Iraqi Government Placed on Double-Secret Probation

Upon release of the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report, President Bush, the self-proclaimed "Dean of Democracy," slammed the velvet hammer down on Prime Minister Maliki and his boys, placing them on “double-secret probation.” Although the Iraqi government received “satisfactory” grades on eight of the 18 benchmarks at midterm, Maliki and his minions received “unsatisfactory” marks on eight of the remaining benchmarks, thus prompting a raised eyebrow and “tsk, tsk” from Dean Bush.

"God I hate benchmarks."

The Iraqi government has until Sept. 15 to get its grades up, or else…

Or else Congress will have to step in and revoke their Democratic fraternal chapter.

So how did the Iraqi government respond to its double-secret probation status and the looming Sept. 15 non-deadline?

“Toooo-ga! Tooo-ga! Too-ga! To-ga! Toga! Toga! Toga!”

Toga party? Maybe not, but the Iraqi parliament has decided to take August off, which is completely understandable if you were to ask Dean Bush’s press secretary Tony Snow, who said sympathetically, “You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August.”

The Iraqi parliment gathers for final days of partying before taking August off

Snow was reminded during the press conference held in the air-conditioned White House press room that the U.S. troops will be fighting throughout August in the same 130-degree heat. Snow responded to this keen observation, “You know, that’s a good point.”

You know, that’s two “you knows” in a row for Tony Snow. Maybe it’s time to evaluate Snow’s public speaking benchmarks, you know.

No worries, Maliki and the boys of parliament will still have two weeks to cram in and show progress towards the eight unsatisfactory benchmarks.

That’s plenty of time to pass an oil-revenue-sharing law, enact and implement legislation on de-Ba’athification reform and ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to all of the Iraqi people, establish a provincial elections law and provincial council authorities, establish a date for provincial elections, enact and implement legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq, provide Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan, ensure that Iraqi security forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law, increase the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently, ensure that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF and prepare local elections to help reconcile the country’s Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

Remember, the Iraqi government only has to show progress on these benchmarks, not accomplish any of the objectives spelled out by the U.S. Congress. That’s objective -- O-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-E.

Speaking of objectives, had the Iraq government been held to the same accountability measures spelled out in the No Child Left Behind Act, the U.S. government would have already stepped in and taken over government operations, assuming of course this has not already happened. Under the provisions of NCLB, or in this case, “No Civilian Left Behind,” the U.S. government would provide each Iraqi citizen a $2,000 voucher to transfer to another country of their choice. Furthermore, the United States would stop pumping more money into Iraq’s government until it has successfully shown that it’s reached the benchmarks and/or completely closed the Democracy gap.

The same could be said about Dean Bush and holding his administration accountable in regard to its Iraq war policies. The only problem, however, is that enforcement of the No Civilian Left Behind Act in the United States would be unenforceable, because, thanks to all the money spent on the war in Iraq, it would be just another unfunded mandate.

So until Sept. 15, when Gen. David Petraeus delivers his progress report on the Iraqi government’s progress toward achieving the congressional benchmarks, Maliki and the boys should heed one word of advice during their summer vacation in August: TOGA!

Originally Posted on "Iowa Independent"

Anything but the E-word: a Political Cautionary Tale

Just when you thought it was safe to support a presidential candidate based upon irrational factors such as qualifications, job experience, shared ideologies and values, the E-word reared its divisive little head. No, I’m not talking about evil or exit polls, but something far more dangerous to the electoral psyche: electability. There, I said it, but out of fear of saying it again, thus feeding its power, I will not say it again.

During the 2004 presidential election, the E-word managed to single-handedly destroy Democratic voters and their ability to think for themselves. And now, four years later, the political tables have turned as the E-word has seeped its way into GOP waters. As the second-quarter filing deadline neared last week, U.S. Sen. John McCain’s campaign manager sent out an e-mail soliciting donations from supporters, providing them with one reason to support McCain: "John McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton.” Campaign manager Terry Nelson helped drive home this fear at the end of the message: “Please also pass this message along to your friends and family to remind them of the stakes in this election.” I assume by stakes he meant Clinton winning the nomination.

I imagine McCain’s rivals might have other ideas about this, not to mention Clinton’s Democratic rivals. Nonetheless, McCain’s stoking of the GOP base’s “Anybody but Hillary” fire is reminiscent of the “Anybody but Bush” mental quagmire that ensnared the Democrats in 2004, which ultimately devoured their chances of winning when they nominated Mr. Electable, John Kerry, who wasn’t so electable after all.

The question is how, when and why did the E-word pop into presidential politics. The short answers are Karl Rove, 2003, and to help get George W. Bush re-elected. I cannot prove that Rove was the mastermind behind injecting the E-word into the Democrats' camp, but it has the makings of a great theory in the mystical realm of political science.

