In the aftermath of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at the United Nations where he expressed contempt for any potential sanctions against his nation's nuclear program, President Bush has called for stepped up pressure for sanctions against Iran to sway the economically challenged nation to stop its nuclear ambitions, ambitions many believe to be a cover for the development of atomic weapons.

According to the AP, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is seeking a consensus among UN members so as to ratchet further pressure against Iran, but this may prove somewhat difficult.
With the newly anti-Iranian leadership in France as well as a pro-sanctions Germany as members of the UN Security Counsel, the US has solid allies on their side in terms of seeking sanctions against Iran. However, China and Russia are permanent members of the Security Counsel and have the ability to veto any sanctions against Iran. This may lead to a coalition of the US, France, Britain and Germany leading an anti-Iran coalition of sanctions if the perpetually impotent United Nations remains....more impotent.

According to the Bush Administration, the Social Security Administration is approaching a potential deficit of 13+ trillion dollars and an overhaul of the system is needed. This is not the first time the Bush Administration has attempted to address the problems associated with Social Security as this was a major campaign issue in both his first and second term. So far, it has stalled completely and remains, like immigration reform, a domestic agenda that has very little support.

Reforming and fixing Social Security was a major aspect of Bush's domestic agenda, but it never gained much traction. In 2005, as the AP notes, Bush had pushed a privatization plan that would provide accounts for younger voters. This proposal never even came up to a vote in congress as it lacked Democratic and Republican support. Now, Bush is attempting to promote a variant of this plan, but it does not seem there is much progress being made on amassing more supporters. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has gone on record opposing any plan that would involve privatization so if Bush's plan includes any aspects of involving the private sector, it will be dead in the water.

I received several comments to this post expressing disagreement with my definition of a Neocon. I find it amusing that those on the political left throw the word Neocon around without having even an iota of a clue what one is. I know -- as does most of the country -- what a Liberal is and use it accordingly when describing those that subscribe to that once-proud tenet. That word to has been bastardized and forces one to clarify it with Paleo-Liberal as it applies to folks like Christopher Hitchens, who seems astounded at times what has happened to the ideology that he espoused. The Neo-Liberals are those who believe in the ideology of Kos, MyDD and others on the left side of the blogosphere who have changed the ideals through a perverse pretzel logic. They've taken the liberalism of Truman, FDR and Kennedy and made it the anti-American, anti-military and pro-despotic belief system we see represented by the aforementioned on a daily basis. To prove my point, read this vomit-inducing, puppy dog love letter written to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at DKos penned by a "lesbian Jew" who admits that the Iranian leadership would probably "have her killed" but hey, he's better than George W. Bush (in case Kos actually gets some sense and deletes it, it's available here).

Anyway, what is a Neocon? A Neocon is someone who once believed in liberalism and were in fact themselves Liberals. They saw what happened to the liberal movement and went to the right realizing that the liberal mindset they once believed was replaced by the anti's I described above. Neocon see theocracy and despotism and believe that American might and will should crush it. When homosexuals are stoned to death or raped women are sentenced to death by Shariah courts, the greatest country in the world should step in. We also believe that democracy is in fact paramount when it comes to social and religious freedom. Anyone who has read me on any type of regular basis knows that I am a centrist on many social issues. They further know that I am not an "Evangelical" or even a practicing Christian, although I am a Christian. For a great example of what Neoconservatism is not, here's a highly simplistic, inane description that was written by someone with less than a grammar school education.

Let's explode one or two myths about Neocon thinking, shall we?

The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials. The personal travel records are meant to be stored for as long as 15 years, as part of the Department of Homeland Security's effort to assess the security threat posed by all travelers entering the country.

Zakariya Reed, a Toledo firefighter, said in an interview that he has been detained at least seven times at the Michigan border since fall 2006. Twice, he said, he was questioned by border officials about "politically charged" opinion pieces he had published in his local newspaper. The essays were critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, he said. Once, during a secondary interview, he said, "they had them printed out on the table in front of me."

Despite the best efforts of the Bush administration, assorted pundits bloggers and the traditional media (including the NY Times and Washington Post), Americans have had it with this war and think the Dems in Congress have not done enough to end the war. According to a new Pew Research Center poll:

Check out the independent numbers. They are not moving President Bush's way. The only ones who feel good about the song and dance in Washington recently were Republicans (their numbers feeling the war was getting better went up a little).

