No More Superpower

The economic collapse on Wall Street may be the beginning of the end for the United States’ superpower status, coming about 15 years after the Soviet Union lost its superpower status, also mainly because of economic failures. The US will continue to be a powerful country, and will maintain parity with the EU and other large countries, but will eventually cede its leadership position to China. A sad day for America. Wall Street traders are short term winners, but America as a country is a long term loser. Some time soon it will be time to pay up, mostly to China, and it will be painful. I am particularly saddened because I don't feel that I participated in the excesses that led to this debacle. If I'm going to help pay for an extravagant gambling trip to Las Vegas, I should at least have been there.

America's real loss of prestige and power will probably not become apparent until inflation runs rampant, which is on the horizon, although exactly when is hard to say. Inflation will produce its own winners and losers. I saw this first hand in Brazil a few decades ago, but the country will be a loser. Perhaps we can take comfort from the fact that Brazil after its bouts with inflation is still out there striving to become a great power. The old saying still holds, however, that "Brazil is the country of the future, and always will be." Perhaps the US will become the country of the past that is always trying to regain its stature.

The only good news is that Republican laisse-faire economic theories have been totally discredited. The Republican icon Ronald Reagan turns out to have been wrong. We had a baby boomer generation of good times freeloading on the hard work of World War II's greatest generation.

A Bridge Loan Too Far

Paulson and company have decided to insure money market accounts up to $50 billion. That's too much for me. Granted, a couple of money market funds have "broken the buck" and have lost so much money that they can't return a dollar for every dollar invested. So, Paulson will make up the difference. And in the process he will destroy regular, hometown commercial banks. Why would anyone keep money in a low interest bank account when higher interest money market accounts are guaranteed by the government? Just debit your money market account once a month to some credit card and pay all your bills over the Internet using the credit card. Destroying local banks will, of course, move almost all banking activities to Wall Street, to the people who created this crisis through their poor management. Paulson will destroy conservative local bankers to help his risk-taking friends at Goldman, Sachs. He is truly turning the banking industry on its head, destroying the strong to help the weak.

The problem with bailing out the money market funds is that this is problem that they and their investors created themselves. There are many kinds of money market accounts: some which buy questionable corporate bonds (close to junk bond status) and pay high rates of return, and others which buy government bonds or only high quality corporate paper, and which pay lower interest. One of the funds in question is in trouble because it bought Lehman bonds. Why did it buy Lehman bonds? Because Lehman was in trouble and had to pay higher interest to get people to buy its bonds. So this fund knew it was buying risky bonds; the high interest was a dead giveaway, and the investors in the money market fund knew that they were taking a risk, because the fund was paying higher interest. Everybody involved could see there was a risk, and they decided to take it.

Now the government comes along and says, "You poor dears! Never mind your mistake, we'll give you the money you lost." These weren't people who were tricked; they were just a little too greedy. They should not be bailed out, especially when it means the end of local banking as we used to know it.

So, now Paulson and Bernanke have lost my support. They are just going nuts with the government credit card. They are saying that they don't care a whit about inflation. America is doomed to becoming a banana republic. Paulson saved his buddies at Goldman, Sachs, and he saved his own fortune which is no doubt closely tied to Goldman, Sachs fortunes. I'm guessing that Bernanke will quit the Fed soon and his Jewish friends on Wall Street will take care of him in grand style for bailing them out. America be damned!

But Nancy Pelosi can continue to wear her diamonds and South Sea pearls, and John McCain can continue to flit around in Cindy's private Cessna Citation jet, because Paulson and Bernanke will make sure they don't suffer any financial losses. Well, maybe Pelosi did take a $500,000 hit, but she probably won't have to sell her pearls.

Biden Is a Patriot, McCain Is Not

John McCain has attacked Biden for saying that is patriotic to pay your fair share of taxes. McCain lost me totally, because I agree with Biden. McCain is against supporting the troops in Iraq. It's tax money that buys their flack jackets, their armored humvees, etc. McCain would let them die so that he and Cindy can buy another mansion and a private jet. Poor America!

