I made the mistake of watching the first part of Brent Baier's interview with the President.  Is it possible to be such an a**hole to the Commander in Chief without getting shot?  I lost count how many times Baier interrupted Mr. Obama in the middle of an answer in order to bring up yet-another GOP talking point.  And yet, while the President was clearly frustrated, he held his temper in check.  I would've knocked the s*it out of Baier by that point, and I definitely wouldn't have shook his hand at the end.  
I hit my disgust meter after the first segment and turned the channel.  
And to think that I probably helped Fox New's ratings tonight.  Well, that won't happen again.

Just watched Fareed Zakaria interview John Yoo (author of the "torture memos") on CNN's GPS show.  Fareed was trying to understand Yoo's comparisons between Bush, FDR, and Lincoln, three presidents in a time of war.  And Yoo said something that made my blood run cold:  "This war will end when our enemies can no longer threaten the US homeland."
  
Fareed, rightfully so, called him out by calling the Civil War and WWII total wars that, by nature, will inevitably end - while the War on Terror can continue for decades.  Fareed asked, "Should President Bush, Obama, or any of their successors, have unlimited wartime powers (like FDR and Lincoln), while refusing to put the country on a total war footing?"  

Yoo, of course, demurred on that question.  

This whole sequence shocked me because this is EXACTLY what Hosni Mubarak did on 7 October 1981, the day after Anwar Sadat's assassination.  He declared a national emergency, seized extraordinary powers (with parliamentary approval), and promised to pursue the terrorists until they no longer threaten the nation of Egypt.  

That was over 28 years ago.  Today, 

• Egypt is still in a state of national emergency.  
• Mubarak still has extraordinary powers.  
• Terrorists still threaten the nation of Egypt.      

Did 9/11 introduce the United States to the permanent national emergency?  

As a Soldier, I pray not.

Game Theory has a concept called "the preferred strategy."  It is when one side will always the same choice, regardless of incentives, because it makes them appear stronger to their adversary than compromising. 

The GOP came out of Election Day as a significantly weaker player.  In light of that massive defeat, the party made a decision to reject everything that the President wanted.  

Of course, they didn't say that outright, but that's what their actions showed after January 20th.  They acted like they would cooperate with the Administration, but turned around when the votes came forward.  In Game Theory, that's called renege.  This made the base happy, while making the President and the Democrats appear as suckers.  

This action repeated itself for every single piece of major legislation this year.  

Mr. Obama is a smart man, and must know game theory.  However, as a new president, he had to go through this clusterf*ck in order to convince the wider American public that he was trying, in good faith, to work with the GOP.  Thus, you have a series of unsatisfying compromises with a calcitrant opponent, with Healthcare topping the list. 

However, when Healthcare passes, then Mr. Obama can claim victory for the American people.  And, don't forget, laws can be amended.  HCR, which is currently a disaster, can be improved over time.  But, you can't improve any law if it dies on the Senate floor. 

After Healthcare passes, Mr. Obama can pivot to his preferred strategy, which is to ignore the GOP and push for a stronger Democratic agenda.  After a year of reneging, he can now say to the American people that the GOP is no longer working in good faith.  The hard-core right won't vote for him anyway, but the moderates will see the evidence and give him the benefit of the doubt.  

We've still got finance, energy, and climate bills on the docket.  This Congress can still pass some significant legislation in 2010.  If the House and Senate Democrats got the same message as the President, then we should see some movement next year. 

Sadly, I'm not too optimistic, because too many Blue Dogs believe that conservatives will vote for them in November because they resisted the President's initiatives.  In reality, all they're going to get is a face full of elephant sh*t, because neither Democrats nor conservatives will vote for them.  

I'm just a Soldier, serving my country the best way I can.  While I've had college physics, chemistry, and engineering, I'm no expert on the science behind climate change.  I just look at it from a purely selfish perspective as an American Soldier:

Polluting the planet we all live on is a bad thing.  Sending money to governments who are hostile to the US is a bad thing. 