President Bush and General Petraeus convinced no one else. The American people are speaking but are the leaders really listening. What a sad state that not even a few Republicans would support a Dem troop rotation that would give them as much time at home as in Iraq. It's not enough the war goes on, the elected Republicans are fine with the suffering on top of it.

Enough is enough.

Public approval ratings: President Bush: 29%. Congress: 11%.

That is the result of a recent Zogby Poll.

So what can you say about a situation that words can not aptly describe? In essence, you have two competing forces -- the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress -- in control of the Executive Branch and the Legislature whom the public absolutely despises? How about "You need to get your act together. Both of you."

It is difficult to pinpoint any one particular issue that has led to this drop because most of the problems are so voluminous that it's getting to the point where the public is longing for the good old days when King George ran the show. You have the emergence of a mortgage crisis that no one seems to know how to address; the current attempt to pass a piece meal amnesty program, the DREAM Act, in bold defiance of the public's will; the Democratic leadership getting lumped in with the far, far left due to the now legendarily disastrous "Betray Us" ad; the President planning on vetoing the bill that will de-fund the incredibly anti-union/anti-middle class Mexican truck program; refusal to deal with the importation of unsafe goods from China; and on and on and on.

While few assumed that President Bush's approval ratings could get worse, they have and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has been an absolute, unmitigated failure. 11% is the lowest approval rating in the history of the United States.

Let's put that into perspective: Bush is right up (down) there with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and this Congress is less popular than the Congress that served during the time when half the country seceded from the union and a war broke out that saw 600,000 casualties.

Will things get better? Can they get any worse?

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy. "I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

In case you haven't heard, President Bush announced the nomination of federal judge Michael Mukasey as his next (and hopefully last) attorney general.

Mukasey was appointed by Ronald Reagan, has a rep as a law and order guy and yet the Dems will probably not oppose him. Why? Because they likely suggested him among others to the White House as being acceptable. Highly unlikely the WH is looking for yet another fight with the Senate and looked for a compromise candidate.

How could Mukasey, a strict law and order guy, a right winger in most things, be a compromise candidate? Well, as a judge in the Jose Padilla case he stood up to the Bush's then AG (that would be Alberto Gonzales) and told them they needed to follow the law in prosecuting people. He was apparently suggested by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and since Schumer would be a key senator in the confirmation process, that is the telling clue.

The fact the WH is avoiding a fight over this nomination is telling as well. They really don't have the forces to take on a unified Dem team but fortunately for them, they don't have to. The national Dems keep backing away from the big fights: defunding the war and/or impeachment because they don't have the votes in the Senate. Maybe they're right but some people think they should try. There's still 16 months of this Administration and so far they have reduced America to being something less than a super power, ravaged the military, the treasury, and can't even clean up after a hurricane. They're so incompetent it boggles the mind but at least they've stopped fighting over the AG. Let's hope this one can restore some professionalism at the Justice Department. It's long overdue.

For almost one year, I have been contributing to "The Stump" as a blogger. Throughout that time, I worked hard to try to see things impartially. I clearly failed. After one year of analyzing and dissecting the news, I cannot understand how people could have bought into President Bush's policies and especially, his decision to attack Iraq.

Sure, Saddam Hussein was a horrible guy but there are plenty more like him in the world. Some are allies. The surprise is that good honest people who care about America, really believe that we should have preemptively attacked Iraq. To me, the evidence was clear, Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. However, the Bush spin machine convinced the majority of Americans that it did.

A number of Republicans within the administration spoke out against the war. They were ridiculed and described as unpatriotic. Now, Alan Greenspan has spoken. He is a lifetime Republican. He believes that the war was for oil. He believes that the party that was suppose to balance the budget and bring fiscal sanity to Washington, spent money excessively to win elections. And who does he think did a great job as president? None other than Bill Clinton.

According to the AP, it would appear that President Bush may have settled on his choice for Attorney General and it is possibly (nothing is official yet) Michael Mukasey. Bush's previous top choice was the former solicitor general Theodore Olsen, the man who had become famous for successfully representing Bush before the Supreme Court in 2000 to settle the contesting of the presidency. Olsen's name, however, was pulled off the table after Democrats in the Senate threatened to block the nomination.

Mukasey would replace Alberto Gonzales, an Attorney General whose tenure was not exactly a dynamic one. In fact, many grass roots conservatives were happy to see him go as they generally considered him a fairly weak Attorney General without a clear agenda.

