Common Lies And Misperceptions About Minimum Wage Workers
Minimum wage in this country has been ridiculously low for a ridiculously long time, while members of Congress received annual raises, many Americans lived with the same low income in a world that is increasingly becoming more expensive.
Big money and Conservatives have argued for years that raising minimum wage was counterproductive, words that sound harsh to the ears of people who routinely have to choose between toilet paper and food.
To put it this way, someone who works full time (40 hours a week) that is making $5.25 an hour will only make $210 a week, before taxes. In a mid sized city, such as the one I live in, a one bedroom apartment can go from anywhere from $400-$600 a month, in larger cities the price is higher.
Assuming we are paying $500 a month for rent alone that eats away half our monthly income in one shot, and we still have utilities to pay. In a state such as the one I live in, Michigan, it is not uncommon for a gas bill in the winter to range at low $100 to a high of $200 plus. So now $600 of our monthly income is already spent, leaving approximately $200 to pay all other utilities, buy food with, provide personal hygiene products with and pay for transportation with.
The way I figure it, even living frugally minimum wage workers have very little chance to succeed and live at least a somewhat comfortable life.
You would hope that there would not be people in this country who were so unimaginably cruel that they believed that people who were at a lesser advantage did not deserve something more.
But there are, and they come making false claims about the America worker, their worth and whether or not the workers actually deserve the raise, even though this country boasts of being the richest in the world.
Take example Conservative columnist Mona Charen, who's views most likely reflect those of the Conservative snobarchy in right wing America.
Charen tries to make the case that American minimum wage workers do not really need, nor deserve a raise. How pleasant of this pro-life mother of three to proclaim that working families do not actually need a raise.
I am assuming Charen has never endured the grinding wheels of a real working life, nor has she actually ever tried to live on the budget of a minimum wage worker, so her ability to determine the worth of American workers is.. well.. worthless.
Charen launches into her "the poor don't deserve more help" column by writing
"Fewer than one in five minimum wage workers lives in a family with income below the poverty line."
According to that statistic that means 4 out of 5 minimum wage workers do not have children and are only reliant on themselves for income. So is Charen trying to say that people without children do not need to have an income above the poverty line to sustain a high quality of life? That no one needs to be concerned about minimum wage workers, because many of them are single?
A one person unit is considered as living in poverty if they make less than $9,750 a year in the 48 Contiguous States and D.C. A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week will make 10,920 in a year, putting the worker just over $1,000 over the poverty line.
A unit of four, with two full time working adults at minimum wage will only clear the poverty line by about $2,000 in a year and that is with two adults working full time.
Other arguments Charen makes against the poor as follows:
"more than 82 percent of minimum wage workers have no dependents"
Is that to suggest that because one has no dependants they should be doomed to working hard for relatively little reward, to barely get by in the richest country in the world?
In fact, people should rejoice that the average minimum wage worker has no dependants, because if they did, because of their low incomes they would be forced to ask for additional help from the government threw welfare programs.
"Minimum wage workers tend to be young (under 25) and single (often they are students working part time)," Charen writes.
So, I see. Because some are young, tend to be single and go to school they do not need more money! I get it, they need less money! That way they have to work more hours just to make ends meet so they can never graduate from college and never get ahead! It's so clear now.
Now here is the statement that has me confounded, Charen writes that
"a full 40 percent come from homes with an annual income of $60,000"
If that statistic were true it would have to mean that there were at least five adults in one household who were all working full time for minimum wage, and that idea just doesn't hold water.
In the past I have lived on minimum wage and know for a fact hat it isn't fun, it isn't easy and sitting a mere couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars above the poverty line and it does not bring much comfort when you can barely afford to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Making minimum wage you often find yourself in positions where you have to choose between food and toilet paper, you choose to not go to the hospital when you are sick because you cannot afford the high cost and you have no insurance.
You have to choose between ramen noodles and the luxury of hamburger helper. Social activities? Forget it, it cost five hours of work just to go to a movie and buy a popcorn and soda and that's a lot of work for a little gratification.
Charens elitist hogwash continues
"63 percent of minimum wage workers receive a raise after the first year of employment"
Oh, WOW, so after a year they were making $5.25 an hour, a whole extra ten bucks a week buys a lot of ramen noodles! They must be wallowing in luxury by the time they are making a whopping $5.25 an hour. That's Kool-Aid money, we won't be drinking Flavor Aid tonight!
"part-time workers are far more likely to be paid minimum wage than full-time employees." Goes on the capitalist jargon dribble.
BUT, don't bother to mention the fact that many employers would rather employ several part time workers rather than a few full time workers, because employers are not required to provide health insurance to part time workers and do not have to promote or give raises to part time workers.
Wake up people, this is America, and we are supposed to be a civilized society. A civilized society should not let people fall between the cracks. These people are working and trying to make a living.
Unfortunately, for various heartbreaking reasons, these people were unable to achieve a college education, whether it is because they do not have the opportunity, finances or time.
Minimum wage workers do not come from families of privilege and they have no one other than themselves to rely on, so a helping have should be reached out to them. Their working and trying to make a living, not trying get something for nothing.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The State Of The "Ideological Battle" In The Union
Opinions are very divided about the Iraq War. While all Americans ultimately want to achieve victory in Iraq, fewer Americans are able to see the means to the way of that victory.
During last nights State of the Union Address the President addressed energy, immigration and health care before getting to the real point that everyone was waiting for, Iraq.
The President claimed that his Iraq plan offered "best possible approach" for defeating terrorism and asked Congress to give the plan a chance to succeed.
The plea for another "do over" fell on mostly deaf ears in the Democratic controlled Congress. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee moved forward, unaffected by the speech and voted in a non binding measure which was 12-9 against increasing troop levels in Iraq.
One of the numerous problems the President is confronting with the home-front regarding Iraq is that the President is asking America to join in on an "ideological struggle" they do not fully understand nor support.
The President wants the country to participate in what he likes to call the "ideological battle" or "struggle" of the 21st century.
The American people are fully resisting joining an ideological battle, this became very obvious with the 2006 elections and staunch disapproval of the "ideological battle" in Iraq.
Ideological is the key word. Ideology cannot be defeated with troop numbers alone, and ideology cannot be defeated with ideology and the sheer will of the ignorant or misinformed.
The President is struggling to gain support for a policy that is not working, and his few supporters have been lashing out at opponents like wild animals who have been cornered.
Some expect that the country should support the President "no matter what" and we should all fall into a neat and orderly line behind the President even if we feel his plans and aspirations endanger America more than it secures America.
These pundits and politicians who support the President with a feverish and blind intensity use fear rather than logic to try to drive Americans into supporting an agenda that may in fact undermine national security and long term prosperity of America.
The State of the Union? It is in utter tatters because there are Republicans who put party allegiance before common sense and decency. They would rather be united in their plunge from a cliff, instead of warning their comrades that the plunge was imminent if a change in course was not made. They would rather be united in failure than disunited in success, and that, my friend, is utterly unacceptable and unhealthy for not only the country but the world.
Opinions are very divided about the Iraq War. While all Americans ultimately want to achieve victory in Iraq, fewer Americans are able to see the means to the way of that victory.
During last nights State of the Union Address the President addressed energy, immigration and health care before getting to the real point that everyone was waiting for, Iraq.
The President claimed that his Iraq plan offered "best possible approach" for defeating terrorism and asked Congress to give the plan a chance to succeed.
The plea for another "do over" fell on mostly deaf ears in the Democratic controlled Congress. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee moved forward, unaffected by the speech and voted in a non binding measure which was 12-9 against increasing troop levels in Iraq.
One of the numerous problems the President is confronting with the home-front regarding Iraq is that the President is asking America to join in on an "ideological struggle" they do not fully understand nor support.
The President wants the country to participate in what he likes to call the "ideological battle" or "struggle" of the 21st century.
The American people are fully resisting joining an ideological battle, this became very obvious with the 2006 elections and staunch disapproval of the "ideological battle" in Iraq.
Ideological is the key word. Ideology cannot be defeated with troop numbers alone, and ideology cannot be defeated with ideology and the sheer will of the ignorant or misinformed.
The President is struggling to gain support for a policy that is not working, and his few supporters have been lashing out at opponents like wild animals who have been cornered.
Some expect that the country should support the President "no matter what" and we should all fall into a neat and orderly line behind the President even if we feel his plans and aspirations endanger America more than it secures America.
These pundits and politicians who support the President with a feverish and blind intensity use fear rather than logic to try to drive Americans into supporting an agenda that may in fact undermine national security and long term prosperity of America.
The State of the Union? It is in utter tatters because there are Republicans who put party allegiance before common sense and decency. They would rather be united in their plunge from a cliff, instead of warning their comrades that the plunge was imminent if a change in course was not made. They would rather be united in failure than disunited in success, and that, my friend, is utterly unacceptable and unhealthy for not only the country but the world.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
D'Souza Tha Louza
Are American Liberals to blame for 9/11 or is neoconservative mouthpiece Dinesh D'Souza inventing a right wing conspiracy theory to avoid the truth and responsibility that ultimately leads to the real reasons we were really attacked in 2001?
Ultra-Conservative Indian American Dinesh D' Souza has risen a few eyebrows and perhaps even a few fists with a new book that blames Liberals (what else?) for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
I am guessing D'Souza's next book will blame Liberals for killing the dinosaurs.
The book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" should be offensive to all Americans with an ounce of decency and a sliver of logic.
But, before attacking the inaccuracies of the new book, let's take a look a D'Souza's track record of bigotry.
Though he is an Indian American and a minority himself D'Souza has the audacity to attack African Americans, who unlike he, were actually born in America.
In an older book written by D'Souza ironically titled "The End Of Racism" D'Souza wrote "Am I calling for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes." What an appalling thesis.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in America based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to call for a repeal of it is to call for a return to the Dark Ages of America.
In the same book D'Souza also claims that “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”
Pretty well???? I didn't realize selective breeding, routine beatings and forced labor was a "pretty well" way to be treated. Furthermore, being treated like property is perhaps one of the worst ways to be treated and perhaps on of the worst crimes to commit.
If that doesn't simultaneously disgust and disturb the reader D' Souza has also stated that he does not believe slavery was a racist institution.
Really? So that's why there were not any white slaves in America? There were African slaves, and even Native Indian slaves but I don't recall reading about the plight of the white slaves in the history books, so yes, it was a racist institution.
D'Souza must live in AmeriKKKa, not America. Because D'Souza is a minority himself I really have a difficult time understanding his inherent racism.
D'Souza also wrote Caucasians who were accused of being racist were not racist but only responding to the so called deficiencies of minorities. To me, that just sounds like a false basis for a false justification for racism, period. Actually, that sounds like something Hitler would have said.
These are some of the most heinously racist statements I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and it is all inside of a book titled "The End Of Racism". It would have been more appropriate to title the book "The Revival Of Racism" by a guy who knows squat about America.
D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" rolls Liberals into a mass that can alone be blamed for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Never mind that Anti-Israel and Anti-American militant organizations that attack always declare the same reasons, Israel and Palestine, American Imperialism, American troops in the "Holy Land", "Christian Crusaders", and most recently, as with the 7/7 bombers in London who blamed their attacks on the War in Iraq.
Militant Muslim groups often claim that "the West" is in a "War against Islam" being led by "Christian Crusaders" in pursuit of "imperialism" in the "Holy Land". It's that simple!
As for D'Souza's remarks that rampant sexuality offends traditional Muslims, I will not disagree with that assertion and to a certain extent does factor into the equation, but they are the secondary, not the primary modus operandi of terrorist who are attacking the United States.
If one were to blame the terrorist attacks on Liberalism alone, which is absurd by the way, one would have to ask why very Liberal countries in Europe had never been attacked by Islamic militants.
There are counties in Europe where newscasters actually strip their clothing and gay marriage is legal - so if Liberalism and rampant sexuality were to blame it would only be natural to question why these countries had not been attacked, or even threatened.
Is it because these countries have never meddled in the affairs of the Middle East, which we have been doing quite frequently, extensively and unsuccessfully for the past six decades?
But, as written I will give D'Souza a shred of credit, to point out that yes, rampant sexuality does offend right wing militant Muslims, traditional and even moderate Muslims, it offends Christians and Jews as well.
But Liberalism is not the basis of the terrorist attacks against us, there are real reasons behind their attacks and if we are ever to put an end to militant Islam we must address the real problems and the real basis of their attacks if we are to ever hope to change the future.
Are American Liberals to blame for 9/11 or is neoconservative mouthpiece Dinesh D'Souza inventing a right wing conspiracy theory to avoid the truth and responsibility that ultimately leads to the real reasons we were really attacked in 2001?
