General Petraeus will appear today before the Senate Armed Forces Committee as part of his confirmation to become the leader of armed forces in Iraq. Of course the major topic facing the general is how he plans to utilize the additional troops authorized by the President earlier this month. According to the Washington Post :

The plan calls for large numbers of Iraqi and U.S. forces to flow into a targeted area like an ocean tide, temporarily overwhelming militia and insurgent fighters. But unlike in the past, when the tide goes out, it will leave behind a substantial residual force of Iraq army and police units, backed up by mobile U.S. troops. In this way, planners hope to “hold” neighborhoods rather than just “clear” them of the enemy. 

 I wish someone would explain to me how this works. Don’t the troops who remain behind to “hold” these neighborhoods, end up becoming sitting targets for snippers and the insurgency? Aren’t the American troops viewed now as occupiers by a majority of the Iraqis? So, exactly how does one go about “holding” a neighborhood by placing a group of soldiers on the neighborhood streets? The same streets where people view us as part of the problem?

Furthermore, the article goes on to explain that Petraeus fully expects to see some early successes with the influx of troops in the Spring, but anticipates that the insurgency will soon learn the new patterns of military action by the U.S., and regroup with even stronger attacks against our soldiers. How is this winning?

There were 9 million more female voters in the last two elections than males. Typically, female voters tend to vote their hearts and minds over party affiliation, even though their husbands may vote a straight party line.

Currently, 51% of all adult females in the United States are single, with a sizeable portion of that comprised by unwed or divorced mothers.

Say what you will about support for Hillary Clinton, those numbers mean that she instantly connects with roughly half of the marginal difference in the last two Presidential elections, and that she has a starting base of supporters that no other candidate in either party has.

What a tangled web we weave…

Let me throw out a few numbers that help frame the current mood of the country and the disconnect with that mood known as George W. Bush…

According to the Washington Post reporting on the latest ABC News poll:
48% of Americans believe that Iraq is the single most important issue facing the nation
60% of Americans want Democrats in Congress to resolve the issue rather than W
65% oppose sending more troops (this is up from 62% following W’s announcement)
59% want to see Congress block Bush’s plan for more troops in Iraq
25% of Republicans want to see Congress block Bush’s plan for more troops in Iraq

We all know that Iraq is an albatross around Bush’s neck, but what about the direction of the nation and his leadership?

71% of those polled say the nation is “way off track”, while only 26% believe it is headed in the right direction.

65% disapprove of Bush’s performance on the job; while 33% approve (undoubtedly reflecting the GOP base)

And remember Bush’s soaring approval ratings of his handling of the “War on Terror” after 9/11 and the forward momentum he had going into the 2004 election cycle? Well, 52% now say that his handling of the “War on Terror” is not working.

Trust is another problem for Bush now. Following the botched handling of Katrina, 47% of Americans said Bush was a “strong leader”, a low point for his regime. Now, 45% of Americans refer to him as a “strong leader”, setting a new record for this president. But even if Bush is not a strong leader, a good leader always maintains a level of trust with his followers, right? A leader, for good or bad, can maintain a level of stewardship, a guiding hand if you will, to lead when times are hard, right? Well, apparently not. Only 42% of Americans say they trust Bush to lead the nation during a crisis.

I do not wish to point fingers and say “I told you so”, but it is comforting to know that most American’s have not lost their minds, and that a level of confidence in our overall national intelligence has been restored. Is there hope? Yes, at least some. But more importantly, there is a light at the end of this deep, dark tunnel Bush has led us into. And that light is perhaps the most encouraging number of them all:

729, the number of days until a new President can lead us out of this nightmare.

Do they still have weekly spelling tests in schools these days? I can remember from elementary school we were given a list of words on Monday that we had to memorize by Friday for a spelling test. Part of the assignment, of course, was to retain not only the spelling of the words but their meanings as well. Larry Beinhart over at Huffinton Post set me off on this path of distant memories this morning with his excellent piece on failure in this administration. Beinhart does an incredible job of showing how Bush endlessly uses the phrase “failure is not an option” in every policy or directive in which failure has already occurred.

Failure…it’s not an option…it’s standard equipment these days.

I honestly feel sorry for the President these days. The arrogance of the first six years of his unchecked regime is coming back to bite where it counts the most.

Let’s be perfectly honest, the first eight and a half months of the Bush administration was little to do of nothing. It was not until the attacks of 9/11 that this President began to define himself, and it has been that definition that has carried him from election to election infringing upon the rights of nearly every American citizen.

It was inevitable that there was a price to pay for his arrogance. For nearly four long years we have been engaged in a war that lacks direction and purpose. We were told that the war was necessary to protect our national interests, we were told that Iraq had the ability to endanger our very existance, we were told that the war was necessary to give freedom to a repressed people, and we were told that the war was necessary in the sense of the global war on terrorism. The truth is that we were told a complex set of lies hidden by smoke and mirrors.

Now Bush, who has never been held accountable for one thing in his entire life, is being held accountable for his actions and for his lies. What a terrible awakening it must be for a man who has shirked responsibility and intelligent thinking his entire life to suddenly find himself taking responsibility for the war and not having the support of two-thirds of the nation for the one solid decision he has ever made.

Personally, I feel like 20,000 troops is not enough to complete the job, but there is absolutely no way we can afford to do what needs to be done in order to save Iraq. Let’s be perfectly honest here, the surge in troop numbers is not to save Iraq, it is the bare minimum to prop up the government long enough for the United States to leave and to save face for Bush. There is an important lesson we should all take from this: Saddam Hussein paid for his arrogance (i.e., stupidity) with his life, Bush will pay for his arrogance (i.e., stupidity) with his legacy.

When we look back at every former president we have had since Nixon we see a group of elder statesmen who dedicate their lives to bettering either the lives of the underprivileged or improving global conditions facing humanity. Bush lacks the ability and stature to do any of that. His legacy will be the general erosion of the American image in the eyes of the world, and that is a sad commentary on our President, our nation, and our electorate.

PICT0718.JPG, originally uploaded by bdskip.

You just have to stop and realize that there are bigger things in this world. This morning I flew from Boise, ID to Denver, CO and shot this picture from the plane. Yeah, I hate the TSA, and I think it is just a bunch of pretty wrapping paper on the same package, but at the end of the day I do know that we live a relatively safe environment, and that we enjoy freedoms like no other. And for that I am truly grateful to God for allowing me to live here.

Imagine my pleasant suprise on New Year’s Eve when I opened the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and read an article by Bud Kennedy entitled “New poll detects a change in the political climate in the Capitol”:

 Texas Democrats have pulled even with Republicans, and the state is now about half red, half blue. At least, that’s according to 1,053 Texans surveyed by an independent Democratic pollster. The poll’s news announcement focused on one specific response: By 46 percent to 35 percent, respondents said Democrats “care” more about “people like me.” That’s a reversal from two years ago.

But most eyes went immediately to the bottom line of the poll, conducted in early December by Austin-based Montgomery & Associates:

Asked which political party they lean toward, 45 percent chose Democrat.

Only 43 percent chose Republican. If you figure in the poll’s margin of error, that’s a tie.

Two years ago, in the same Democratic poll, Republicans led by 55 percent to 34 percent.

As author Bud Kennedy is quick to point out, the poll was a simple poll and not directed at “voters”. Needless to say, the momentum is still there and we can begin to see the turning of the red tide in Texas.

Our biggest challenge in the coming two-year cycle is to raise awareness and to motivate those who find their interests better represented by Democrats to register to vote and to actually vote.