Letter to the President

I have just read that the government is going to bail out AIG. At this point there may be no alternative if our financial system is going to survive. But you have presided over a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super-wealthy upper class. Under the Bush administration taxes were reduced on the upper classes to the lowest rates in generations, beginning the transfer of wealth. What thanks did we get? The rich virtually destroyed the financial system. But to (hopefully) avoid the total destruction of the financial system, the government has undertaken a further massive transfer of wealth to the rich to bail out their investments. As they say, you have privatized the gains and socialized the losses. You have negated “moral hazard.”

The United States is significantly weaker than it was before the financial crisis. By failing to control the greed on Wall Street, you have undermined our national security, while poor rednecks are fighting two wars far from our shores. The government has betrayed our soldiers. Because of low taxes, particularly on dividends, capital gains, and other investments, the rich didn’t even contribute their fair share to fighting the wars. This bailout is now being done with money borrowed from China, the Middle East, and Europe, most of which will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren, although I suspect that at some point the government will let inflation run wild so that we can repay today’s huge debts with tomorrow’s worthless dollars.

The government’s further contribution has been to run an expansionary fiscal policy of low taxes and deficit spending during years when the economy was not so bad. The Bush administration inherited a budget in surplus. Now, with the economy in shambles, it will probably be difficult to raise taxes for years to come, making the obscenely wealthy even more obscenely wealthy and virtually destroying the middle class. The entire burden of dealing with the financial debacle has fallen on monetary policy managed by the Fed and Treasury, because corruption and incompetence have destroyed the usefulness of fiscal policy.

On 9/11/2001 Osama bin Laden tried to destroy the U.S. financial system by attacking the World Trade towers. He failed. In September 2008, you finished the job for him. I’m sure Osama is rejoicing and thanking you in his cave.

I am outraged. You have failed America! You should hang your head in shame!

Letter to Congressman and Senators

I have just read that the government is going to bail out AIG. At this point there may be no alternative if our financial system is going to survive. But you have presided over a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super-wealthy upper class. Under the Bush administration taxes were reduced on the upper classes to the lowest rates in generations, beginning the transfer of wealth. What thanks did we get? The rich virtually destroyed the financial system. But to (hopefully) avoid the total destruction of the financial system, the government has undertaken a further massive transfer of wealth to the rich to bail out their investments. As they say, you have privatized the gains and socialized the losses. You have negated “moral hazard.”

The United States is significantly weaker than it was before the financial crisis. By failing to control the greed on Wall Street, you have undermined our national security, while poor rednecks are fighting two wars far from our shores. The government has betrayed our soldiers. Because of low taxes, particularly on dividends and other investments, the rich didn’t even contribute their fair share to fighting the wars. This bailout is now being done with money borrowed from China, the Middle East, and Europe, most of which will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren, although I suspect that at some point the government will let inflation run wild so that we can repay today’s huge debts with tomorrow’s worthless dollars.

Congress’s further contribution has been to run an expansionary fiscal policy of low taxes and deficit spending during years when the economy was not so bad. The Bush administration inherited a budget in surplus. Now, with the economy in shambles, it will probably be difficult to raise taxes for years, making the obscenely wealthy even more obscenely wealthy and virtually destroying the middle class. The entire burden of dealing with the financial debacle has fallen on monetary policy managed by the Fed and Treasury, because Congress’s corruption and incompetence have destroyed the usefulness of fiscal policy at this point.

I am outraged. You have failed America! You should hang your head in shame!

Wall Street Hates America

This Reuters article describes how Wall Street helps foreign investors avoid paying taxes on money made in the US. Clearly they don't care about 9/11, and the poor GIs fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because of it. No need for them to fund the GIs. To them those dead people in the World Trade Center are just long dead and buried; let the good times roll! Show me the money! Greed is good!

What Did McCain Do In The War?

I've about had it with McCain's incivility. The latest is attacking Obama for using the phrase, "Lipstick on a pig," referring to the McCain campaign's attempt to hijack the theme "Change." McCain tried to imply that Obama was calling Palin a pig, when Obama wasn't even talking about Palin. CNN found an example of McCain's using the "lipstick on a pig" phrase referring to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

OK, so McCain what did you do in the war? How many missions did McCain fly over Vietnam? According to this perhaps biased website, he was shot down in 1967 on his 23rd mission. He then spent 5 1/2 years as a POW. No doubt his years as a POW were awful, but his battle in prison was basically a personal battle; he did not do anything to help the US win the war against North Vietnam. The referenced column by David Hackworth, written in 2000, probably during the campaign when I supported McCain, also says that the many medals received by McCain upon his return from being a POW were basically boilerplate citations, not awards for individual acts of heroism.

