Doug De Clue's blog

It's Good to be King

Doug De Clue — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:14:50 -0400

I don't know about you, but in my humble opinion it's long since time to begin the impeachment of King George.

Yesterday's commutation of Scooter Libby was clearly for no other reasonable purpose than protecting his own administration from criminal and impeachment investigations.

The Bush Administration has proved yet again its utter contempt for the rule of law and the Judiciary branch of government in commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby.

President Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that he believes himself to be an absolute monarch who has no need for judges, juries, laws or trials.

He has no problem, when it suits him, to seize people - even American citizens - without a trial, a judge, or a jury and hold them indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of their natural lives in his own royal dungeon in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

He has no problem, when it suits him, to have people tortured in his dungeons around the world in violation of their most basic human rights.

He has no problem, when it suits him, to ignore the legal requirement to obtain a warrant before conducting a wiretap of an American citizen or even thousands upon thousands of law abiding American citizens.

Yesterday it suited him to commute the Federal prison sentence of one I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and he did so despite the fact that he rarely, even for a chief executive, has done so in the past and that the overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of this commutation.

In effect, President Bush has said, I don't care about the evidence, I don't what you 12 citizens believed, and I don't care what the courts and the judges decide - I'm the King and it only matters what I decide.

I guess as Mel Brooks once said "It's good to be the King"..

Good news for the Bush Administration! There is a quick way to retrive missing emails!

Doug De Clue — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:27:04 -0400

Dear President Bush,

I heard your staff lost millions of emails. While I am no fan of your administration, I certainly sympathize. Even if this was an accident, the political fallout will be tremendous.

Thankfully, I'm happy to report there is an organization which should have backed up all the emails, and quite possibly your telephone conversations, faxes and websites as well.

Who would do you such a favor?

The National Security Agency, whom you ordered to illegally monitor everyone. I'm sure THEY can "recover" the missing emails after all.

Sincerely,

Doug De Clue.

Hypothetically, what would Karl Rove's testimony look like? A (Republican) best-case scenario.

Doug De Clue — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:29:46 -0400

Does anyone else feel like they just saw George Bush and Tony Snow try to pull off "the Jedi mind trick" last week? You know the scene in the original Star Wars movie where Obi Wan Kenobi tricks the storm troopers at the check point into letting them pass by whispering "you don't need to see their papers...these aren't the droids you're looking for.. you can go about your business..move along.."

Imagine this scene...

In an unlit Capitol windowless closet... no one's around...

Senator Leahy whispers to the lone staffer: OK you can turn off the tape recorder, stop writing down what I'm saying and leave the room now...

Karl Rove: Are you sure we're alone and this isn't being recorded?

Senator Leahy: I assure you, we ARE alone and this is NOT being recorded....so ... Mr. Rove, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Karl Rove: No. Of course not.

Senator Leahy: OK...NO problem..I'm sorry but those pesky Democratic colleagues of mine made me ask you that....of course I trust you....Have a seat..can I get you anything? Some coffee or a doughnut?

Karl Rove: No thanks..I'm watching my weight.

Senator Leahy: Now Mr. Rove did you or did you not order the firings of eight United States attorneys because they either were investigating prominent Republicans or alternately because they refused to investigate prominent Democrats?

Karl Rove: I didn't.

Senator Leahy: OK, again sorry for that harsh question, but ..you know I had to ask it or my Democratic friends would be upset with me - I accept your answer - Now can I see those internal emails and documents between you, Attorney General Gonzales, Harriet Meiers and the President?

Karl Rove: Of course not. We've shredded them already anyways.

Senator Leahy: Hey that's good thinking! I guess we can just close the books on this one then - let's just forget the whole thing.

Karl Rove: This is getting old...Can I go now?

Senator Leahy: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to keep you from your busy schedule of jamming Democratic campaign office phone lines and planting phone bugs in your own office and then calling the FBI on your political opponents, I know you're a busy and important man....

Karl Rove: OK now - remember you can't talk about anything we said just now.

Senator Leahy: OK. I promise Karl...

Well that's basically "the reasonable proposal" that President Bush and Press Secretary Tony Snow want the Congress and the American people to accept with respect to asking for testimony from Rove, Gonzales, Meiers over Gonzales recent misleading testimony before Congress.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came before Congress and made false statements when he testified that he fired eight United States Attorneys around the country for "performance reasons". In fact it has turned out that they not fired for performance but were apparently fired for political reasons and this scandal very likely reaches to Karl Rove, Harriet Meiers
and George Bush himself.

Lying before Congress - with or without an oath - is still a crime. It's called Federal Fraud statute USC 18-371. You just can't defraud or deceive the government.

