Let me start with the observation that I did not invite the missive from the Jeanne Shaheen campaign to be dropped in my in-box, nor did I forward my address in anticipation of getting either policy missives or requests for donations. So, in a sense, this is the internet version of the robo call and the extension of the opt-out policy to this medium of communication is not welcome, since it's the strategy spammers rely on to validate that the addresses they have purchased are active.

Analysis of the communication follows after the break.

Dear Monica

Today I delivered a major policy address on national security at St. Anselm College in Manchester. Click to watch the speech.

I told the audience there that keeping our people safe from harm is the preeminent responsibility of both the President and the U.S. Congress. But instead of pursuing a national security policy that makes us stronger and more secure, our policies have stretched our military to the limit and made us less safe. We need to move in a new direction. And, we need to start in Iraq.

Well, that's the Republican argument--that the people need to be protected and, therefor, designate government to shield them from adversity. But, not only is that not possible, it's not even what the Constitution calls for. It's not the people who are to be "secured"--tied down or locked up--to keep them safe. Rather, it's the benefits of social organization, such as the "pursuit of happiness" which the agents of government are charged to provide.

The argument that a strong military makes the nation safe is belied by the facts. There's no question that our military forces were stronger five years ago than they are now. Yet it was five years ago that a suicidal band of Arabs shocked the globe by flying into the buildings on Manhattan Island and Arlington, virginia.

Our men and women serving in Iraq have done a remarkable job. But they are in the middle of a civil war as Iraqis fight each other for control. Iraq's civil war cannot be solved with American military might. Military and civilian leaders agree the ultimate solution to Iraq is political, not military.

If there is a civil war in Iraq (nothing's civil about hellfire missiles and five hundred pound bombs and IEDs buried in the ground), it is a turmoil that's been created by the United State military invasion and the dislocation or killing of a fifth of the Iraqi population.

That there are some Iraqis willing to agree to the long-term occupation of their country should not be surprising. After all, the American colonies had a goodly number of Tories who were happy for the British to stay.

That the opinions of "leaders" who have made such a mess in Iraq is being cited, by a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate, as authorities on what should happen next is disappointing, to say the least. Since even the "political solution" most often referenced is for the Iraqis to reconcile themselves to a long-term United States presence on mega bases (John McCain is serious in suggesting a hundred years), each of which is as large as the island of Manhattan, the reference to leaders tells me that the Shaheen campaign has not been attending to the vast majority of the American people who want the troops (all the troops) home.

The civil war in Iraq is a poor excuse--almost as bad as the lie about weapons of mass destruction--for a continued U.S. presence in the cradle of civilization which our Air Force has been bombing continuously for five years. Telling ourselves a new fairy tale is not going to impress the people on the ground. Nor their neighbors either.

It's time to begin the work of bringing our troops home safely and responsibly - by setting a firm date to begin and by planning a phased withdrawal with guidance from our top military advisors that protects the safety of our troops. It's time to send a clear message to Iraq's political and military factions that we will help, but that it is their responsibility to choose their country's future.

Again, there is no reason to credit the military advisors who have promoted the invasion and occupation of an inoffensive Iraq--not the active and not the retired (75 have been identified as providing self-serving and crony promoting advice to the media) military "experts" who have watched over 4000 killed in theater without blanching and countenanced hundreds of thousands injured in body and mind. To speak about safety when 500 veterans a week are killing themselves is obscene.

Besides, under our system of government, it's the representatives of the people, the Congress, that's supposed to be directing the military. Is candidate Shaheen committed to shutting off funding for all but the dismantling of the bases and the withdrawal of all military personnel?

While the Iraq government is earning more than $50 billion a year in oil revenues, American taxpayers are funding reconstruction in Iraq, spending an estimated $47 billion.

Aside from the fact that it's customary in all societies for those who break things to make amends and try to fix them, every audit that been conducted demonstrates that the reconstruction hasn't happened and that it's simply United States and Kuwaiti contractors who are getting rich, pocketing the dollars. Never mind that it would take total idiots to rebuild what is sure to be destroyed by the 100+ daily sorties the USAF is conducting to dispatch missiles and bombs against "suspicious" buildings and people.

If we want an independent Iraq to emerge, we must end Iraq's dependence on U.S. tax dollars, just as we must end its dependence on the U.S. military. But right now, the Bush Administration has yet another request before Congress - $590 million more - for Iraq reconstruction.

While our nation has been caught in a civil war in Iraq, al Qaeda has been getting stronger. Our nation's intelligence agencies have been very clear: al Qaeda's central leadership has regrouped, it is more powerful now than at any time since the September 11 attacks, and it poses a grave threat to the U.S. homeland.

The only way one can say that the U.S. "has been caught" is if one imagines a hand and a cookie jar. And, as far as al Qaeda (a CIA invention to begin with) "getting stronger" is concerned, that's probably related to the fact that going on a wild goose chase in Iraq was clearly not designed to weaken what our own clandestine service, the CIA, created. Taking the CIA's word, or N.S.A.'s for that matter, stretches credulity.

