(Another in a series of open letters to President George W. Bush)
Good morning Mr. President, I am sorry to see that you are so needlessly provoking confrontation with the Congress over appropriating another huge increment of money to fund your war in Iraq. The money you need to fulfill your duty to the troops for whom you are responsible as Commander-in-Chief is on the table. The ball is in your court. It’s time for you to take a good hard look at where we are and how we got there, and consider doing the right thing--compromise.
You need to get it through your thick head, George, that the American people had spoken on this issue—last election day, when they wrested control of the Congress from your party. The message we were sending, in large part, was that we strongly oppose your misguided and mismanaged war. Your childish recalcitrance in refusing to acknowledge the will of the people, and to consider the reversal of course that they clearly desire has not served you well.
You seemed to experience brief moment of clarity in the aftermath of that humiliating electoral defeat when you finally, tacitly, acknowledged this popular sentiment by giving your erstwhile Secretary of Defense the boot, however belatedly. Your present SECDEF, Mr. Gates, has been a welcome change. He is, from all appearances, a genuinely thoughtful, prudent, and conscientious man. He is clearly eager to do the right thing—including shutting down the disgraceful Guantanamo detention facility.
Mr. Gates has acknowledged that what we are doing in Iraq boils down to “buying time” for the Iraqi government and security forces to, finally, rise to the occasion and assume responsibility for defending their own country. For four-plus years—four agonizingly long years—we have been buying time for these people, and we still have no reason to believe that the end is anywhere in sight. The worst part of this deal with the devil is this: the medium of exchange we have been spending so liberally in this apparently futile effort has been the blood, lives and physical and mental integrity of some of our best and bravest young men and women.
They and their families have willingly answered your call to duty, and they have done everything you have asked of them, regardless how unreasonable. No one can fault them. The cause of our appalling succession of failures in Iraq lies elsewhere.
Our troops have been betrayed by their leaders, starting with you, sir. This egregious failure of leadership, at every level, is almost perfectly analogous to what occurred during the Viet Nam War. In appointing Mr. Gates and General Petraeus to their present positions you have taken two small steps in the direction of remediating this failure, but, regrettably, just like your vaunted “surge strategy” it is too little and too late.
May I remind you, sir, that there is more at stake here than your own personal legacy—which is, it would appear, unsalvageable at this point. The future fortunes of your party stand in the balance. I don’t think that your fellow Republicans will take kindly to being relegated to powerlessness for the next decade as a result of having your Iraq war albatross hung around their necks. You should consider the prospect of spending the rest of your days as the same kind of pariah as your predecessor Richard Nixon.
The bottom line is this: We, the American people have completely exhausted our patience with your bungled mismanagement of a war that was ill-conceived, fraudulently-predicated, and illigitimate from the outset. We are sick to death of the endless parade of flag draped coffins, containing the mortal remains of some of our finest young men and women, whose futures have been stolen from their grieving families.
Quite simply, we want it ended. The timeframes for withdrawal provided in the Congressional proposals are more than reasonable. It is time for you, sir, to start listening to reason for a change.


Comments: 10
bush's stubbornness will cause him to fail once again (as in his entire adult life) and many people will continue to die to make his real friends richer.
However, I am not convinced that Bush is so much concerned with protecting his legacy as with avoiding accountability for his deeds in office.
This escalation of deployment of soldiers to Iraq successfully switched our focus away from the mounting pressures the administration faces from all sides. They're digging in their heels on Alberto Gonzales not out of political expediency or loyalty but out of self-preservation.
I've always considered this tactic as slowing down the time clock in one field of play by speeding up the clock in another. Every issue has a shelf life in our real-time media cycles.
Since January of 2001, I have watched as one scandalous affair replaced its predecessor before Americans could respond in meaningful ways to any of them. The angst is merely transferred from one issue to the next with no respite between events.
Now Team Bush must face the accumulation of this national angst. For those who do not believe these people are capable of committing the worst deeds for their own preservation, I have a barrel of snakes to sell you.
I regard this "surge" as the administration holding our military hostage for ransom. I cannot always explain logically what I feel emotionally. But I am not often mistaken in these matters.
(1) American makes deals with its enemies as a matter of policy.
Examples: Iran Contra, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the Afghanistan "freedom fighters," Argentine Neo-Nazis in Latin America, Manuel Noriega, Kim Jong il in North Korea.
Why?
(2) Reason: American enterprise makes deals with the enemy
Examples: GE, Halliburton/KBR, Exxon-Mobil, (and in the past, Standard Oil--which if reversed gives true intent: preponderance of "oil standard" on USD.), an economy completely based on the reduction to oil, military and contractual exploits abroad.
There is also a correlation between U.S. economic aid to other countries and how well those countries torture and oppress their own populations (source: The Political Economy of Human Rights, vol. I; Lars Schoultz, Comparative Politics, Jan. 1981. See also his Human Rights and United States Policy toward Latin America.)
Technically, she committed a felony when she refused to listen to the white house and chose to go anyway thanks to the Logan Act (Jan 16, 1799)
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.
The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
Of course, not all congressional travel to, or communications with representatives of, foreign nations is unlawful. A purely fact-finding trip that involves looking around, visiting American military bases or talking with U.S. diplomats is not a problem. Nor is formal negotiation with foreign representatives if authorized by the president. (FDR appointed Sens. Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg to the U.S. delegation that negotiated the U.N. Charter.) Ms. Pelosi's trip was not authorized, and Syria is one of the world's leading sponsors of international terrorism. It has almost certainly been involved in numerous attacks that have claimed the lives of American military personnel from Beirut to Baghdad.