Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?

Each day that politicians seek political cover on the war in Iraq from these same anti-war critics also causes more loss of life. A prudent and practical human being regardless of ideology would sacrifice their own selfish interest in favor of the valiant contributions by those actually at risk of death. To express the realities of politics is simply more rhetoric and of little consolation to those who shoulder the real burden. If you are not now nor have ever been in Iraq, shut the hell up and get this thing done so those who are can satisfy the demands of both sides of the issue by achieving victory in Iraq and coming home that much sooner.

To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.

The open borders crowd claims that illegals are merely seeking a better life is really describing a better income. The business community’s scare tactics about economic disaster without illegals is really describing lower costs and higher profits by exploiting artificial wage competition. Trying to solve the world’s problems by eliminating border and immigration control only exacerbates the symtoms.

Not securing the borders or controlling immigration is a national security risk we cannot afford. Allowing amnesty for lawbreakers only encourages its continuation. Not enforcing existing laws is a violation of the oath of office of all or most elected and appointed officials in the executive branch. Both sides of the issue, again, can be satisfied by effective control and management of the flow of people in and out of this country. Conceding to the demands of selfish special interest is not an option. Common sense demands this issue be solved now. The guiding force should be the rule of law not the whim of personal preference.

As a personal note, if you truly believe open borders are a good thing, I suggest this. Leave all your locks unlocked 24/7 from now on. Then let us know how long it takes before you experience something really bad. It is nice to think the best of people but that does not suggest ignoring the worst. They invented security because both exist.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Congressional Democrats Negotiate With Bush Aides on Iraq

Congressional Democrats and President Bush’s aides meet again Thursday to negotiate on funding for the Iraq war.

Senators Work With White House to Craft Immigration Deal

Bipartisan group of senators and White House officials work to craft an immigration agreement.

If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

An argument can be made that Donald Rumsfeld entered the administration’s plans for Iraq, late. Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz somehow dodged being the favorite targets of the press and the public on the issue of invading Iraq. Also, those from Iraq that urged American intervention have also faded from the news long ago. The only other person that receives harsh criticism is President Bush. Those in Congress who voted for war only get criticized during election cycles. The point is many individuals were responsible for and involved in the decision to oust Saddam Hussein. The media directs the debate and the pubilc blindly follows. It is as if the politicians and the public have lost their way on the war in Iraq and it is simply easier to direct collective anger toward President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld only.

George Bush is the decision-making power for war once approved by Congress. Donald Rumsfeld, whether he agreed with the ‘plan” for Iraq or not, accepted responsibility for managing the military component of that decision when he accepted the job as Secretary of Defense. It is reasonable that both President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld respond to public displeasure on the war. But there are others who will never be required to endure an equal share of the criticism. The worst part is that all those responsible will not be forced to correct the problems. Others not responsible for these decisions will be left to clean up the mess. All of us share some of the blame for the results of our government’s actions. While the general public has no clearly defined direct connection to decisions made by public officials, we have responsibility to be engaged in the process that puts them there.

The American public needs to develop an informed opinion and at least communicate directly with elected officials as well as vote. The apathy toward individual responsibility in public affairs has been allowed to continue too long. All the excuses for not participating in public affairs are as lame now as they have ever been. Remember that as you salute Donald Rumsfeld’s departure from the Bush Administration or provide him with a symbolic boot of your displeasure. And remember that the blame for any shortcoming or failure does not always fall on the most deserving.

Finally, Donald Rumsfeld’s resume’ overall is quite impressive. Barring any unknown skeletons in the closet, near 50 years of public service with some private sector experience mixed in. If you want to blame him for something, he is responsible for launching Dick Cheney’s career in the Ford Administration. And if you cannot bring yourself to fondly remember his quips and handling of the press, you have no sense of humor. We could use more of that. The problem with his departure is it will not improve the situation in Iraq. So if you are glad he is leaving, don’t celebrate too much.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(from the Daily Kos)

John Murtha One Year Later
by BarbinMD
Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:54:40 AM PST

During yesterday’s White House press briefing, the subject of the
recently released Rumsfeld memo led to the following exchange:

Q Isn’t it striking that this administration was accusing the likes
of John Murtha and other Democrats who suggested course
correction, including phased withdrawal, of cutting and running –

MR. SNOW: No, let me –

Q — at the same time that the Defense Secretary was suggesting
just the same option?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q You don’t see hypocrisy there?

