|
|
| Democratic Congress, GOP President, and Iraq |
| Thursday, November 09, 2006 |
The Democrats and the Republicans have been slinging mud for months, so why should anyone imagine that they are getting ready to play nice. The relationship between the Democratic congressman and the President should be especially rancid, when one recalls how little respect these parties have shown for one another in the last couple of years.
Tuesday's Democratic election victory was by any measure decisive, yet in the perspective of history also unsurprising. In the sixth year of a two-term Presidency, Americans rebuked Republicans on Capitol Hill who had forgotten their principles and a President who hasn't won the Iraq war he started. While a thumping defeat for the GOP, the vote was about competence, not ideological change. (Full Article) What is striking to me is that the Democrat's have claimed to have extremely strong opinions about the President and have questioned the legality of a number of his programs, including domestic surveillance, the move to go war in Iraq, CIA interrogations, the meeting prior to the drafting of legislation for the energy bill, and the list goes on. If the Democrats truly feel that all of these acts were so dire and reprehensible and that the President has made the country significantly less safe, it is their duty to impeach. If they fail to move towards impeachment, as they almost certainly will, the proof is in the pudding that all of their concerns are fluff and the claims and criticisms have been primarily for political expediency.
Overall, however, this represents a good shift, if that is possible, because a number of incumbents were removed. The problems that are in congress are part partisan and mostly systemic. The aggregated whole of the congress is tainted with egregious levels of dishonesty and it will be good to have some new faces on the hill, because the new guys are more inclined to watch there step as the build a basis for re-election. Houseclean in the power rooms is good for us all.
One area where this may work well and cause the speedy passage of much needed legislation is the are of Immigration Reform. The President's plan seems to have been better received by the Left than the right and it could be a move towards some type of solution that would work to stem the tide of invasion. This will be an interesting two years to watch, but Bush at this point is essentially a lame duck, so the trades that will be made to get any of his desired legislation through will be pretty big.
What is striking to me is that the Democrat's have claimed to have extremely strong opinions about the President and have questioned the legality of a number of his programs, including domestic surveillance, the move to go war in Iraq, CIA interrogations, the meeting prior to the drafting of legislation for the energy bill, and the list goes on. If the Democrats truly feel that all of these acts were so dire and reprehensible and that the President has made the country significantly less safe, it is their duty to impeach. If they fail to move towards impeachment, as they almost certainly will, the proof is in the pudding that all of their concerns are fluff and the claims and criticisms have been primarily for political expediency.
Overall, however, this represents a good shift, if that is possible, because a number of incumbents were removed. The problems that are in congress are part partisan and mostly systemic. The aggregated whole of the congress is tainted with egregious levels of dishonesty and it will be good to have some new faces on the hill, because the new guys are more inclined to watch there step as the build a basis for re-election. A housecleaning in the power rooms is good for us all.
One area where this may work well and cause the speedy passage of much needed legislation is the are of Immigration Reform. The President's plan seems to have been better received by the Left than the right and it could be a move towards some type of solution that would work to stem the tide of invasion. This will be an interesting two years to watch, but Bush at this point is essentially a lame duck, so the trades that will be made to get any of his desired legislation through will be pretty big.
As far as Iraq, it is anybody's guess what will happen. This is the pet project of the Whitehouse and they have demonstrated little true interest in leaving Iraq anytime without having a place to put the troops in the Middle East, such as Iran. The Saudi public does not want our army in their country, the Kuwaiti's prefer not to have any foreign armies in their country, and we have to have a place to put our forces. The Middle East is too critical a region to be left to itself. The US has too great an interest in the politics and resources of the region, including the shipping routes.
The problem in Iraq - if it can be reduced to one - is that there are too many problems to reasonably address without invading the country again and leveling every structure in it.
The "enemy" is now resident to the land. Like it or not the insurgency is fed and supported by enough of the public, that in the absence of US presence they are the real government. The government that has been elected is not the master of the country and that is why they will not be quick to ask the US to leave either. Many of the leaders in that government are all too aware that the life expectancy would be greatly shortened, if they did.