Ultra-Conservative Indian American Dinesh D' Souza has risen a few eyebrows and perhaps even a few fists with a new book that blames Liberals (what else?) for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
I am guessing D'Souza's next book will blame Liberals for killing the dinosaurs.
The book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" should be offensive to all Americans with an ounce of decency and a sliver of logic.
But, before attacking the inaccuracies of the new book, let's take a look a D'Souza's track record of bigotry.
Though he is an Indian American and a minority himself D'Souza has the audacity to attack African Americans, who unlike he, were actually born in America.
In an older book written by D'Souza ironically titled "The End Of Racism" D'Souza wrote "Am I calling for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes." What an appalling thesis.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in America based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to call for a repeal of it is to call for a return to the Dark Ages of America.
In the same book D'Souza also claims that “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”
Pretty well???? I didn't realize selective breeding, routine beatings and forced labor was a "pretty well" way to be treated. Furthermore, being treated like property is perhaps one of the worst ways to be treated and perhaps on of the worst crimes to commit.
If that doesn't simultaneously disgust and disturb the reader D' Souza has also stated that he does not believe slavery was a racist institution.
Really? So that's why there were not any white slaves in America? There were African slaves, and even Native Indian slaves but I don't recall reading about the plight of the white slaves in the history books, so yes, it was a racist institution.
D'Souza must live in AmeriKKKa, not America. Because D'Souza is a minority himself I really have a difficult time understanding his inherent racism.
D'Souza also wrote Caucasians who were accused of being racist were not racist but only responding to the so called deficiencies of minorities. To me, that just sounds like a false basis for a false justification for racism, period. Actually, that sounds like something Hitler would have said.
These are some of the most heinously racist statements I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and it is all inside of a book titled "The End Of Racism". It would have been more appropriate to title the book "The Revival Of Racism" by a guy who knows squat about America.
D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" rolls Liberals into a mass that can alone be blamed for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Never mind that Anti-Israel and Anti-American militant organizations that attack always declare the same reasons, Israel and Palestine, American Imperialism, American troops in the "Holy Land", "Christian Crusaders", and most recently, as with the 7/7 bombers in London who blamed their attacks on the War in Iraq.
Militant Muslim groups often claim that "the West" is in a "War against Islam" being led by "Christian Crusaders" in pursuit of "imperialism" in the "Holy Land". It's that simple!
As for D'Souza's remarks that rampant sexuality offends traditional Muslims, I will not disagree with that assertion and to a certain extent does factor into the equation, but they are the secondary, not the primary modus operandi of terrorist who are attacking the United States.
If one were to blame the terrorist attacks on Liberalism alone, which is absurd by the way, one would have to ask why very Liberal countries in Europe had never been attacked by Islamic militants.
There are counties in Europe where newscasters actually strip their clothing and gay marriage is legal - so if Liberalism and rampant sexuality were to blame it would only be natural to question why these countries had not been attacked, or even threatened.
Is it because these countries have never meddled in the affairs of the Middle East, which we have been doing quite frequently, extensively and unsuccessfully for the past six decades?
But, as written I will give D'Souza a shred of credit, to point out that yes, rampant sexuality does offend right wing militant Muslims, traditional and even moderate Muslims, it offends Christians and Jews as well.
But Liberalism is not the basis of the terrorist attacks against us, there are real reasons behind their attacks and if we are ever to put an end to militant Islam we must address the real problems and the real basis of their attacks if we are to ever hope to change the future.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Remember Martin Luther King Jr And His Opposition To Oppression
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man with a dream, a dream most Americans know well. A dream of equality and tolerance and integration that he tried to pass on to the rest of America and the world.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of great courage and conviction with an extraordinary vision of peace and equality for all man, and even those of caucasian ancestry should honor his memory and his principals, he was and is an American hero, very much responsible for shaping our country.
Martin Luther King Jr. was not only a hero, but he is also one of the few true martyr's borne of this nation of great men and cowards alike. Dr. King was the former of the aforementioned, and his opponents were the latter.
As with all activist, King had enemies, enemies who were eventually successful in quelling his voice but not his vision nor his movement.
What we recall the most about this great American hero was his role in the Civil Rights Movement, his intolerance of injustice and opposition to oppression, his inspiring speeches and the strength of his character.
What we have forgotten about Martin Luther King Jr. was his stance against the Vietnam War, which could be meaningful to remember in the time in which we are living in. A time that is already drawing up comparisons to Vietnam.
One can read the text of King's speech "Beyond Vietnam" to understand the specific reasons he was opposed to the war, or on can read the several quotes of Dr. King on the war in Vietnam below.
"We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others."
"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation."
"The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."
"War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it."
"Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows."
"The bombs in Vietnam explode at home; they destroy the hopes and possibilities for a decent America."
"We have guided missiles and misguided men."
"We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive affirmation of peace."
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government."
It is eerie how one can look at King's observations of the Vietnam War and easily apply the same expressions to the Iraq War.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a very strong stance against not only the Vietnam War, but against all war and all aggression in the world, he made that very clear with the statement "I have condemned any organizer of war, regardless of his rank or nationality."
So on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day of 2007 let us consider his words on war and aggression as we prepare to escalate the war in Iraq, a war that has become like Vietnam in more ways than one.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man with a dream, a dream most Americans know well. A dream of equality and tolerance and integration that he tried to pass on to the rest of America and the world.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of great courage and conviction with an extraordinary vision of peace and equality for all man, and even those of caucasian ancestry should honor his memory and his principals, he was and is an American hero, very much responsible for shaping our country.
Martin Luther King Jr. was not only a hero, but he is also one of the few true martyr's borne of this nation of great men and cowards alike. Dr. King was the former of the aforementioned, and his opponents were the latter.
As with all activist, King had enemies, enemies who were eventually successful in quelling his voice but not his vision nor his movement.
What we recall the most about this great American hero was his role in the Civil Rights Movement, his intolerance of injustice and opposition to oppression, his inspiring speeches and the strength of his character.
What we have forgotten about Martin Luther King Jr. was his stance against the Vietnam War, which could be meaningful to remember in the time in which we are living in. A time that is already drawing up comparisons to Vietnam.
One can read the text of King's speech "Beyond Vietnam" to understand the specific reasons he was opposed to the war, or on can read the several quotes of Dr. King on the war in Vietnam below.
"We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others."
"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation."
"The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."
"War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it."
"Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows."
"The bombs in Vietnam explode at home; they destroy the hopes and possibilities for a decent America."
"We have guided missiles and misguided men."
"We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive affirmation of peace."
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government."
It is eerie how one can look at King's observations of the Vietnam War and easily apply the same expressions to the Iraq War.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a very strong stance against not only the Vietnam War, but against all war and all aggression in the world, he made that very clear with the statement "I have condemned any organizer of war, regardless of his rank or nationality."
So on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day of 2007 let us consider his words on war and aggression as we prepare to escalate the war in Iraq, a war that has become like Vietnam in more ways than one.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Pro-War Critics Of War Critics Try To Quell Dissent By Fear And Guilt By Association
Recently an article caught my eye, titled, "Criticism gives comfort to the enemy" I didn't need to even read the article to understand the rhetoric and propaganda that was written inside.
I have a question, Why do we even care if criticism comforts the enemy or leaves him cold inside? Should that stop us from observing the obvious?
Should we let that not very significant and regrettable fact stop us from doing the right thing? The answer is a firm "no".
It is my belief that our real enemies, the ones who are capable of hurting us at home, want us to continue to fight in Iraq.
The enemy loves seeing America tied down in a Civil War in Iraq, wasting our time and resources while leaving our country vulnerable by trying to build a "democratic" nation in Iraq which is being met with the full resistance of factions of warlike and feuding Iraqi's and amplified by foreign terrorist, while countless Iraqi civilians lives get washed away in the bloodshed.
These "critics of the critics" need to step back and logically evaluate the situation.
We have no one to blame for our misfortunes in Iraq but ourselves for we have done more damage to ourselves in Iraq than any terrorist organization could pray for.
We cannot continue to deceive ourselves for the sake of the fact that the truth is ugly.
We deviated from the path, our mission should have been the metaphorical decapitation of Osama bin Laden and those who plotted against the United States. Instead we went on a nation building foray in Iraq and all but abandoned our true call to war.
While these critics of the critics shield the President, what will they feel in six months or nine months when the situation in Iraqi has likely deteriorated further?
How will they feel to know in a year Muqtada al Sadr will most likely still be controlling masses of Shia in Iraq?
How will they feel to know the Iraqi government yet again was unable to live up to their promises?
You heard Condoleeza Rice, there is no "plan B", only a "plan A" which is precisely how we became mired in Iraq in the first place, no "back up plans" for when and if your original blue print falls through.
How will they feel when Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a sectarian war by proxy that we are stuck in the middle of, while the only people who gain from the experience are terrorist and companies like Halliburton?
Will they even care, or will they have made up even more rhetoric filled slogans to guide the nation threw a war that should have never been and didn't need to be?
Will they still feel criticism comforts the enemy, or will they finally become concerned with our overburdened military and the incredible damage that has been done to US credibility?
Will they shield the President further, or will they realize aligning themselves with him is to sell our country out to war profiteers who have no real intention of solving these problems before their reign of power has ended?
These defenders of Bush need to realize the obvious.
The only way that we are possibly winning the war in Iraq is if our mission was to cause a Civil War and destabilize the region, let Osama bin Laden go free and give the terrorist cause to celebrate and fight. If that is so, then we are winning the War in Iraq.
We have helped placed men who are loyal to sects and not to Iraq in positions of power.
We have placed men who fought against Iraq in the war between Iraq and Iran in control of Iraq.
We have helped prop up men who have allegiance to Iran, not to Iraq, in dominance of Iraq.
These men were also aided in their elevation to power by militant Shia organizations in Iraq, who are accused of running "death squads", I do not need to write names, if these critics of the critics are so well informed then they should know precisely who I am writing of.
It is unfortunate that the President's policy is so misguided it is met with the criticism of all, including his own constituents.
Regardless of what terrorist in the Middle East or right wing pundits believe or say it does not change the fact that we were misguided into a war by a President who knew very little about who he was fighting and what tactics would be necessary.
It only aides the President, not the terrorist or the people to spread the belief that "criticism comforts the enemy" because it serves as an effective buffer of freedom of speech and dissent, aimed at trying to make war critics feel as if they are on the enemies side by criticizing such a transparently tragic policy
Recently an article caught my eye, titled, "Criticism gives comfort to the enemy" I didn't need to even read the article to understand the rhetoric and propaganda that was written inside.
I have a question, Why do we even care if criticism comforts the enemy or leaves him cold inside? Should that stop us from observing the obvious?
Should we let that not very significant and regrettable fact stop us from doing the right thing? The answer is a firm "no".
It is my belief that our real enemies, the ones who are capable of hurting us at home, want us to continue to fight in Iraq.
The enemy loves seeing America tied down in a Civil War in Iraq, wasting our time and resources while leaving our country vulnerable by trying to build a "democratic" nation in Iraq which is being met with the full resistance of factions of warlike and feuding Iraqi's and amplified by foreign terrorist, while countless Iraqi civilians lives get washed away in the bloodshed.
These "critics of the critics" need to step back and logically evaluate the situation.
We have no one to blame for our misfortunes in Iraq but ourselves for we have done more damage to ourselves in Iraq than any terrorist organization could pray for.
We cannot continue to deceive ourselves for the sake of the fact that the truth is ugly.
We deviated from the path, our mission should have been the metaphorical decapitation of Osama bin Laden and those who plotted against the United States. Instead we went on a nation building foray in Iraq and all but abandoned our true call to war.
While these critics of the critics shield the President, what will they feel in six months or nine months when the situation in Iraqi has likely deteriorated further?
How will they feel to know in a year Muqtada al Sadr will most likely still be controlling masses of Shia in Iraq?
How will they feel to know the Iraqi government yet again was unable to live up to their promises?
You heard Condoleeza Rice, there is no "plan B", only a "plan A" which is precisely how we became mired in Iraq in the first place, no "back up plans" for when and if your original blue print falls through.
How will they feel when Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a sectarian war by proxy that we are stuck in the middle of, while the only people who gain from the experience are terrorist and companies like Halliburton?
Will they even care, or will they have made up even more rhetoric filled slogans to guide the nation threw a war that should have never been and didn't need to be?
Will they still feel criticism comforts the enemy, or will they finally become concerned with our overburdened military and the incredible damage that has been done to US credibility?
Will they shield the President further, or will they realize aligning themselves with him is to sell our country out to war profiteers who have no real intention of solving these problems before their reign of power has ended?
These defenders of Bush need to realize the obvious.
The only way that we are possibly winning the war in Iraq is if our mission was to cause a Civil War and destabilize the region, let Osama bin Laden go free and give the terrorist cause to celebrate and fight. If that is so, then we are winning the War in Iraq.