MR. SNOW: No, because you’re talking about apples and oranges.
If you take a look at -

As my eyes glazed over reading Snow’s rambling answer about
developments on the ground,

Yes, it is old news. How long are the fans of the Democratic
party willing to complain? The Democratic party will have the
majority in Congress in January and this is what you find at the
Daily Kos on December 5, 2006. If this keeps up, people might
start believing the rants from the fans of the GOP. That Dems
and their fans are simply liberal, left wing kooks.

Stop complaining and start providing your favorite political party
with “reasonable” suggestions for the next session. Or would that
be asking too much?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Outgoing US Congress must deal with spending bills,
tax relief to …
International Herald Tribune -
AP. WASHINGTON: Before the new Democrat-led Congress
takes over in January, current members of the House and Senate
have to finish up with the year’s legislative business, whether
they won re-election or not.

Much in the blogosphere today rehashing political events of the
past week and before. The best we’ve seen claim Limbaugh and
Hewitt are party faithful and defend the GOP to the death, right
or wrong. Is this a joke? What’s the big revelation about any of
the talking heads having an agenda? On the other side, how about
Al Franken or Air America? An agenda, ya think? The sad part
is no one seems to admit that politicians are party faithful as well.

If you believe that there is no agenda in the photo ops with Pelosi
and Bush, then you were born yesterday or more likely early this
morning. Reid, Durban, Biden, etc., etc., all making nice. Notice
by many Democrats that the public has spoken and Dems intend to
do what the American people want is certainly subject to careful
interpretation. Our interpretation is Dems will seize the next two
years doing what they want in as much as their majority will allow.
The party versus party blame game will continue as well as lobby
dollars and corruption. If you think everything will get better just
because the other major party won political advantage this week,
your birthdate may not even exist yet or the turnip truck you will
fall off of is still on the drawing board.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bush, Mexico’s Calderon to work on immigration
Reuters -
… W. Bush and Mexican President-elect Felipe Calderon
pledged on Thursday to work together for a comprehensive
solution to curb illegal immigration from Mexico …

If it was not a plot by both Houses of Congress to introduce
HR4437 knowing it would never get through the Senate, then
the fine new Senate of the 110th Congress should be able to
finish strong reform starting in January 2007. Similar to the
fact that Immigration Reform of 1986 was never enforced, in
their grand wisdom, politicians have improved on their deceit
by creating a better strategy. Work together just long enough
to satisfy mutual goals and fool the public in believing you really
give a damn. Like Democrats conceding Presidential 2004
elections by nominating John Kerry when John Edwards wsa a
much more viable candidate. Kerry was a sacrificial lamb and
the only one who did not know it was Kerry. He still doesn’t.

We hope all you smiling Democrats are enjoying your victories.
We hope all you Republicans are understanding your arrogance
that led to this. And we hope you both as well as all of America
is prepared for a continuation of porous borders, unrestricted
immigration and a complete breakdown of national security.

If you haven’t noticed, the resignation of Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and previously mentioned items absolutely elated the
Muslim world. Al-Jazeera and the rest have been celebrating
since November 7th, 2006. Thank you one and all. NOT!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Served in the military. Worked as a Congressional aide. Ran
for office. Served in the Ford Administration. Was credited as
getting Cheney started in politics. Donald Rumsfeld, a seasoned
political veteran with a long and successful career may not be a
reasonable target for our criticism.

It is easy to cast blame on the most visible target representing a
war which was initiated under less than admirable motives. The
end of Colin Powell’s tenure as Secretary of State is another case
in point. When one strictly serves at the pleasure of the President,
the outcome may be more complicated that it first appears.

Powell’s trip to the U.N. to present justification for a coalition to
“hold Saddam to account” after numerous violations of the empty
resolutions of the security council remains puzzling. It was not a
secret that Powell disagreed with others in the administration over
Iraq and the case for war. Once the decision was made to go to
war, it was reported that Rumsfeld was one of the last to know as
he was told to complete preparations for military action.

It has also been reported more than once that Vice-President Dick
Cheney has great influence in this administration, more than any
other vice-president to date. The question is how much has been
orchestrated by Dick Cheney that is reflected in the results and the
subsequent resignations of Powell and Rumsfeld? There is plenty
of blame to go around. Powell and Rumsfeld may have an equal
share. But they likely don’t deserve all of it even if they are the
most convenient targets.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Bruiser Who Became a Political Liability

Buzzle -
Days before the election, George Bush told journalists that there was no way
Donald Rumsfeld would leave his job during the president’s administration.

