ProgressOhio

Losing the fight for the hearts and minds of Ohioans, Lawyer Dave Miller of the American Taliban - Citizens for Community Values - says he is seeking a frivilous lawsuit against Citizens for Community Standards for "trademark infringement." Apparently this is the best that Dave Miller can do having begun to realize that Ohioans have grown sick and tired of CCV's moralist crusade against Ohio.

Had Mr. Miller had a shread of decency, he would simply go back to clogging the courts with the other litigation and "friends of the Court" briefs for which CCV has become so well known. Say for instance like standing-up for the rights of accused violent offenders who are in court for beating their girlfriends. But alas, that would be too easy. Dave likes his challenges.

Of course, you have to LOVE the fact that while CCV will file their frivilous lawsuit against Citizens for Community Standards, the American Taliban remains reluctant clog the court with similar lawsuits against similarly named organizations. I suppose that is progress. What a bunch of fanatics.

Wow, things are going so well in Iraq, Al-Maliki’s Iraqi government has decided to tear a page out of George Bush’s first year as President as they announce they’ll go on a 2 month hiatus. Sure, there may be no Crawford in Iraq, but I’ll bet they’ll find something to do while they’re away. Heck, even when Bush is 7 miles down Prairie Chapel Road he finds time to cut brush, ride a bike, talk to dignitaries all while he compassionately ignores war dead moms and families.

But if you’re an Iraqi government official, where exactly would you go to relax, unwind and decompress?  Sure, you’d probably want to take the family where they can kick-back and have a safe and fun time. You want to keep your American dollars working in Iraq, but you’re concerned that staying in-country may not be the safest and most fun place for your family to unwind. I mean let’s face it, you do know that a Civil War raging around you, right? So what’s an Iraqi government official supposed to do?

There has to be somewhere for a tireless Iraqi Parliamentarian to vacation in Iraq. I guess Fallujah, Ramadi, Tikrit are out because they are already have too many people there on holiday or holy war… or whatever. So why not vacation in Bagdad? It looked pretty safe when John McCain traveled there recently (so long as you have the troops with you). You and your family could stay in the Green Zone, grab some sun, do some shopping and enjoy some fine cuisine. From the media reports, there sure does seem to be a lot of opportunities to spend those green backs in the Green Zone.

But what about the Parliamentary leader who wants to take the vacation to be with his or her people.  While it might not be exactly like our congressional leaders coming home to show us where they spread the pork, surely you could go back to your district and talk up all the good things that are going on in the country. Hell, take this opportunity to prove Tony Snow right. He keeps complaining that the US media doesn’t cover all the “good things” that are happening in Iraq, so here’s your chance to rectify the situation.

Hey, why not hold Town Hall meetings, go on editorial board visits, and or enjoy a ribbon cutting or two at all those businesses, schools, social service agency that Bush and Company tell us have opened from one town to the next. I’m sure you’ll want to let the world know how well the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars has gone in Iraq. Now’s your chance, take it.  

But for those who want to leave the country while they are on vacation, or those who want to “find a way forward,” here’s my checklist of things I think the Iraq government might want to work on while they are away on vacation:

1)      Train Iraqi safety service and armed forces. Note to Iraq Parliament and Prime Minister, please find a way to “Stand-up so we can stand down.” Check, next.

2)      If you can’t stop the ethnic cleansing, please refer to Bush’s new model of success in Iraq which call for us (that now means you) to identify an “Acceptable level of violence.” Once you identify that level, please let us know and make a concerted effort to curb the ethnic cleansing and destruction. If you would please define the level then get the violence below that level, we “win” and we’ll get outta your hair. Check, next.

3)      Work to re-establish reliable electricity and clean/safe water for Iraqi families. Check and check, next.

4)      Maybe figure out how to protect the oil wells then come up with a realistic plan to share the oil revenue. Check, next.

Boy, vacations can be fun. Maybe when you get back, you could tell us “what I did on my Iraq Parliament vacation.” I’m sure it’ll be a good read, and will have the mullahs rolling in the aisle when you return. Be safe, and have fun while you’re away. And for goodness sakes, don’t worry, our sons and daughters will continue to deal with what those naysayers in the media call “chaos” and “civil war” while you are away.

In an attempt to define victory in Iraq last week, President Bush chuckled as he said, "Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our country that, as you know, have a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives, and that's what we're trying to achieve."

Perhaps Mr. Bush spotted a funny clown with a big red nose and cartoon shoes at the Associated General Contractors of America meeting, but his chuckling revelation struck me as odd not only because I heard the comment, but also because it came and went with little notice or comment. 

Were the Democrats getting ready for the Kentucky Derby? Did no one identify this as another George Bush flip flop worthy of comment? Hell, I remember the President’s own campaign lambasted John Kerry for a similar statement in October of 2004. During one of Kerry’s brainy moments  he compared terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling in that it will never go away, “but we're going to reduce it ... to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day."  

Right after this comment, big Dick Cheney characterized Kerry’s comments as "naive and dangerous," while the commander in chief said they were proof Kerry "fundamentally misunderstands the war on terror." While Kerry was probably right, his comment came a few weeks after he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." But to actually hear Kerry talk about living with a certain level of terrorism during the last month of the campaign… let’s just say my jaw dropped and I shook my head in disbelief.