We have helped placed men who are loyal to sects and not to Iraq in positions of power.
We have placed men who fought against Iraq in the war between Iraq and Iran in control of Iraq.
We have helped prop up men who have allegiance to Iran, not to Iraq, in dominance of Iraq.
These men were also aided in their elevation to power by militant Shia organizations in Iraq, who are accused of running "death squads", I do not need to write names, if these critics of the critics are so well informed then they should know precisely who I am writing of.
It is unfortunate that the President's policy is so misguided it is met with the criticism of all, including his own constituents.
Regardless of what terrorist in the Middle East or right wing pundits believe or say it does not change the fact that we were misguided into a war by a President who knew very little about who he was fighting and what tactics would be necessary.
It only aides the President, not the terrorist or the people to spread the belief that "criticism comforts the enemy" because it serves as an effective buffer of freedom of speech and dissent, aimed at trying to make war critics feel as if they are on the enemies side by criticizing such a transparently tragic policy
Thursday, December 28, 2006
A Regretful Look Behind, A Glimpse Of Tribulations Ahead
What is in store for America and Iraq after another year of failure?
2006. At the beginning of this fateful year in history there was optimism that the elections in Iraq would help restrain the violence being witnessed in the war torn country.
I remained pessimistic, Iraq's problems were not going to be solved by any election, but Americans had their dreams of an easy democracy in this land of chaos, so I waited for the truth to be shown or thrown at them.
In January 2006 it was announced by the Iraqi Interior Ministry that more than 7,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, were killed by violence in the previous year.
Also in January Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace stated that the progress in Iraq was "a very steady ramp of progress." Pace also claimed in January that in 2006 we would witness an increase in in competence of Iraqi security forces, and with that more US troops would be able to come home.
(Nearly a year later we are hearing the same stale statements from the same stale people, and now it looks not like troops will be coming home, but that more will be staying and more will be sent.)
The February 22 bombing of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, which was over 1,000 years old further escalated the violence between Shia and Sunni Iraqi's to new levels that were previously unseen.
Violence surges after the bombing, over one hundred people are shot and killed in the immediate furor.
In March, a 14 year old Iraqi girl named Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was raped and murdered by US troops, she was set on fire in an apparent cover-up attempt. Her father, mother and five year old sister were not spared death.
In April it is announced that Iraqi police, soldiers and civilians were killed and wounded at a rate of about 75 per day, a rate three times as higher than at the beginning of 2004.
In May and June it is reported that upwards of 100 Iraqis were killed per day in sectarian violence.
The acts of violence have increasingly become more unspeakable and more complex and more difficult to understand. Whole families are executed, sometimes in broad daylight. Bodies routinely wash up on the shores of the Tigris and Euphrates, some are decapitated, some have been tortured. It is also known some Iraqi Security Forces are operating as sectarian death squads.
In May Nouri al-Maliki took office as Prime Minister of Iraq. Maliki vowed to take out "organized armed groups who are acting outside the state and outside the law."
But Maliki is clearly quite dependent on the support of Muqtada al-Sadr who commands the Mahdi Army in Sadr City Baghdad and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim who leads the Badr Brigade, which includes Iraqi exiles who fought alongside Iran against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.
In June the killing of the mythical overlord Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did little to change the landscape in Iraq. Violence only surged in Iraq after the theatrical last appearance of Zarqawi and his sudden dance with death.
It seemed in 2006 with each step taken forward two steps were taken back. Little progress, if any, has been made in Iraq. The country is being run by men who have allegiance to sectarian militias and foreign interest, unfortunately some of these men's interest seem to be anti-Iraqi.
In September spy agencies say that Iraq War worsens terrorism threat.
October becomes the fourth deadliest month for US troops since the war began in 2003 and the deadliest of 2006.
In November the Iraqi High Tribunal sentenced Saddam Hussein to death by hanging and the United Nations officials report 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October 2006, the highest toll for civilian casualties since the Iraq War began in 2003.
Later in the same month over 200 people are killed when five car bombs and two mortars detonate in Sadr City, a Shia stronghold, becoming the deadliest attack since the Iraq War began. Shia then retaliate for the bombings and set fire to a Sunni mosque and attacking it's worshipers.
Also in November NBC decides to start calling the Iraq War a Civil War.
In December the bipartisan panel The Iraq Study Group releases their recommendations for the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Among the recommendations are talks with Iran and Syria, training more Iraqi forces and an eventual drawback of US troops.
President Bush states he will consider all the options presented by the Iraq Study Group. Soon thereafter rumors begin circulating that additional troops will be sent to Iraq.
Now here we are rounding the corner, preparing for 2007. What will the future bring us? The track record indicates we are heading for an increase in violence and tensions.
The President is preparing for his next move on the chessboard. He is currently meeting with his "top advisers" in Crawford, Texas. I imagine new slogans are being created as we speak...
The meeting is most likely aimed at creating a so-called "surge" in Iraq, which is most likely aimed in an another botched redemption attempt by the Bush Administration. The "surge" in US troops will most likely result in a competing "surge" in the inSURGency.
So as we enter 2007 keep in mind the Bush Administration is not going to allow failure to happen on their watch, it will be the responsibility of the next President to clean up this debacle.
History will not vindicate the mistakes, lies and alibi's of our current leaders. Their lack of foresight and planning and abundance of ego has only fueled the insurgency in Iraq, weakened the moderates, damaged the so called War on Terror and made the United States and the world a more dangerous place to live in.
2007 shall be another year of tremendous change, keeping in mind that change is not always good we should remember that the Bush Administration will not back away from it's crusade, and nor will the terrorist back down from their jihad and nor will the factions in Iraq suddenly stop fighting.
As long as non secular warmongers with a lack of vision are running Washington and Baghdad expect little improvement, protest their tyranny and do not allow yourself to be bought with their cheap and empty rhetoric and slogans.
Good luck in the new year, your going to need it. (me too)
What is in store for America and Iraq after another year of failure?
2006. At the beginning of this fateful year in history there was optimism that the elections in Iraq would help restrain the violence being witnessed in the war torn country.
I remained pessimistic, Iraq's problems were not going to be solved by any election, but Americans had their dreams of an easy democracy in this land of chaos, so I waited for the truth to be shown or thrown at them.
In January 2006 it was announced by the Iraqi Interior Ministry that more than 7,000 Iraqis, mostly civilians, were killed by violence in the previous year.
Also in January Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace stated that the progress in Iraq was "a very steady ramp of progress." Pace also claimed in January that in 2006 we would witness an increase in in competence of Iraqi security forces, and with that more US troops would be able to come home.
(Nearly a year later we are hearing the same stale statements from the same stale people, and now it looks not like troops will be coming home, but that more will be staying and more will be sent.)
The February 22 bombing of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, which was over 1,000 years old further escalated the violence between Shia and Sunni Iraqi's to new levels that were previously unseen.
Violence surges after the bombing, over one hundred people are shot and killed in the immediate furor.
In March, a 14 year old Iraqi girl named Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was raped and murdered by US troops, she was set on fire in an apparent cover-up attempt. Her father, mother and five year old sister were not spared death.
In April it is announced that Iraqi police, soldiers and civilians were killed and wounded at a rate of about 75 per day, a rate three times as higher than at the beginning of 2004.
In May and June it is reported that upwards of 100 Iraqis were killed per day in sectarian violence.
The acts of violence have increasingly become more unspeakable and more complex and more difficult to understand. Whole families are executed, sometimes in broad daylight. Bodies routinely wash up on the shores of the Tigris and Euphrates, some are decapitated, some have been tortured. It is also known some Iraqi Security Forces are operating as sectarian death squads.
In May Nouri al-Maliki took office as Prime Minister of Iraq. Maliki vowed to take out "organized armed groups who are acting outside the state and outside the law."
But Maliki is clearly quite dependent on the support of Muqtada al-Sadr who commands the Mahdi Army in Sadr City Baghdad and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim who leads the Badr Brigade, which includes Iraqi exiles who fought alongside Iran against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War.
In June the killing of the mythical overlord Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did little to change the landscape in Iraq. Violence only surged in Iraq after the theatrical last appearance of Zarqawi and his sudden dance with death.
It seemed in 2006 with each step taken forward two steps were taken back. Little progress, if any, has been made in Iraq. The country is being run by men who have allegiance to sectarian militias and foreign interest, unfortunately some of these men's interest seem to be anti-Iraqi.
In September spy agencies say that Iraq War worsens terrorism threat.
October becomes the fourth deadliest month for US troops since the war began in 2003 and the deadliest of 2006.
In November the Iraqi High Tribunal sentenced Saddam Hussein to death by hanging and the United Nations officials report 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October 2006, the highest toll for civilian casualties since the Iraq War began in 2003.
Later in the same month over 200 people are killed when five car bombs and two mortars detonate in Sadr City, a Shia stronghold, becoming the deadliest attack since the Iraq War began. Shia then retaliate for the bombings and set fire to a Sunni mosque and attacking it's worshipers.
Also in November NBC decides to start calling the Iraq War a Civil War.
In December the bipartisan panel The Iraq Study Group releases their recommendations for the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Among the recommendations are talks with Iran and Syria, training more Iraqi forces and an eventual drawback of US troops.
President Bush states he will consider all the options presented by the Iraq Study Group. Soon thereafter rumors begin circulating that additional troops will be sent to Iraq.
Now here we are rounding the corner, preparing for 2007. What will the future bring us? The track record indicates we are heading for an increase in violence and tensions.
The President is preparing for his next move on the chessboard. He is currently meeting with his "top advisers" in Crawford, Texas. I imagine new slogans are being created as we speak...
The meeting is most likely aimed at creating a so-called "surge" in Iraq, which is most likely aimed in an another botched redemption attempt by the Bush Administration. The "surge" in US troops will most likely result in a competing "surge" in the inSURGency.
So as we enter 2007 keep in mind the Bush Administration is not going to allow failure to happen on their watch, it will be the responsibility of the next President to clean up this debacle.
History will not vindicate the mistakes, lies and alibi's of our current leaders. Their lack of foresight and planning and abundance of ego has only fueled the insurgency in Iraq, weakened the moderates, damaged the so called War on Terror and made the United States and the world a more dangerous place to live in.
2007 shall be another year of tremendous change, keeping in mind that change is not always good we should remember that the Bush Administration will not back away from it's crusade, and nor will the terrorist back down from their jihad and nor will the factions in Iraq suddenly stop fighting.
As long as non secular warmongers with a lack of vision are running Washington and Baghdad expect little improvement, protest their tyranny and do not allow yourself to be bought with their cheap and empty rhetoric and slogans.
Good luck in the new year, your going to need it. (me too)
Friday, December 22, 2006
Bigotry In America Part 2
Related : Bigotry In America, You Bet.
The fact of the matter is that I can't even believe in the year 2006 we are even having a debate about religious choice and equality in the United States. The constitution is crystal clear about religious freedoms.
Recently there has been controversy over the fact that the African American newly elected Democratic Congressman from Minnesota who happens to be Muslim wants to take his oath on the Koran.
Now hold on there. Wait just one minute before you think you can go and spout off about how Muslims shouldn't be allowed to take their oath on the Koran... I know some Christians have a tendency to make judgements and statements before dusting off the constitution and reading the thing.
Since the constitution is long and boring to Republicans, let me simplify it :
In Article. VI. of the United States Constitution it is written that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Can you read that? It's that simple! You don't like it? Then YOU get out, because clearly it is YOUR ideals are unconstitutional and therefore unAmerican.
The people who have a problem with Keith Ellison are the problem, they are the force that threatens to undermine American ideals and society because they don't even understand American ideals or the guidelines set forth in the Constitution by the founding fathers, men who philosophised more in one day than these neoconservative critics have in a lifetime.
Keith Ellison's choice of religion is not the problem, nor is the fact that he would like to take his Oath on the Koran. The constitution protects the rights of all religions or lack thereof, of not only the people, but those who represent them.
In time and age in America I cannot believe we are even having this debate. It is very simple, and for those who don't understand they need to either read the Constitution or retract themselves from this debate that shouldn't even need to be debated.
In this time and age, here we are in Iraq, in the Middle East in general, and we are preaching about this thing called Democracy. We think we have this experimental Democracy thing down so pat that we can just be spreading it all around the world like it's New Year's cheer.
Here we are in Iraq saying "Sunni, Shia, Kurds, you need to get along, and treat each other with equality. You need to be more secular, and not judge people based on their religion."
MEANWHILE, here we are at home harassing this American Muslim man who was fairly elected about... his religion. Clearly this country is still composed of bigots who don't practice what they preach.
Not only is it unconstitutional, it's downright hypocritical, and it truly exposes Right for what it is : A xenophobic, unAmerican, unconstitutional bunch vision-less racist who only hold this country back from progression.