This is a very broad statute that the Supreme Court previously ruled on in Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924):

"To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention."

In Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), the Supreme Court ruled: "The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation. "

So you don't even have to lie under oath to break the law, you just have to make deceptive statements designed to defeat legitimate official actions of the government - like when Gonzales defeated Congressional oversight by falsely testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We've already had Scooter Libby's convictions a few weeks ago on perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame leak case and just a few hours ago Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice in a Senate committee's investigation of the Abramoff lobbyist scandal - so why shouldn't we trust them?

This President seems to think he is an absolute monarch and above questioning by anyone.

Give me a break Mr. President, Press Secretary Snow....

The President IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Congress not only has the RIGHT to subpoena him and members of his administration - it has a Constitutional DUTY to do so where it has any reason to be concerned that all is not well in the Republic.

Everyone else in any legal proceeding no matter how trivial has to take sworn oaths and sign documents under penalty of perjury.

Every other legal proceeding is recorded by the court reporter as it is being taken to insure that the record is accurate and that it can't be denied or distorted later.

Every other legal proceeding is supposed to be conducted publicly in the light of day so that it can be accountable to We the People.

These have been the standard practice in the law and the government going back throughout the entire history of our own American government and before that for centuries in English law.

What makes YOU so special Mr. President?

Just when will "our Constitution work" again? When will "our great Republic resume being a government of laws and not of men?" When will "OUR long national nightmare" finally be over?

The only way out of this mess is for the Congress and the Senate to not back down and actually issue those subpoenas. The President can't say no. The Supreme Court has already decided this issue in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) when it ruled unanimously 8-0 that Nixon had to surrender his White House tapes under subpoena.

Congress and the Senate must investigate this matter under oath, with transcripts, in public and pursuant to a compelling subpoena and thereafter it must impeach as required by the Constitution and the facts.

CNN posts misleading story about air traffic planted by FAA / Whitehouse

Doug De Clue — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:30:36 -0400

Let's start with full disclosure: I am a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), a licensed pilot, an aerospace engineer, and, a Democratic Party committeeman in Orange County Florida.

Last week I noticed the following CNN story:

FAA: Crowded skies to get more crowded

Airline passengers can expect more delays as airplanes crowd the skies, the Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday.

The agency expects an average of 1.4 million more takeoffs and landings -- the equivalent of traffic at two Dallas-Fort Worth International Airports -- every year until 2020. In 2006, air traffic controllers handled 61.1 million takeoffs and landings.

"Delays are mounting due to congested airspace and congested airports," said FAA administrator Marion Blakey. "The congestion is really becoming a chronic thing."

(...snip...)

Blakey said the nation's aging air traffic control system must be replaced to avoid gridlock in the skies.

To pay for a new system that would rely on satellite-based navigation, the FAA proposes to replace the ticket tax now paid by airline passengers with a combination of fees and taxes. That would force people who fly corporate jets to bear more of the cost of the air traffic control system.

Which is apparently based on this FAA press release:

This conveniently timed press release is a thinly-veiled political tactic designed to push back against the Congressional Aviation Subcommittee which is nixing, on a bipartisan basis, the proposed Bush 70 cent/gallon fuel tax hike and user fees. The Bush Administration is trying to create a false sense of emergency among the general public about changing the Air Traffic Control. (ATC)

The real purpose of these aviation tax increases is to make up for lost tax revenues from Bush tax cuts for the uberwealthy and to make up for vastly increased spending on the war in Iraq all of which have added tremendously to our national debt.

Because the aviation community is relatively small when compared to other groups upon which the government might raise taxes, it is my belief they thought could slide these taxes in on us "under the radar" so to speak because they felt that no one would notice or complain in a highly public way.

Here are the facts:

1) General Aviation (GA) stays out of Class B airspace (all cited airports in the article were Class B) if at all possible because of the hassle involved - particularly in NY and Washington due to all the restricted air space post 9/11. For that matter, we also generally try to avoid operating from Class C airports for similar reasons. It's much easier to fly from smaller Class D and uncontrolled fields and it's usually much closer to our final destinations anyways.

2) In the struggle between safety and user fees, safety always loses. User fees create a serious financial disincentive to file flight plans, get weather reports, use flight following, use the Instrument Flight Rules system and other ATC resources to insure safe operations.

3) Right now our GA operations are extremely safe due to conscientious, careful, and well trained pilots. If we switch to user fees and/or privatize the system, safety will fall by the wayside. No one will notice that safety has lapsed for a while until a spectacular accident occurs that would have been utterly unheard of and preventable under the existing SAFETY focused ATC system.

