huh?

Safe to say that 2010 might have been the weirdest year to date for professional baseball. All sorts of weird stuff occurred throughout all aspects of the game. Take for instance some offensive strangeness. Ichiro Suzuki led the American League in hits again. Nothing strange about that. Here's where it gets weird. He scored less runs than the man who got the fewest hits in the National League and qualified for the hitting title. Yeah. Ichiro had 74 runs on 214 hits. Mark Reynolds had 79 runs on 99 hits. Astro Michael Bourn was caught stealing third and stole third on back to back pitches. How you say? Atlanta's Tommy Hanson sniffed out the first attempt but dropped a throw when Bourn was in a run down, allowing him to get back to second. Score that CS/E1. Next pitch Bourn does it again. And makes it. Wha? Bengie Molina hit for the cycle this year. A player does it every year pretty much. Thing is, Bengie is statistically the slowest runner in the MLB. The cycle requires one to hit a triple, which he did in his last at bat of the game. The one and only time that year out of 416 at bats for Bengie. Yeesh.

33-year old rookie John Lindsey finally made his debut in the Major Leagues after a 16 year minor league career. He was announced as a pinch hitter, but the other team switched pitchers. Joe Torre then sent up Andre Ethier instead of Lindsey. He waited 16 years to make it to the show, and never played. Only in baseball. Avid Eckstein struck out nine times in his first 226 at bats of the season. Rick Ankiel struck out nine times in a row in one month. In one Pacific Coast League game, Royals prospect Mike Moustakas had as many homers (three) and RBIs (eleven) as Rusty Ryal had in 101 games and 222 plate appearances for the Diamonbacks. Carlos Gonzalez had an extra base hit 10 games in a row. Brandon Wood had an extra base hit in six games on the year. Sweet swingers Joey Votto and Buster Posey didn't hit an infield pop up all year. Holy bejeezus.

Only in baseball.

Well that's weird.

So a story surfaced recently. Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox expressed "extreme interest" in a 1970s criminal investigation of New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner for illegal campaign contributions. Then-FBI director Clarence M. Kelley relayed Cox's concerns in a memo back in 1973, sent to the bureau's Cleveland office, saying that agents needed to make sure the probe received "the same, immediate and preferred handling" as other criminal cases then growing from the Watergate scandal. The memos were released along with 400 pages of Steinbrenners FBI file. Most of the material concerned Steinbrenner's illegal contributions to President Nixon. Associated Press and other news organizations requested the file under the Freedom of Information Act following Steinbrenner's death in July. There are references to Steinbrenner's pardon later by President Reagan as well but nothing about his career as the Yankee's "Boss."

Among other things mentioned, the FBI was investigating whether employees were told they would be reimbursed by the company for campaign contributions, another violation of campaign finance laws. Steinbrenner was indicted in 1974, and two weeks after Nixon's resignation in August of that same year, the Boss pleaded guilty and was fined $15,000. Executives in Steibrenner's American Shipbuilding Co. told FBI officials in signed statements that they received bonuses after making contributions to Nixon's campaign. What can we say. The Boss knows how to get stuff done.

Non omnis moriar.

So it turns out that the founder of the "whistle-blowing" site, WikiLeaks, has a back up plan. In case of the shut down of his website, Julian Assange has circulated throughout the internet an encrypted file cache that is suspected to include information on British Petroleum and Guantanamo Bay. The "poison pill" is what it's called. One file was identified this week by The Sunday Times, called the "insurance" file, has been downloaded by tens of thousands of supporters from all over the world. Assange has issued a warning that should any government attempt to stop his activities, they risk triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets. Military papers on Gitmo have yet to be published, and were supplied by Bradley Manning, Assange's primary source until his arrest. Other files that Assange possess include aerial footage of a U.S. airstrike that killed Afghan civilians, BP confidential files, and Bank of America documents.

One of the files that is available for download from WikiLeaks is entitled insurance.aes256. As its name suggests, it is encrypted with a 256-digit key. Experts say its most likely unbreakable. The United States' Department of Defense says that it is aware of the site's insurance file, but it has been unable to confirm the contents of the package. Assange has warned that should he be detained of if the website should be permanently removed from the internet, he will release the files. It has been suggested that the files are unredacted, posing a possible security risk for coalition partners. Amazon, the host of the website, refused WikiLeaks access to the servers last week, and EveryDNS.net, the site that provided WikiLeaks with its domain name has also cut them off from service. They are now existing through a domain provided by the Swiss Pirate party, which champions internet freedom.

