Michael Vick, Dogfighting, and A Proposal for "The Brian Urlacher Rule"

I've been a bit too devout in politics, when I've promised more of a variety, which I hope this will be one of many more. (Besides, now I can count down the final days of this Presidency. Does everyone know that Mitt Romney's Team is George W. Bush's former team? So don't look at Romney as "an outsider". His posse is from the Beltway.) Now on to some fun sports chat.

I propose the Brian Urlacher Rule for the NFL. Urlacher was recently fined $100,000 for wearing the wrong clothing article! Hat, shirt, who cares? $100,000!

Everything else should go up from there. Dogfighting is a cruel, brutal sport. If you have a pet dog, how would you feel if you saw another dog kill it slowly by tearing at its neck in a death grip? What is the excitement in seeing any animal or person killed as a sport?

Chris Henry? Hmmmm.... seems a bit worse than wearing the wrong shirt. Ray Lewis present at a murder? Again, seem a bit worse than wearing the wrong shirt. How about players who beat their wives? Get caught driving under the influence? Beating up someone at a club?

Again, they all seem much worse than wearing the wrong clothing article.

So if that's worth a $100,000 fine, let's put that at the bottom wrung of the ladder and move up from there, including levels for suspension and expulsion. But anything else should certainly cost a player more than the $100,000 that Urlacher was fined for the wrong shirt.

(And I know the NFL's policy on "official gear". If that's more important to them than criminal conduct, then it gives us a sense of their priorities.)

By the way, I doubt they have to profile the Bengals, as Marvin Lewis is accusing. They probably just have to wait a day before one pulls up to the front door of some police car and falls out of the drivers' side door. Perhaps they should instead profile the Bengals' draft gurus. They could enlist them as police profilers. They seem to have a knack for picking misfits and potential felons and petty offenders.

Just a Thought on Ending the War

On a day's musing, I wondered, "How CAN we end the War in Iraq, aka "Bush's War"?" (or "Cheney's War... you choose the title)... NOT AKA The Global War on Terror, which, I think, is based somewhere in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is where Bin Laden still remains safely planning future attacks, which is what SHOULD alarm Americans.

Anyway, to return to the topic, I had a quick solution for ending the United States' participation in Cheney's/Bush's War (Iraq). Quite simply, remove the contracts for services in Iraq (and New Orleans, come to think of it) from Haliburton, Cheney's old company, and bid them out with the stipulation that contracts not be awarded to companies tied to the administration. I'd be curious then to see how quickly they lose interest in their war, which has earned his old company (in which he still holds stock), millions of dollars, and simultaneously cost the American taxpayers the same amount.

Cheney's net worth was, I believe, recently reported as near $100 million.

Warnings of Chaos Ignored

From White House Watch. By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.comFriday, May 25, 2007; 12:52 PM

for full article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

An impending report from the Senate intelligence committee is likely to revive questions about whether President Bush was so consumed with invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein that he didn't care about the disastrous consequences that could -- and did -- ensue.

Katherine Shrader reports for the Associated Press: "U.S. intelligence agencies warned senior members of the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al-Qaida new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report.

"Officials familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also say analysts warned against U.S. domination in the region, which could increase extremist recruiting. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report's declassification is not finished. It could be made public as soon as this week.

"The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed. . . .

"A former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the decision to go to war had been made months before the 2003 papers were drafted and analysts had no delusions that they were going to head off military action. Rather, the official said, they hoped their warnings would be considered in the planning."

Jonathan Karl reports for ABC News: "In stark contrast to the WMD fiasco, the intelligence community was largely on target about what the United States would face in postwar Iraq.

"In January 2003, the CIA's National Intelligence Council delivered to the White House two reports predicting what the United States would face in Iraq. The reports, which until now were classified, are expected to be released by the Senate Intelligence Friday. . . .

"The first report is titled 'Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq.' It paints a picture of an Iraq beset by ethnic violence and unlikely to accept democracy. Here are some highlights:

"* Iraq is unlikely to break apart, but it is 'a deeply divided society.' There is 'a significant chance' that groups would 'engage in violent conflict . . . unless there is an occupying force to prevent them from doing so.'

"* Neighboring states could 'jockey for position . . . fomenting ethnic strife inside Iraq.'

"* 'Iraq's political culture does not foster political liberalism or democracy.'

"* 'A generation of Iraqis' who have been subjected to Saddam's repression are 'distrustful of surrendering or sharing power.' . . .

"The second report is titled 'Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq.' This report warns of potential instability in the region, especially if the war were to be long and violent. It also warns that al Qaeda could exploit U.S. focus on Iraq by re-establishing its presence in Afghanistan."

Administration was warned invasion would help Iran, al-Qaida

From Salon, The War Room

The latest Senate Intelligence Committee report about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq is still being declassified -- it reportedly could be released as early as this week -- but some news about what it contains is already leaking out.

According to the Associated Press, "U.S. intelligence agencies warned senior members of the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence ... warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed."

The AP article goes on to report the words of one former intelligence official, who said that a decision to invade Iraq had been made before those warnings were circulated, and that the analysts responsible knew that, but hoped their reports would be taken into consideration during planning stages.

Asked at his press conference today about the report, President Bush dodged the question.

"Going into Iraq, we were warned about a lot of things, some of which happened, some of which didn't happen," he said. "And, obviously, as I made a decision of -- as consequential as that, I weighed the risks and rewards of any decision.

"I firmly believe the world's better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I know the Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. I think America's safer without Saddam Hussein in power.

"As to al-Qaida in Iraq, al-Qaida's going to fight us wherever we are. See, that's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East."
-- Alex Koppelman

In Search of the War Czar?

President Bush is in search of a war czar??? (Czar being a term that makes me flinch to begin with...)

I thought President Bush IS the War Czar! He got us into this one (Iraq, aka "George's War"). I assumed that he'd believed he could lead us through it.

Has that changed now?... Perhaps he can outsource this to Haliburton... or even China!

Happy Law Day...perhaps you misunderstood what you think he said he meant....

From Dan Froomkin's Tuesday column....

Happy Law Day!

"A New York Times editorial today traces the history of Law Day and notes: "In keeping with tradition, President Bush has issued a proclamation inviting Americans today to 'celebrate the Constitution and the laws that protect our rights and liberties.' It rings more than a little hollow..."

Note from Greetings: I think you all misunderstood. I think what Bush said was that he was declaring it National GET AROUND the Law Day...