The Seven Most Important Things to consider know that Bin Laden has Received the Hot Lead of Justice

Good riddance. Now that Osama Bin Laden's gone, he's all over the news again. In the flurry of talking heads, twits making tweets, and written words, here are the seven most important things to consider now that Bin Laden has met his fate:


The "Biden" Doctrine has succeeded where the Bush Doctrine has failed.

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.[emphasis mine]. George W. Bush's policy of overthrowing governments--by pre-emption if necessary--to stop terrorism should be viewed as a complete failure. It could be weeks or months before we know how much the Pakistani government knew of Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts, but it seems incredibly dubious that the Pakistani government made any good faith effort to capture the man. Does that mean we should have overthrown the Pakistani government as well, only to let Bin Laden escape yet again?

Bottom Line: Joe Biden's vision of a narrow, focused attack on counter-terrorism is more effective at bringing specific terrorists to justice than trying unilaterally attacking countries to spark a wave of democracy and therefore, stem terrorism.

This should accelerate the splintering of Al-Qaeda.

The Obama administration should not downplay the strategic significance of one man. Fred Kaplan and Daniel Byman over at Slate.com probably have the best analysis based on actual facts of what will happen without the star power of Bin Laden. In the long run, Al-Qaeda's recruiting will likely suffer with the loss of its figurehead, and affiliate groups in Somalia and Yemen are likely to be wary of each other, perhaps creating a power struggle with Al-Qaeda's main branch in Pakistan. Which brings us to point number three:

Justice has been served, but the most effective way to reduce/eliminate the terror threat requires non-military solutions.

For what these polls are worth, Al-Qaeda does not register a majority level of support in any country. Richard Clarke hits the nail on the head with his analysis in Monday's New York Times. Clarke describes the difficult situation in countries like Egypt, Syria, and Yemen, where governments are unpopular due to catastrophically high levels of unemployment:


"Moderate, tolerant and even some secular groups exist, but they often do not have a comprehensive alternative vision, know how to communicate it or have the organizational skills to promote it. American and European experts can assist them in building politically viable organizations, but to succeed these new groups must be homegrown and tap into the Arab and Islamic traditions that speak to many Muslim youth.
"Moreover, without investment to create jobs, new governments in these countries will fail under the weight of youth unemployment. Unless corruption is replaced with efficiency, investment will either not materialize or be wasted"

Osama Bin Laden was Hitler without an army: a man of evil without conscience who had the ability to deceive otherwise decent human beings into doing horrible things. Hitler became popular because he was right when he said that the Treaty of Versailles unfairly punished Germany after World War I. After World War II, the United States and Britain resolved not to make the same mistake again, and would allow their defeated foe to rebuild. Preventing another Osama Bin Laden requires diplomacy and a commitment to global economic prosperity. In other words, we can't just give $1.3 Billion annually to someone like Hosni Muburak. We need to make sure that economic aid goes directly to the people, and not some dictator who turns a blind eye to high unemployment and citizens who become terrorists. Speaking of dubious allies:

With friends like Pakistan, who needs enemies?


The U.S. State Department needs to be more selective when determining who is really "a valuable ally" of the United States. Osama Bin Laden was living in a large mansion with 12 foot high walls not far from Pakistan's military training facility. Neighbors noticed that the building did not have telephone service and that the occupants burned their trash. This did not arouse the suspicion of the Pakistani military? Whether Pakistan was blissfully unaware of Bin Laden's presence or knowingly sheltered him remains to be discovered.

So what do we do with Pakistan? Do we overthrow this government as well? Or should we continue with the diplomacy that Richard Clarke encourages? If we are going to win the hearts and minds of the opposition, we should engage in diplomacy first.

Our continued presence in Afghanistan is continually harder to justify.

The moral justification for overthrowing the Taliban was because they harbored Al-Qaeda, giving them a "home base" to plot terrorist attacks. So does Yemen. So does Somalia. If we need to do so, our Navy SEALs can track down and kill a high-profile terrorist in hot pursuit, regardless of what government the country has.

Taking that into consideration, the question of supporting the Karzai government deserves more scrutiny than ever before. Is he unpopular because the Taliban hate freedom, or because he probably lost the last election? As our current situation stands right now, the United States will have a continued military presence in Afghanistan until 2014, at which point a withdrawal might take place--or be re-evaluated based on conditions on the ground.

That time for re-evaluation is now. President Obama should listen to members of both political parties, in calling for an exit strategy, rather than the increasingly delusional Joe Lieberman. The U.S. government puts itself at risk by supporting regimes like Muburak. We need smarter diplomacy and fewer wars without clearly defined goals in order to truly fight Islamic extremism.