With that said Iraq is not the key to the US security strategy - and, unfortunately, the domestic surveillance programs and our military technology are. They attack on 9/11 did not come from abroad even if the plans originated in some cave. The attacks on 9/11 demonstrated a breakdown in our domestic systems and the wars we are in now are dog waggings and resource grabs. And, for better or worse, these actions have expanded the US-influence and demonstrated the ability of the US to establish and enforce law throughout the world. It is definitely going to bruise some egos out there, but that was the point.
Anyway, let the good times roll. Let's see what the Congress does to deal with the Iraq issue. Let's see how well they define their terms. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) had an opinion editorial titled, "Confessions of a 'Defeatocrat'" in October. An excerpt from this article is found below.
Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."
It's all baseless name calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure. His point is sound the Republican's have invested a lot of time in name calling - a great deal of it baseless and a great deal more misleading. It is the "Rovians" who have made withdrawal from Iraq equal defeat in Iraq. There is nothing farther from the truth, our military won the war. It did what is was designed to do, with minimal loss of life. The rising US body count and the unrest in Iraq is a result of asking the military to do something it is not designed to do. Militaries enforce martial law they do not build nations. In the modern, world the business of trade builds nations. Unfortunately, in Iraq, the portions of the population intent on taking action have other priorities such as ethnic cleansing. No one in his or her right mind should arm Iraq in its current state. That would be the same as walking into a juvenile detention system and handing out guns, because the kids their cannot participate in the economy and purchase their own. People use their weapons in Iraq and the militias are not under the control of any legitimate government.
Despite the elections that Iraq has had - the present government lacks legitimacy and this is why it fails to be the one clear source of authority in the country. Additionally, the creation of this stooge government and the fast tracking of Iraq towards independence has diminished our military's ability to act with absolute impunity and snuff out the problem in the country. The strategy was mottled and ill-considered from the start. The President's administration has focused a great deal on semantics of the strategy and too little on the merits. It is the semantics that have been used that have linked a stigma of failure to withdrawal from Iraq. It would be cheaper to leave the country and then invade it as necessary to keep it in line. If you look at the Iraqi constitution you will see that this is just another problem brewing. |
posted by Domesticated Dog @ 8:38 PM   |
|
| 1 Comments: |
-
If they fail to move towards impeachment, as they almost certainly will, the proof is in the pudding that all of their concerns are fluff and the claims and criticisms have been primarily for political expediency. The Republican numbers aren't available in the senate to evict Bush and Cheney from office. It will just be a wasted form of theatre. Oh, yes, they're murderers, thieves and debasers of the Constitution all right. But with a bought and paid for media, what can you do? The Dems are trying to triage the country while 'Wonderboy' wants to bomb Iran.
No one in his or her right mind should arm Iraq in its current state. That would be the same as walking into a juvenile detention system and handing out guns, because the kids their cannot participate in the economy and purchase their own. Most Iraqis already had weapons, if only to defend themselves from Saddam. Where were the US troops who were supposed to be guarding the looted weapons dumps? Oh, and shut down the Iraqi police and military..that'll really maintain order, won't it?
There's some nasty themes in your remark "juvenile detention system" (is that how you see the Iraqi people?), "kids" (they're adults),"cannot participate in the economy" (the chaos in Iraq is a prosecutable war crime against the US...'Desert Crossing' in 2000 told them they'd need 400,000 troops to maintain order...they sent in 160,000 and chaos followed...that's a war crime...it's not the Iraqis fault),"and purchase their own [guns]" (which is why we earn money in the first place, isn't it?... to purchase guns. Wow, what a mean little philosophy you have.
The problem in Iraq - if it can be reduced to one - is that there are too many problems to reasonably address without invading the country again and leveling every structure in it. ..."destroy the village to save it" you mean? What a pathetic, miserable little philosophy you have. Do you understand how much death, suffering and misery is behind your idea there?
