It’s hard to believe that 2007 has come to an end already.

I haven’t blogged much this year because 2007 was FULL of many personal and professional changes in my life.  In the coming months I intend to recommit myself to the blog and to raising the issues that we all need to understand as we enter into the 2008 election cycle.

So, what happened in 2007?

1. We lost the always entertaining seldom intelligible Anna Nicole Smith
2. The U.S. allowed Turkey to conduct air and ground raids on Iraqi Kurd territories on the border with Turkey
3. Jerry Falwell met his maker
4. Evil-doer extraordinaire Karl Rove left the White House
5. Albert Gonzales got busted, lied to cover his rear, lied about the lie, and lied even more about political revenge terminations of Justice Department prosecutors
6. Oprah went off the deep-end
7. Congress failed to pass one single piece of legislation that dramatically improved the lives of Americans
8. Congress failed to pass a significant measure that reduced the number of troops in Iraq
9. Some elements of a 20,000+ troop surge in Iraq showed signs of success
10. George Bush failed to complete an intelligent thought…again
11. Television producers and writers proved just how greedy our society has become
12. Idaho Senator Larry Craig was arrested for lewd behavior in a Minneapolis airport restroom, pleaded guilty, changed his mind, resigned in shame, only to change his mind about that too — ONLY IN AMERICA!

I’m sure there is plenty more that I have either forgotten about, or simply blocked out.

Last week I suffered the loss of a dear member of my family — my grandfather. While his accomplishments in life were not broadcast on the nightly news or printed in the daily papers, his life meant a lot to our family. He always had a sparkle in his eyes and always something quick witted (never mean spirited) to say to anyone who walked in the door. And while those memories are common across all members of the family, I also had my own special relationship with him that I will always cherish.

My grandfather grew up in a much different time. It was a time when this nation suffered in the grips of the Great Depression. That time, I think, shaped him to become very frugal with his money while always remembering that his first priority was to provide for his family. As a young lad he went to work anywhere he could to help his dad support the family at home. Sometimes they didn’t even have a roof over their heads, and when they did they shared their own roofs with others who were not so fortunate. He talked about this time with me and, in reflection now, no one else.

When the depression was over the nation was drawn into the second World War, and so into battle he went. He talked to me about the war more so than he did to other family members. He talked about his memories of fighting in Africa, of suffering from Malaria and of watching good friends not come home. He talked about watching one soldier die as he walked into the spinning propeller blades of an airplane, and of others who did not return from routine marches into combat.

Those events shaped his life, his values, and his personality. You never had to guess where his political views lied, not because he yelled it or ran around telling people, you just knew by his values that he was a Democrat.

The new U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is signalling a new approach to the conflict in Iraq by drafting a team of intellectual subject-matter experts to lead his efforts at “winning” the war. According to the Washington Post, Petraeus has solicited the help of a select group of military commanders with Ph.D’s in subjects like Islamic Anthropology, Economics, and War History.

As the U.S.-designed campaign to bring security to Baghdad unfolds, Petraeus’s chief economic adviser, Col. Michael J. Meese, will coordinate security and reconstruction efforts, trying to ensure that “build” follows the “clear” and “hold” phases of action. Meese also holds a PhD from Princeton, where he studied how the Army historically handled budget cuts. He is the son of former attorney general Edwin Meese III, who was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose December critique helped push the Bush administration to shift its approach in Baghdad.

Petraeus, who along with the group’s members declined to be interviewed for this article, has chosen as his chief adviser on counterinsurgency operations an outspoken officer in the Australian Army. Lt. Col. David Kilcullen holds a PhD in anthropology, for which he studied Islamic extremism in Indonesia.

While the solicitation of more brain power in fighting the war is not new to U.S. millitary strategies, it is something that we have not witnessed in this war. I applaued the General for taking a new approach in coaxing some type of settlement to the conflict, but it all begs some probing questions with one common answer:

Why have we not witnessed this in Iraq before now? If this brain power existed in the military at the start of the conflict why did the Bush administration fail to utilize them from the beginning? Why were political operatives used to build a pseudo-police force, a pathetic health care system, and left to exert little in the way of economic conditioning for Iraq? The answer is clear — the Bush administration, much like the Nixon administration, used its position and the war to reward those that had done so much to get Bush to the White House, ignoring the facts and rejecting logical approaches to securing Iraq from the start.

Petraeus may be the right man for the job, but unfortunately the job has morphed from a winnable war in 2003 to a complete disaster today, and despite his best efforts this strategy will have little to no effect on the overall outcome of this conflict. It is simply too little much too late.

From the Washington Posttoday comes an article on the President’s “inadvertent” mispronunciation of “Democratic Majority” (he called it “Democrat Majority”).