Granted, I don’t have a well-financed think tank to gather selective evidence and conduct polls guaranteed to prove my theory, but I do have a hunch. And the last time I checked, hunches were free, unless they’re espoused by political consultants, who get paid well to be wrong. Just ask Bob Shrum, the Democrats' consultant whose abysmal 0-7 track record has yet to wield a winning presidential candidate, including his latest casualty, John Kerry. Besides, Rove plays a great Wizard of D.C., regardless of what levers he does or does not pull behind the political curtain.

Just before the 2004 Iowa Caucuses, the Democrats had been stricken with fear and had already succumbed to the “Anybody but Bush” mentality. The E-word consumed all of the other issues as the Democrats faced an identity crisis. Consequently, a number of Iowans went to the caucuses and voted for Kerry, despite the fact he was not their number one choice. I lost count of the number of times I heard voter say to me, “I really want ‘your preferred candidate here’ to win, but I think John Kerry has the best chance of beating Bush.” (Rove’s sinister laugh here as he pulls the E-word lever down.)

After caucus night, I put my hypothesis to the test when I attended to the 2nd District Democratic convention in southern Iowa. Throughout the day, I asked as many Kerry delegates as I could to give me three reasons why they or I should vote for Kerry. Most of Kerry’s supporters responded like robots, as if they had been transformed into a Rovian Stepford Voter: “Must beat Bush…Must beat Bush.” Any signs of reason had been replaced by vacant stares. It was at this point I knew there was something more to the E-word.

Regardless of the E-word’s origins, the fact remains that it did become an integral part of the voter psyche, handicapping Democrats as they raced to the middle and tried to go toe-to-toe with Republicans on their own turf. Instead of focusing on why their nominee should win the presidency, the Democrats’ strategy was to focus on why the GOP nominee should not win.

And now, with less than six months remaining until the Iowa Caucuses, the E-word has manifested in the GOP who, like the Democrats in ’04, are facing an identity crisis as they search for a candidate. Without a clear Democratic nominee, the Republican Party is shoring up its base by setting its sights on defeating the presumed front-runner, Clinton. Democrats aren’t immune to this as presidential hopefuls gear up for winning the party nomination. John Edwards, an E-word casualty in ’04, has already dropped the E-word in Iowa, proclaiming he is the best candidate positioned to win swing states and the general election.

The best way to eradicate the E-word from public political discourse is for voters to stop listening to the exterior voices and to pay attention to the voices inside their own heads. Granted, this is no easy task when the media keep perpetuating the presidential horse race with a bullhorn and pundits handicap the candidates, prognosticating like college football analysts.

In a society that usually champions underdogs, we’re quick to dismiss second- and third-tier presidential candidates, and are willing to sacrifice idealism for pragmatism. But who knows, maybe one day the Stepford Voters will be reprogrammed to think and speak for themselves: “Must vote conscience…Must vote conscience.”

Until then, I think I’ll adopt the “Anybody but me” mindset to help me decide whom I’ll vote for on the night of the Iowa Caucuses.

Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"

Billary Tuesday: Two Clintons for the Price of One

Growing up within walking distance of a Taco Johns “restaurant” was dangerous for more than the obvious reasons. Nicknamed “Toxic Juans,” me and my high school chums made a “runs for the border” every Tuesday to celebrate Taco Tuesday. Why only Tuesday? That was the only day I could afford to eat there on my daily food allowance. (Note: ice water was free.) Taco Tuesday has become a mainstay of Midwest Americana, so much so that the two-word phrase has been trademarked by Taco Johns.

The lean, mean Democratic Leadership Corporation branding machine begins branding the Clinton name in Iowa

Good thing, for it looks like the Clintons have begun tapping into the product branding foundation built up by President Bill Clinton in the ‘90s. Hillary Just Hillary started branding Hillary at the beginning of her campaign, but it was only a matter of time before the political branding and marketing efforts merged together.

Nonetheless, the Clinton’s product placement of Bill in Iowa this week should help solidify the merger for retail political consumers. The key for Hillary Just Hillary, as in any other marketing campaign, is to make sure that Bill’s branding doesn’t consume Hillary. This would be the equivalent of the Donkey Just Donkey in Shrek overshadowing Shrek’s ubiquitous green ogre image in consumer land. Only in the Clinton’s case, the opposite holds true, for Bill is Shrek -- so Hillary Just Hillary better be careful when it comes to branding the Clinton name. Like Taco Johns, political consumers may not be so willing to digest both Clintons come Caucus Day in Iowa.