It's an ugly statement, but their vileness and hypocrisy is astoundingly backwards and surprisingly similar to the type of ideology we are struggling to defeat in the Middle East.
Keith Ellison and his Koran are not going to upset the fabric of reality or Americanism. In fact, it embraces it. Some people have a poor perception of America and believe that the constitution and equal rights only apply to certain people.
You cannot grant full rights to atheist, Agnostics, Quakers, Christians and Jews and refuse them to Muslims.
Specifically because it is unconstitutional, but especially because we are attempting to democratize the Middle East while telling the Muslims that other sects of Muslims or Christians and Jews all deserve equal rights and that you shouldn't treat people differently because of their religion.
While it is becoming painfully apparent that Muslims are not equal in America, even if they are American, educated and successful.
An article I found on CBS illustrates it rather well with the following
"the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one's promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker's conscience. "
and
"For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. If Congress were indeed to take the view that "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress," it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test."
After examining this situation I have fully realized for perhaps the first time how important a secular government is.
With constitutional dumb asses like Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode and bigoted crusaders like Dennis Prager who cannon handle themselves when someone of an "opposing" religion wishes to take an Oath on their own holy book, maybe a new approach should be taken.
If it's such a big deal to these people, they can't handle the slightest bit of diversity that they think they can punish Muslims, then maybe everyone should be collectivly punished and no one is allowed to use any holy book to take their oath by.
How do the religious ideologues like that? Take an affirmation on the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights, that's what your there to uphold in the first place.
I don't believe such a resolution should be made, but the point is that if there cannot be a Koran then there cannot be a Bible, or a Torah or any other holy book present during the Oath.
In conclusion, Ellison's request is Constitutional, and his opponents are not in compliance with with that. It is the opponents who are threatening American ideals, not Keith Ellison.
Furthermore it is ludicrous to try to teach other nations about religious equality and tolerance when it is so apparently absent here.
Related : Bigotry In America, You Bet.
The fact of the matter is that I can't even believe in the year 2006 we are even having a debate about religious choice and equality in the United States. The constitution is crystal clear about religious freedoms.
Recently there has been controversy over the fact that the African American newly elected Democratic Congressman from Minnesota who happens to be Muslim wants to take his oath on the Koran.
Now hold on there. Wait just one minute before you think you can go and spout off about how Muslims shouldn't be allowed to take their oath on the Koran... I know some Christians have a tendency to make judgements and statements before dusting off the constitution and reading the thing.
Since the constitution is long and boring to Republicans, let me simplify it :
In Article. VI. of the United States Constitution it is written that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Can you read that? It's that simple! You don't like it? Then YOU get out, because clearly it is YOUR ideals are unconstitutional and therefore unAmerican.
The people who have a problem with Keith Ellison are the problem, they are the force that threatens to undermine American ideals and society because they don't even understand American ideals or the guidelines set forth in the Constitution by the founding fathers, men who philosophised more in one day than these neoconservative critics have in a lifetime.
Keith Ellison's choice of religion is not the problem, nor is the fact that he would like to take his Oath on the Koran. The constitution protects the rights of all religions or lack thereof, of not only the people, but those who represent them.
In time and age in America I cannot believe we are even having this debate. It is very simple, and for those who don't understand they need to either read the Constitution or retract themselves from this debate that shouldn't even need to be debated.
In this time and age, here we are in Iraq, in the Middle East in general, and we are preaching about this thing called Democracy. We think we have this experimental Democracy thing down so pat that we can just be spreading it all around the world like it's New Year's cheer.
Here we are in Iraq saying "Sunni, Shia, Kurds, you need to get along, and treat each other with equality. You need to be more secular, and not judge people based on their religion."
MEANWHILE, here we are at home harassing this American Muslim man who was fairly elected about... his religion. Clearly this country is still composed of bigots who don't practice what they preach.
Not only is it unconstitutional, it's downright hypocritical, and it truly exposes Right for what it is : A xenophobic, unAmerican, unconstitutional bunch vision-less racist who only hold this country back from progression.
It's an ugly statement, but their vileness and hypocrisy is astoundingly backwards and surprisingly similar to the type of ideology we are struggling to defeat in the Middle East.
Keith Ellison and his Koran are not going to upset the fabric of reality or Americanism. In fact, it embraces it. Some people have a poor perception of America and believe that the constitution and equal rights only apply to certain people.
You cannot grant full rights to atheist, Agnostics, Quakers, Christians and Jews and refuse them to Muslims.
Specifically because it is unconstitutional, but especially because we are attempting to democratize the Middle East while telling the Muslims that other sects of Muslims or Christians and Jews all deserve equal rights and that you shouldn't treat people differently because of their religion.
While it is becoming painfully apparent that Muslims are not equal in America, even if they are American, educated and successful.
An article I found on CBS illustrates it rather well with the following
"the oath is a religious ritual, both in its origins and its use by the devout today. The oath invokes God as a witness to one's promise, as a means of making the promise more weighty on the oathtaker's conscience. "
and
"For the devout, taking an oath upon a religious book is a religious act. Requiring the performance of a religious act using the holy book of a particular religion is a religious test. If Congress were indeed to take the view that "If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book [the Bible], don't serve in Congress," it would be imposing an unconstitutional religious test."
After examining this situation I have fully realized for perhaps the first time how important a secular government is.
With constitutional dumb asses like Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode and bigoted crusaders like Dennis Prager who cannon handle themselves when someone of an "opposing" religion wishes to take an Oath on their own holy book, maybe a new approach should be taken.
If it's such a big deal to these people, they can't handle the slightest bit of diversity that they think they can punish Muslims, then maybe everyone should be collectivly punished and no one is allowed to use any holy book to take their oath by.
How do the religious ideologues like that? Take an affirmation on the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights, that's what your there to uphold in the first place.
I don't believe such a resolution should be made, but the point is that if there cannot be a Koran then there cannot be a Bible, or a Torah or any other holy book present during the Oath.
In conclusion, Ellison's request is Constitutional, and his opponents are not in compliance with with that. It is the opponents who are threatening American ideals, not Keith Ellison.
Furthermore it is ludicrous to try to teach other nations about religious equality and tolerance when it is so apparently absent here.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
"Do-Over" Number 814 : Send More Troops
A solution for an overstretched military becomes stretching the military even more
The President has expressed his desire to sent 15,000 - 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, even though the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose additional troops fearing the cost would far outweigh the benefits.
General John Abizaid, who replaced the rockskull Tommy Franks in Iraq has in recent weeks expressed his opposition to additional troops levels as well. Now Abizaid is to retire, and Abizaid's early departure could make it far easier for the White House to demand for a "surge" in troops.
The Democrats, who know they were elected because the American people demanded change in Iraq are showing little backbone in standing up against the President's desire to send more troops to Iraq. By change, I don't think we meant we wanted to dig our heels in even further...
Rumsfelds replacement, Robert Gates went to Baghdad, but refused to address wether or not the US should send additional troops, stating "all options are on the table,"
Meanwhile there are are ideological optimist who are so bent on something they can call "victory" and so determined to create a "legacy" for George W. Bush that they are unwilling to discuss the negative repercussions which could result from sending more troops to Iraq.
This is the sort of short sightedness that ushered in this new age of terrorism in Iraq.
Before, during and after the invasion, the Bush Administration and it's lackey's refused to hear any evidence or opinions regarding Iraq that were contrary to their own, therefore they were incredibly inept at controlling the situation once it inevitably spun out of control.
Our military is already stretched thin, an admission made by many now that we are entering year four in Iraq with little to no progress made.
There are real threats out there, countries with nuclear weapons, countries that want nuclear weapons and powers that are beginning to rival our own.
Could have, would have, should have, but didn't send more troops in the first place. It's a little late in the game to be calling for a "do-over". What would be done with these troops in the event of a so called "surge"?
Put them on street corners so angry Iraqi's, insurrectionist and terrorist can target them?
Another "shock and awe" to kill a few bad guys and a lot of civilians to get the Iraqi's even more fired up and give the terrorist even more recruiting powers?
What are you going to do with those troops other then send them off to die? The fairy tale is over, there is no direction, there is no mission.
Motion should not be confused with action! As Benjamin Franklin once said.
A solution for an overstretched military becomes stretching the military even more
The President has expressed his desire to sent 15,000 - 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, even though the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose additional troops fearing the cost would far outweigh the benefits.
General John Abizaid, who replaced the rockskull Tommy Franks in Iraq has in recent weeks expressed his opposition to additional troops levels as well. Now Abizaid is to retire, and Abizaid's early departure could make it far easier for the White House to demand for a "surge" in troops.
The Democrats, who know they were elected because the American people demanded change in Iraq are showing little backbone in standing up against the President's desire to send more troops to Iraq. By change, I don't think we meant we wanted to dig our heels in even further...
Rumsfelds replacement, Robert Gates went to Baghdad, but refused to address wether or not the US should send additional troops, stating "all options are on the table,"
Meanwhile there are are ideological optimist who are so bent on something they can call "victory" and so determined to create a "legacy" for George W. Bush that they are unwilling to discuss the negative repercussions which could result from sending more troops to Iraq.
This is the sort of short sightedness that ushered in this new age of terrorism in Iraq.
Before, during and after the invasion, the Bush Administration and it's lackey's refused to hear any evidence or opinions regarding Iraq that were contrary to their own, therefore they were incredibly inept at controlling the situation once it inevitably spun out of control.
Our military is already stretched thin, an admission made by many now that we are entering year four in Iraq with little to no progress made.
There are real threats out there, countries with nuclear weapons, countries that want nuclear weapons and powers that are beginning to rival our own.
Could have, would have, should have, but didn't send more troops in the first place. It's a little late in the game to be calling for a "do-over". What would be done with these troops in the event of a so called "surge"?
Put them on street corners so angry Iraqi's, insurrectionist and terrorist can target them?
Another "shock and awe" to kill a few bad guys and a lot of civilians to get the Iraqi's even more fired up and give the terrorist even more recruiting powers?
What are you going to do with those troops other then send them off to die? The fairy tale is over, there is no direction, there is no mission.
Motion should not be confused with action! As Benjamin Franklin once said.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Time's "Person of the Year"
This years TIME magazine's "Person Of The Year" was an interesting choice, it was "You".
Why? "In 2006, the World Wide Web became a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter". The full article can be read at Time.Com.
The TIMEpiece also reads "It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes."
It concludes " But 2006 gave us some ideas. This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them. Go on. Tell us you're not just a little bit curious. "
TIME is keen to observe our growing community of blogging, information swapping, original creative content and overall true originality.
People are watching your videos on YouTube and looking at your profiles on MySpace and reading your blogs on Blogger.Com. Best of all, they are doing it from all over the world, and yes, that is pretty amazing when you think about it.
Although the nomination was surprising, it is quite fitting. User content has really driving the web to it's prominence and made it the much needed entertainment and enlightenment tool.
It was a novel nomination, obviously the media is catching onto what the rest of us are doing in our free time.
"I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion?
The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you."
"Digital Democracy", I like that.
Read TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" at Time.Com.
This years TIME magazine's "Person Of The Year" was an interesting choice, it was "You".
Why? "In 2006, the World Wide Web became a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter". The full article can be read at Time.Com.
The TIMEpiece also reads "It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes."
It concludes " But 2006 gave us some ideas. This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them. Go on. Tell us you're not just a little bit curious. "
TIME is keen to observe our growing community of blogging, information swapping, original creative content and overall true originality.
People are watching your videos on YouTube and looking at your profiles on MySpace and reading your blogs on Blogger.Com. Best of all, they are doing it from all over the world, and yes, that is pretty amazing when you think about it.
Although the nomination was surprising, it is quite fitting. User content has really driving the web to it's prominence and made it the much needed entertainment and enlightenment tool.
It was a novel nomination, obviously the media is catching onto what the rest of us are doing in our free time.
"I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion?
The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you."
"Digital Democracy", I like that.
Read TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" at Time.Com.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
No Good News For The Holidays
President Bush has expressed that he will not make much anticipated announcements regarding the Iraq War until after the New Year. He says he will not be "rushed" into any decisions.
Meanwhile 2008 Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain expressed to reporters in Baghdad that he believes 15,000 to 30,000 more troops should be deployed to Iraq, also along on the delegation was turncoat Joe Lieberman.
Commanders in Iraq do not share McCain's point of view, and one of the Senators traveling in the same delegation, Republican Susan Collins of Maine said "I'm not yet convinced that additional troops will pave the way to a peaceful Iraq in a lasting sense,"
McCain is making these bold statements shortly after a poll by Wall Street Journal and NBC shows less than one in four Americans approve of the Bush Administrations handling of the war in Iraq.