4) Such a dramatic increase in tax burden will literally kill the GA industry costing tens of thousands of jobs around the country and will inevitably result in some pilots engaging in technically legal yet still unsafe behaviors such as not filing flight plans in order to minimize the increased costs on themselves.

The money raised by increasing taxes on GA pilots will be more than offset by the detrimental effect on the economy, the increased cost of accident investigations and the money lost to increased death, injury, and property damage. It is better and cheaper to preemptively invest our tax dollars in insuring safety of operations rather than pay to clean up the extra accidents afterwards.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Airport saftey - FAA - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association - Air Traffic Control - User Fees

Simple questions for conservatives about environmentalism

Doug De Clue — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:00:00 -0500

For all of you conservatives who don't believe in global warming, I have questions:

Please explain to me, even if you don't accept global warming, why is it okay to be wasteful of your own money and resources? What's so "conservative" about that?

After all shouldn't conservatives "conserve"?

How is it "in your own rational self-interest" to be wasteful - even if you are an Ayn Randian, CATO Institute loving, Libertarian? If I told you I could save you $30 in energy costs by replacing a single incandescent bulb in your house with an equivalent fluorescent bulb and another $10 in replacement bulb costs, why would you intentionally throw away $40?

How is it patriotic to unnecessarily waste energy that we must obtain at great cost of national blood and treasure in the Middle East from countries that don't particularly like us?

How is it patriotic to waste important materials in "a time of war" if you believe that this is indeed a time of war as the President claims? In World War II, we rationed gas, car pooled, and recycled everything. A famous war poster of that time said it well "If you're riding alone, you're riding with Hitler". Why is it that we feel no need to recycle or conserve anything in this war?

Finally, how is it "Christian" to be bad stewards of God's creation through waste, pollution, and extravagant consumption if you believe that God created this Earth? Remember that to those to whom much has been given, much will be expected.

Perhaps the reason you've never asked these questions yourself is because so many of the world's problems seem hopeless and we often find ourselves giving up on solving them.

Instead, we disengage and deny. We distract ourselves with meaningless nonsense rather than face the problems at hand.

Therefore, while you are wrestling with the answers, here are a few things you can do that don't require you to change your ideology or political affiliation.

Start by replacing the light bulbs in your house with fluorescent bulbs. Over its lifetime, a 23 watt fluorescent will produce the same light as a 100 watt incandescent, last 13 times as long and save you about $40 in the process. Who couldn't use an extra $40?
Set the thermostat to save you money when you leave the house to go to work. In the winter time turn down the temperature when you leave to 62F. In the summertime turn up the temperature to 82F Why heat or cool an empty house for 6 or 8 hours when you aren't there?
Replace that old glass tube CRT with a new LCD screen. It will pay for itself in electrical costs in about a year if you use it a lot.
Learn how to use the energy saving features of your computer. All computers built in the last 5 years or so have energy saving features to turn off the hard drives and monitor after a certain period of inactivity and to go into hibernation if not used after a somewhat longer period. This will save you money and save on greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.
Listen to you dad. Don't leave the TV, lights or other appliances running 24/7 or leave all the lights on or other appliances going when you aren't using them. That's just money down the drain and more global warming for no good reason.
Get an energy audit performed on your home - many utility companies will do this upon request at no charge. They will inspect your home and make recommendations for you on how to save energy in your particular home like installing better insulation, better door and window seals, appliances, etc.
Install a flow conserving shower nozzle. These cost about ten bucks at the hardware store, you still get quite a satisfying shower, but the hot water lasts a lot longer and you use far less of it. This is another easy way to save money and reduce greenhouse gases at the same time.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Global Warming - Stuff you can do - Environmentalism

jetBlue vs. Clinton. Why Hillary Clinton won't be President, but next time I go to New York , I'll fly jetBlue.

Doug De Clue — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:20:00 -0500

Earlier this month the airline "jetBlue" inadvertently stranded many passengers during the horrendous weather conditions that hit the Northeast. Although this problem was largely beyond the control of any airline, David Neeleman, jetBlue's CEO, quickly recognized that many of his customers were angry.

Last week, as a previous passenger of jetBlue, I received an email from Neeleman, even though I wasn't one of the stranded passengers. He didn't offer me a sale price to distract me from their mistakes - instead he offered me something I value more - a sincere apology.

David Neeleman gets it - when you make a mistake, you apologize, promptly, straight forwardly, without reservations and without weasel words - and then - you do what you can to make it right.

Most Democrats in the Senate also understand this... especially the ones who voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.