Now is also a good time to restore the rule of law.

"Wonder what President Obama thinks of water boarding now?" tweeted the twit Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa).

Spare me. Science tells us that Torture doesn't work. Steve King doesn't believe in science, but fortunately, the Obama administration does. The FBI didn't torture underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab. They even read him his Miranda Rights. The FBI did, however, bring in Umar's relatives, and from that tactic the FBI was able to extract all the information they needed.

Steve King may not believe in science, but the rest of us do. We don't have all the details yet, but it seems dubious that information leading to Obama's capture came through torture, or because those questioned were held as "illegal combatants" as opposed to Prisoners of War. Legal scholar Dahlia Lithwick says that such claims are unfalsifiable, but I disagree. Holding Enemy Prisoners of War does not mean that such individuals could not be interrogated, it only requires that they be treated humanely. And guess what? Humane treatment yields results. Donald Rumsfeld's tactics yielded the Abu Ghraib. I think it's safe to say which tactic resulted in Bin Laden's death. Which brings us to our final point:

If we're going to thank a former president for eliminating Bin Laden from the face of the Earth, it's John F. Kennedy, not George W. Bush.

Either George Bush's statement of not caring about Bin Laden's whereabouts and subsequent invasion of Iraq was a clever ploy to make it seem like he wasn't interested in bringing him to justice, or he really didn't care all that much about bringing him to justice.  And remember when John McCain criticized Obama for wanting attack terrorist targets in Pakistan without help from the Pakistani government? It was President Obama who made finding and killing Bin Laden a top priorty, and relied on the Navy SEALs to do the job with remarkable efficiency.

For that, we should thank President Kennedy. This Navy veteran and war hero understood the need for a small group of elite forces trained in unconventional warfare and established the SEALs in 1962. Sunday's raid did what predator drones, cruise missiles, or cluster bombs could not. To everyone who has ever been a member of the Navy SEAL program: Thank you.

That's all for now. Undoubtedly, these topics will arise in the future. Hopefully, our leaders will take the right path.

Exploring Insanity in America, Part I

Two news stories broke this April, both concerning the September 11th terror attacks and also illustrating the sheer lunacy of those on the political right.


One was the insane notion that the heroes--the firefighters, police officers, construction workers and other crew members risked their lives on September 11th would be forced to cross-check their names on the Terror Watch List before receiving their workman's compensation for illnesses contracted from the disaster. The other piece of outright madness was that 247 people on the terror watch list had legally purchased firearms last year. 247 people who the government suspects has ties to Al-Qaeda. People who wish to do harm to you and me. People who want us dead. But hey, they're only suspects, right?


Predictably, the National Rifle Association opposes any effort on behalf of the government to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. The AP story quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam saying what pretty much every NRA spokesman has ever said about any effort to keep guns away from criminals: "We think it's wrong to arbitrarily deny a law-abiding person a Constitutional right."


Leaving aside the question as to why some suspected terrorists are allowed to purchase guns and others are locked up in Guantanamo without formal charges against them (but seriously, what gives!), we still have a clear picture of how upside down Congress has its priorities: Those who worked to keep America safe from terrorists must prove they are not terror suspects in order to receive health care for diseases contracted from Ground Zero, whereas those who actually have suspected ties to terrorism can legally purchase guns and explosives.


How could this happen? What society could produce a human being as disgusting as Cliff Stearns, let alone elect him to Congress? How could such wild and utterly contradictory illogic take route and get passed into law in a civilized society? Why be skeptical of someone who will risk his life to save yours, but permissive to somebody who might want to kill you? That's not falling on the right of the political spectrum--that's outright lunacy that requires intervention.


Many on the political left would throw up their hands and say that America is a conservative country. I disagree. We live in an era where a confluence of factors have brought us in a situation where bad ideas can flourish--sometimes against the will of the majority.


A huge part of the problem is rooted in a remarkably poor reading of the Second Amendment. We know what the NRA thinks, and some have criticized Thomas Jefferson using vague language as to what the Amendment actually protects. The trouble is, Jefferson was pretty clear on what kind of military he wanted the United States to have, and what the function of a well-regulated militia was supposed to be. From the man himself:

"For a people who are free and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us at every meeting [of Congress] to revise the condition of the militia and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion... Congress alone have power to produce a uniform state of preparation in this great organ of defense. The interests which they so deeply feel in their own and their country's security will present this as among the most important objects of their deliberation."

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

"Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence [sic] until regulars may be engaged to relieve them."

In other words, Jared Loughner does not have the right to shoot a Congresswoman and point-blank range. People who are not crazy should have guns, but only for the purpose of doing away with a large, standing army. Taking up arms to overthrow the government is called treason, and the Constitution rightly forbids it.