So, what did McCain do for America during those 5 1/2 years? Not much. He spent much of it in bed due to his injuries, or in solitary confinement after he recovered enough to get out of bed. Those are extraordinary personal triumphs, but they don't win wars.

So, enough McCain! Shut up about being a heroic POW! Shot up about lipstick!

Speaking of POW. Basically, McCain used his celebrity as a returning POW to win his way into the House and Senate. His Navy career essentially ended when he was shot down as a lieutenant commander, far below his father's and grandfather's rank as four star admirals. He got some subsequent promotions when he was released, but like his medals, they were proforma promotions for any POW. His Navy career was respectable, but not a great success, especially for someone who graduated from Annapolis. However, the fame he acquired when he returned advanced his career outside the Navy.

It no doubt helped him woo Cindy Hensley, the Paris Hilton of her day. She was a rich heiress with a hot body. McCain dumped his old wife, who waited years for him while he was in prison, to marry Cindy and her money. His old wife never speaks; I think it's because he paid her off with some of Cindy's money. He has taken care of his children with his first wife, most recently illustrated by the fact that his son Andrew was a director of a bank that recently failed, and is also a big shot in the Hensley beer business.

Then with Cindy's money and his POW celebrity status, McCain won a House seat in Congress from Arizona, later upgraded to a Senate seat.

In Congress, McCain has been a maverick, which he can afford to be because Cindy has made him extremely wealthy. He doesn't have to worry about kowtowing to the big money lobbyists to get re-election money, which is good. But what about the big deal he makes about earmarks. Sure they are bad and McCain doesn't use them, partly because he has Cindy's money for re-election and doesn't need the dirty money that other politicians get for earmarks, e.g., Ted Stevens. But earmarks are basically an inside the beltway Congressional issue. Why hasn't he done something about them while he has been a Senator. He says he will veto any bill with earmarks, but we know from experience that the earmarks will be inserted in a bill containing appropriations for the troops in combat, or some other essential function. Will McCain be willing to veto that? He should be talking about some serious issues, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care, the budget deficit and the national debt, the stability of our financial system, etc. The Republicans have poor records on all of these issues, so McCain avoids the issues and talks instead about personalities, in particular personally attacking his opponents. It works for the election, but it's not good for America and illustrates that McCain doesn't really care about America, despite all his hypocritical campaign slogans like "Country First." McCain is not putting his country first.

McCain Bank Fails

I think it's odd that there hasn't been more talk about the fact that a bank connected to John McCain failed last Friday. Until shortly before its failure John McCain's son Andrew had been a director of the Silver State Bank. Only the Financial Times and the WSJ had brief articles about it. The WSJ implied that the FDIC may have been delayed in closing the bank by Nevada regulartory authorities, giving Andrew McCain time to quit as a director before it was closed.

Hometown Girl or Trailer Park Trash?

Everybody has certainly fallen in love with Sarah Palin. What does it mean?

CNN Showbiz Tonight this morning had a segment on how Sarah has become a bigger celebrity than Obama. Does that mean McCain will have to disavow those commercials comparing Obama to Paris Hilton? Would it be more accurate to compare Sarah to Paris, or to Britney, or to Britney's mom, since Britney's little sister has gotten pregnant?

Unmarried, pregnant, teenage daughter? No problem, "it just makes her more like you and me." Really? Well, we all have problems, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. People shoot their neighbors on a daily basis, but by and large they don't get congratulated for it. There are a lot of shotgun weddings, and a lot of unmarried, single mothers, but that doesn't mean it's society's ideal. It's a little suspicious that there was apparently no urgency for Bristol to get married to her baby's father until her mother got named vice presidential candidate. Does that mean they didn't care, that they didn't really like the boy, or what? Apparently the religious right in the Republican party says it's okay for teenage girls to have sex and get pregnant, as long as they don't get an abortion. That's a pretty low moral standard. I'm not sure there's a lot of Biblical support for that position, and maybe some criticism, like the Commandment not to commit adultery. Kids today reading Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter probably have no idea what the fuss is about.