 Bush also said he “didn’t mean to be putting fingernails on the board,” while noting that the parties need to work together on addressing problems with the Social Security system. “I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town,” the president said. “And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it. So the idea that somehow I was trying to needle the Democrats, it’s just — gosh, it’s probably Texas. Who knows what it is? But I’m not that good at pronouncing words anyway.”

 There are several points I want to make about this statement that are absolutely disturbing to me, and should be disturbing to people across this nation:

1. YOU, Mr. President, created the distrust that exists in this town today. Let’s be perfectly honest. You are the son of a life-long Washington politician, you fabricated evidence against an entire nation in order to retaliate for planned attempts on your father’s life, you lied to the American people, you lied to Congress, and you lied to the World. YOU, Mr. President, drove the Republican majority (or, “Republic Majority” if we need to speak your language, sir) to steamroll the minority rights of house members and Senators in order to further your failed agendas (of which there are many). So, I’m not sure why you are surprised, unless, of course this is another example of how far you are removed from reality.
2. You are the leader of the free-world (what you haven’t destroyed or allienated at least). DON’T USE THE WORD “Gosh“…EVER…AGAIN!!
3. “…it’s probably Texas…”– Huh? What the hell does that mean? Are you implying that Texans don’t speak well? Are you trying to blame your personal inadequacies and lack of a logical mind on the fact that you are from Texas? If that was your intent, then I would have to congratulate you on succeeding at something…finally. As a Texan, I would like to point out that you are not a product of the Texas education system (something you were responsible for during your do nothing term as Governor) and that your inability to formulate a coherent sentence has absolutely nothing to do with were you are from. Furthermore, I would like to point out that if Texas has done this to you that you seek another state to place your Presidential Library/Think Tank/Out-house (Alaska might be a good choice. I hear they have newly cleared land in the ANWR region of the state).
4. “But I’m not that good at pronouncing words anyway.”– Pronouncing words. That is your major fault? Mr. President, you are poor at pronouncing words beacuse you lack a clear command of the English language and simply lack the brain power to formulate logical thoughts into words that anyone can comprehend.

We have all known for sometime that this administration will say anything to gain or keep it’s abusive grip on power, but this is too much. Jim VandeHei at Politico.com is reporting that the administration has spent most of this weekend begging GOP Senators to oppose any resolution condeming the troop surge in Iraq. The article sites that administration has come to the realization that if Senators vote the way they spoke to the President this weekend, he could easily have 70 votes against him and his new, new, new strategy in Iraq.

Military commanders are entering the fray now by telling Senators, that the plan has a chance to work in Iraq, but only if Congress is seen as supporting the plan:

 On a more substantive level, White House officials are arguing that U.S. commanders are confident the escalation will work, but only if Iraqis and world leaders understand the plan has congressional backing. The White House has sent signals that it would stomach a resolution establishing firm deadlines and accountability requirements as long as it does not outright condemn the surge, congressional sources said.

 Um…since when do world leaders and Iraqis watch American politics for their queues on how to support or fight against U.S. military action? Did we have a flood of responsible nations coming to our side in 2003 when Congress voted to go to war? To assert that the world needs to hear Congress support this President and his seventh plan to save Iraq is absurd. Once again, this administration will say anything to get what it wants. The people in Iraq made up their minds years ago on opposing peace and seeking the ethnic cleansing Saddam had long denied them and we were the suckers who went in and opened the flood-gates of civil war. Insurgents, or whatever we wish to call them this week, are planning today for dealing with our troop surge, and don’t give a damn about Congressional support or opposition to the plan. In fact, I would imagine that the anti-U.S. elements in Iraq are on the same side of this debate as George W. Bush.

Twenty-five people killed in Gaza fighting overnight, mortar attacks on an all girl school in Iraq kills one and injures a dozen more, fifteen killed in bomb attacks in Pakistan…

This is where the United States should be stepping forward not as a military power, but as a beacon for reason and peace. But for this administration, seeking a peaceful and diplomatic solution to anything is absolutely impossible and is never given a serious consideration for any global problem.

Where are the TEAMS of diplomats working with nations in the middle east region? Where is Secretary Rice working tirelessly on shuttle diplomacy? Where are the images of the President reaching out to other global leaders to lead a frontal attack on terriorism, or developing a more intelligent strategy on the middle east?

This week I had the privlege of hearing a C-level executive say that since he is the Cxx, he should not have to read a report about deteriating margins. Do you think George Bush suffers from this mentality too? The sad part is that I can almost imagine him saying, “I’m the F-ing President of the United States. I shouldn’t have to read a report about Iraq, and I certainly shouldn’t have to listen to Congress.”

Does power cause one to forget their senses ?