JibJab’s “Star Spangled Banner” Breaks Fallout’s Top 5 List

Monday night I stayed up to watch Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show” just to see Michael Moore and hear him talk about his new film, “Sicko.” (Note: Health Care is THE reason I entered the political arena in 2000.) Hopefully, his new film will turn people’s heads, but noT too far, because most HMO and private insurance policies don’t cover injuries due to rubbernecking and/or sticker shock. Trust me, I found out the hard way.

Before Moore’s appearance, Leno played JibJab’s video of 20th century presidents singing the “Star Spangled Banner.” The splicing, a perfect homage to Michael Moore’s splicing of stock political footage, takes words from the president’s mouths and strings them together to sing the “Star Spangled Banner” in its entirety.

JibJab’s “Star Spangled Banner”



By the end of the second commercial brake, JibJab’s version had already moved up to second on my list of all-time favorite renditions of “The Star Spangled Banner.”

What are the remaining versions, you ask? Rounding out Political Fallout’s top 5 renditions of “The Star Spangled Banner” are as follows:

No. 5: Rosanne Barr’s “Star Spangled Banner”



No. 4: Canadian Caroline Marcil’s “Star Mangled Banner”



No 3: Hillary Clinton’s “Star Spangled Banner” in Des Moines



No 2: JibJab’s Star Spangled Banner (see above)

No 1: Jimi Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner (Woodstock)

Powered by AOL Video

Thank God for Hendrix, or is it the other way around? Either way, I had to inject some sense of dignity back into “The Star Spangled Banner.”

Note: Marvin Gaye’s version had been disqualified from the running, because whenever I hear it, all I think about sex. Having seen “Dr. Stangelove: Or I How Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” on numerous occasions, I’ve come to realize that sex and politics don’t mix.

(Warning: Watch at your own discretion. Political Fallout cannot be held responsible for any more children born out of wedlock.)

Marvin Gaye’s “Star Spangled Banner” (NBA Finals Game)

Edwards’ Campaign Launches Pre-emptive Excuse Strikes

Why's everybody always pickin' on me?

With only five days remaining until the FEC’s QRF-Day (that’s Quarterly Report Filing Day for those of you who don't have the campaign finance lingo "down"), it appears the John Edwards campaign is concerned about its war-chest intake. The Edwards’ campaign set a $9 million goal for this quarter, but as of yesterday, they’re $2 million shy of their mark.

To help soften the blow on QRF-Day, the Edwards campaign has been sending out messages that blame the Washington establishment and their media pawns (including the New York Times) for John’s fund-raising woes.

Strike 1: "Obscene Money Game or Policies that Matter?" (e-mail message received on Jun. 23 from Joe Trippi, the Edwards' Campaign)

But while thousands of people are building up this campaign, the Washington establishment is trying to write us out of the race. And their reason? They say it's MONEY - they don't think we are raising an obscene enough amount. But the truth is, they don't want people to hear what John Edwards is saying, because it will mean the end of big money's stranglehold over our government.

Strike 2: "Haircuts and Hatchet Jobs" (e-mail message received on Jun. 25 from Jonathan Prince, John Edwards' Deputy Campaign Manager)

The whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away, because they know that John Edwards means the end to business as usual. The Washington lobbyists and PACs don't want us to win because John is the only candidate who has never taken money from them. The political mercenaries and the chattering class don't want us to win because they can't imagine a president who doesn't play by their rules. And you can bet that the big corporate interests—from the insurance companies to the drug companies to the oil companies—don't want us to win because John has been taking on special interests his entire life. So they attack him—personally.

It's classic—they don't want the American people to hear the message, so they attack the messenger. They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people during some of their toughest times, and—heaven forbid!—he has the nerve to remember where he came from and still care passionately about guaranteeing every family the opportunities he had to get ahead.

Strike 3: "The Right Wing's Worse Nightmare" (e-mail message received on Jun. 26 from Joe Trippi, the Edwards' Campaign)

Yesterday, Jonathan told you that the folks who benefit from the status quo are attacking John personally because they don't want the country to hear his message. And you know what happened when we called them out? The attacks started pouring in. That same day, the Ann Coulter-wannabe Michelle Malkin blasted John on her blog. Fox News has been bashing him around the clock. And Coulter herself said, "if I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Meanwhile, these pre-emptive excuse strikes have been unleashed with simultaneous pleas for more money embedded in them.

“We have 7 days to reach $9 million and every dollar counts. Please give what you can.”

“Please do what you can today to help take the next bold step for real change.”

“It's up to all of us to do our part. I (Edwards’ Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince) just gave $100—can you please give whatever you can afford today?”

