipeline route from Turkmenistan to Pakistan: it's not about terror, after all, but oil. President Karzai has powers more like he was Mayor Karzai. The opium harvests since the US invasion have taken Afghanistan from its one year of near-zero production to three years running of record breaking harvests after a building year in the 2001 planting season - which got underway immediately after the US forces went into Afghanistan.

So where's the good news coming out of Afghanistan, and how can it possibly top the worldwide expansion of the heroin trade made possible by the US invasion and occupation? I don't see huge numbers of birkas for sale on eBay, so I guess the rumors of the Afghan women still wearing them are true. Nothing has changed in Afghanistan since 1979, when the Russians invaded. It remains a violent place with an ineffective puppet government, a continuing insurgency, and runaway opium growing and heroin production.

And guess who got the Afghans started on heroin? Hint: it was almost unheard of in the region until after the CIA and Pakistani ISI got involved in financing the mujahedin in 1980. It's now 2006, and the US is still involved in its attempt to be the first nation to conquer and stabilize Afghanistan. Many nations have conquered it: none have been able to hold on to it for long.

There is a saying in the region: Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans. I believe it. Too bad the current US policy is ignorant of that saying.

Fun in the Nigerian Sun

The Niger Delta is the source for nearly all of Nigeria's oil wealth. It is also one of Nigeria's poorest regions. This is because Nigeria's oil wealth goes to huge oil companies exploiting the region and the Nigerian government.

I'm in favor of free markets and can even be persuaded that what an American considers to be a crap wage can buy a palace in some parts of the world, but the multinational oil companies like Chevron and Shell go way too far in Nigeria. There, they don't just rip off the locals. They kill people.

Lately, the Movement for Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND) has indicated it will resume an armed struggle in the Niger Delta. Although I hate violence, how else is a group going to deal with companies that hire local army or police units to disperse peaceful demonstrations with lethal gunfire? Geez, Chevron even once hired the MPLA to take over Cabinda and hand over oil exploitation to Chevron, resulting in a low-level conflict that's gone on for over 30 years. There's big money in oil, and the big oil companies are willing to kill for it. Like I said, how else is a group going to deal with guys like that? Ice cream socials?

No, they're reaching for their Kalashnikovs in the Niger Delta and threaten to shut down oil exports for Nigeria. Nigeria provides a whole lot of oil for the US and it's newest big customer, China, neither of which will be inclined to tolerate democratic movements when they threaten their oil supplies. Look to see violence escalate in the region with very little mention of it in the US press and even less mention in the Chinese house organs.

While Bush's administration begs America to consider the good news coming out of Iraq, one can't help but notice the bad news coming out of Nigeria and the fact the US isn't doing anything to stop it. Quite the opposite, in fact. US energy policies perpetuate that sort of disgusting authoritarian crushing of justice, freedom, and decency of life.

I don't care how much money Chevron and Shell bring to Africa. They're also bringing corruption, bloodshed, and pollution they'll never clean up. Where is the benefit in that?

Guantanamo and You

Many nations in the world have agreed to not only extend the concept of human rights to their citizens, but to visitors as well. In times of war, these same nations have agreed to behave within certain parameters, which include a certain measure of human rights for captured troops and civilian populations in occupied areas. The nations who refuse to honor these agreements are generally reviled as despotic states, showcases of man's inhumanity to man, and as examples of evil empires.

The worst governments to ever rule nations, the Communists in China and Russia and the Nazis in Germany being the chief proponents of a host of others with lower death tolls, justified their inhumanity by defining the targets of state-sponsored terror as "life unworthy of life". By placing the targets outside the scope of humanity, they claimed the right to treat them as the subhumans they had become. This is not a new concept. Rome and Greece had their hosts of slaves upon whose backs they built cruel states - perhaps democratic at the top, but imperious and bloody at the base. But as long as the states persisted in defining certain humans as being something other than human, they could persist in slavery, genocide, democide, or other reprehensible practices.

The United States of America has placed certain humans outside the scope of humanity. Although clouded under the cover of vague legalese, they are de facto life unworthy of life as they languish in Guantanamo or other, less well-known prisons under US authority. The only reason to deny them rights is to pursue a foreign policy which treats the rest of the world as a preserve for US interests, a foreign policy which creates opportunities for corporations to exploit labor overseas in a manner approaching slavery, but without the relocation costs. This imperious and bloody base supports the democracy at the top of US society. Were the US to stop behaving like the Romans of old, there would be no need to define any person as needing special treatment outside the normal law consisting of unlawful detention, denial of trial or bail, torture, and eventually death. That's what happened to Mao's, Stalin's, Hitler's, and many another dictator's victims, and it's what's happening in Guantanamo.