What's really crazy is that one can read all these quotes from Jefferson (and more) at an anti-gun control website! Seriously. Somebody read the argument for the Second Amendment and is still polishing his rifle just in case the Feds come knocking. In my next blog, I'll further examine the origins of this loopy logic and it's implications on our political discourse--and what can be done to stop it.

In the meantime, feel free to call Cliff Stearns Office at (202) 225-5744. Ask him why he would sooner arm a potential terrorist than provide health care to someone who would keep him safe from terrorism.

Embrance populism, even if not George McGovern

My attempt to gin up support for a George McGovern presidency has met with mixed results. My McGovern 2012 Facebook group is limited to people on my friends list. Some have been so excited as to brandish their original McGovern for President buttons, others have questioned why I would pick anyone over the age of 89 to mount a campaign for President and ultimately occupy the White House. Perhaps I should clarify.

In your heart, you know you're right.

The point wasn't necessarily to persuade the 89-year-old George McGovern to give up his Florida winter home and start making speeches in Iowa and New Hampshire. The point was the American public believes in the core issue of higher taxes for better government services. Don't believe me? Check out these polls in Utah, Nevada, and yes, even George McGovern's home state of South Dakota. Even in these so-called "red states," people want government to work for the people. Oh, and Paul Ryan's plan to virtually replace Medicare with private insurance? That's not going over so well.

Yes, Democratic presidential candidates lost badly in 1972, 1984, and 1988, and I'm well aware of who just took control of the House of Representatives. But that doesn't mean Barack Obama or any other elected Democrat should simply cede ground to extremist corporate interests. Doing so only serves to further alienate the general public and re-affirm the belief that government doesn't work for the people among skeptics.


The time to turn things around is now. This is not the time to apologize for Barack Obama's inability to provide sufficient assistance the millions of Americans who are struggling financially because we perceive it politically unfeasible. Rather, the only reason he isn't running away with a second term is because he fell into a self-fulfilling prophecy that Americans didn't want more government. I merely proposed that the man partly responsible for this timidity among progressives unseat Obama and smash the myth of a "conservative" America once and for all.

Well, it probably won't happen with another McGovern presidency. But if the "sensible liberal" can understand that Americans want health insurance instead of bailouts for corporations and tax cuts for millionaires, that's an important step in the right direction.

Oh yeah, and in case you haven't seen it already, a video about the ultra-liberal state of North Dakota. They have another bank besides Wells Fargo.

George McGovern--2012

That's right. George McGovern for President. Now.

Soldier, you country calls you yet again!!

Who cares if he'll be 90 years old on election day and currently lives part-year in sunny Florida. There are two very compelling reasons why George McGovern should run for president next year.

First of all, Barack Obama has made a terrible case for his re-election. With economic recovery on shaky grounds and no viable exit strategy from Afghanistan, he has left little room for daylight between him and his predecessor. Rather than run on his accomplishments or what he intends to do during his second term, he merely implores the public to re-elect him because he isn't crazy. That's a terrible metric for success.

Second of all, today's Republican Party is so extreme and frightening in their own policies that candidates like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are deemed "too liberal" for the party base. Gallup notes that this is the first time in the history of their polling organization that no front-runner has emerged this late in the game, opening the door for a potential tea-party favorite to take the reigns. Should that happen, any Democrat--even Kucinich--would probably win in a landslide. Example: Barack Obama's approval rating is below 50 percent, and even he would defeat Sarah Palin by double digits.

Someone fix this with PhotoShop, please!

I say we take advantage of this opportunity by ending the myth of "conservative" America once and for all. Democrats have won the popular vote in four out of the last five presidential elections. McGovern and Mondale ran against popular incumbents and lost badly, and Michael Dukakis made several moronic decisions that doomed his candidacy. The Democratic Party has been scared of its own shadow ever since. What better time--and who a better person--to win the presidency and re-establish a government that actually works for the people than McGovern himself?

I say let's make this idea go viral as quickly as possible. We need a draft McGovern movement. Someone with access to FinalCutPro should put together some promo videos and post them on YouTube. McGovern may not ultimately run, but I sure would like to see his name come out on top against hypothetical opponents in public opinion polling. It would certainly send a powerful message to our flaccid leader on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Think about it: A president with the moral decency to end tax cuts for the super-wealthy and corporations, restore sanity to foreign policy, and reform our entitlement programs so that the reigns of populism are firmly rooted in the political left once and for all. If he wins, we all win! Sow how 'bout it! Tell your friends to spread the word! McGovern 2012!