Ex-CIA director named as Rumsfeld replacement
OhmyNews International, South Korea -
Robert Gates, the man named to replace outgoing Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, is expected to draw on his experience as a former director
of the Central

Clean up the mess
Seattle Post Intelligencer - 1 hour ago
After nearly six years of profuse presidential praise, Donald Rumsfeld is
leaving a mess for the next secretary of defense. George

Rumsfeld Resignation Wins Praise From Democrats
FOX News - 1 hour ago
AP. Nov. 8: President Bush, flanked by outgoing Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and his Defense Secretary-nominee Robert Gates. Nov. …

Random Thoughts as They Occur

There seem to be some long lasting effects in the form of actual people
who have lingered around American politics. Donald Rumsfeld’s start
in politics was 1957 unless you count military service as politics. His
first listed job was for Congressman David Short Dennison, Jr. Then he
worked for Congressman Robert P. Griffin of Michigan, appointed to
the US Court of Appeals in 2005 by, you guessed it, President George
Bush. Back to Rumsfeld, who after working for Congressman became
one himself in 1962. He joined Nixon’s cabinet and held various jobs
until 1973 when he became an Ambassador to NATO. Later it was
Ford’s cabinet as Defense Secretary. Then for 8 years he was either the
CEO and president or Chairman of GD Searle, pharmaceutical corp.
Backing up a bit, since we forgot, Rumsfeld and Cheney worked for
President Ford. If memory serves, Rumsfeld was encouraged to hire
Cheney as was broadcast on a PBS program earlier this year.

To the casual observer one can draw the conclusion that it is a little bit
strange that George HW Bush was the DCI and under Reagan all sorts
of international intrigue, like the Iran/Contra scandal while he served as
Vice-President. One son governs Florida, one Texas and then himself
becomes President. All sorts of twists in foreign affairs and repetitive
connections to the oil industry.

Okay, don’t forget about the leftovers from William J. Clinton. He and
his wife in the Whitehouse, preceded by Whitewater scandal and a few
others. Now GHW Bush and he are hanging out together and his wife
Hillary is in the Senate and who knows what is going on now. Ya gotta
admit it all is a little strange and no one seems to be making anything of
it.

Feels like a setup to us.

As a follow-up to an earlier post (link) we are adding some references for
anyone interested in questionable connections between secretive operations
of private enterprise to government policy and action.

MoreWhat.com’s previous post was inspired by a post at Making Light and
the subject was astroturfing. The definition in this case refers to grass roots
impostors paid to influence public perception in an unethical way. Pretend
to be someone legitimate and make your case for someone whose intentions
are not so legitimate. The follow-up Making Light post is here.

Like many other people, we typically get a feel for what’s out on the net for
gathering enlightenment by search engine. We’re embarrassed to say that
we googled. The first hit of the 89,200 counted was a lengthy account of the
Rendon Group in one item at the Center for Media and Democracy. We are
usually uncomfortable with org’s named like this. Too many times we find
that they are subjective presentations of data by those with their own agenda.
We have not vetted this information but it is an interesting read nonetheless.

The CMD account on their project SourceWatch first of all provides a list of
references from 2001 into 2006. Of these some are quite familiar as they are
commonly known to all. The AP, Chicago Tribune, Rolling Stone, The New
Yorker and many others. This had the immediate effect of calming us as to
the potential validity of information. Follow the links at the page as we’ll give
summary information here and in subsequent posts, but providing in detail is
a bit burdensome for our size of staff.

John Rendon, the founder of Rendon Group, got his start in election politics.
It appears the bulk of that experience was for the Democratic party. We find
this disturbing for the later exploits mentioned about the Iraq War and back to
Desert Storm. This of course “speaks” to the pervasive effects of enormous
ramifications to our country. Ala Butch Cassidy, “who are those guys”?

The photo above was in a Google result
that displayed partial text, “Rendon Group
hosted an Afghan……”, but the page was
404 at State.gov (Hmmm?)

We will touch on one more hit from our search and leave the remainder for
future posts. Although the chronology is likely out of sequence, this is in a
sequence of the search engine hits. This hit provides a link to the response by
the Rendon Group to the Rolling Stone article by James Bamford with a title
of intrigue, “The Man Who Sold the War”.

Rendon Group, of course, denies all or most of what Mr Bamford has written.
They say, for instance, there is no connection between the Rendon Group and
the DOD’s Office of Strategic Influence. As there only proof offered they site
a Chicago Tribune confirmation from the former director of the office. With no
more offered as proof, this seems an entry level PR attempt by a heavyweight.