Al Qaeda is reorganizing and once again directing worldwide terrorist attacks from the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States should be focusing resources and energy where the terrorist threat is greatest, in the remote mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is precisely the region that lost our attention and focus when we pulled our troops off the trail of Bin Laden. Instead, we sent those troops and many others to Baghdad.

As does this assertion--it stretches credulity. Expecting the American people to believe that our satellites and AWACS can intercept electronic communications, but we don't know where they came from is really playing them for rubes. Perhaps Republicans are so clueless, but Democrats know better. Why else does candidate Shaheen think both the House and Senate have rejected Administration demands for enhanced electronic surveillance permits, if not because the spy agencies already have much more capability than they are, apparently, actually prepared to use? Which, of course, was the problem seven years ago.

But, it this sentence which is really bothersome.

This is precisely the region that lost our attention and focus when we pulled our troops off the trail of Bin Laden.

Because it suggests that candidate Shaheen suffers from an increasingly common problem--the inability to clearly identify who's doing what to whom and who's actually responsible for what. A region cannot lose attention, or anything else, since it is not a sentient agent. Moreover, the image of troops on a trail is not only simplistic, but the association of "we" with whatever happened is completely unwarranted. We the people had nothing to do with the deception perpetrated by the leaders.

The oil revenue we send to the Middle East also threatens our national security. Every year Americans send approximately $77 billion to Persian Gulf countries, some of whom are hostile to our interests. In doing so, Americans are funding both sides of the conflict in Iraq. Our tax dollars fund our troops and our oil and gas dollars fund their enemies. We must break this cycle. There is no more time to waste.

Here, too, candidate Shaheen displays an apparent inability to keep straight what's going on. Money spent to pay for someone else's natural resources is not "revenue." It's an expense. Moreover, it's an appropriate expense, unless we want to return to the days of thievery.

Moreover, since there are not two sides in Iraq (multiple indigenous clans resisting an invader is not a side), what's perhaps correct is that we are paying for the same oil twice--once on the effort to steal it and a second time in the increasing price being charged by the neighbors. Which suggests that the U.S. is being suckered and it's time to get out of the game.

We are a stronger nation when we engage with the international community, when we join forces with our allies, and when we talk to our enemies. America is at its best when we lead through the power of our ideals, not just the power of our military. When we abide by the Geneva Conventions and outlaw torture in all forms, we make America stronger. We can protect Americans' constitutional rights and our national security.

At this point, "stronger" hardly seems the issue. The U.S. has not only demonstrated weakness, but done the international community grievous wrong. Our ideals, such as honesty, truth and fair dealing have been revealed as hollow.

Rights are not something to be protected but to be exercised and, in the event they are not honored by the agents of government, to be enforced by the people from whom all power flows. The Constitution is a limiting document--setting up the parameters beyond which the agents of government may not go (a principle that should be clear to anyone who's played "mother, may I" as a child).

We again need to understand that part of leadership is accountability - accountability for military contractors, accountability for how the money we send overseas is spent, and accountability for how we treat our veterans.

Actually, what needs to be understood is that accountability is an indispensable component of AGENCY. Republicans may think in terms of leaders because they are reluctant to make decisions for themselves. But, hopefully, that's not what Democrats are about selecting.

We need new leadership in Washington that understands national security is not about politics. National security cannot be about politics. When it comes to national security, we must put aside partisan differences.

Well, if politics is about allocating responsibility and who tells whom what to do, then the unity of the nation is certainly a political matter. Especially, since there seems to be some fundamental confusion about the direction in which power flows. If Republicans are convinced that the purpose of government is to tell the people what to do and Democrats believe that the purpose of government is to do the will of the people, then that's a distinction that can't be put aside. It's not simply a question about who's taking whom for a walk--you or the dog.

By rebuilding international alliances, condemning torture, demanding accountability and keeping our promises to our veterans, we can again lead with our values. These values have made us a beacon of freedom for the world. They should never, ever be abandoned. National security that is based on American values makes us stronger.

"Values" have become a hot topic. But, actions speak louder than words and, by their actions, our agents have demonstrated that they value sick children over healthy ones, stealth fighters over passenger trains, warfighters over educators, secrecy over truth-telling, electronic gadgets over clean water and air, and paternal authority over equality.

The world has changed dramatically over the past several years, but one thing that has not changed is the American people. The American people are ready to meet any challenge and face any foe. The American people want to serve our country.

Nothing has changed when it comes to human behavior. Some people lie and cheat and steal and some people think it's clever to let them get away with it--that people who are too dense to recognize the evil deserve to be abused. To suggest that the American people are destined to "serve" an abstraction ("our country"), and to like it, is to mistake, IMHO, what the United States is about. We elect public servants. That's true. But it's their purpose to carry out the duties we the people assign. Those not willing to serve need not apply.