In sum, while Sarah may have been an okay governor, she was a less than completely successful mom.

Meanwhile we have the black candidate, Obama, who comes from a tradition where black men routinely desert the women having their babies, but who has tried to have a traditional family relationship with his wife and kids. His wife says she tries to do only campaign day trips so that she can be at home with her kids afternoons and nights. Did Sarah do that while she was working on her career? Or did her career come first, ahead of her family?

Finally, besides wanting to know what Sarah knows about foreign policy, what else does she cares about. She didn't go to a big name school, no elitism there. But does she read? Does she know anything about Plato, Locke, Samuelson, Shakespeare? What music does she listen to? Does she have in-depth knowledge about the economy, or does she get everything in sound bites? Is she more interested in hockey than war and peace? It doesn't take much effort or intelligence to be a hockey mom. It takes more to be vice president, or at least it should. I would like the Vice President to be someone with a little culture, refinement and background. My impression is that in terms of upbringing and social status, she's no Margaret Thatcher.

The problem with people with little education and experience is that they tend to reinvent the wheel, even if they are smart. They don't know what other smart people have thought about similar problems before, and what solutions worked and what didn't. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. While Obama has relatively little executive experience, he is well educated, and so far, no matter what you think of Harvard and elitist institutions, they do tell people important things, and if you learn well, it helps in life. Bush's problem is that he went to Yale but made a point of rebelling against it, as McCain did at Annapolis. Remember that Cheney flunked out of Yale; maybe we should have paid more attention to that before we put him in a position to start a war with Iraq and order the torturing of prisoners.

McCain's Risky Foreign Policy

Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times says McCain would be a risky foreign policy maker. He says McCain is too prone to take risks, as illustrated by his selection of Sarah Palin as his VP. His risk taking may work sometimes, but there is the potential for tremendous damage if it comes out wrong, which is possible when dealing with Russia, which he dislikes. Thus McCain is not the "safe" choice for commander-in-chief. Rachman sees the possibility of an even more aggressive foreign policy than than pursued by Bush.

McCain's Intelligence

While this Mother Jones article raises several disturbing issues, for me the worst is the connection between McCain's main foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, and Ahmed Chalabi. This article says that Scheunemann was one of Chalabi's acolytes, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld among others, in his effort to get the US to invade Iraq. Chalabi wanted to replace Saddam Hussein, but ran into too much opposition. He has remained a central figure in the new Iraq, although usually just below the public appearance level. The last I saw he was the head of rebuilding Baghdad, a job that gives him lots of money to siphon off to his Swiss bank accounts.

This MJ article sheds some light on my concern that there may be some truth to the Russian allegations that Bush and the Republicans encouraged Georgia to invade South Ossetia in order to help John McCain's campaign. McCain apparently shares my view that there is no love lost between the CIA and President Bush, and perhaps by extension other Republicans, including McCain. Thus, I think it's unlikely that there would have been an official CIA operation encouraging Georgia to invade. I'm less sanguine about the military, and the MJ article says that's where McCain wants to shift intelligence responsibilities. That would certainly reinforce suspicions that if there were some kind of clandestine effort to foment a war in Georgia to help McCain, the effort would have been led by the US military, not the CIA.

I doubt that the US did anything official to foment war in Georgia, but Scheunemann's connection to Chalabi makes him even sleazier than I thought he was before. He may well have done something to stir things up through his unofficial contacts with Georgians. It also helps explain McCain's rabid stance in favor of the Iraq war. If looks like if you vote for McCain, you're also buying Scheunemann and all his lobbying clients.

Terrible Campaign

I'm disappointed with myself for the previous posts criticizing McCain's POW experience. I don't think they are wrong, but I am mad when others, such as the Swift Boat Veterans, criticize Vietnam veterans for their service. Now, I'm criticizing McCain for his service. But it's tough on veterans. I was thinking tonight watching the Republican convention praise the military to the heights, that a very small percentage of the US population serves in the uniformed military. But the vast majority is motivated to praise them, because the majority doesn't want to serve. It wants to make money. So, while it praises military service, the majority thinks, "Please let those fools keep going to Iraq and Afghanistan, so that I don't have to."

