Today's Note From a Madman

Wednesday, June 29, 2005


The Hypocrite, George W. Bush

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

-Governor George W. Bush of Texas speaking about President Bill Clinton's administration's involvement in Eastern Europe, Houston Chronicle April 9, 1999

"I would strongly urge that if there are U.S. troops involved, they be under U.S. command or NATO command. I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

-Scripps Howard, February 9, 1999

On his own war in Iraq:
"There's not going to be any timetables. I mean, I've told this to the Prime Minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission. A democratic Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America, and it's in the interest of laying the foundation for peace. And if that's the mission, then why would you -- why would you say to the enemy, you know, here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're -- you're conceding too much to the enemy.

-White House press release June 24, 2005

-From an unknown submitter on the DNC blog

My comments:

Bush once again refused to provide a timetable either to the public or to the Congress in private. Bush once again said to "stay the course" at a time when all Americans have serious questions on "the course" itself. He resorted to associating 9/11 and terrorism with Iraq when the Downing Street Memos refute the legitimacy of that connection. I felt as if I was watching a 2004 campaign speech. The President should realize that political speeches at this point are not satisfactory, Americans are looking for leadership on ending this war. The President needs to define the course, benchmarks for success and a realistic assessment of the money, time and manpower needed to succeed.

-Robert Scardapane

A Challenge from Lew Warden

You have been inveighing muchly against Bush’s present solution to the Iraq problem. You know that my policy is to not complain about the other guy’s solution to a problem unless I have (or think I have) a better one. Which latter policy I commend to you. So here’s my challenge:

State, in 250 words or less (a typical letter-to-the-editor column requirement, what you think is the number one priority Iraq problem facing the US and your proposed solution to that problem.

Come on Noah, talk is cheap. So let’s git the gittin. Saddle up and ride ‘em, cowboy. Be constructive. As LBJ used to say, It takes a carpenter to build a barn; any jack-ass can kick one down.

Let’s be constructive. After all, we’re all in the same boat, in a manner of speaking.

-Lew Warden

My response to Lew was shorter than the following, but here is what I have written, and published on and Note from a Madman:

I had that letter published in 5 newspapers last June. I don’t know if I have the original, but here is what it morphed into. You have to read this more. You’re missing some stuff Lew. By the way, as an “outsider”, part of my “job” is to point out the absurdities that the insiders propagate. Here is the link to the whole page with updates.

Giving hope to Iraqis can go a long way

Maybe the way to reduce the insurgency in Iraq is to give the Iraqi people hope. So, the question is: How do you give those who have lost so much, hope? One way to start is by giving them something they sorely lack.


We have many problems in Iraq. One of which is unemployment which now stands at 70 percent!. There are as few as 20,000 and as many as 83,000 civilian contractors working in Iraq today. Americans, Brits and many other nationalities are all performing the hard job of rebuilding Iraq.


Give those jobs to the Iraqi people. Let Iraqi truck drivers drive trucks. Let Iraqi engineers create and engineer. Once Iraqis get to work and earn money to support their families, maybe they won’t kidnap westerners and sell them to the terrorists for food money. Maybe when the Iraqi people can afford to put food on the table they won’t want to kill the troops that are protecting them while they perform their new jobs. Maybe when the Iraqis are the ones fixing their own roads and patching their own buildings those roads will be safe to travel and those buildings will be safe to occupy. We should let the Iraqi people fix their own infrastructure and sell their own oil.

Maybe if we get rid of Halliburton’s “no-bid” contracts and let our European allies bid on them, they will also employ some Iraqis. John Kerry is right. There are ways to get our fading friends in France and Germany back in the ballgame. We know that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney can’t do it. They owe too much to companies like Halliburton and their subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root.

Maybe when the Iraqi people are working they won’t want to pick up arms against us, the ones they now consider an occupying force.

By providing jobs and hope to the people in Iraq, maybe, just maybe, we can get them on our side once again.
-, September 29, 2004


On June 28, 2004, sovereignty was turned over to the temporary Iraqi government by the United States, a full 2 days in ahead of schedule. What is impressive is that the Bush administration thought it better to do this without the fanfare that might have accompanied the turnover had it happened on schedule. Instead, the U.S. took the prudent route of surprising those that might have attempted terrorist activities on the planned date of June 30, 2004.

Let’s keep the smart ideas coming. Now that sovereignty has been turned over to the Iraqi people, why don't we plan on getting our young men and women out of there.

Here's the plan:

Let Iraq's neighbors and near neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt supply troops to support the new, but temporary government in Iraq. There would be a lot less turmoil and a lot more respect by the Iraqi people for an occupying or stabilizing force that was of the same background as the Iraqi people.

Since Iraq's population is overwhelmingly Muslim, if for no other reason than appearances sake alone, it might be better if those helping the Iraqi people get back on their feet were of the same religion and shared the same fundamental values. I couldn’t imagine any of Iraq’s neighbors denying the people of Iraq the opportunity of their experience and their friendship.

Since Iraq is the 2nd largest oil producer in the World, the money it receives, after repaying their debt, would pay for its reconstruction.