For shame.

The "whistle blower" blower website WikiLeaks released a fresh batch of stolen diplomatic papers today. Some of the papers show revelations that are more than just potentially embarrassing about views on the United States' allies, as they also include developments among foes of the U.S. and competitive nations. The details were released from a crop of 250,000 cables that were illegally taken from the State Department's records and include discussions on the United States being unable to stop the selling of Syrian arms to the known terrorist group Hezbollah, and the hacking of American computers by the Chinese government. Other communications passed on to several newspapers by the website also reveal talk about individual leaders.

Rather humorously, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was noted to be "accompanied everywhere by a 'voluptuous blonde' Ukrainian nurse." The Guardian also noted that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was referred to as an "alpha-dog" (though I hardly think that's uncalled for when referring to the pseudo-dictator). The Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "driven by paranoia" (surprise, surprise), and German Chancellor Angela Merkel is one who "avoids risk and is rarely creative."

More importantly, the cables suggest that the United States had planned on using its network of embassies in global espionage. The material shows secretaries of State Clinton and Rice telling officials to collect personal details of political leaders such as iris scans, DNA samples, and vehicle descriptions. Listen. I'm all for freedom of the press and all those shenanigans, but this is absurd. Obama has said that he supports an open and transparent government, but there's a reason certain documents are confidential. This isn't freedom of information, this is anarchy. And quite frankly, if that founder of WikiLeaks turns up dead some day, don't expect anyone to be surprised.

That's just a baaaad idea.

A disturbing thing has been discovered recently, though it should come at no surprise considering we're talking about North Korea. Turns out, the country most heavily under the effect of small-nation syndrome have been working on a sophisticated uranium enrichment plant in an attempt to go nuclear. The discovery has been described as "stunning" and an "act of defiance." The plant was first witnessed by U.S. scientist Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory. U.S. officials have long suspected North Korea of having such capability, and have regularly raised it with them directly and with global partners. According to them, it validates a long standing concern they've have with respect to North Korea. As a follow-up, they state that clearly North Korea and its dictator feel free to destabilize the region.

According to Hecker's report, released Saturday in the New York Times, North Korea recently completed 2,000 centrifuges needed for making uranium required in a nuclear reactor. Hecker also said that the North told him it was producing low-enriched uranium. However, he was not allowed to take photos or reveal the plant's location, however the U.S. reportedly has been watching the area he visited by satellite. The plant has not been reported as producing plutonium needed for a bomb but the uranium used in an energy reactor could easily be converted, especially in the facility which has been described as "astonishingly modern." The senior administration official said if the details were true, then North Korea is in violation of its pledges and commitments. Too assume that the U.S. didn't know about these things earlier is somehwat stupid though. It is North Korea after all. And with luck, maybe they'll blow themselves off the face of the earth.

Who doesn't love a fixer upper.

Following the Republicans hearty trouncing of Democrats in the congressional, gubernatorial, and state races, many political experts weighed in on what Obama's first order of business should be. Some decided that he should scale back his heavily liberal agenda and attempt to appeal to the middle-ground independent voters, and to bring in some new staff for some fresh and untainted blood. For others, they believed that the answer was much simpler. He needs to appeal to his own party again. He's fallen out of favor with the people that got him to where he is now and it's showing negatively.He has almost completely ignored his original voter base for the last two years and has some serious damage to heal. Even if he some how manages to command the indpendent voters, he will have absolutely no chance of victory in 2012 if he doesn't hae a vast number of Democrats behind him. Because let's be honest, a great deal of the country is pissed off at him.

For starters, he completely shut down his high-end donors. Following their extremely generous donations, they were looking at Obama and his administration give them the perks that have become expected for wealthy donors. And Obama basically told them not to hold their breath, because he didn't give a damn. Sure, that's great for public image when people are struggling in a tough economy to know that they aren't being passed over for the wealthy. Unfortunately for Obama, when elections come by again and he needs donations to pay for the voter initiative materials, guess who doesn't want to pay? That's right. Even Obama's attempt to use religious influence failed miserably, as his Catholic voter base decided to bail out for the Republicans. That really sucks. Time to pay attention I guess? Yeah.

Love him or hate him.