If you believe that the inmates at Guantanamo or in any other secret US prison are deserving of this treatment, then you yourself are defining them as life unworthy of life and are therefore participating in the authoritarian regime which prevents true democracy from developing, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan, the US, or anywhere else in the world.

Venezuela and Geopolitics

Venezuela will buy twelve military jets from Spain. While that's hardly a threat to the US directly - it's hardly likely the Venezuelans are preparing to invade the US - it is a direct threat to US interests in the region. If Venezuela is able to do whatever it wants, why not other nations formerly under the US thumb?

And if the US tries to exert its authority as it has in the past, what if Chavez cuts off that flow of oil? Venezuela supplies the US with 16% of its imported oil, and the US imports 60% of its daily petroleum consumption. The Venezuelans could easily find a market for their petrochemicals in Europe, Japan, India, or China. A Venezuealan embargo would mean 10% less gasoline available in the US without a hike in prices.

The US may be an 800-pound gorilla, but this gorilla needs an SUV to get around. It won't be able to move for long under its own power. Hugo Chavez knows this. He also knows he's got his hand on one of the pumps used to fuel that SUV - the Citgo one, to be precise.

It's not like the US is able to swat down the irritations of the Venezuelan fly. Much of its army is involved in occupation duties in Afghanistan and Iraq. If Russian and British experiences are any guide, the US will be about 11 more years in Afghanistan and 38 more years in Iraq. True, should the US get a stable government in either state and a sufficient fleet of AC-130 gunships to churn up the rebellious villages with a wall of exploding lead, it will be able to pull significant numbers of troops out of those states and detail them for use elsewhere. Of course, it would be a PR nightmare to explain how aerial massacres are somehow better than the Taliban or Sadaam Hussein, but there are some clever fellows within the Beltway and a gullible public that wants to love its president.

Barring that, Venezuela and any other oil power is free to steer its own course in the world and take regions along for the ride.

Ironically, if the US decided to abandon gasoline and switch over to biodiesel, we wouldn't care about what Venezuela did with its oil. Of course, that would mean dismantling the energy empires of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and the rest of Big Oil. That won't happen. American economic history shows that industries cling to all the power and money they can. Even as they slide into irrelevance in the face of new technologies, those corporate dinosaurs refuse to evolve for the most part.

Time for a relevant quote: It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory. -- W. Edwards Deming As long as the US clings to fossil fuels, it will be locked in an unwinnable struggle to consume energy at its present rate while the rest of the world seeks an equivalent level of consumption, far outstripping what every well in the world could produce. If it frees itself from the grip of Big Oil, it can exist peacefully with its neighbors.

But to do that would mean the US would have to have a democratic revolution that doesn't get strangled in the cradle like the last one did in the 1780's. Tough choice... meanwhile, Venezuela joins the barbarians at the gate of the US empire.

When Britain Met Iraq

The British invaded the Middle East in WWI and took control from the Ottoman Empire. Sir Arnold Wilson, the British commissioner over Iraq, saw his position's mission was to rule the Iraqis and bring them the fruits of Western Civilization. Wilson rigged a few plebiscites to make it look like the Iraqis wanted a monarchy with British support and moved his civil servants in to run the place while he searched for a suitable Hashemite to put on the throne of Iraq. When the League of Nations bestowed a mandate for Iraq to the British, a rebellion broke out. It is significant to note that the Shia and Sunni put aside their millenium-old religious divisions to unite against the British. The casualties for the Iraqi Rebellion of 1920 were 10,000 Iraqi and 3,000 British dead. British use of air power proved helpful in limiting their casualties, and the British would rely on bomber fleets to keep its colonial/mandate populations in line in subsequent actions. Both military and civilian targets were subjected to bomber raids, nearly 20 years before the German Luftwaffe bombed out Guernica. On civilian attacks, the British employed delayed-action bombs to injure or kill civilians who returned to villages after the raids had ended. One British general requested poison gas be used to suppress the 1920 rebellion, but the British put the rebellion down before commanders back in England took up the issue of using poison gas. Colonial minister Winston Churchill applauded the use of bombers as the best means of keeping the peace in Britain's far-flung empire. (Army officers said using the bombers was unsporting, but their criticism came off only as so much sour grapes at being upstaged by the air force.) Although the bombers kept the people in line, they generated tremendous anger against the British.

The post-revolt government did not include Shias, which served to perpetuate the old Ottoman prejudice against that minority group. After the 1920 revolt, Wilson was replaced by Sir Percy Cox, who was more sympathetic to Arabs. He gave them an Arab king, even though the Hashemite King Faisal wasn't from Iraq and the Iraqis never had a tradition of monarchy. Neither Faisal nor Cox had the confidence of the people and tribal groups maintained low-level conflict against succeeding governments of all kinds up to the dawn of Saddam Hussein's de facto dictatorship beginning in 1971.