With that said Iraq is not the key to the US security strategy - and, unfortunately, the domestic surveillance programs and our military technology are. Total rubbish. The US is bankrupt because of its idiotically misplaced expenditure on military technology. The 'remedy' will be a slide in the value of the dollar, reduced social services and an impoverished US people, and for what? - astronomic Lockheed and Haliburton profits? Your domestic surveillance program is nothing more or less than big brother on steroids. And it won't stop the terrorist (what few there are!). Ali Mohammed got into the US and worked as Osama's spy because the US hired him as a CIA agent in Egypt! 16 of the 19 terrorists from 9/11 got dodgy visas coming through Jeddah because the CIA had been rubber-stamping islamists to come in and train with them for years in order to beat the Russians in Afghanistan.
Look, no disrespect intended, but forget the grand theories. Go and do some homework. The world is not Economics 101 (which is rubbish economics anyway!). The rest of the world is made up of real people, decent people who want nothing more than clean water, the chance for their kids to be educated and an end to western economic exploitation. Following 9/11 the US could have spent $500 billion on schools and medical centres in the Middle East. The American flag would have been welcomed across a continent, al Qaeda would have ceased to exist, and they'd have been giving 'Wonderboy' the Nobel Peace Prize. But noooo...'Wonderboy' trashes the Middle East for a few oil cronies and disgruntled Israelis. What a load of unmitigated *******!!!!!!
Get an education, lad. You don't know anything.
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
If they fail to move towards impeachment, as they almost certainly will, the proof is in the pudding that all of their concerns are fluff and the claims and criticisms have been primarily for political expediency. The Republican numbers aren't available in the senate to evict Bush and Cheney from office. It will just be a wasted form of theatre. Oh, yes, they're murderers, thieves and debasers of the Constitution all right. But with a bought and paid for media, what can you do? The Dems are trying to triage the country while 'Wonderboy' wants to bomb Iran.
No one in his or her right mind should arm Iraq in its current state. That would be the same as walking into a juvenile detention system and handing out guns, because the kids their cannot participate in the economy and purchase their own. Most Iraqis already had weapons, if only to defend themselves from Saddam. Where were the US troops who were supposed to be guarding the looted weapons dumps? Oh, and shut down the Iraqi police and military..that'll really maintain order, won't it?
There's some nasty themes in your remark "juvenile detention system" (is that how you see the Iraqi people?), "kids" (they're adults),"cannot participate in the economy" (the chaos in Iraq is a prosecutable war crime against the US...'Desert Crossing' in 2000 told them they'd need 400,000 troops to maintain order...they sent in 160,000 and chaos followed...that's a war crime...it's not the Iraqis fault),"and purchase their own [guns]" (which is why we earn money in the first place, isn't it?... to purchase guns. Wow, what a mean little philosophy you have.
The problem in Iraq - if it can be reduced to one - is that there are too many problems to reasonably address without invading the country again and leveling every structure in it. ..."destroy the village to save it" you mean? What a pathetic, miserable little philosophy you have. Do you understand how much death, suffering and misery is behind your idea there?
With that said Iraq is not the key to the US security strategy - and, unfortunately, the domestic surveillance programs and our military technology are. Total rubbish. The US is bankrupt because of its idiotically misplaced expenditure on military technology. The 'remedy' will be a slide in the value of the dollar, reduced social services and an impoverished US people, and for what? - astronomic Lockheed and Haliburton profits? Your domestic surveillance program is nothing more or less than big brother on steroids. And it won't stop the terrorist (what few there are!). Ali Mohammed got into the US and worked as Osama's spy because the US hired him as a CIA agent in Egypt! 16 of the 19 terrorists from 9/11 got dodgy visas coming through Jeddah because the CIA had been rubber-stamping islamists to come in and train with them for years in order to beat the Russians in Afghanistan.
Look, no disrespect intended, but forget the grand theories. Go and do some homework. The world is not Economics 101 (which is rubbish economics anyway!). The rest of the world is made up of real people, decent people who want nothing more than clean water, the chance for their kids to be educated and an end to western economic exploitation. Following 9/11 the US could have spent $500 billion on schools and medical centres in the Middle East. The American flag would have been welcomed across a continent, al Qaeda would have ceased to exist, and they'd have been giving 'Wonderboy' the Nobel Peace Prize. But noooo...'Wonderboy' trashes the Middle East for a few oil cronies and disgruntled Israelis. What a load of unmitigated *******!!!!!!
Get an education, lad. You don't know anything.