Say what you want about former President George W. Bush, but the guy has a certain aura about him that denotes him as a man's man. Whether people agree with him or not, they all know where they stand with him. Recently, he has become a prime example of how to turn the other cheek and act stay clear of with humility. But in order for one to truly turn the other cheek as a legitmate option, they must also be able to do otherwise. Take, for instance, something like, say... Canada. They like to say that they foreign affairs and wars overseas because they "turn the other cheek," as if they know better. Nuh unh. They're not turning the other cheek. They're pulling a Sweden circa World War II. They don't have the military might to choose any other option outside of remaining uninvolved. Now as stupid as this sounds, a prime example of true power is the continued existence of Canada. yeah.

The fact that Canada exists isn't an example of their power. Quite the opposite. The fact that they exist demonstrates the power of the United States. Hear me out. The United States would heavily benefit from conquering a region so rich in natural resources. But we don't. Instead, the U.S. decides to make relationships beneficial to both countries. That's real power. Obama repeatedly points to G.W. Bush as if he is everything that is wrong with the world. Instead of coming out and pointing out all of Obama's shortcomings, Mr. Bush instead decides to remain silent. That's a show of true power. What a stud.

Statistically speaking.

The economy has lost 400,000 jobs since last May, and unemployment has remained at least at 9.5 percent for over a year, a record length not seen since the Great Depression. The real estate market is still bunk, the dollar is tanking, and in the last two years, the Obama administration has overseen unprecedented deficits, acquiring $2.7 trillion during their last two years. However, rising stock prices reflect optimism in investors. Stock prices are determined by long-term expectations of profitability than short-run results. Experts are guessing that these changes are a reflection of the changing political outlook. Stockholders were reluctant in the atmosphere created by Obama's higher taxes and health care regulations and the ability to adopt basically whatever economic policy they choose. With Republican victories likely, predictions are for a more favorable business environment and a better economy.

Some hard statistics are able to back up these assumptions. The probability of a Republican majority in Congress is provided daily by Intrade, which is basically a market that has proven to be remarkably accurate in predicting past election outcomes. Intrade along with the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll, which reports on the approval percentages of Mr. Obama, show that the ups and downs of the stock market coincide well with these measures. For instance, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit bottom on March 5, 2009, when Obama had been in office for just two months. Conversely, this year the stock market reached a peak of 11,205 when anti-Democratic sentiment was reaching its highest. Could be a good couple of years should the Republicans take over.

Whatever works.

The British government announced this past week the steepest set of spending cuts in decades. They intend to cut departments budgets by close to twenty percent and eliminate five-hundred thousand jobs in the public sector, all in the hopes of healing the country's deficit problems. Many in London are highly critical of the move, but some analysts in the United States have begun to question whether or not it might be a good idea to do the same. The move would surely create outrage in the U.S., but it would appear that drastic actions might be needed to save the economy rather than the slow and steady strategy being used by Obama's administration. One thing to note, however, is the fact that Britain's economy is one-fifth the size of America's, meaning that the budget cuts that needing to be proposed on Capitol Hill would dwarf those implemented in Britain. The director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Nile Gardiner says that "the Obama administration is showing no appetite whatsoever" in doing what the British are doing.

Experts have been noting that should Republicans regain Congressional dominance, they may be inspired by what the British are doing. The British cuts at this point look to about $130 billion from the budget by 2015. If the United States were to cut a similar percentage, the cuts would total about $450 billion. However, Gardiner estimated that in order for the cuts to be successful, they would need to total $650 million by 2015. Insane? Of course. But it just might be insane enough to work. Clearly the slow and steady route isn't working, so just cut the infected limb off all together. Problem solved. Actually, that sounded pretty stupid... And of course this will have about .0000001% chance of passing based on the majority of people working in the public sector.

SF Giants. 2010 National League Champs. World Series bound.

The iffy exit plan.

The war in Afghanistan entered a new and possibly decisive stage a week ago, following requests by American leaders for Afghanistan's elected officials to come to a settlement with Taliban leaders to end the war. The Americans had even assisted Taliban leaders in making it to meetings. Coupled with increased and heavier attacks by American and NATO forces, it is believed that American leaders are attempting to force the Taliban into an agreement by putting them in a diminished position. Leaders are skeptical that the settlements will be agreed upon by all Taliban leaders, or if the officials are just going to end up making deals with individual commanders. However, it's possible that these efforts might just fail and the American troops with just have to withdraw again next year with fewer prospects for a successful end.