In response to the Edwards’ Campaign “please give us” letters, it looks like I have no other option but to exacerbate the perpetual “War on Excuses” with another installment of “Please Excuse the Excuses: A Series of Excuse Letters”

Dear Friends/Contributors,

Please excuse John for not quite living up to the money expectations of the other candidates this quarter. He’s been under a lot of pressure at home, and to be quite frank with you, the Washington establishment has not made life easy for John. Our John has always shied away from these folks, and now they’ve taken it upon themselves to pick on him because he won’t play their D.C. games. This is really hard for us to believe. John has always received high marks for playing well with others, and we can’t understand why they would single John out for attacks. This political bullying needs to stop, for it’s taking a serious toll on John’s ability to raise more money.

As you well know, John grew up the son of a mill worker and has always had the ability to surpass financial expectations, but the Washington establishment and the media are dampening John’s spirits. Just last night, when John and Elizabeth were on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno, you could see that John wasn’t his usual self. While talking to Leno, his million-dollar smile felt more like a $100,000-smile at best. Not to mention, he’s had to resort to humor as a coping mechanism to help mask the pain inflected upon him by the Washington establishment-controlled media. We’re not sure how many more haircut jokes John can tell before he simply cracks.

It’s in this spirit that we’re writing to you. We hope you can help save John from cracking under pressure from these attacks. $2 million dollars should suffice to help seal the cracks, for now anyway. Please send us anything and everything you can spare to help us fight these big bullies. Don’t worry, if you have to pawn some things now, it will be well worth it when John takes the White House back and sticks up for people like you. So we’re asking you, for John’s sake, to send us whatever you can. Pretty, pretty, please with sugar on top…

Sincerely,
Concerned Parents
Joe Trippi and
Jonathan Prince

Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"

GOP Hoefuls Hit on Hot-Button Issues?

The "Cedar Rapids Gazette" (online edition) gets the catchy-title award for today’s headline, “GOP hoefuls hit on hot-button issues.” (see below) The question now is whether or not the title was a copy-edit slip or a Freudian slip?


The problem with Freudian slips is that, like an unanticipated rush of blood below the equator of an adolescent school boy, once they pop up, they’re hard to conceal -- let alone ignore.

It’s with this unbridled notion, coupled with my trained Shakespearean eye for double-entendres, that I proceeded to take a trip down Sophomoric Lane and read the article. For whatever reason (after all, double-entendre’s are in the eye of the beholder), the following phrases managed to probe my Freudian senses, dear Reader:

“Pork wasn’t on the menu…but was a topic for two presidential hopefuls…”

“…John Cox touted, with tongue in cheek, that he comes through when the chips are down.”

“When presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., arrived at the fundraiser Sunday, he donned a pair of plastic gloves and was asked to serve fruit salad to the crowd.”

`”’If you were a committee chairman ... they'd have let you hand out the pork,'’ joked one attendee.”

``We've passed far too many bills increasing the size of government,'' he (Tancredo) said.

``Leave No Illegal Alien Behind bill.'

“If elected, he said, one of his first objectives would be to tell `(House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and (Majority Leader) Harry Reid, `Stop playing general and let our military do their job in Iraq.'''

Now, I’ve been to some rousing sausage-festivals in the past, but I’ve never had the chance to attend a GOP Hoeful Pork Fest – but there’s always the hoe another one will swing through Iowa. In the meantime, I’m left with images of Tom Tancredo and Nancy Pelosi role playing General/Dubious Whipping Boy as they roll around in the fruit salad. Why Tancredo is wearing plastic gloves is beyond me, nor will I allow my imagination to go there to find out. I have to draw the line in the sand of decency somewhere, eh Freud?

President Bush Names Prodigal Son, Jim Nussle, White House Budget Director

Jimmy the Hustler is BACK…in D.C.!!!

Bush and Nussle share a dubious laugh about their latest duping of the American people

After padding his resume with a failed Iowa gubernatorial bid and running Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid into the ground as his top consultant, President Bush’s prodigal son is returning home to his adoptive father.

Throw in Nussle’s failures as House Budget Committee Chair -- while serving underneath his adoptive father’s watchful eye -- into the mix and what do you get?

Answer: A job as the White House Budget Director, that’s what.

Now that’s some serious hustling.

Political Fallout contacted Jimmy the Hustler (“Nussle & Flow”), who released the following statement:

We tried to work our hustle in Iowa, but these folks ain’t buying. Apparently, they weren't too hip about the prospects of my better half driving ‘em into bankruptcy. They’re not buying my boy Rudy’s New York hustle either, so it was only a matter of time before Jimbo was bound to take his A-game back to D.C. If we play our cards right, we have less than two years to help bankrupt the country and return to a Darwinian socio-economic paradigm -- where only the strongest will survive and political pimps, like yours truly, will rule the roost. It ain’t going to be easy to hustle the American people, especially with the Bossman’s approval ratings dipping below sea level, but that’s where I, Jimmy the Hustler, come into play.