Bush considers changing U.S. political structure to monarchy

Even while considering the recent Al Gonzales/federal prosecutor debacle, which is firmly couched in the rich yet bullshitty terror-laced tapestry of our pre-embolimic Vice President, I still think everything is going to turn out just fine.

Why? To explain, I feel it's needed to contextualize the issue. To briefly summarize Al G-Funk's issue, there was an uproar about the recent dismissal of several federal prosecutors. As a result of the current situation, it's been revealed that there was an earlier suggestion made that every single one of these prosecutors be removed. Why? These prosecutors serve at the discretion of the President, but don't always tow the present White House agenda, and we know that this administration froths at the mouth when people object to the current hawk-centric party line.

The conflict is centralized around the fact that should all the prosecutors be dismissed, Bush has the right to appoint new ones...indefinitely...without requiring a confirmation hearing from the Senate.

Ahem...excuse me? Isn't this the year 2007 A.D.? Do we live in an monarchy? Are we to remove capable and intelligent people from positions solely for their political views? What's next, is Bush going to revise the Holy Bible so it legitimizes the current crusade we're executing in the Middle East? I l'm aware of the saying 'to the victor, go the spoils of war', but this is downright reminiscent of fascism. East Germany-Berlin Wall anyone? According to the the NY Times, the good news is :

Democrats are pressing the case for revoking the president’s authority, which he gained with the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act last year, to appoint interim federal prosecutors indefinitely, without Senate confirmation. The administration has argued that such appointments are necessary to speed the prosecution of terrorism cases. After the dismissals became a big political issue last week, Mr. Gonzales signaled that the administration would not oppose the changes sought by Democrats.

When considering this debacle, and framing it in Cheney's recent comments which insinuated that folks who don't support the war don't support the troops, while Bush threatens the House and the Senate not to "tie his hands in Iraq", we see that Americans are getting tired of this bullshit rhetoric.

Voters want to support the troops by bringing them home from a war that sees 2.2 American soldiers dying each day in a seemingly senseless conflict with no terminus in site. Soon the madness will all be over. 2008 is bringing change. There's a light at the end of the tunnel. We see it reflected in Congress. We see it reflected in polls that continue to announce that approval rating levels reach new low for Bush on a seemingly daily basis.

I just hope that Dubya doesn't pull a Dead Zone on us before he has to leave office and announce that the missiles are flying, hallelujah! I bet there's a clause somewhere in the defense contract with Halliburton and Blackwater USA that allow them to assume martial law of the country if constitutional entities (the White House, Congress, State Dept.) experience the equivalent of a collision with an IED.

Sand Castles

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid sent Bush a letter today advising that the surge of troops he has planned is not a wise course of action.

I'll be the first to admit that I think invading Iraq and overthrowing the government, albeit a corrupt one, wasn't in the best interests of national security. Of course, at the time we were told that there were WMDs in country. The UN representative never found any, but we invaded in March 2003 nonetheless.

Fast forward 3 1/2 years and we're still in Iraq and the new Cambodia: Afghanistan (shhh...top secret.) The country and surrounding region is destabilized, and the Sunni/Shite conflict is rapidly growing worse. Some have said that the vacuum of power left by Saddam Hussein's demise will pull more violent and dramatic factions into the fray, resulting in more deaths of innocents and soldiers alike. I tend to agree with this point.

Frame this in the context of troop deployment: if we leave now, then that country and surrounding region will be, for lack of a better word: effed up. Seriously eff to the yew to the cee to the kay effed up. Worse than it is already.

So. What are we to do? The Democrats are saying that Americans are tired of the fighting. I know I am. I'm tired of hearing about kids over there dying or becoming maimed by IEDs and sniper fire because this war isn't about survival - it's about political gains ultimately motivated by a personal vengeance.



I also think that one of the underlying motivations for being there is to create a base of operations and permanent American presence in the Arab world: 1) win hearts and minds to foster a new democracy, 2) then remain in country to help maintain and legitimize the new government while discreetly maximizing American economic petroleum-based interests. I may be oversimplifying this here, but it doesn't seem to be too far-fetched.

Bottom line: we can't conduct mass demobilization of our Iraqi-based military presence now. The Bush administration effectively committed the American people to remain in the region for at least a decade, most likely 2 maybe 3. It was a calculated ploy. Once we destabilized the region, we're morally obligated to stick around and assist in building a new government and society that we helped significantly destruct for nothing less than ensuring that the U.S. will be able to position itself in the Middle East. This isn't partisan politics. This is Manifest Destiny and an extension of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine unfolding before our eyes.