Neither of the last two commander's in Afghanistan, Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, made the point of saying that the objective was to destroy the Taliban. Rather, they pointed out that it was an attempt to break their will, to break up their movements, and to settle with as many leaders as were willing to deal. That particular strategy appears similar to the one that brought Petraeus great success in Iraq. After American leaders negotiated with insurgent leaders in Iraq in 2007, the violence dropped dramatically. It may be that they hope to accomplish the same here. However, the number of ordinance being sent at the insurgents has increased by half of the original amount since negotiations were announced. Seeing as how one can expect some Taliban leaders to go back on their agreements and for their soldiers to defect, sounds like blowing them all to smithereens if they don't accept peace is a decent plan.

Problems aplenty.

For the upcoming elections, it would appear that one piece of news is all the rage: the splintering of the Republican Party into the moderates and the Tea Party. There's a lot of talk about tensions between the establishment and their new trouble-maker of a child. But then again, it can't really be all that bad. They could be the Democrats. Tensions between President Obama and his own party have become apparent. In a recent interview with the Rolling Stone, President Obama took aim at those in his party that he sees as abandoning ship: "It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progeressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election... People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up... If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious [about change] in the first place." So basically, in short, the President decided that instead of being the repsonsible leader and trying to pull his party back in, he was going to start a little high-schoolesque drama.

Mr. Obama must not have gone to school as a child (relax, I'm not making any accusations toward his place of birth and education thereof), because if children learn anything growing up, it's that if you want someone to be friends with you, you're better off not trashing them. He went with the old sports coach technique, if you're not willing to play the game, go home. Unfortunately for him, not everybody enjoys athletic competition. The response from his own party has been pretty ferocious, making it seem like their President has let them down. One fellow leftist even went so far as to say it's a tactic to shift the blame should the election not go their way (There was also something about "hippie-punching," but that one's over my head). It's fairly clear that the Democratic party isn't in a much better position than the Republicans, as thirty-nine, yes, thirty-nine, Democrats voted with the Republicans against the decision to adjourn in the House. Coach Obama, you've got some issues you might want to look after.

Just a little flavor of the elections around the nation.

Show some emotion.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal explained the current situation that our President is in. As Obama was in the middle of a town hall meeting on Monday, September the twentieth, a woman stood up to speak to him. The woman can be described as a dignified African American, and appears to be what she is, an Obama supporter from 2008. It appeared as though she would give Obama an easy question, but instead she dropped a bombshell, explaining that she was exhausted of defending him and his administration, and she was disappointed with where they were. Being the cool, detached President that he is, Obama responded by listing all of his achievements, such as tuition assistance (really?), and health care. True to his form, Obama was once again off-topic.

The word that sticks out most out of what the woman said would have to be "exhausted." And as far as I can see, it would appear that most Democrats are exhausted. It seems even they can get tired of waiting for the change they were promised. The battle between the Democrats and the Republicans can pretty much be described as the battle between the burnt out and the revved up. It has been noted that voters are attending rallies with something new. Information. They have in their hands, fresh from the internet, copies of bills and roll call votes. With the internet, it is now impossible for the government to escape the eyes of the people as often as they used to. And as much as I hate, HATE, the Tea Party, they're not stupid. They're just angry. Which is more emotion than Obama has ever shown.

Mind games.

I couldn't really decide on a single topic for tonight's blog, so as I looked through Wall Street Journal, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Sac Bee, and various news websites (mostly BBC), I settled on basing this blog on pretty much nothing. Nothing in particular that is. I'll start with the attempted repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This week, the Republicans stopped the bill from passing in the Senate, though it has already passed the House. Led by Sen. McCain, the Republicans said the issue should wait for the outcome of a Pentagon survey of service members on the repeal. The Republicans see the bill as a political ploy, based on some of the amendments involved. One such amendment would grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants if they graduate from high school and spend two years in college or the military. The Democrats argue that it could strengthen the military, but the Republicans have called it out as a ploy by the Senator that propsed it to graner votes in his heavily Hispanic district. Which, if I were to think about it, which I did, does make some sense. A bill that is centered on the military equality of gays shouldn't really have included a section about immigration, should it? I'm all for the repeal of the law, truly I am. Anyone that is willing to risk their life for the country is good in my book, but drop all the political BS and pass the bill. On a sidenote, Obama promised to have this issue settled a while ago. Woops.