A survey conducted on Iraqi's by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies found that 95% felt that the security situation has only deteriorated since the arrival of US forces.
It is a feeling of treading water, of going nowhere slowly.
The President is on a "listening tour". What the hell is a "listening tour"? This man doesn't know how to listen, he likes to talk, albeit not very well. This is just get plain ridicules, and it seems we are just delaying the inevitable here.
The President is likely only listening to ideas to coincide with his own, which indicate a long presence in Iraq and mulling the possibility of sending more young men and woman to Iraq so the loss can be even more monumental in the end.
These people that die, both American troops and Iraqi civilians, are just numbers and not people to people like President Bush, they are the ways to the means. In other words the loss and the humiliation will be vindicated if the mission ultimately succeeds. This mantra keeps people like Kissinger, Rumsfeld and Bush pushing their agenda long after it has lost support or meaning.
I am sure many US troops are inwardly disappointed that no announcement will be made before the holidays. I am sure a lot of them would at least like to have an idea of what was going on and not feel like they were participating in an endless mission.
Christmas could have been a lot more joyful for thousands of families across America who would like to see their loved ones safe, if the President had decided to make his announcement before the holidays.
Because it is better to know something about the future, than it is to know nothing about the future at all.
President Bush has expressed that he will not make much anticipated announcements regarding the Iraq War until after the New Year. He says he will not be "rushed" into any decisions.
Meanwhile 2008 Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain expressed to reporters in Baghdad that he believes 15,000 to 30,000 more troops should be deployed to Iraq, also along on the delegation was turncoat Joe Lieberman.
Commanders in Iraq do not share McCain's point of view, and one of the Senators traveling in the same delegation, Republican Susan Collins of Maine said "I'm not yet convinced that additional troops will pave the way to a peaceful Iraq in a lasting sense,"
McCain is making these bold statements shortly after a poll by Wall Street Journal and NBC shows less than one in four Americans approve of the Bush Administrations handling of the war in Iraq.
A survey conducted on Iraqi's by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies found that 95% felt that the security situation has only deteriorated since the arrival of US forces.
It is a feeling of treading water, of going nowhere slowly.
The President is on a "listening tour". What the hell is a "listening tour"? This man doesn't know how to listen, he likes to talk, albeit not very well. This is just get plain ridicules, and it seems we are just delaying the inevitable here.
The President is likely only listening to ideas to coincide with his own, which indicate a long presence in Iraq and mulling the possibility of sending more young men and woman to Iraq so the loss can be even more monumental in the end.
These people that die, both American troops and Iraqi civilians, are just numbers and not people to people like President Bush, they are the ways to the means. In other words the loss and the humiliation will be vindicated if the mission ultimately succeeds. This mantra keeps people like Kissinger, Rumsfeld and Bush pushing their agenda long after it has lost support or meaning.
I am sure many US troops are inwardly disappointed that no announcement will be made before the holidays. I am sure a lot of them would at least like to have an idea of what was going on and not feel like they were participating in an endless mission.
Christmas could have been a lot more joyful for thousands of families across America who would like to see their loved ones safe, if the President had decided to make his announcement before the holidays.
Because it is better to know something about the future, than it is to know nothing about the future at all.
Bill O Reilly's "No Spin Zone"
While not a viewer of FOX News I accidentally tuned in one day because the channels numbers are similar to that of the Weather Channel.
I noticed this infamous man, Bill O Reilly calling something the "No Spin Zone" and I thought "O Really?" and I just had to watch, it was watching a bad car accident, you know you shouldn't look because what is in there is probably grotesque, but you cant..help..but..look...
"The No Spin Zone"? Is this man aware that he is currently the sitting Spin King? Or is the "No Spin Zone" a segment FOX runs regularly to amuse itself with it's own open hypocrisy?
It's one thing to put a "spin" on things, but it's quite another to label a segment as "non spin" when the whole purpose of the segment is to serve as "spin"
All this talk of spin has me dizzy...
While not a viewer of FOX News I accidentally tuned in one day because the channels numbers are similar to that of the Weather Channel.
I noticed this infamous man, Bill O Reilly calling something the "No Spin Zone" and I thought "O Really?" and I just had to watch, it was watching a bad car accident, you know you shouldn't look because what is in there is probably grotesque, but you cant..help..but..look...
"The No Spin Zone"? Is this man aware that he is currently the sitting Spin King? Or is the "No Spin Zone" a segment FOX runs regularly to amuse itself with it's own open hypocrisy?
It's one thing to put a "spin" on things, but it's quite another to label a segment as "non spin" when the whole purpose of the segment is to serve as "spin"
All this talk of spin has me dizzy...
Control Of Senate Hangs In Balance With Johnson's Health
Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson suffered from "stroke like symptoms" on Wednesday and was in critical condition Thursday after late-night brain surgery.
The U.S. Capitol physician said the surgery was successful and that Johnson had suffered from bleeding in the brain caused by congenital arteriovenous malformation.
While everyone is concerned about the Senators health, many are also concerned about the Democrats tenuous grip on power in Senate, and how Johnson's departure could impede that.
Democrats were expected to hold the majority by only one seat, but this could soon change, tossing Senate back into the hands of Republicans.
If a replacement must be named for Johnson it could be determined by Republican Gov. Mike Rounds.
How terribly convenient for the Republicans, that Rounds would be the man who would have the power to name the Johnson's replacement, if one is needed.
Mike Rounds, after all is the man who decided when Democratic Sen. Dick Hagen died in 2002, to appoint a Republican to replace him, even though the district was overwhelmingly Democrat.
Bob Burns, political science head at South Dakota State University said "It would be expected that Governor Rounds would appoint a Republican, if in fact the seat would be vacated, which would bring a tie and Cheney would be the deciding vote."
We all know how Vice President Cheney will vote, if given the chance.
Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson suffered from "stroke like symptoms" on Wednesday and was in critical condition Thursday after late-night brain surgery.
The U.S. Capitol physician said the surgery was successful and that Johnson had suffered from bleeding in the brain caused by congenital arteriovenous malformation.
While everyone is concerned about the Senators health, many are also concerned about the Democrats tenuous grip on power in Senate, and how Johnson's departure could impede that.
Democrats were expected to hold the majority by only one seat, but this could soon change, tossing Senate back into the hands of Republicans.
If a replacement must be named for Johnson it could be determined by Republican Gov. Mike Rounds.
How terribly convenient for the Republicans, that Rounds would be the man who would have the power to name the Johnson's replacement, if one is needed.
Mike Rounds, after all is the man who decided when Democratic Sen. Dick Hagen died in 2002, to appoint a Republican to replace him, even though the district was overwhelmingly Democrat.
Bob Burns, political science head at South Dakota State University said "It would be expected that Governor Rounds would appoint a Republican, if in fact the seat would be vacated, which would bring a tie and Cheney would be the deciding vote."
We all know how Vice President Cheney will vote, if given the chance.
Monday, December 11, 2006
A State Of Anarchy
When the "Mission Accomplished" banner waved, on that fateful day when George W. Bush told the world that major combat had ended in Iraq little did we know that we were only at the beginning on a long, perilous journey.
That day now seems like it was at least a decade ago and "Mission Accomplished" is a sad reminder of lies told and promises broken.
The day Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" has become associated in my mind with the day the real war began in Iraq.
Now we are drawing close to the fourth anniversary of our botched occupation/liberation, and we are further from the ultimate goal than we were during the good old days of the "Mission Accomplished".
Iraq has descended into a state of chaos. Sectarian militias roam the neighborhoods of Baghdad and al Anbar province, protecting some, massacring others
It is common place for a suicide bomber to pretend he is an employer looking for day laborers, only to detonate himself when the crowds of impoverished job seekers come close enough for maximum impact.
Beheadings have declined since the demise of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who had a certain penchant for decapitation, but still occur, even to woman.
Bodies riddled with bullet holes that show signs of torture wash upon the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, the location many biblical scholars believe to be the location of the garden of Eden.
Children who do not even understand the situation cannot attend school. Soon we risk a new generation that knows only war that may evolve into the next generation of terrorist, rather than the new generation to rebuild Iraq.
A trip to the market is necessary and can be deadly. Some hospitals have even become sectarian, throwing out patients of the opposite sect.
Iraq has become a complete and utter state of anarchy that is teetering on the brink of being uncontainable and close to spilling over it's borders.
Rather than pouring aid and resources into Iraq, it's neighbors who complain of the American occupation do little to help the Iraqi's themselves and as we well know some of Iraq's neighbors contribute to the chaos.
Inadequate Administrations, in both the United States and in Iraq have only contributed to the problem. The refusal to honestly address the problem with earnest intentions has thwarted all attempts to contain the situation.
For instance the Presidents of these counties, Talabani and Bush, have failed to live up to even the slightest of expectations.
Both puppets can offer criticism of the report just released by the Iraq Study Group or of any suggestions of a drawback of US troops, but neither has any original or useful ideas of their own. In fact these two have done little to help the situation at all except run their respective mouths.
Every approach to Iraq has failed very possibly because the United States should have never been in Iraq in the first place, the United States should have been tracking down Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not thinking it can somehow suddenly transform the world now that the trade centers are gone.
The focus should have always been on the elimination of those responsible for 9/11 and the securing of our own country, including borders and ports.
Instead, we blundered into Iraq, wasted our resources and our time while Osama bin Laden is probably in a silken palace somewhere smoking shishna laughing about how he never thought the United States to bleed itself in Iraq, rather than in the pursuit of him.
A living Osama bin Laden is walking testament to our enemies that one can attack the United States and live to tell the tale.
Iraq took the main force of the blow in the War on Terror, though it had no ties to the attacks on America and did not possess the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction the Bush Administration had claimed it had.
Our invasion and occupation has contributed to the picture we see today in Iraq. Though now the violence is now aimed mostly between Sunni and Shia the state of lawlessness which allows for such behavior would not have been present if not for our mission of ill logic.
Not only is a speedy resolution reasonable, it is necessary. Reconciliation talks need to be more than lip service. Iraqi leaders have to take responsibility, but the United States cannot just hand the burden over without offering it's assistance and advice.
Advice which should not come from someone with such a poor understanding of the Middle East and Democracy as George W. Bush.
When the "Mission Accomplished" banner waved, on that fateful day when George W. Bush told the world that major combat had ended in Iraq little did we know that we were only at the beginning on a long, perilous journey.
That day now seems like it was at least a decade ago and "Mission Accomplished" is a sad reminder of lies told and promises broken.
The day Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" has become associated in my mind with the day the real war began in Iraq.
Now we are drawing close to the fourth anniversary of our botched occupation/liberation, and we are further from the ultimate goal than we were during the good old days of the "Mission Accomplished".
Iraq has descended into a state of chaos. Sectarian militias roam the neighborhoods of Baghdad and al Anbar province, protecting some, massacring others
It is common place for a suicide bomber to pretend he is an employer looking for day laborers, only to detonate himself when the crowds of impoverished job seekers come close enough for maximum impact.
Beheadings have declined since the demise of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who had a certain penchant for decapitation, but still occur, even to woman.
Bodies riddled with bullet holes that show signs of torture wash upon the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, the location many biblical scholars believe to be the location of the garden of Eden.
Children who do not even understand the situation cannot attend school. Soon we risk a new generation that knows only war that may evolve into the next generation of terrorist, rather than the new generation to rebuild Iraq.
A trip to the market is necessary and can be deadly. Some hospitals have even become sectarian, throwing out patients of the opposite sect.
Iraq has become a complete and utter state of anarchy that is teetering on the brink of being uncontainable and close to spilling over it's borders.
Rather than pouring aid and resources into Iraq, it's neighbors who complain of the American occupation do little to help the Iraqi's themselves and as we well know some of Iraq's neighbors contribute to the chaos.
Inadequate Administrations, in both the United States and in Iraq have only contributed to the problem. The refusal to honestly address the problem with earnest intentions has thwarted all attempts to contain the situation.
For instance the Presidents of these counties, Talabani and Bush, have failed to live up to even the slightest of expectations.
Both puppets can offer criticism of the report just released by the Iraq Study Group or of any suggestions of a drawback of US troops, but neither has any original or useful ideas of their own. In fact these two have done little to help the situation at all except run their respective mouths.
Every approach to Iraq has failed very possibly because the United States should have never been in Iraq in the first place, the United States should have been tracking down Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not thinking it can somehow suddenly transform the world now that the trade centers are gone.
The focus should have always been on the elimination of those responsible for 9/11 and the securing of our own country, including borders and ports.
Instead, we blundered into Iraq, wasted our resources and our time while Osama bin Laden is probably in a silken palace somewhere smoking shishna laughing about how he never thought the United States to bleed itself in Iraq, rather than in the pursuit of him.
A living Osama bin Laden is walking testament to our enemies that one can attack the United States and live to tell the tale.