Remember acid rain?  I'm old enough to recall that acid rain was an environmental disaster in the northeast back in the 1970s.  I remember reading the owner's manual in my mom's car, stating, "You should rinse your car after every rain, in order to avoid acid damage to the paint."  I even remember taking ph sticks and checking rain acidity in elementary school.  It took this clearly damaging phenomenon to force lawmakers and industrialists to change their thinking and their methods. 

Remember leaded gasoline and leaded paint?  I'm old enough to remember seeing gas stations with "Leaded" and "Unleaded" signs, and leaded gas was much cheaper.  I also remember the lead paint chip crisis, where parents had to keep their children from sucking on window sills in order to avoid lead poisoning.  Oh, and let's not forget the lead pipes in older houses!  It took this clearly damaging phenomenon to force lawmakers and industrialists to change their thinking and their methods. 

Remember the Oil embargo?  OPEC decided to flex its muscle and restrict oil shipments to the US and Europe.  There were gasoline lines and oil shortages that lasted for months.  My mom, in a bit of dark humor, had me wear an orange t-shirt that said, "I am not an Energy Crisis."  It took this clearly damaging phenomenon to force lawmakers and industrialists to change their thinking and their methods.

See a pattern here? 

I won't even go into the number of times in the past 30 years that oil prices have spiked during a conflict or crisis in the Middle East.  (It wasn't that long ago out here in California that gas was $5.00/gallon). 

So what's my point? 

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not.  The fact that we are polluting the environment, though, is a no-brainer.  If you truly want to keep America safe and keep jobs in America, then you should want to our efforts on creating different sources of energy.  Unfortunately, our policy and decision makers only understand dollars and cents:  if there is no financial incentive or punishment, then behavior doesn't change.  If Copenhagen and the EPA are the only ways to do this, then just get it done. 

I'm not proposing any particular method or solution:  that's up to folks smarter than me to figure out.  However, like lead-free paint, the catalytic converter, and more efficient engines, the market has a way of funding good ideas - if properly motivated. 

As a Soldier, though, I'm getting sick of fighting again and again in the Middle East because its oil has a value on the world market.  I'm looking forward to the day when we can tell the Gulf States (and Venezuela too) that they can take their oil and shove it up their collective arses - because we don't need it anymore. 

Anything we do to speed up that day is a good thing. 

So what's wrong with that idea? 

In the fall of 2004, my unit was preparing to clear the city of Fallujah, Iraq.  For the previous six months, US policymakers decided that leaving the city alone was "good" for the overall effort.  After watching the insurgents take over the town and create their own fundamentalist terror state, someone decided that enough was enough. 

I remember my commander sitting down with us before crossing the berm.  He looked us in the eye and said the following:

"The guys you are fighting are not supermen.  They have no special powers, no special training, and no special tactics that are better than what you will put on them.  All they've done is conduct the standard IED attack or occasional ambush.  They have NEVER fought a sustained battle against us.  That's what they're about to get now.  And, mark my words, men, they will break." 

When we finally went into the city after Election Day 2004, that's exactly what happened.  The enemy fought hard - for the first couple of days.  After 7 days of continuous combat, though, they broke.  True, there were hard-core fighters that hid and fought to the death, but the majority of the resistance dropped their weapons or ran away. 

Why am I talking about this? 

Well, for some strange and unusual reason, there are those who believe that the "jihadi superman" will come to NYC, break into a Federal courtroom, and free Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his ilk.  Or, even worse, KSM will gain superhuman powers and intimidate the DoJ lawyers and the Federal judge into doing his will. 

If this stuff was just coming out of the fringe right-wing, then I wouldn't worry about it.  But, when the media entertains this meme, it simply disgusts me. 

Just like I saw in November 2004, our enemy is no superman.  Despite the mistakes and errors we've made in this war, that fact has not changed. 

Our rule of law is stronger than they ever will be, as long as we stick to it. 

Why is the rule of law important?  This question has been asked a lot lately, and has gotten a pretty wide variety of answers (from both left and right of center).

I approach this from a different perspective:  namely, by sticking to the rule of law, we expose the weakness of the terrorists' argument against us.

For most jihadis, the US is the "far enemy."  We are difficult to reach and even harder to hurt.  Their goal is to one day confront us directly, but they can't (except for in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is another story). 