In other news, just in case anyone hasn't noticed, there's a new thing called the Tea Party. The TP is group of what are basically anti-government, and perhaps anti-just-about-everything. Sarah Palin jumped on as a "founder," though in reality she's just along for the ride. A Republican senator from South Carolina has also joined in, and has begun running his own group of Partier's, going against his own party members. The new Party members have begun causing problems for the Republicans, creating issues in the primaries. The result could be a very unmanageable GOP, one which might be divided on grounds as simple as spending bills. The problems could spread to war, Medicare, and Social Security. Love'em or hate'em, they're here to stay for at least a little while. And yes Democrats, you can love them too, as they might just swing the Independent votes in your favor.

Lastly, the "President" of Iran made another scathing speech about American capitalism and the evil Israelis. He ended up preaching to what was basically an empty room at the UN. But what else is new, right?

And now for a completely unrelated political funny.

P.S. - Sorry for any errors, I was exhausted while writing this as I was in the midst of a family emergency.

Leaving them out to dry.

A lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, claiming that Obama was too much like President G.W. Bush when it came to targeted killing of terrorists. The focus of the lawsuit is the alleged targeting of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, but it has been indicated that their objections are more wide-ranging. They object to treating the whole world as a battlefield (which they feel both presidents have done), to lethal actions outside of accepted theaters of conflict, and to the killing of individuals who do not represent an imminent threat. Legal scholars do not give the suit much of a chance, and the administration gave a robust defense of its actions through a speech by the State department's top lawyer.

So, in essence, the actions were approved as legal, and authorized by the President. Sounds solid. However. In a major disconinuity between the administrations, Obama allowed his attorney general to disclose classified details of one of Bush's anti-terror operations (actions of which were deemed legal and authorized), and to reopen investigations of CIA officers involved. This is not about the release of interrgotaion techniques (of which waterboarding was publicly disclosed by the CIA, and NOT used). The argument can then be made that the exposing of a previously authorized program was done on a purely political agenda. This bothers me, because the CIA has (technically) the authorization to do things that no one else is asked or is able to do, and that should not change along iwth an administration. When CIA officers agree to do these things we don't know about, they believe they are entering into a contract with the government, not the current administration. In order for those officers to perform to the best of their abilities and with the most zeal, they must be able to be confident that they will not be thrown under the bus by way of a new President. Personally, I believe that nothing done by the CIA should be disclosed, as it almost always deals with national security, and make that public is ridiculous. It's no wonder that senior CIA officials are now asking for more legal guarantees concerning the secrecy of their operations. I support that idea, and am completely against the need of one administration to sabotage the operatons of the last. Doing that creates a lack of trust with our most important intelligence force, and that's just irresponsible.

It's constitutional to be an idiot.

Recently, Pastor Terry Jones of a small Florida church and his congregation had planned to have a bonfire of burning Korans to commemorate the September 11 attacks. The planning has garnered international interest and worldwide anti-American protests. The White House feared that the bonfire would lead to violence against U.S. embassies and an increase in general anti-American feelings. However, on September 9, Pastor Jones announced that his "Burn a Koran Day" was "on hold" following a disclosure of possible negotiations between the pastor and a New York based Muslim Imam linked with the mosque plans at Ground Zero. The negotiations supposedly included a deal to move the mosque, which the Imam said was an incorrect announcement. According to Jones, their final decision about whether or not to hold the burning will come after a 24-hour period during which they will be confirming a meeting between Jones and the New York Imam.

The cancellation of the Koran burning was settled as part of a supposed agreement, although neither side seems to be in much agreement at this point, and Jones has gone so far as to refer to the Imam as a liar. The really troubling part is that the federal government had absolutely no ability to stop the burning, because, as it would have been no private grounds, the pastor and his congregation would have been perfectly within their constitutional right to freedom of speech. As put by David Hudson, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington DC, "Generally, the first amendment protects offensive, repugnant, and even hateful speech." The root of the issue is that fact that America prides iself on holding true to this freedom, along with other freedoms given by the Constitution, and it has become almost a national identity, as a "free country." As much as I'm for a little freedom, such as voicing ones political opinions or even smack talking the opponents a little, I believe that at some point the line needs to be drawn. As voiced by American military officials, the Koran burning will only intensify the will of insurgents, and will lead to increased violence against American soldiers. And to knowlingly put soldiers at unnecssary risk is completely absurd.

However, fair's fair. The amendment also protects the burning of the American flag and symbols of other religions. In order for the demonstrator to be arrested, there must be an immediacy of harm, such as having the bonfire on the dorrstep of a mosque. Much good comes from our freedoms, but all it gives people like the congregation in Florida the ability to do is be idiots.

Smaller is still something.