I knew what he was trying to say, but I also knew how that comment would be beaten upon like a drum. And beat it they did with Bush underscoring that the comment showed Kerry didn’t get it on terrorism (remember the wolves commercial?).  Sure, Kerry may have been right, but he would never be the President.  

Today it is Bush who fundamentally misunderstands terrorism with is continued dedication to consistent inconsistency. This is the guy that has asked that we accept his “long war” because it would eradicate terrorism. But now, we are being told to recalibrate our thinking. No longer should we think: Victory in Iraq = No More Terrorists. Instead we must now conclude: Victory in Iraq = A Continued But Acceptable Level of Violence. If you think Bush doesn’t get it, here’s your membership card, welcome to the club.

This begs the following questions: What is an “acceptable level of violence?” Is there a casualty level that we should seek to achieve and if so, what is this acceptable casualty level? Can we pack-up and leave when the threshold is reached, or do we have to measure this over an extended period of time to give us a trend line? If it’s an extended period of time, how long is that timeline?

Henry Kissinger et al got Nixon to declare victory in Viet Nam so that we could spiral out of that misery. Having grown-up in Athens with Ohio University students who served in Viet Nam coming and going from my family’s house regularly, I remember that time very clearly. Now that our President has defined victory in this 21st Century Viet Nam, I want to know, “What is an acceptable level of violence in Iraq?”

Perhaps knowing that “level” will allow this country to place a threshold certain that will allow us stop this madness and bring our brothers and sisters home.

Strippers and the American TalibanIt is amazing that while we strike for a secular government in Iraq, Phil Burress and his band of merry makers are seeking a government in America that is closer to his form of Christianity. He’s so determined to change the state, that with his free hand, he crafts petitions, and circulates petitions to forever alter how Ohio adults spend their entertainment dollars.

Phil's an odd one alright. A self proclaimed thrice married porn addict whose third wife reads him porn so that he can avoid being overly titillated, Phil has decided to make 2007 the year of the Stripper. You would think that this American Taliban leader might want the strippers to be fully clothed in say a burka. Then perhaps Burress could stand to be around them without drooling. But no, even with the burkas, Rep. Seitz from the Cinci area has rightly concluded that strippers (clad in burkas) could not come into contact with patrons of strip joints.

So let me see if I get this right, Phil Burress is addicted to porn. He can’t control himself when he is titillated by presumably PG 13 material. He becomes so aroused by such material that his 3rd wife must view the material and report back to him. And because he is an addict, he wants to dictate for the rest of Ohio how they should and should not spend their money on adult entertainment.

Hey Phil, here’s a suggestion, why not leave Ohio alone, and send your 3rd wife to the strip shows so she can tell you what’s going on? Or, why not leave us out of your weird dealings and fascinations all together… we’ll agree to not bother you, and you agree to not bother the rest of us, deal?

When will the American Taliban fall in Ohio, and leave the rest of us alone?

Arthur Schlesinger called it the modern presidency the “Imperial Presidency.” Not a fan of being closely characterized as another King George, with true Orwellian dexterity the Rovean minds of this administration re-characterized the presidency as a “Unitary President” which in short means that the president interprets laws as he sees fit.

He used this power for years to cajole his GOP congress to pass pork laden bills for defense contractors and supporters while completely disregarding the need for oversight of the budget, war profiteering, or health of the injured vets who were headed home to a broken VA system.

Hell, as the Unitary President he didn't have time to think of such things. He even told us he stopped thinking about Bin Laden… around the time he stopped thinking about Afghanistan. You see, as the Unitary President, you don’t have to care what the congress or others do, because as the head of the executive branch and commander in chief of the military (as he told the American People), he had a tough job and the right to set aside and or disobey statutes passed by the Congress if he believed the statues infringe upon his sole right as the executive.

For a dim bulb, that was a shining stroke of genius. With this new found power, the President could let Congress pass what it wanted. He would sign their bills but only agree to abide by bits and pieces of the new laws. Hey, he had a higher power, and baby, it was unitarily powerful. By this time last year, the president had utilized over 750 “Signing Statements” to disregard one statute after another.

Never in the history of the republic had an executive taken such liberties with his role as commander in chief. But lest we forget, this was the second term and this president had a “Mandate.” With all that in mind, you have to wonder: “Why in the hell are we in a tussle over the Iraq war funding?” What gives? Doesn’t he remember his “Unitary Presidential” power Al Gonzales assured him he has? Doesn’t he or Al recall he’s a “War President?”

I say, the Democrats have a bill; he’s got a pen and a Signing Statement to boot. Game on.This President enjoys daring the Congress to de-fund the war. Following his lead, I triple dog dare him to use his Unitary Presidential powers to write a Signing Statement that reads, “Hey Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, thanks for the money for my war, now go pound salt on your funding for victims of massive head trauma, armament, military families living expenses and the rest of that stuff you guys want… I’ve got a Unitary Presidency and a Signing Statement with your name on it.”

It’s a two-fer: he gets his war funds and rubs the Democrats noses in it while we march off into another revised chapter of the longer war.Before the November 2006 election (with A.G. Gonzales’ backing) the President sat on the high moral ground of his Unitary Presidency where he did pretty much whatever he wanted. 

Today, the ground appears to have been leveled by the realities of the November 2006 election, leaving me to wonder, “Is it wrong to ask where the presidential power has gone?”I’ve seen the shift from Imperial to Unitary to Impotent. Let us hope the presidency will never be the same.