The more accessible targets are the "near enemies," those regimes that are allied with the United States.  Examples include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.  Now, why would jihadists hate these regimes?  Because of our freedoms?  Because they don't "like" us?  I don't think so.  They hate their "near enemies" for a variety of reasons - our support just adds fuel to the fire.

Egypt:  Been under a state of emergency since 1981.  Persecutes, attacks, and bans opposition political parties.  Has an economic system that cannot absorb millions of college educated young men that the schools produce (that's why there are so many Egyptian expats around the world in medicine, engineering, and law). 

Saudi Arabia: Ruled by the Saudi family for generations.  Little to no rights for their women.  Promotes wahhabism, a strict form of Sunni Islam that promote Islamic (sharia) laws  - laws that, by the way, hundreds of Saudi princes openly ignore. 

Pakistan:  In its 60+ years of existence, Islamabad has never exercised control over, or provided services to, the entire country.  Has had a string of military dictators who routinely broke Constitutional law in order to achieve their goals.  Uses an intelligence agency (ISI) to promote PK's agenda across the region through espionage and covert activity.  

This is just three countries in the region with close ties to the US.  I could go on without even touching Israel. 

The common thread among all of these countries is the blatant disrespect for the law.  Those governments will follow and enforce the law, but only when it suits their needs.  When it doesn't, then they make up their own rules.  Sound familiar??

When jihadis see the USA violating its own laws, they say, "See?  The US is just like the illegitimate, apostate goverment in your (pick a Middle Eastern capital city)!  Why should you believe anything they say?  The only real law is sharia, the law of Islam!"  Believe me when I say that this message resonates with more than a few folks across the Middle East. 

Now, imagine what will happen when we put the Gitmo folks on trial, in an open court, in front of a civilian jury, with competent defense attorneys, and presented the evidence of their guilt.   
The Middle East will see, first hand, how the US follows the rule of law. 

• Will the defendants make a scene?  I can almost guarantee it. 
• Will some embarassing stuff will come out in trial?  More than likely.
  
• Is a "guilty" verdict guaranteed?  There is no such thing when dealing with a jury.
• Will politicians and talk-show hosts try to make political hay out of the proceedings?  I can guarantee that. 
  

But, by doing so, we will show that our system of laws is more powerful than the fear of embarassment, political convenience, or a bad verdict.  Regardless of the possible outcome, the law ensures that our victims and suspects are heard, evidence is presented and challenged, and that the jury alone determines for the verdict. 

Isn't that what we're supposed to be fighting for? 

I'm new on TPM, so if this blog is a little harsh, then I apologize. 

When AG Holder made his famous, "we're a nation of cowards" statement in February 2009, there were howls and protests across the blogosphere.  Holder's intent was to highlight how the USA has hidden behind tradition, laws, and excuses in order to avoid the ugly sin of racism.  In other words, we 've been too afraid to act. 

As a Soldier and a minority, I understood Holder's intent, but thought that he was too blunt and overbearing in his statement. 

Then, on November 13, 2009, I see AG Holder stand up and declare that the murderers responsible for planning the September 11th attacks will face justice in New York City. 

The right-wing response, sadly, only confirmed Holder's February speech.  According to them, those terrorists are too dangerous to ever step foot on US soil.  In their opinion, we're a bunch of incompetent idiots, fools for thinking that the rule of law can handle such scary folks.

Thus, according to the GOP, we are a nation of cowards. 

If we, as a country, are too afraid to put mass murderers on trial - in the district where the trial was committed - because "they might get media visibility" or that "a lawyer can get them off," then we are truly a nation of cowards.  And, like any other wimp, we deserve any treatment that the world's bullies give us, because we're too chickenshit to stand up for ourselves. 

I did not go to war - in two different theaters - just to come home and watch my fellow citizens hide under their beds.  

I still believe that we are a great country of great people.  I still believe that we are braver and stronger than our enemies (including the GOP) think.  I still believe that we are a nation that chooses the harder right over the easier wrong. 

I still believe that we are not a nation of cowards.  Mr. Holder showed that to both our friends and enemies today.  

Where do you stand?