Practically every Democrat who voted for the invasion of Iraq; including John Kerry, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd have already apologized. The only two holdouts I know of are Hillary Clinton of New York and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut - who technically isn't a Democrat.

John Edwards was already following the David Neeleman model as far back as 2005 when I saw him speak at the Florida Democratic Party Convention where he publicly apologized for his vote in front of the audience - It was prompt, it was straight forward, without the weasel words of a polished lawyer, and without any reservations. He wanted to do what he could to make it right - he said he would redeploy the troops as President.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, can't bring herself to say those three simple words - "I am sorry".

In many ways this flaw causes her most likely allies - such as Progressives, African Americans and women - to associate her behavior with that of an obstinate Lieberman or "decider" George W. Bush.

Saying "I'm sorry" is simple and profound. Saying it can help redeem an airline after a blunder. Not saying it will be the the reason that Senator Clinton loses in her bid to be the next President of the United States.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: jetBlue - Iraq War - apologise - Hillary Clinton - 2008 Presidential Race

Okay, we get it: Anna Nicole Smith is dead - can we all please move along?

Doug De Clue — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:30:18 -0500

Here's a lyric particularly apropo this week:

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde

who comes on at five,

She can tell you 'bout the plane crash

with a gleam in her eye

It's interesting when people die

Give us dirty laundry.

- Don Henley, 1982, "Dirty Laundry"

Can someone please tell me why the corporate media is so bent on airing Anna Nicole Smith's dirty laundry on my television?

Who cares about this crap?

You know this is just the exploitation of people's lurid interests. In fact, anyone with three working brain cells understands the vapidness of the story; yet Anna Nicole Smith's story loops over and over again on the news cycle.

Stop it, stop it, stop it!!!

On how many wild limousine rides with silly bubble headed heiresses must I ride along?

I would care more if the people involved had real talents or had contributed substantially somehow to society, art, politics, science, culture, athletics, or even the lives of their own families and friends in some meaningful way.

Heck, at least the astronaut here in Orlando, Florida had done something real with her life before she went around the bend.

But Anna Nicole Smith? Sheesh, I have lawn furniture that has contributed more to humanity than she ever did.

I don't know if re-hashing Smith's death is a sign that we are going the way of ancient Rome; but at least in Rome they had "Bread and Circuses". Today there is no bread, we just get the circus.

Frankly, I suspect that if the mad Emperor Nero were able to watch what passes for news these days he would be demand to know "Just what the f*** is going on here? - You people are f***ing insane!"

Instead of providing real news about real subjects like the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, real suffering in Darfur, those still suffering in New Orleans, or what really goes on in government; the corporate media distracts us with non stop nonsense about the latest celebrity scandal.

The obsession with Anna Nicole Smith is just another example of how the corporate media has failed us utterly.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Anna Nicole Smith - media feeding frenzy - Nero - bread and circuses

Note: This was edited with Paul -V-.

Minimum Wage is not a "States Rights" issue

Doug De Clue — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:00:00 -0500

Recently, a friend of mine sent an email to Senator Mel Martinez of Florida asking him to defend his initial opposition to raising the minimum wage. In response, the Senator wrote:

"Minimum wage decisions should be left to individual states, and not dictated by the federal government."

Thankfully, the Senator did eventually give in to the will of the People and voted for the increase. Kudos to him.

However, I would like to address the link between "states rights" and the minimum wage. I'm sure it's an excuse we'll hear again from Republicans as they oppose measures that improve the plight of the working poor.

Frankly, I'm amazed that conservatives still love to brandy the "states rights" concept despite the many times it has shot them in the foot.

Isn't "states rights" exactly the same excuse used by the pro-Slavery faction in the ante-bellum South, and later by racists at the height of the segregation?

Repeatedly, those who wish to deny their fellow citizens economic and political reform - both Democrat and Republican - have used "states rights" to give themselves a fig-leaf of respectability during the debate over human rights. I suppose it's easier to talk about "states rights", than to openly admit to being a racist, a homophobe, or, in the case against raising the minimum wage, a classist.

Even if one ignores all the times "states rights" has been used to justify bad social policy; the bottom line is that setting a minimum wage is not a "states rights" issue even with the most conservative reading of the United States Constitution.

Senator Martinez needs to re-read Article I Section 8 which grants congress the power: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Congress therefore, certainly does have the power to establish or change a national minimum wage under it's interstate commerce powers.

So if you want to fight against raising the minimum wage, do so on sound economic policy. The "states rights" argument simply does not hold water

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: States Rights - Minimum Wage - Senator Martinez - Florida

Note: This post was co-written by Paul -V-.