Iraq took the main force of the blow in the War on Terror, though it had no ties to the attacks on America and did not possess the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction the Bush Administration had claimed it had.
Our invasion and occupation has contributed to the picture we see today in Iraq. Though now the violence is now aimed mostly between Sunni and Shia the state of lawlessness which allows for such behavior would not have been present if not for our mission of ill logic.
Not only is a speedy resolution reasonable, it is necessary. Reconciliation talks need to be more than lip service. Iraqi leaders have to take responsibility, but the United States cannot just hand the burden over without offering it's assistance and advice.
Advice which should not come from someone with such a poor understanding of the Middle East and Democracy as George W. Bush.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Relief And Anger Over New Iraq Report, What's Next?
Nothing. President Bush is awaiting two additional reports, one from his friends down at the Pentagon and one from his buddies at The Justice Department, before he is going to decide on how to access the situation.
After The President has reviewed all three assessments he will then give a televised address to tell the nation and the world on what the next step will be.
I would be very surprised to see President Bush change is mind and I expect it will take more pressure to break the levee that is his will.
Rather, I expect the reports coming out of the Pentagon and out of the Justice Department to more or less encourage the battle in Iraq to be an open ended occupation.
The Iraq Study Group was composed of mostly old timer Republicans and Democrats, none of which has expertise in any field relating to the Middle East, rather the panel consulted with the experts for their information to draw their conclusions.
The report has drawn praise, criticism, relief, anger and confusion.
A lot of criticism is coming from some conservatives and Jewish who are asking what the Israeli - Arab conflict had to do with Iraq.
Well, it doesn't really. Israel has as much to do with Iraq as Iraq had to do with 9/11 and President Bush has so long demanded that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terror and interconnected the two so intimately.
So now that we are talking about the Iraq War, we have to talk about The War On Terror, and if one is sincere about the stated intentions of The War On Terror, then one has to seriously and sincerely address the Israeli-Arab peace process. It is a view that has been been previously expressed by moderate leaders in the Middle East, Kofi Annan and Tony Blair.
Democratic Senator and Iraq War opponent John Murtha was not pleased with the report and said it "is no different than the current policy.'' in a statement and that "Staying in Iraq is not an option politically, militarily or fiscally,'' .
Republican John Mccain, who is considering a Presidential run in 2008 for the CONservative party complained "I do not agree that you can take the trainers that are necessary, much less the troops that are necessary, from the existing forces there,''
The Presidential hopeful continued "There is only one thing worse than an overstressed military, and that's a defeated military"
That's really the kind of logic that needs to be punched in the nose. It's not defeat, it's called trying to speed up the processes and try to help Iraq stand on it's own and really see if a Democracy in Iraq is actually viable.
People like Mccain need to be told that things cannot be forced into existence by the sheer will of the stubborn alone.
There was also relief across the board with many expressing the hope that President Bush would consider changes to his open ended policy in Iraq and the Middle East. There was also reportedly some anger from sects within Iraq who felt they were not represented in the report.
The report offers 79 separate recommendations and can be read in PDF form on CNN.Com.
While the report offers recommendations of change most of the suggestions are nothing new and many have been offered by Democrats in the past and criticized as "cut and run" strategy's.
It is also unlikely the ISG's report will have much of a long term impact. Soon the Pentagon and the Justice Department will release their assessments on Iraq and they are likely uphold and reinforce the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld mantra and we will be staying the course again in no time.
Nothing. President Bush is awaiting two additional reports, one from his friends down at the Pentagon and one from his buddies at The Justice Department, before he is going to decide on how to access the situation.
After The President has reviewed all three assessments he will then give a televised address to tell the nation and the world on what the next step will be.
I would be very surprised to see President Bush change is mind and I expect it will take more pressure to break the levee that is his will.
Rather, I expect the reports coming out of the Pentagon and out of the Justice Department to more or less encourage the battle in Iraq to be an open ended occupation.
The Iraq Study Group was composed of mostly old timer Republicans and Democrats, none of which has expertise in any field relating to the Middle East, rather the panel consulted with the experts for their information to draw their conclusions.
The report has drawn praise, criticism, relief, anger and confusion.
A lot of criticism is coming from some conservatives and Jewish who are asking what the Israeli - Arab conflict had to do with Iraq.
Well, it doesn't really. Israel has as much to do with Iraq as Iraq had to do with 9/11 and President Bush has so long demanded that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terror and interconnected the two so intimately.
So now that we are talking about the Iraq War, we have to talk about The War On Terror, and if one is sincere about the stated intentions of The War On Terror, then one has to seriously and sincerely address the Israeli-Arab peace process. It is a view that has been been previously expressed by moderate leaders in the Middle East, Kofi Annan and Tony Blair.
Democratic Senator and Iraq War opponent John Murtha was not pleased with the report and said it "is no different than the current policy.'' in a statement and that "Staying in Iraq is not an option politically, militarily or fiscally,'' .
Republican John Mccain, who is considering a Presidential run in 2008 for the CONservative party complained "I do not agree that you can take the trainers that are necessary, much less the troops that are necessary, from the existing forces there,''
The Presidential hopeful continued "There is only one thing worse than an overstressed military, and that's a defeated military"
That's really the kind of logic that needs to be punched in the nose. It's not defeat, it's called trying to speed up the processes and try to help Iraq stand on it's own and really see if a Democracy in Iraq is actually viable.
People like Mccain need to be told that things cannot be forced into existence by the sheer will of the stubborn alone.
There was also relief across the board with many expressing the hope that President Bush would consider changes to his open ended policy in Iraq and the Middle East. There was also reportedly some anger from sects within Iraq who felt they were not represented in the report.
The report offers 79 separate recommendations and can be read in PDF form on CNN.Com.
While the report offers recommendations of change most of the suggestions are nothing new and many have been offered by Democrats in the past and criticized as "cut and run" strategy's.
It is also unlikely the ISG's report will have much of a long term impact. Soon the Pentagon and the Justice Department will release their assessments on Iraq and they are likely uphold and reinforce the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld mantra and we will be staying the course again in no time.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Will The ISG Report On Iraq Change US Policy?
Today the Iraq Study Group released it's much anticipated report on Iraq, which was given to President Bush early this morning in Washington D.C.
Key recommendations are as follows [ Source : CNN ]
• Change diplomatic and military missions
• Engage Iran and Syria to address border, insurgency and reconciliation issues
• Renew commitment to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace and provide additional support to Afghanistan as part of regional approach
• Evolve U.S. military role to support Iraqi Army units as Iraq moves to take responsibility for security sooner
• Move all U.S. combat brigades not needed for protection out of Iraq by first quarter of 2008
• Make no open-ended commitment to Iraq to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq
• Improve Iraq's criminal justice system, oil sector, U.S. reconstruction efforts
• Implement recommendations in coordinated fashion
Read PDF of full report on CNN.Com.
These are suggestions that certain journalist, bloggers and Democrats have suggested in the past, this report offers nothing new, except that it comes from the hands of a bipartisan panel, which may help give the document more weight.
Now that the report has been released the next big question is will President Bush accept any of the advice which has been offered to him?
My other question is, has President Bush been shown enough opposition from both Republicans and Democrats to put him in the position that he is forced to change the course he has so readily stayed?
I don't believe so, but I would love to be proven wrong.
Suggestions in the report include to renew US commitment to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, a process that has been largely abandoned in recent years.
The conflict is a constant source of animosity for many moderate and extremist Arabs alike. Neutralizing the Arab-Israeli conflict is essential to the struggle against terrorism and must be adequately and fairly addressed if goals of peace in the Middle East are sincere.
Also included are suggestions that the United States engage with Iran and Syria regarding the porous borders, their contribution to the insurgency and reconciliation, presumably between Sunni and Shia factions, as well as nationally. My question is how does anyone actually see that as being realistic? Sure, it sounds nice, but...
Furthermore, what would posses the Iranians, avowed enemy of the United States for decades now, to help the Americans and the Iraqi's, when both countries have been Iran's enemy in the past? Taking it a step further, if the Iranians did help, would that not be basically handing the keys of Mesopotamia over to what could become an Iranian superpower on it's way to being a nuclear superpower?
The report also suggests for the US to gradually evolve U.S. military role to support Iraqi Army units, something we have are already attempting do to.
In my view it is not the number of Iraqi forces that is inadequate, it is the quality of these forces that is inadequate. While some are brave individuals working to salvage their country others are loyal to sectarian militias, and some Iraqi's have, specifically in al-Anbar province complained that US troops treat them more humanely than Iraqi forces, who are often from out of the area.
What is needed is more oversight of Iraqi forces, training that does not only involve weapons training but ethics training. Better organization is needed so it is known what forces are operating in what areas and what times, making it easier to determine who is responsible for the infamous death squads in police and military uniform.
The report also recommends making no open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. I haven't heard that one before, I haven't heard the Democrats saying one that for years now...
Improving Iraq's criminal justice system, oil sector, and U.S. reconstruction efforts are also on the ISG's laundry list of things to do.
What "criminal justice" system is this report talking about? I have heard that Iraqi's often do not even report kidnappings and murders because they do not trust the police. If there was some type of effective criminal justice system there is no way all this violence could continue unchecked. Improve the system? I think you need to create it first.
Oil sector and reconstruction efforts? This is the part of the report that entities like Halliburton are waiting for. This is where their big money lies, when they charge the US taxpayers for jobs they never do and still win contact after contact for the "reconstruction" effort. Their guys on the ground making ~ $17,000 (US) a month while US soldiers get about $2,000 (US) a month. The comparison is a travesty, so who do you think wants the war to continue? The US soldiers or defense contractors and mercenaries?
It is important that the oil sector be repaired and protected, but not for the benefit of America but for the benefit of Iraq, this money can be used to improve infastructure and living conditions of Iraqi's. Suggestions should have been made to reduce or eliminate Iraqi debt and to offer low interest loans to the country for security and infastructure related expenditures.
However, the most disappointing thing about the report is that none of the suggestions actually seem to be new, and furthermore it is doubtful if President Bush, the Vice President Cheney and their new Rummy - Robert Gates will actually implement the much needed changes.
When receiving the report this morning President Bush craftily stated that he would "consider all suggestions" in the report, but did not in any way indicate support or agreement with the reports assessment.
Today the Iraq Study Group released it's much anticipated report on Iraq, which was given to President Bush early this morning in Washington D.C.
Key recommendations are as follows [ Source : CNN ]
• Change diplomatic and military missions
• Engage Iran and Syria to address border, insurgency and reconciliation issues
• Renew commitment to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace and provide additional support to Afghanistan as part of regional approach
• Evolve U.S. military role to support Iraqi Army units as Iraq moves to take responsibility for security sooner
• Move all U.S. combat brigades not needed for protection out of Iraq by first quarter of 2008
• Make no open-ended commitment to Iraq to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq
• Improve Iraq's criminal justice system, oil sector, U.S. reconstruction efforts
• Implement recommendations in coordinated fashion
Read PDF of full report on CNN.Com.
These are suggestions that certain journalist, bloggers and Democrats have suggested in the past, this report offers nothing new, except that it comes from the hands of a bipartisan panel, which may help give the document more weight.
Now that the report has been released the next big question is will President Bush accept any of the advice which has been offered to him?
My other question is, has President Bush been shown enough opposition from both Republicans and Democrats to put him in the position that he is forced to change the course he has so readily stayed?
I don't believe so, but I would love to be proven wrong.
Suggestions in the report include to renew US commitment to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, a process that has been largely abandoned in recent years.
The conflict is a constant source of animosity for many moderate and extremist Arabs alike. Neutralizing the Arab-Israeli conflict is essential to the struggle against terrorism and must be adequately and fairly addressed if goals of peace in the Middle East are sincere.
Also included are suggestions that the United States engage with Iran and Syria regarding the porous borders, their contribution to the insurgency and reconciliation, presumably between Sunni and Shia factions, as well as nationally. My question is how does anyone actually see that as being realistic? Sure, it sounds nice, but...
Furthermore, what would posses the Iranians, avowed enemy of the United States for decades now, to help the Americans and the Iraqi's, when both countries have been Iran's enemy in the past? Taking it a step further, if the Iranians did help, would that not be basically handing the keys of Mesopotamia over to what could become an Iranian superpower on it's way to being a nuclear superpower?
The report also suggests for the US to gradually evolve U.S. military role to support Iraqi Army units, something we have are already attempting do to.
In my view it is not the number of Iraqi forces that is inadequate, it is the quality of these forces that is inadequate. While some are brave individuals working to salvage their country others are loyal to sectarian militias, and some Iraqi's have, specifically in al-Anbar province complained that US troops treat them more humanely than Iraqi forces, who are often from out of the area.