What has gotten me so mad at McCain & company is the dirty campaign they have been waging. One of the first things that set me off was McCain's accusation that Obama cancelled his visit to wounded troops in Europe because the military would not let him bring press. There seems to be no basis for that claim; it's just another way for McCain to call Obama unpatriotic.

Tonight, Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee attacked the current Democratic presidential nominee at the Republican convention. As some of the CNN commentators said, it was questionable, but perhaps forgivable, for Lieberman to speak for McCain, but it probably crossed the line when he attacked the nominee of what is supposed to have been his party. Now the Washington Post says that one of his charges was probably baseless. Obama did not vote against funding for the troops, as Lieberman claimed. Again, like the claim about not visiting the wounded troops, the false claim attacks Obama's patriotism. This strikes me as extremely low and sleazy. It illustrates that McCain and Lieberman have poor moral character. Here are two United States senators lying about one of their Senate colleagues. The Senate is truly a nest of filthy snakes! Poor America!

Sarah Palin's Daughter

The almost universal hesitancy to criticize GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin and her daughter for the daughter's pregnancy while in high school raises questions about how Republicans (and Americans in general) feel about women. One the one hand, Palin's selection by McCain seems to indicate that Republicans think women are ready to govern. On the other hand, by saying that it's okay to get pregnant in high school, they are saying, "We like our women barefoot and pregnant. Women don't need no education. Just keep turning out them babies." But if they happen to get through high school and college, then they are qualified to be vice president.

Which is it Republicans? McCain might say, "Hey, women don't need education. Just look at Cindy. She's a total airhead. All women need is a big inheritance. I dumped my first wife because she didn't have one, and she wasn't as hot looking as Cindy."

I'm glad Obama doesn't say impolite stuff like this, but I am sincerely disappointed that McCain has turned out to be such a sleazebag.

McCain's Nasty Campaign and POW Status

Obama's statement yesterday refusing to comment on Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy shows the distance still remaining between his campaign and McCain's. McCain's negative attack ads dragged Obama down somewhat, but he is still far above McCain in the decency of his campaign.

The Economist this week talks about McCain's bio in an article entitled "No Surrender." It says, "After failing to dodge [a surface-to-air missile], he ejected from his plane, broke three limbs and fell into a lake. He was dragged out by a mob, stabbed in the groin and beaten nearly to death." It does not comment on the the major decisions in that sequence: to have ejected from the plane, not to have fought to the death despite his injuries, or not to have committed suicide before the mob captured him. It is arguable that the honorable thing for McCain to have done, especially in light of the fact that his father was the senior Navy commander in his theater, would have been to go down with his plane. Allowing himself to be captured placed his father in a terrible position. His father dealt with it, perhaps appearing callous, but perhaps he felt that his son had failed to live up to the family's naval tradition. McCain had a horrible career at Annapolis; then unlike the majority of his cohorts, he got shot down, and when he got shot down, he allowed himself to become a POW. It's not a sin to become a POW, but it's not heroic either. It became more heroic for Vietnam war POWs because it was one of the few things that the country embraced, probably because they were freed only when the war was over, and thus there was no need to use them to oppose the war. The regular veterans came home to contempt from their civilian counterparts, who saw them as tools used by the government to pursue a war that civil society opposed, and therefore as war criminals regardless of whatever courage and decency they may have displayed in combat.

Ironically, Vietnam POWs probably got treated more like heroes than POWs from previous wars, while ordinary veterans got treated worse. McCain came to believe the hype surrounded his return, deserved or not, and now is basing his presidential campaign on it.

I'm guessing he failed to live up to the standards of his four-star admiral father and grandfather, and in response tends to downplay their service. It order to portray Obama as an elitist, he tends to portray his four-star father as something only a little better than a bag-boy at Safeway. In reality, McCain was a failure by his father's standards.

Fortunately, Obama is too polite to say anything like this.

Putin Says Bush Pushed Georgia To Attack for McCain

Putin obliquely accused Bush of encouraging or helping Georgia attack South Ossetia in order to help John McCain get elected, according to a CNN interview reported in the NYT. I was already worried in an earlier blog that McCain had helped foment the war in Georgia.