During the early 20's, Britain got the province of Mosul, dominated by Kurds, attached to its Iraq mandate. It was clear the British wanted the oil concessions from Mosul province, and struck a deal with the Iraqis which happened to be very beneficial for British business interests in the region. The Kurds were rather hoping for an independent nation, not being grafted on to the polyglot mess of Iraq. They proceeded to organize opposition to British rule and their militants joined in the procession of revolts spanning the next two decades.

There were the Ikhwan raids of 1921, the Kurdish Revolt of 1922, the Ikhwan Rebellion of 1927, the Kurdish Rebellions of 1930 and 1932... all of these primarily suppressed with British bomber squadrons. Iraq became an independent country in 1932, which gave further purpose to the sectarian and tribal violence: political power was now at stake. The British supported the monarchy with officers advising their military and RAF bombers stationed in the country.

In 1936, Iraq had its first military coup - the first ever in the Arab world - and the political leader of the coup was himself murdered by the army in 1937. It became clear Iraq could only be held together as a country through force. Unfortunately for the British-supported monarchy, a rapid succession of rulers left Iraq with progressively weaker kings, up to the ascension to the throne of the toddler Faisal II in 1939. The Prime Minister Raschid Ali launched a pro-Axis coup in April 1941, forcing the pro-British regent and politicians to flee the country. British bombers in Baghdad supported loyalist troops against the rebels, helping them to hold out in Baghdad until relieved by the 10th Indian Division moving up from Basra and the Transjordan Arab Legion coming into Iraq by way of a grueling cross-desert trek. The Raschid Ali uprising had been put down with British forces by 31 May 1941, and those forces would remain in Iraq beyond the duration of the war. This identified the monarchy with foreign support and most folks in Iraq felt it had to go. (It's ironic that the US-led Coalition actually considered putting a Hashemite monarch back in charge of Iraq, thinking he'd be able to bridge the gap between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq. Given that the last time such a gap was bridged resulted in 13,000 war dead, perhaps it's best they didn't go with reinstating the monarchy.)

The British suspended normal political activity during the war and only allowed parties to form starting in 1946. Some were so outspoken in their criticism of the government, the British banned the more extreme groups. In 1948, Iraq and Britain signed the Treaty of Portsmouth, which provided a role for Britain in determining defense policy on matters of mutual interest. This triggered an anti-British revolt in Iraq. This led the government to repudiate the treaty and thence to further divisions in the government itself, which the British sought to exploit to their advantage.

In the wake of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, Iraq faced economic dislocation and budgetary woes. A broad-based middle class revolt in 1952 was brutally repressed, forcing opposition to the government underground and into more violent planning. In 1955, Nuri as Said, the PM of Iraq, announced his plans to join the Baghdad Pact, a British-led alliance to counter Nasser's ambitions in the region. The Anglo-French-Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956 didn't help Said's popularity numbers. In 1958, the monarchy proposed a union with Jordan, which totally isolated it from the people and forced the government to step up repressive measures.

The Iraqi Army Revolt of 1958, when General Abdul Karim Kassem killed the king, effectively ended British control of Iraq's government. Britain retained interests in the area, however, which led to one further conflict with Iraq. Iraq wanted to annex Kuwait when it became an independent nation in 1960, but British troops dispatched to the tiny kingdom frustrated Iraqi ambitions. After that, the Ba'athist revolution turned Iraq inward on its own problems, or focused on Iranian-sponsored Kurdish breakaway movements.

Nevertheless, the legacy of British-dominated rule of Iraq remains a bitter memory or history lesson for Iraqis. To give further illustration of how the Iraqis might feel about British troops in their country: imagine the reaction in Hanoi or Saigon were US forces to be part of an army that toppled the government and set about installing a regime of its own choosing. Even were it to happen in 2018, 45 years after the US last had combat troops propping up a regime there, feelings would still run high on the subject. Well, 2003 is 45 years after the last British forces left Iraq. They left 41 years after their "temporary" mission to the Yugoslavia of the Middle East began when Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude captured Baghdad in 1917, saying, "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

South Asian Scramble

Iran has an excellent opportunity to go nuclear. Oil prices are historically quite high, the USA is overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Europe is wobbling on whether or not it should exert more military force outside the EU. They're going to go for it, if they have any sense, and they do.

Being a nuclear power confers great advantages. First off, nobody wants to invade you. One well-placed nuke and an entire army or, worse, fleet carrying an entire army, is wiped out. Iran's already got lots of mountains and other difficult terrains and a population ready to use them, so giving that bunch a nuclear-tipped advantage makes invading Iran a great folly.

Sanctions? Please. The USA already has sanctions against Iran. They lose nothing over USA ire when the USA is as ired as it is. European sanctions? I don't think the Iranians would care. China needs both petroleum and allies, and Iran can be both. Europe is already unsure about natural gas supplies after the recent row between Uk