Chief Abu Bakar Cendol vs George W. Bush

Doug De Clue — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:00:00 -0500

I received a story in my monthly newsletter from the American Red Cross about the village chief of Punge Jerong, Indonesia.

The Red Cross didn't have any particular agenda in sending me this, other than perhaps raising money for their relief efforts, but I was struck nevertheless by the dramatic contrast in the levels of leadership demonstrated by Chief Cendol following the 2005 Christmas Tsunami in Indonesia, and that of President George Bush after Hurricane Katrina right here in the United States.

As Chief Cendol put it: "People were wet, tired, hungry and completely devastated, and it was my job as village leader to bring this village back.”

He understood right away that it was his responsibility to help his people.

Today, two years after the tsunami, Chief Cendol has still not returned to his ice cream vending business because he feels it is more important to put a roof back over his neighbors' heads - as he put it: "“How can I sell ice cream to a friend who has no home? I can’t do it, not now, not when people have so little.”

That, my friends, is true compassion combined with a strong sense of duty.

Now compare Cendol's attitude and actions with President Bush's in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Where the chief of Punge Jerong immediately got to work on the recovery, our own Commander In Chief simply went through the motions and "phoned in" performances because he would not, could not, put himself in the place of Katrina's victims.

And this - above all, says everything you need to know about the Presidents ability to feel, or act out of, compassion.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: leadership - Abu Bakar Cendol - 2005 tsunami - Bush - Katrina - Heck of a job!

Still think the "Surge" strategy in Iraq will work? Look at these graphs.

Doug De Clue — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:30:00 -0500

In response to President Bush's January 10th speech in support of a "surge" of troops to Iraq in order to put down the popular insurgency, I decided to compare some historical data with our past experiences during the Vietnam occupation, which was also an insurgent guerrilla war.

This research resulted in two visual-aides that have a lot to teach us about the effectiveness of a "surge" to pacify a country - something an earlier generation called "escalation".

The graph on the left is a comparison of US troop levels in Iraq before, and after, the President's proposed surge - with the relative populations of Iraq in 2006; and then compared with the number of troops stationed in South Vietnam in 1968 and it's population at the time.

During the Vietnam War the US had 537,377 troops stationed in South Vietnam; which had a population of 16 million people. This meant there was about one American soldier for every 29.77 South Vietnamese.

By comparison, in Iraq today we have approximately 133,000 soldiers for over 26,783,383 Iraqis, or, approximately one person in uniform for every 201. Even after the President's proposed "surge" of 21,000 new pairs of boots on the ground, these ratios will not appreciably change; the number only goes down to about one per 174 Iraqis.

And if these numbers don't illustrate the odds against a "surge" in troop strength defeating the rebellion in Iraq, here's another:

The chart to the right compares the land areas of South Vietnam and Iraq. South Vietnam had an area of approximately 65,000 square miles, as opposed to 168,805 square miles for Iraq. There were about 8.26 American soldiers for every square mile of in South Vietnam. Today in Iraq there is only 0.78 of a soldier for every square mile of Iraq. Even with the proposed surge, this number goes up to only 0.91.

What this means is that the American soldier serving in Iraq must not only protect 576% more people as his (or her) Vietnam counterpart, but also must also 949% more land area. Post surge this will still be 484% more people and 806% more land than the Vietnam soldier.

All the data begs the question: Even with post-surge numbers, if the US military could not control South Vietnam with 537,377 troops; then how can anyone honestly believe we can subjugate a country one and a half times more populous, and with and area two and half times larger - with a force only 29% the size?

Madness. Pure Madness.

To achieve the same force ratio we had in Vietnam in 1968 in Iraq today in terms of U.S. troops to indigenous population we would need to have 899,548 troops in Iraq.

To achieve the same force ratio we had in Vietnam in 1968 in Iraq today in terms of U.S. troops to land area we would need to have 1,395,568 troops in Iraq.

To split the difference between these two numbers, the middle of the range would be 1,147,558 troops in Iraq.

And remember, all this would be just to achieve parity with our situation in 1968 Vietnam - it would not guarantee success.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Surge - Iraq - Vietnam - escalation - comparison - graphs - charts - Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

NOTE: This article was co-written by Paul -V-

Sources:

South Vietnam population in 1968: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/vietnam.htm
US troops in South Vietnam: 537,377 according to the Heritage foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/troopMarch2005.xls
Land area of South Vietnam: http://www.145thcab.com/civic.html
Iraqi population: 26,783,383 and land area 437,072 km^2 (168,805 sq miles) : https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html
US troop levels in Iraq in 2006: 133,000 as of March 2006: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat.htm. (Bush mentioned 21,000 troops in his speech as the surge.)