Putin seemed to imply that an American military or CIA officer was directly involved. I doubt this. If a CIA officer was involved, it was probably some rogue agent like those who worked in the Watergate break-in, not one working in a CIA operation. I think there is no love lost between the CIA and Bush. Bush has made the CIA's failures the scapegoat for his failure on 9/11, and by reorganizing the intelligence community has weakened the CIA significantly. It's unlikely that the career leadership of the CIA would undertake an operation mainly to support McCain's candidacy. It's also unlikely that SecDef Gates would risk starting a war for partisan politics, although I'm not so sure about some of the wild men in the special forces command; I just don't know enough about them.

Although I'm dubious that the US government would have encouraged Georgia to start a war to help McCain, I think the USG probably encouraged Georgia to tweak Russia's nose for its own foreign policy reasons, however stupid they may be. And I think that McCain used is own foreign policy contacts to encourage Georgia to be aggressive, particularly his chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Schuenemann, who is a lobbyist for Georgia. He basically gets paid to foment a war that advances McCain's campaign. McCain's connections are obvious; he and Saakashvili claim to talk several times a day, with Schuenemann's lobbying firm picking up a little commission every time they do. Plus, McCain has sent his own envoys to buck up Georgia's aggressiveness -- Sen. Graham, Sen. Lieberman, and his wife, Cindy McCain. No doubt they all said something like, "Don't give up," but the questions is how far they went in promising military aid either now or after "President McCain" is elected.

McCain Hides Behind POW Experience

I've had it with McCain's touting of his POW experience as the answer to every question, particularly to how many houses he has. Jay Leno was the final chapter for me, when McCain said he wasn't concerned about how many houses he had because he didn't have a house while he was a POW. Maybe not, but he had a wife, and he dumped her for Cindy not long after he got back. Cindy was the Paris Hilton of her day, an heiress with a hot body. McCain latched on to her pretty fast, before he got around to divorcing his first wife.

But what about being a POW? It's honorable, but several levels below the highest sacrifice for one's country. Obviously the greatest sacrifice is to die for your country. Why doesn't McCain talk about the pilots who died when they were shot down over North Vietnam? Maybe because that makes him look bad. Then there are those who don't surrender. They don't end up as POWs. They probably end up dead, too. Finally there are the POWs who try to escape. Maybe it was impossible from McCain's prison, but it should have been an objective. Being a POW is not an option for most Army soldiers and Marines who are face to face with the enemy, as opposed to flying miles above it. For most of them surrender is not an option. What about Gen. McAuliffe's reply to the German demand for surrender at Bastogne during World War II? "Nuts." Becoming a POW was not an option. While many Army Air Corps troops became POWs during WW II, many also escaped and worked with the resistance in France and other occupied countries.

McCain's father and grandfather were four-star admirals. By their standards, McCain's Navy career was a failure. He became a senator after he took over Cindy's money, but he couldn't cut it in the Navy. Maybe he sees becoming commander-in-chief as a way to redeem himself in the eyes of his father and grandfather.

McCain might be the first president to have surrendered in combat.

Is McCain Just Another Worthless Vietnam Veteran?

This article by a fellow POW of McCain's on why he will not vote for McCain gives me conflicting feelings. On the one hand, it's good to know that you don't have to fall down and worship McCain because he was a POW. On the other, it's disappointing that no one seems to have come out of Vietnam with a good reputation. The war tends to destroy those who served in it whether they were a "hero" like McCain or a poor grunt just trying to survive long enough to get back home. At least part of this is because the American elite did not serve and in order to make themselves feel better about avoiding service, they belittle the service of those who went to Vietnam.

As a Vietnam veteran, I am disappointed at veterans denigrating other veterans, whether it's "Swift Boat Veterans" running down John Kerry, or another POW running down McCain. When I came back, all any civilian wanted to hear was whether you killed any babies or committed some other atrocity in Vietnam. One book I remember reading was called "No Victory Parades." One problem for John McCain is that he missed all that. He came back praised as a hero rather than reviled as a criminal for his service. His tour of duty was a lot tougher than most, but his reception was a lot better than most. That may be one reason he is so ready to go to war, whether against Iraq, Iran or Russia. I liked him in 2000, but that was before he became such a warmonger. I think his defeat by Bush changed him for the worse. This article at least raises questions about how much people should bow down to McCain's POW experience. He uses it for everything, most recently defending himself for not knowing how many houses he has. His spokesman said something like, "He lived in only one house for five and half years, in prison" Maybe he should cool it on the POW stuff for a while.