Egypt, with over 300,000 active troops; Saudi Arabia, with over 200,000 active troops: and Jordan, with over 100,000 active troops could surely supply the manpower needed for Iraq to get back on its feet as well as the training and resources necessary to accomplish the job. Surely the people of Iraq would stand up for those that believe and worship similarly to themselves.
Surely those Iraqis training to be military personnel and policemen would not turn on people they consider their own kind. Surely with these forces coming in to help, the Iraqi people would stand up for themselves and against the terrorists that threaten to take over their country. The United States could still remain as a presence on the outer edges of the cities and in areas where U.S. personnel need to be protected and interests need to be secured.

If both the U.S. and Arab World really want to help the people of Iraq, they would consider a plan such as this.

Is it real? Or is it sarcasm? It all depends on the sincerity of the Arab and Muslim World.
-, June 28, 2004

Since Al-Qaeda poses the most serious threat to the U.S., we should devote most of our military resources to finding and eliminating them. At the very least, this will keep them on the run and thus, be less able to organize, finance and execute terrorist acts. Let the United Nations handle the formation of a new government in Iraq while the United States rids the world of the likes of Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists.

To state that by ridding the world of Saddam Hussein we rid the world of an evil presence is true. However, as a country, the United States can’t remove all of the world’s evil leaders. We shouldn’t have to spread our military and financial resources thinly in order to make that happen. As a country, we need to defend the citizens of the United States first and rely on the rest of the world to act as our partners in ridding the world of the “Axis of Evil”.

What is troublesome is the thought that the United States could somehow police the entire world. We can’t and we shouldn’t want to. Using the current administration’s logic, by invading Iraq we “rid the world of an evil”. Do we now invade Iran? Syria? How about North Korea
-, March, 2004

Thoughts on President Bush and His Supporting Cast

The president said that those who opposed pre-emptive action in Iraq are the same ones who said they would have wanted
pre-emptive action Afghanistan, thus calling them hypocrites

What the president also wondered is why the previous administration didn't take pre-emptive action in Afghanistan


-Why didn't YOU and your administration take pre-emptive action against Afghanistan?
-Why didn't YOU say anything about Afghanistan and the need for a pre-emptive strike during the 2000 campaign?
-Why didn't YOU or anyone in your administration say anything about pre-emptive strikes in Afghanistan between 9/11 and Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission?


What happens in a few years when (if) a puppet US regime in Iraq is overthrown by a religious majority (E.g.; Iran circa 1980)
and they are supporters of terror?

If there were 70 active investigations that President Bush was aware of being performed by the FBI, then...

Between then and September 11, 2001, wouldn't you have asked a follow-up question or 2 of the FBI?

Let us also assume that ALL of the ills that effect us today are not the fault of George W. Bush, but of those under him.

Didn't he select these people?

AND if we assume that it is not the fault of George W. Bush or those that serve under him, but the fault of the bureaucracies
that have existed well before his presidency, then...

Shouldn't he have said that he was going to revamp these other bureaucracies during his 2000 campaign?

AND if they realized that after 9/11 that these bureaucracies needed to be revamped, as they have said, then...

Why has the revamping not begun almost 3 years after 9/11, even until today?, April 20, 2004



In response to Lew Warden who says:

"Is the whole world standing on its head? The income tax is the plus ultra of regressive taxes. Meaning it falls most heavily on the people who can lest afford to pay. Meaning it takes a greater proportion of the earned income of working people than it does those who live off of their "investments" and tax-free government bonds. More than any other social device since slavery was abolished, the income tax, particularly since the advent of withholding, has kept working men and women in thrall."

Robert Scardapane responds:

Indeed, I am standing tall on my feet! I am in favor of a PROGRESSIVE income tax. Perhaps, Mr. Warden just does not understand the concept of a progressive income tax - the more you make, the higher the tax bracket. Perhaps, Mr. Warden "conveniently" forgot that I did say PROGRESSIVE income tax! I also said that I am favor of replacing the loophole ridden system of capital gains/losses with a transaction tax. Any other interpretation of my statements on this subject is spin.

The Republicans have spun their wheels on useless subjects such as tax changes, social security privatization and tort law for five years now. I believe it's high time to turn our attention to real priorities such as ending the war in Iraq, covering 45 million people with no health care insurance, educating our young people and creating the good paying jobs of the future.


"Tonight's address offered the President an excellent opportunity to level with the American people about the current situation in Iraq, put forth a path for success, and provide the means to assess our progress. Unfortunately he fell short on all counts.

"There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President's Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections. "Staying the course," as the President advocates, is neither sustainable nor likely to lead to the success we all seek.

"The President's numerous references to September 11th did not provide a way forward in Iraq, they only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and Al Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America.

"Democrats stand united and committed to seeing that we achieve success in Iraq and provide our troops, their families, and our veterans everything they need and deserve for their sacrifices for our nation. The stakes are too high, and failure in Iraq cannot be an option. Success is only possible if the President significantly alters his current course. That requires the President to work with Congress and finally begin to speak openly and honestly with our troops and the American people about the difficult road ahead.

"Our troops and their families deserve no less."
-Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), in response to President Bush's Speech, June 28, 2005

-Forwarded by Robert Scardapane

Send your comments to: or

-Noah Greenberg