Mukasey is a moderate and would probably be more acceptable to the Senate, although there is some grumblings in the conservative base about his possible selection. Generally, the conservative base is lukewarm about moderates in positions of power, but there needs to be a bowing to reality on this issue. Without the votes to successfully confirm a candidate, the candidate will not be confirmed. This process of Senate confirmation was devised by the founding fathers as a means to limit executive powers and that is the way the system works.

While it would seem that 2006 was the year that everything went wrong in Iraq, it would appear that 2007 will be the year that the tide has turned significantly for the better. In further developments of progress in the region, the AP is reporting that the Shiite sheiks in the southern part of Iraq are showing an interest in forming an alliance with US troops in order to combat extremists and insurgents. This would be similar to the alliance between the military and the Sunnis in western Iraq where such an alliance has delivered a tremendous blow to al-Qaida forces as well as aided significantly in lowering violence levels.

An alliance with the Shiite Sheiks would provide solid re-enforcements for the military in curbing the violence in the Shiite areas. Additionally, it can free up American personnel to move towards the Iranian border where it can curb smuggling and illegal entries of extremist/insurgent re-enforcements.

While there is much blame to go around for the initial failures in Iraq, it is clear that Donald Rumsfeld's leadership and strategy was lacking to say the least. With the new leadership present in the form of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General Petraeus, Iraq is turning around significantly. The region is becoming more and more stabilized with of the locals are turning on al-Qaida. While total success is far from a given, it is clear that success is achievable. Additionally, with less 'bad news' coming out of Iraq, options for de-funding the war become less and less probable. Considering that Democrats could not tabulate enough votes for withdrawal in the early part of 2007, to muster enough votes now with all the progress that is being made would be even more unlikely.

When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office." So Bush's goals "were no longer entirely appropriate. He continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."

By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, Washington was "harboring a dysfunctional government. ... Governance has become dangerously dysfunctional."

In what may prove to be good news for soldiers who have been on the battlefield for a long time coming, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has announced it would not be out of the possibility to reduce troop numbers down to about 100,000 by summer of 2008. (The figure is far below what President Bush had predicted to be possible and Gate's notion of possible troop reductions is not an official plan of action) Such significant troop reductions also, of course, would signal that the mission is Iraq is proving successful as there is less need for 160,000 troops to keep the nation stabilized. Let it be known, however, that Gates has also mentioned that the situation in Iraq could always change for the worse and this would negatively impact his troop reduction optimism.

Democrats in the Senate, however, have still claim that the mission in Iraq is failing and reiterated many of the same points they have already made in the past. Per the AP:

"As hard as they may have tried to spin it, today's assessment by the White House on the political situation in Iraq once again shows that the president's flawed escalation policy is not working," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. "It certainly does not justify keeping 130,000 soldiers mired in an open-ended civil war as the president has chosen to do."

But does the public believe this in light of General David Petraeus' testimony regarding the mission in Iraq being a success?

Also, the gradual troop cuts could prove beneficial to the GOP as it may release voter anxiety in districts where support for the war is wavering. While this is difficult to say how much gradual troop cuts will help is difficult to say. It can be safely assumed that as long as the violence in Iraq stays down, American casualties stay down and incremental troop reductions occur, voter anxiety may quell somewhat.

Ted Olson has had an outstanding careers as a lawyer, Solicitor General of the United States and other positions in which he has helped the conservative cause. That would be exactly why the Democrats fear him.

Olson is expected to be the nominee for the vacant Attorney General position last held by the politically inept Alberto Gonzalez. He would be an excellent candidate for that position as he has played the political game before and would not be stupid enough to be taken down by the Democrats for something that should not even have been considered a scandal in the first place.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised a fight and it appears the GOP may just find a backbone on this one and fight for a good nominee.

Olson is hated by the Clintons as his late wife wrote a scathing book about Hillary -- "Hell to Pay" -- that was among the best of that genre. She also wrote of the last days of the Clinton administration and was merciless as well. Then, while traveling to L.A to appear on Bill Maher's show, she was killed as four terrorists slammed the plane she was on -- Flight 77 -- into the Pentagon.

Imagine if a Democratic president nominated a highly-qualified candidate for a position who has lost his wife in a terror attack. Imagine the fawning media coverage that candidate would receive. There's no way a Republican-led legislative body would vote against that candidate because the media would destroy them. Unfortunately for Mr. Olson, he's a Republican so he'll receive no mercy from Senator Harry Reid or the media.