Are We Winning in Iraq?

John McCain is hyping the line that the surge was successful in Iraq because violence has gone down drastically. It's good that violence has gone down, but does that mean we are winning? Basically we have set up al-Maliki and a few others as successors to Saddam Hussein. Are they our friends, or Iran's? Or, are they just in it for the money, like Ahmed Chalabi? Maliki has opened up to the Sunnis who are fighting for us, but is that going to be a lasting alliance? The Iraqis and Iranians in general don't like each other, but some dislike each other more than others. Where does Maliki fall on this spectrum?

Some Americans who are well plugged in to the Iraqi scene probably know the answers to these questions or have educated guesses, but if so, they are not talking. Basically all we know is that violence is down. Much of that seems to be due to the decreasing threat from al-Sadr's militia. But again, is that due to his being defeated by forces friendly to the US and to the westernization of Iraq, or is simply a tactical move intended to get the Americans to expedite their withdrawal.

We misjudged Iraq so badly during the invasion, expecting to be welcomed with flowers and candy, that it's unlikely that even the best analysts know exactly what will happen when we leave, although hopefully they are better informed than they were before the war. Of course, one problem is that many of the "experts" sent to Iraq by the Bush administration were just Republican political hacks who didn't speak Arabic and who had no knowledge of Iraqi society. Their time was largely wasted, although they made good money paid by American taxpayers.

My bottom line is that despite the drop in violence, we don't really know whether we are winning, and we probably won't know until after we leave Iraq and it's too late to do anything about it. I have a gut feeling that Maliki and his cronies are a lot friendlier with Iran than Saddam Hussein was, and that we are likely to see Iraq pulled into the Iran/Shiite orbit when we leave.

Supreme Court Problems

Rick Warren asked the two candidates which Supreme Court justices they would like to get rid of. Obama said he would get rid of Clarence Thomas, my choice exactly. The problem with Thomas is not his political philosophy, although I disagree with it. The problem is that he is a second rate lawyer. He's not smart enough, hard working enough, or something enough to be on the Supreme Court. The justices should at least come from the first rank of lawyers and judges. Clarence Thomas would be okay on a state appeals court or something, but not on the US Supreme Court. He's just not up to the job.

Thomas is an example of the fact that Republicans like stupid people in government. Exhibit 1 - George W. Bush. Exhibit 2 - John Bolton. Exhibit 3 - Ronald Reagan. Reagan? I think he was somewhat senile for the latter part of his time in office. He thought things were true that weren't, e.g., Cadillac driving welfare moms. It might have been true, but it wasn't. He couldn't name names. Republicans don't like law. They don't like treaties because treaties assume that nations have some respect for international law, and Republicans don't. They don't like to pay taxes. They don't like anything that hinders their options. This is not new. It's basically how the warlords in Afghanistan operate and how despots have operated for years. The West moved beyond this, but now we're going back to the Middle Ages, led by George W. Bush and Clarence Thomas.

When McCain was asked which justices he would get rid of, he just named all the liberal justices. He showed no real thought, and that's what Republicans like. They like McCain better in 2008 than in 2000 because he's more senile. He won't stand in the way of their unbounded greed and selfishness.

Did McCain Encourage War to Advance His Campaign

John McCain's main foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheuneman, was (and maybe is) a paid lobbyist for the nation of Georgia. Did McCain get paid for promoting Georgia? Did he get special access to the President Saakashvili because of the lobbyists on his campaign staff? During one of the many visits and phone calls that he has touted on the campaign trail, did he encourage Saakashvili to invade South Ossetia, resulting in many deaths, as described in today's NYT by Mikail Gorbachev.

McCain probably didn't do anything unethical regarding Georgia to promote his campaign, but having a lobbyist for Georgia on his staff certainly raises ethical questions. It certainly gave him better access to Saakashvili than Obama had, if only because of Scheuneman's rolodex.