Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

A Plan To Fill the American Leadership Vacuum

Uncertainty: The Playground of Tyrants

America needs a plan to communicate to the world that there are adults in America who are providing leadership, willing to assert the Rule of Law, and are adequately managing affairs of state.

When government fails, it is the duty of free people to arrive on the scene and provide the leadership to restore order and present lawful solution.

The distractions are diverting attention on the problem -- the President -- and the needed solutions -- reforms to the Supreme Law.

Please let the Speaker know that this approach is designed to move independently of this discussion.

* * *

The Distractions Generate Confusion, Without Leadership

Reconsidering Iraq Backup Plan Assumptions: US Troop Numbers After Allies Withdraw

The baseline estimates for the backup plan -- still to be implemented -- have changed. After the allies withdraw their 7K+/- troops, the net effect of 21K+ US troops, is reduced by 1/3. Ref

If 21K was the "right number", then the net 14K, using the President's calculus, is insufficient. We already knew that, and why the President is asking the Joint Staff for a backup plan.

That backup plan is no longer a plan, but reality -- what the President must implement. Whether it succeeds or fails it a separate issue.

  • The US, by focusing on Baghdad, will be moving troops out of the distant cities in Iraq.

  • US troops will have to back fill positions, not just to cover the ally withdrawals; but the expected increase in problems where US troops are removed.

    The UK was known to be withdrawing prior to the US announcement on the escalation.

    Ref: Bush lies about NSA put him in hot water about Iraq -- he wasn't, contrary to his assertions, listening to his commanders in Iraq.

    Ref: What really happened to allow Bush to shut out the Joint Staff from deliberations; why wasn't this reported to Congress for their action; how does the Congress explain,despite this known lack of consultation, why Congress didn't act to review the activity?

    Ref Problems in Iraq were known for a long time, but Members of Congress openly admit they didn't timely act.

    * * *

    Despite the ISG recommendations, the President proposed a surge while knowing UK would withdraw, and privately directing the Joint Staff for a backup.

    ___ What other factors does the President know, but he hasn't told us about?

    ___ How many troops does the President plan to send for the next surge?

    ___ When is this announcement coming?

    ___ Where is the President going to get the troops to support this additional surge above the current 21K?

    ___ Does the President envision Iran as the pretext to have a draft and provide troops to Iraq, which the Congress would otherwise not support?

    * * *

    There Are Alternatives to The Consequences of the Distractions

    This non-sense is materially undermining confidence that the US is a viable place to work, ficus on issues, and solve problems.

    The US government's approaches to international issues is becoming a material distraction.

    The question is how much of this can be avoided; or to what extent the world will conclude, "We need to act."

    ___ Is the US more likely to be invaded first, then implement martial law?

    ___ Is the world community more likely to intervene before or after the US civilian population adversely responds to martial law?

    I do not trust the American leadership to make sound decisions linked with the law or the available resources. They're more likely to take action to defend themselves, even if it means creating an illusion or distraction.

    I do not believe the US government is acting with integrity: When it says it is concerned about safety and America, they're really saying they want to put themselves first, even if it means destroying America for everyone else.

    I no longer trust this government to do what is prudent.

    * * *

    The Prospect of Government Led Change Has Not Been Realized

    Until 2006, there was Little prospect the US was going to do anything. Now, despite the hope that something would be done, nothing is being done.

    In theory, the DNC victory should have settled, if not resolved, these concerns. Absurdly, it is the lack of action that is crystallizing the concerns.

    The risk: Uncertainty is the playground of tyrants.


    * * *

    This is looking more like Nixon's Cambodia which Conyers mentioned.

    Conyers: If he does, as with Vietnam, the results will have deadly consequences. Ref

    ___ How far must the "deadly consequences" be before Congress acts?

    ___ What should Congress be doing that would pre-empt this?

    ___ Now that the DNC has power, what is Congress waiting for?

    ___ Given the possibility of what might happen, what is getting in the way of pre-empting this?

    Guess who said this: If we fail to meet this challenge, all other nations will be on notice that despite its overwhelming power the United States when a real crisis comes will be found wanting.”

    Nixon said this has the basis to launch combat. More of the ego-arguments which droves us into Iraq: "If we don't act, what will be people think."

    * * *

    What Are Americans Thinking Now: Leadership Is Needed

    That should be: "If Congress refuses to stand up to this President, will there be a Congress to contemplate the alternative?"

    I would argue Congress, despite the "well known risks" if it were to do nothing, and fail to act pre-emptively, would have communicated despite an ongoing threat, was reckless. On that note, it would be appropriate to discuss this solution,which would compel Congress to act, not do what it si doing: Starting into the headlights.

    I need you decide whether you want to do this. If you don't want to, I can't make you accept a legal solution. I would prefer a discussion on this now, as opposed to people sitting stunned, "How did this happen?"

    We've been talking about 603, and it's spreading. I need you to decide if you want to get the states to support a New Constitution. This is outside the government, not an amendment, and it is not a government-driven effort.

    It's We the People making it clear: This government has failed, and this is what we need to work to implement to protect the Constitution.

    You are going to have to decide if you are going to be with me. You are free to provide alternatives. Going forward, we'll need people to let the National Command Authority and Wall Street know what is on the way: A new government.

    You will have to choose what type of leadership you want under the New Constitution. I cannot appoint myself the leader; but I am appointing myself as one of the leaders who will support the New Constitution. What form it lawfully takes is less important than the needed discussion of a solution to move forward from where we are.

    We cannot continue down this path, either with these leaders, or with a system that impermissibly has been left to fall into disrepair. This is one of many solutions; we cannot be compelled to stick with what is folly, especially when there is a reasonable prospect there would be an improvement with this solution.

    It only takes one to lead, but it takes a People to agree to lead a nation. We the People need to discuss our plan to fill the leadership vacuum; and let the world know we have a plan.