TRG, as they refer to themselves, claims to reviews and analyzes open source
media reports for the DOD. Funny, MoreWhat.com had a recent post that was
referring to Rumsfeld and the DOD claims of the media not covering available
positive news on the Iraq War and they are going to drop $20 million for some
one to help them with that. Who’s on first? I dunno. Second base is where we
are at right now.

The claims of astroturfing seem to have merit to us. Not simply based on these
accounts. There is a great deal of reference material and Rendon Group does
not seem to be responding as one would expect. They appear to just answer a
point as it comes up as if hoping that will be enough and it will go away. We’ll
have some more on this later. We’d like to thank Making Light for there kind
inclusion of our brief report. What started as a casual hunt for post subjects may
be around for a while.

MoreWhat.com staff

CBS post at Public Eye Needs Attention

Mainstream Media May Have Thin Skin

Rumsfeld & Pentagon Criticize Media

We encourage anyone reading this to follow the link to CBS
Public Eye and post a comment. The title is Seeking Positive
Press for Iraq War. A link to an article in the Washington
Post is included (read) as well as other links.

The post addresses criticism from the Pentagon and Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that range from how do we get
our good Iraq news out to Rumsfeld claiming the media help
the terrorists with their excessively negative treatment of the
war.

It is MoreWhat.com’s position on this matter that the various
mainstream media outlets have a tendency to push what sells.
It would come as no surprise that the marketing departments
of most news agencies understand morbid, depressing and
otherwise negative news sells.

How else would you explain the vast quantities of coverage
on fatal accidents, murders, rape, child abuse, fires, floods,
hurricanes and other bloody or viscious or depraved events?

Add a little political turmoil. Mix in a generous portion of
scandal and cultural afflictions. Chill and serve with a small
tidbit of cheery human interest in the last minute of the over
advertised 18 minutes each evening. Voila’. Newsfix.

In terms of the Iraq War, we believe the mainstream media elevates the
negative news by devoting a tiny portion of their time to stories about
the military personnel involved in non-combat operations. There was a
time when you might see soldiers helping families and children in Iraq
or rebuilding damaged infrastructure or assisting others in need of help.

Now it is only the fraction of people involved in prisoner abuse or acts
of violence we decline to describe for it has already been adequately
mentioned elsewhere. We submit this is a departure from the norm as
equal or exceeded in other parts of the world. Not something on which
to linger.

MoreWhat.com staff

Since the Democrats and Republicans can’t seem to stop
abusing each other and otherwise engaging in behavior
conducive only to campaign misdirection rather than a
productive approach to solving national problems, just
a little history might help.

Today’s blogosphere presented two repetitive themes on
left and right rants. From the right, the President’s
stay the course posture for Iraq was supported by the
right and opposed by the left. In addition, a movie is
being talked about that involves a fictional account of
the assassination of the President. If any American was
involved in the production of this film they should be
ashamed. But that’s another story for later.

The first parallel offered from American history is the
administration of Woodrow Wilson, who ran on a platform
of no war for America. He proposed a New World Order.
He sought economic reforms in banking, trade and ending
corporate abuses. His administration used more military
intervention than his predecessors. The US entered World
War I on April 2, 1917 a month after his re-election.
His Freedom platform was aggressive and domestic policy
was set aside after entering the war. Sound familiar.
One more thing, he was a Democrat. Party doesn’t matter.

Americans have never wanted war. The two best reasons
for going to war were World War I and II. And yet in
both cases there was no initial public support for such
an endeavor.

Isolation, anti-war sentiment and a military weakened by
national policies plagued the United States before the
World Wars and others. How many of these scenarios do
we get to repeat before disaster?

During a war is a bad time to ask if another solution is
available. Whining that we were misled by the President
will not allow us to rewind the tape and start over. As
an equal absurdity, supporting the decision to go to war
based on false pretense. Neither position is valid. The
time for this debate is after not during a war.

Beltway Traffic Jam

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com staff

Democrats Edge Closer to Becoming French

This is a helluva thing to see with your morning coffee.
Possibly the most talked about Defense Secretary in US
history has suggested replacing nuclear warheads on
ICBMs with conventional warheads for use against the
terrorists.

Aside from the citizens of the US, it is reasonable to think
those in the rest of the world might get a little jumpy if the
US military launches an ICBM against “terrorists” even if
Rummy says they have NO warhead.

Almost could cause one to miss the Cold War. (almost)