What is needed is more oversight of Iraqi forces, training that does not only involve weapons training but ethics training. Better organization is needed so it is known what forces are operating in what areas and what times, making it easier to determine who is responsible for the infamous death squads in police and military uniform.
The report also recommends making no open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq. I haven't heard that one before, I haven't heard the Democrats saying one that for years now...
Improving Iraq's criminal justice system, oil sector, and U.S. reconstruction efforts are also on the ISG's laundry list of things to do.
What "criminal justice" system is this report talking about? I have heard that Iraqi's often do not even report kidnappings and murders because they do not trust the police. If there was some type of effective criminal justice system there is no way all this violence could continue unchecked. Improve the system? I think you need to create it first.
Oil sector and reconstruction efforts? This is the part of the report that entities like Halliburton are waiting for. This is where their big money lies, when they charge the US taxpayers for jobs they never do and still win contact after contact for the "reconstruction" effort. Their guys on the ground making ~ $17,000 (US) a month while US soldiers get about $2,000 (US) a month. The comparison is a travesty, so who do you think wants the war to continue? The US soldiers or defense contractors and mercenaries?
It is important that the oil sector be repaired and protected, but not for the benefit of America but for the benefit of Iraq, this money can be used to improve infastructure and living conditions of Iraqi's. Suggestions should have been made to reduce or eliminate Iraqi debt and to offer low interest loans to the country for security and infastructure related expenditures.
However, the most disappointing thing about the report is that none of the suggestions actually seem to be new, and furthermore it is doubtful if President Bush, the Vice President Cheney and their new Rummy - Robert Gates will actually implement the much needed changes.
When receiving the report this morning President Bush craftily stated that he would "consider all suggestions" in the report, but did not in any way indicate support or agreement with the reports assessment.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Gates On Track To Become Next Secretary Of Defense
Related -
LA Times Hints of a Rumsfeld-ian style
LA Times Has Gates learned his lesson?
Washington Post For Defense Nominee, Echoes of Old Questions Gates Criticized on Handling of Intelligence at CIA
DOL Robert Gates, White House Appeaser?
Today the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved the confirmation of Robert Gates as new Defense Secretary, which will send the nomination to full Senate.
It seems as if America is so eager to have Donald Rumsfeld gone they do not even care who heads the Pentagon, as long as it was not Rumsfeld.
But is Gates the right man for the job or is he a Rummy in sheep's clothing?
While television news had failed to illuminate the viewing audience of the history of Robert Gates the newspapers of this great country have not failed us this time, and for those of us who were paying attention we were reminded of just who this Robert Gates was.
If Gates can somehow turn things around in Iraq without the shady dirty business he is best known for (politicizing intelligence and Iran-Contra Affair) then he will be vindicated in my eyes, but until then I remain thoroughly skeptical of this harmless looking man.
Why?
After the reelection of Ronald Reagan during a time when relationships with the Soviet Union were aggressive, then CIA Deputy Director Robert Gates delivered a report to the White House which suggested that the Soviets had been involved in the plot to assassinate Pope John Paul the Second.
The only problem with the report? It was purely politicized elephant shit that was not backed by any facts whatsoever.
There was never any evidence to support his theory and his theory has been widely proven to be false, but none of that mattered, because Gates was able to "hand deliver" cherry picked intelligence directly to the White House.
Gates is well known and has in the past been fairly criticized, even by some Republicans for his habit of politicizing intelligence.
This can be extremely dangerous in a time when cherry picked-politicized intelligence is what ultimately led this country into a war with Iraq and what keeps us in a war in Iraq.
During the Iran-Iraq War Gates allegedly passed intelligence to Iraq. That war claimed one million lives and lasted eight years and altered the political landscape in the region.
In 1986 several members of the Reagan Administration sold weapons to Iran in order fund Contra militants in Nicaragua, the scandal became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.
Robert Gates had a close relationships with those involved in the Iran-Contra Affair and although there was not sufficient evidence to warrant charging Robert Gates with a crime for his role in the scandal, many did not believe his assertion that he simply did not remember key facts when Gates was known for having an extraordinary memory.
How can the television media ignore these facts and allegations? Will they ignore these allegations if Gates helps lead us into a regional war with Iraq on one side and Iran on the other?
The most disturbing revelation is that both Democrats and Republicans seem to be willing to dismiss Gates past.
All Gates had to do was go into that hearing and agree to the painful fact that we all know, which the United States is not necessarily winning the quagmire in Iraq (duh) and then Gates was golden as far as they were concerned, he was in.
This revelation too, is disturbing. It makes the process entirely to easy for Gates who is surely intelligent and possibly manipulative, otherwise he would not have made it to the position he is in today.
Gates knew, and Bush knew and Rumsfeld knew and the Republicans knew that Gates had to go into that hearing agreeing with American consensus which is "change in Iraq". That's all he had to agree with, and the media ate it up too.
Supporters of Gates have insisted that Gates has changed, that he has matured and that he has changed.
It looks like now is the time we are going to be forced to see if Robert Gates has indeed changed or if he is the same sock puppet-political windsock-stove piping politicized intelligence to the White House mini Rumsfeld that he has been known to be in the past.
I hope Gates is indeed the right man for the job and can change the outcome (for the better) in Iraq, but I am not holding my breath.
I hope for the best but I expect that somehow things are going to get a lot more complicated in the Middle East with Robert Gates at the helm of this runaway ship. I hope I am wrong.
Related -
LA Times Hints of a Rumsfeld-ian style
LA Times Has Gates learned his lesson?
Washington Post For Defense Nominee, Echoes of Old Questions Gates Criticized on Handling of Intelligence at CIA
DOL Robert Gates, White House Appeaser?
Today the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved the confirmation of Robert Gates as new Defense Secretary, which will send the nomination to full Senate.
It seems as if America is so eager to have Donald Rumsfeld gone they do not even care who heads the Pentagon, as long as it was not Rumsfeld.
But is Gates the right man for the job or is he a Rummy in sheep's clothing?
While television news had failed to illuminate the viewing audience of the history of Robert Gates the newspapers of this great country have not failed us this time, and for those of us who were paying attention we were reminded of just who this Robert Gates was.
If Gates can somehow turn things around in Iraq without the shady dirty business he is best known for (politicizing intelligence and Iran-Contra Affair) then he will be vindicated in my eyes, but until then I remain thoroughly skeptical of this harmless looking man.
Why?
After the reelection of Ronald Reagan during a time when relationships with the Soviet Union were aggressive, then CIA Deputy Director Robert Gates delivered a report to the White House which suggested that the Soviets had been involved in the plot to assassinate Pope John Paul the Second.
The only problem with the report? It was purely politicized elephant shit that was not backed by any facts whatsoever.
There was never any evidence to support his theory and his theory has been widely proven to be false, but none of that mattered, because Gates was able to "hand deliver" cherry picked intelligence directly to the White House.
Gates is well known and has in the past been fairly criticized, even by some Republicans for his habit of politicizing intelligence.
This can be extremely dangerous in a time when cherry picked-politicized intelligence is what ultimately led this country into a war with Iraq and what keeps us in a war in Iraq.
During the Iran-Iraq War Gates allegedly passed intelligence to Iraq. That war claimed one million lives and lasted eight years and altered the political landscape in the region.
In 1986 several members of the Reagan Administration sold weapons to Iran in order fund Contra militants in Nicaragua, the scandal became known as the Iran-Contra Affair.
Robert Gates had a close relationships with those involved in the Iran-Contra Affair and although there was not sufficient evidence to warrant charging Robert Gates with a crime for his role in the scandal, many did not believe his assertion that he simply did not remember key facts when Gates was known for having an extraordinary memory.
How can the television media ignore these facts and allegations? Will they ignore these allegations if Gates helps lead us into a regional war with Iraq on one side and Iran on the other?
The most disturbing revelation is that both Democrats and Republicans seem to be willing to dismiss Gates past.
All Gates had to do was go into that hearing and agree to the painful fact that we all know, which the United States is not necessarily winning the quagmire in Iraq (duh) and then Gates was golden as far as they were concerned, he was in.
This revelation too, is disturbing. It makes the process entirely to easy for Gates who is surely intelligent and possibly manipulative, otherwise he would not have made it to the position he is in today.
Gates knew, and Bush knew and Rumsfeld knew and the Republicans knew that Gates had to go into that hearing agreeing with American consensus which is "change in Iraq". That's all he had to agree with, and the media ate it up too.
Supporters of Gates have insisted that Gates has changed, that he has matured and that he has changed.
It looks like now is the time we are going to be forced to see if Robert Gates has indeed changed or if he is the same sock puppet-political windsock-stove piping politicized intelligence to the White House mini Rumsfeld that he has been known to be in the past.
I hope Gates is indeed the right man for the job and can change the outcome (for the better) in Iraq, but I am not holding my breath.
I hope for the best but I expect that somehow things are going to get a lot more complicated in the Middle East with Robert Gates at the helm of this runaway ship. I hope I am wrong.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Does US Need New Govt. Institution To Combat Terrorism?
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote a memo to his comrades in arms in which he pondered the great questions of the War on Terror.
The memo was scattered with questions, but there was a recurring theme that seems to have escaped the media.
Rumsfeld refers to creating new government entities three times in the recently leaked memo, which can be read at USA TODAY.Com.
But in a country already tied down with bureaucracy and poor communication within existing government entities one has to ask if creating a new one is really the answer.
The memo reads as if it were hand crafted for public release, not a secret memo that got "leaked" to the public. Rumsfeld is posing mostly rhetorical questions, posed purposely with the intent of making a point, not asking a question.
So are new government institutions or entities really the answer to Rumsfeld's questions?
As I view it in this case the government is part of the problem. Maybe there are too many entities already operating within it, rather than not enough.
The focus should perhaps be focused on more efficient and intelligent agencies, rather than new agencies. Let these agencies be head by competent individuals, not those who have family or friends in high places.
But in a government already steeped in debt and war whose present government institutions are not entirely efficient it may not be a productive pursue the idea of creating a new government institution.
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote a memo to his comrades in arms in which he pondered the great questions of the War on Terror.
The memo was scattered with questions, but there was a recurring theme that seems to have escaped the media.
Rumsfeld refers to creating new government entities three times in the recently leaked memo, which can be read at USA TODAY.Com.
But in a country already tied down with bureaucracy and poor communication within existing government entities one has to ask if creating a new one is really the answer.
The memo reads as if it were hand crafted for public release, not a secret memo that got "leaked" to the public. Rumsfeld is posing mostly rhetorical questions, posed purposely with the intent of making a point, not asking a question.
So are new government institutions or entities really the answer to Rumsfeld's questions?
As I view it in this case the government is part of the problem. Maybe there are too many entities already operating within it, rather than not enough.
The focus should perhaps be focused on more efficient and intelligent agencies, rather than new agencies. Let these agencies be head by competent individuals, not those who have family or friends in high places.
But in a government already steeped in debt and war whose present government institutions are not entirely efficient it may not be a productive pursue the idea of creating a new government institution.
Leaked? Rumsfeld's War-On-Terror Memo
The text below is of a leaked memo written by Donald Rumsfeld regarding the GWOT and was copied by Dreams Of Liberty from USA TODAY, where the memo can also be read.
October 16, 2003
TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:
We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
Does CIA need a new finding?
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?
What else should we be considering?
Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.
Thanks.
Source : USA TODAY
*The author of Dreams of Liberty believes the memo was not leaked, but that the Rumsfeld memo was written with the intent of public release as part of the vindication of Rumsfeld following his coming resignation.
The text below is of a leaked memo written by Donald Rumsfeld regarding the GWOT and was copied by Dreams Of Liberty from USA TODAY, where the memo can also be read.
October 16, 2003
TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith
FROM: Donald Rumsfeld
SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism
The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?
DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.
With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:
We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.
USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.
USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.
With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.
Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?
Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?
Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?
Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?
It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.
Does CIA need a new finding?
Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?
What else should we be considering?
Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.
Thanks.
Source : USA TODAY
*The author of Dreams of Liberty believes the memo was not leaked, but that the Rumsfeld memo was written with the intent of public release as part of the vindication of Rumsfeld following his coming resignation.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
American Support For The Iraq War And What It Really Means
Some people, like the President and his supporters like to fabricate theories as to why the majority of Americans no longer support the war in Iraq.
One theory the President and his henchmen tried to use was that Americans who did not support the war were unpatriotic (and a non Judaeo-Christian terrorist).
Another theory offered that Americans no longer supported the war because Americans were "appeasing terrorist" and yet another theory claimed that Americans were "weak in their resolve" to fight terrorist. When they got real desperate they began to claim that these Americans actually wanted the enemy to win.
All the above theories are absolutely ludicrous and can only be made by individuals who are personally, politically and sometimes financially motivated to do so, or are unhealthily blind to circumstance and reality.