As President Obama was announcing the end of U.S. combat operations in Iraq, U.S. soldiers were sealing a village in the north while Iraqi soldiers raided the houses and arrested dozens of suspected insurgents. As previously stated in my other post, although tens of thousands of troops have exited the country, 50,000 U.S. troops will remain until the end of the year to assist the Iraqi army. In a change-of-command ceremony in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces outside Baghdad that the American military now uses as its headquarters, officials warned of a tough road head as the United States moves into the final phase of this seven and a half year war. The largest concern is that of the Iraqi leaders' continuing bickering over the formation of a new government, a conflict that could add fuel to the insurgency fire. According to Vice-President Biden, the U.S. troops will be as combat ready as any other forces in the military. Of those who remain, 10% are special forces (roughly 4,500) who will conduct raids and capture terrorists.

So as I am now going to make custom, I will use this paragraph to state my opinions following the first paragraph containing facts. My biggest concern is the state of the Iraqi government, or better yet, the lackthereof. For Obama to state that our responsibility's are complete and that now is an okay time to withdraw seems a little absurd. To upset a country's government by deposing their leader, however brutal, and then leaving that country without any form of government is blatantly irresponsible. To leave a group of political workers and a smaller force of American troops in a politically unstable country is equally irresponsible. Furthermore, to say that troops that are authorized to raid are not combat troops seems a little far-fetched. With operations like the village raid in Hawija, troops are most likely going to involved in combat. Thus, making them combat troops. Their mission statement may be different, but the effect is the same. Obama has declared that the operation is finished, when it appears to have just gotten smaller. IN my opinion, combat won't officially be over until everyone is out.

Can't always get what you want.

On February 17, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that starting September 1, 2010, the current "Operation Iraqi Freedom" would be replaced by "Operation New Dawn." On August 2 of that same year, President Obama confirmed that all US military operations in Iraq will end by August 31. 50,000 personnel who will support the Iraqi military were left as all other combat brigades crossed the border, ending on August 19. The new operation will put the U.S. State Department in an unprecedented role, as 2,400 U.S. civilian employess will work out of the new American embassy in Baghdad, the largest embassy in existence. The U.S. will also be building two new billion dollar (each) consulates in Basra and Irbil within the year. A major point of these new diplomatic efforts is that in order to have ample security, the State Department has hired 7,000 new private security contractors, triple the current number employed. The introduction of so many new contractors is sure to make Iraqis nervous, who remain uneasy since Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians three years ago. Add on a new training program for a more "professional" Iraqi police force, and the need for armored vehicles and helicopters for the diplomats, as well as high tech surveillance systems, and the State Department's estimate is around $1.8 billion dollars. Appropriation committees in both legislatures cut the funding to about $1billion, meaning less security and fewer programs. However, many members of Congress believe that Iraq should pay for its own programs with its wealth in oil, but officials say Iraq is years away from developing resources sufficient enough to stop the need for U.S. spending.

Here's my first opinion on this subject: I fail to see how it's acceptable to, on one end, have all combat troops pulled out, while on the other end, cut funding for the security of American civilian workers and diplomats who will no doubt be targets. For example, the cuts will most likely cause security checkpoints manned by American, Iraqi, and Kurdish joint forces to be phased out. In areas such as Mosul, where terrorist and insurgency are on the rise, department employees will have an extremely hard time moving around safely. Second, we're leaving while Iraq has no functioning government! Five months after an election, and still Iraq's politicians fail to cooperate with each other. What's to stop more extremists and neighboring countries (Iran anyone?) from taking advantage of the gap in organization and leadership, which is exactly what American and Iraqi officials fear. Furthermore, the $800 million police force program was a request from Iraqis, who want us out so they can support themselves. That's good; in fact, that's great. After thirty years of unrest, the Iraqi people are more than ready for the existing occupation to end, which is completely understandable. What I don't understand is how Iraq is open to having no military assistance, but is perfectly fine with accepting large amounts of funding, which we American tax-payers are providing (yeah, I pay income taxes). In my personal opinion, which I realize doesn't count for much if anything, it seems a little ridiculous to get both. Want the help? Great, we've been helping at our own expense. Don't want the help anymore? Function at YOUR own expense.

Having said all that, I think that this was a very poor time to pull the troops out. The country still lacks a government, and 2,400 U.S. civilians will be working in an extremely hostile atmosphere with cuts on their security budgets. The military is acting professionally while we're there, but that's not to say it won't dissolve into an iron fist when the U.S. is no longer involved. Regardless, this shift in operations is a very critical moment for both countries.