Support for the war in Iraq ... How do I put this?
Personally I began to falter in my footsteps when it turned out Iraq did not have the Weapons of Mass Destruction since they had been destroyed by the first President George Bush during the first Iraq War.
The chest thumping patriotic drum beat slowed down a bit for me when documents and memos seemed to reveal this misdirection was purposeful not accidental and made by the people who hold the highest offices in the country.
When these leaders then started accusing me and other Americans of being unpatriotic and of terrorist appeasement for so much as questioning the war, that just turned me further away from their agenda and their vague and open ended mission.
The leaders who were insulting not only my intelligence and my morality but my patriotism no longer deserved my open ended support by that time as far as I was concerned.
When the Abu Ghraib story broke, this did little to lift my spirits about the direction of the war or the type of people who were leading my country. It began to demoralize me, and I believe it demoralized other Americans as well.
Suddenly it didn't really feel like we were liberating anyone anymore and it was all just a sham. Whatever it was it sure didn't seem like we were coming off as "good guys" to our allies either.
The more time progressed the more apparent it became that the President was full of hot air. He made mistakes, refused to own up to them, every time he opened his mouth it was just to put his foot in it.
Then came Haditha and Hamdania incidents and the rape, murder and burning of little Abeer Qassim Hamza. Around this point I started to say this war is absolutely insane.
All that was just on the war front. Domestically the ruler ship was just as insulting to our own Democracy.
What President Bush and his lackeys do not realize it is these actions that have demoralized us and caused us to lose our resolve, not some hooded man on a cheap recording making vague threats.
This administration's habitual prevaricating, inability to solve problems and total disregard for advice has done just as much to damage American resolve as the terrorist have.
So whenever the war comes under criticism and I hear a member of the Bush Administration or their supporters come out to chant their familiar mantra : "unpatriotic, terrorist appeaser, no resolve, wants the enemy to win" I am never surprised.
It is a perpetual state of denial on their behalf. It is much easier for these people to convince themselves of things that are not true, rather than face the reality that it was ones own actions and words that have led to the lack of support in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.
Some people, like the President and his supporters like to fabricate theories as to why the majority of Americans no longer support the war in Iraq.
One theory the President and his henchmen tried to use was that Americans who did not support the war were unpatriotic (and a non Judaeo-Christian terrorist).
Another theory offered that Americans no longer supported the war because Americans were "appeasing terrorist" and yet another theory claimed that Americans were "weak in their resolve" to fight terrorist. When they got real desperate they began to claim that these Americans actually wanted the enemy to win.
All the above theories are absolutely ludicrous and can only be made by individuals who are personally, politically and sometimes financially motivated to do so, or are unhealthily blind to circumstance and reality.
Support for the war in Iraq ... How do I put this?
Personally I began to falter in my footsteps when it turned out Iraq did not have the Weapons of Mass Destruction since they had been destroyed by the first President George Bush during the first Iraq War.
The chest thumping patriotic drum beat slowed down a bit for me when documents and memos seemed to reveal this misdirection was purposeful not accidental and made by the people who hold the highest offices in the country.
When these leaders then started accusing me and other Americans of being unpatriotic and of terrorist appeasement for so much as questioning the war, that just turned me further away from their agenda and their vague and open ended mission.
The leaders who were insulting not only my intelligence and my morality but my patriotism no longer deserved my open ended support by that time as far as I was concerned.
When the Abu Ghraib story broke, this did little to lift my spirits about the direction of the war or the type of people who were leading my country. It began to demoralize me, and I believe it demoralized other Americans as well.
Suddenly it didn't really feel like we were liberating anyone anymore and it was all just a sham. Whatever it was it sure didn't seem like we were coming off as "good guys" to our allies either.
The more time progressed the more apparent it became that the President was full of hot air. He made mistakes, refused to own up to them, every time he opened his mouth it was just to put his foot in it.
Then came Haditha and Hamdania incidents and the rape, murder and burning of little Abeer Qassim Hamza. Around this point I started to say this war is absolutely insane.
All that was just on the war front. Domestically the ruler ship was just as insulting to our own Democracy.
What President Bush and his lackeys do not realize it is these actions that have demoralized us and caused us to lose our resolve, not some hooded man on a cheap recording making vague threats.
This administration's habitual prevaricating, inability to solve problems and total disregard for advice has done just as much to damage American resolve as the terrorist have.
So whenever the war comes under criticism and I hear a member of the Bush Administration or their supporters come out to chant their familiar mantra : "unpatriotic, terrorist appeaser, no resolve, wants the enemy to win" I am never surprised.
It is a perpetual state of denial on their behalf. It is much easier for these people to convince themselves of things that are not true, rather than face the reality that it was ones own actions and words that have led to the lack of support in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Bigotry In America? You Bet.
There are milestones in our great Democracy. To name a few would be to name the freeing of the slaves, allowing woman to vote and allowing minorities to hold political office.
Multiculturalism and religious equality are qualities embedded in the Constitution and the documents that America is founded on. For instance, in Article. VI. it is written
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The First Amendment to the Constitution also reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
To reach further back one can site The Declaration Of Independence, which in it's opening lines states
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Note that it is written "endowed by their creator" not endowed by my creator or your creator or the creator, but the creator of the individual. It is written to protect the religions and beliefs of all Americans, not just some.
So what really shocks me, in the year 2006 is when people who think they are true Americans exhibit and display some very truly unAmerican traits, such as racism and/or religious intolerance.
These people often claim that if America allows religious harmony and equality that it will "undermines American civilization".
This idea is laughable because multiculturalism and religious tolerance does not undermine American civilization, it builds American civilization and it advances American civilization and it serves as a role model to the world.
But there are many intolerant bigots still living amongst us. Like I wrote, they claim to know what "American values" are and talk about the "voice of the American people" a lot and they say they want to "protect" American culture all while they try to tear it apart, but mostly it is just intolerance and xenophobia.
In the 2006 elections America saw it's first Muslim Congressman elected in the entire history of the country, this is another milestone in our Democracy, specifically because our Constitution reflects that people of all religions are allowed to serve in political office and that "no religious test" shall be required. It is one quality in which our Constitution is more advanced than others.
I did not expect, but I should have figured that some people in this country would be tremendously opposed to Ellison taking his Oath on a Koran or even the fact that he was Muslim.
However I was actually shocked and somewhat dismayed when right wing pundit Dennis Prager attacked newly elected Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Ellison is a Muslim man, fairly elected and has asked that he could be sworn in on the Koran, rather than the Bible.
Again, Article. VI of The United States Constitution states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Again, the first Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Dennis Prager claimed in a recent column that letting Ellison take his oath on the Koran rather than the typical Bible "undermines American civilization" and made insinuations that Ellison was making a statement such as "my culture trumps America's culture" by wanting to use a Koran rather than a Bible.
Prager produced some of the most crackpot theories and accusation in his recent column in which he claims "America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
WOW, that's pretty.. what do you call it... bigoted? Narrow minded? He doesn't even realize that when he is spouting off about "American values" that he is contradicting the guidelines set forth in the Constitution, all while claiming to be a patriot!
In the inflammatory column Prager goes on to write "In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."
Prager even compares letting Ellison take his oath with the Koran to letting someone take their oath with Hitler's "Mein Kampf".
First, Mein Kampf is not a Holy Book, and Second it is highly unlikely Nazi will ever be sworn into any office in America and Third most neo Nazi's embrace Christian ideals anyway.
Is this guy Prager even serious or is he too busy making a mockery of himself? He's practically frothing at the mouth, insinuating that Ellison or his supporters would mock the Bible. Not only that Prager is claiming that America is vehemently opposed to this heinous act of exercising ones Constitutional rights.
Allowing Ellison to take his oath on the Koran will not disrupt the fabric of American society, and it does not show disrespect for American society.
Our Constitution was set up in such a way to allow room for and protect religious minorities in public life and in office. Allowing one to practice their own religion does not surrender one to confirming the legitimacy of another person's religion but does confirm an equal and civil society.
By the way, Prager, beg you please, do some research before even writing about this subject again or maybe even read up on that whole Constitution thing.
Personal Note : Sometimes people who claim to want to protect American civilization actually inherently try to destroy it. Their ideals of American civilization are much different from the one outlined in the Constitution of the United States which serve to protect minorities and religions.
As written above, I believe it is another milestone in our great Democracy to see a Muslim elected to Congress. There was a time when people like Dennis Prager railed against letting Catholics, African Americans and woman run for office.
Last, I look forward to hearing the right wing conspiracy theories that will inevitably hatch around that Muslim Congressman and his "leftist supporters" and I am sure if Prager does not start the conspiracy theory about the "Leftist and Muslim Agenda To Overthrow American Values With Homosexuals And Flag Burners" then I am sure Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson will pick up on it soon enough.
There are milestones in our great Democracy. To name a few would be to name the freeing of the slaves, allowing woman to vote and allowing minorities to hold political office.
Multiculturalism and religious equality are qualities embedded in the Constitution and the documents that America is founded on. For instance, in Article. VI. it is written
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The First Amendment to the Constitution also reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
To reach further back one can site The Declaration Of Independence, which in it's opening lines states
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
Note that it is written "endowed by their creator" not endowed by my creator or your creator or the creator, but the creator of the individual. It is written to protect the religions and beliefs of all Americans, not just some.
So what really shocks me, in the year 2006 is when people who think they are true Americans exhibit and display some very truly unAmerican traits, such as racism and/or religious intolerance.
These people often claim that if America allows religious harmony and equality that it will "undermines American civilization".
This idea is laughable because multiculturalism and religious tolerance does not undermine American civilization, it builds American civilization and it advances American civilization and it serves as a role model to the world.
But there are many intolerant bigots still living amongst us. Like I wrote, they claim to know what "American values" are and talk about the "voice of the American people" a lot and they say they want to "protect" American culture all while they try to tear it apart, but mostly it is just intolerance and xenophobia.
In the 2006 elections America saw it's first Muslim Congressman elected in the entire history of the country, this is another milestone in our Democracy, specifically because our Constitution reflects that people of all religions are allowed to serve in political office and that "no religious test" shall be required. It is one quality in which our Constitution is more advanced than others.
I did not expect, but I should have figured that some people in this country would be tremendously opposed to Ellison taking his Oath on a Koran or even the fact that he was Muslim.
However I was actually shocked and somewhat dismayed when right wing pundit Dennis Prager attacked newly elected Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Ellison is a Muslim man, fairly elected and has asked that he could be sworn in on the Koran, rather than the Bible.
Again, Article. VI of The United States Constitution states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Again, the first Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Dennis Prager claimed in a recent column that letting Ellison take his oath on the Koran rather than the typical Bible "undermines American civilization" and made insinuations that Ellison was making a statement such as "my culture trumps America's culture" by wanting to use a Koran rather than a Bible.
Prager produced some of the most crackpot theories and accusation in his recent column in which he claims "America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."
WOW, that's pretty.. what do you call it... bigoted? Narrow minded? He doesn't even realize that when he is spouting off about "American values" that he is contradicting the guidelines set forth in the Constitution, all while claiming to be a patriot!
In the inflammatory column Prager goes on to write "In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath."
Prager even compares letting Ellison take his oath with the Koran to letting someone take their oath with Hitler's "Mein Kampf".
First, Mein Kampf is not a Holy Book, and Second it is highly unlikely Nazi will ever be sworn into any office in America and Third most neo Nazi's embrace Christian ideals anyway.
Is this guy Prager even serious or is he too busy making a mockery of himself? He's practically frothing at the mouth, insinuating that Ellison or his supporters would mock the Bible. Not only that Prager is claiming that America is vehemently opposed to this heinous act of exercising ones Constitutional rights.
Allowing Ellison to take his oath on the Koran will not disrupt the fabric of American society, and it does not show disrespect for American society.
Our Constitution was set up in such a way to allow room for and protect religious minorities in public life and in office. Allowing one to practice their own religion does not surrender one to confirming the legitimacy of another person's religion but does confirm an equal and civil society.
By the way, Prager, beg you please, do some research before even writing about this subject again or maybe even read up on that whole Constitution thing.
Personal Note : Sometimes people who claim to want to protect American civilization actually inherently try to destroy it. Their ideals of American civilization are much different from the one outlined in the Constitution of the United States which serve to protect minorities and religions.
As written above, I believe it is another milestone in our great Democracy to see a Muslim elected to Congress. There was a time when people like Dennis Prager railed against letting Catholics, African Americans and woman run for office.
Last, I look forward to hearing the right wing conspiracy theories that will inevitably hatch around that Muslim Congressman and his "leftist supporters" and I am sure if Prager does not start the conspiracy theory about the "Leftist and Muslim Agenda To Overthrow American Values With Homosexuals And Flag Burners" then I am sure Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson will pick up on it soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
