“Surge” and Destroy

Well, it’s official: President Bush announced his obviously well-thought and popular plan to “surge” an additional 20,000+ soldiers to Iraq.

An interesting excerpt from last night’s speech:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

Oh, no he didn’t.

 

A Response

A pundit responds to my last post:

I gather from your article (if you could call it that) that you would rather pull all soldiers out of Iraq immediately, allowing the country to fend for itself in a full blown civil war?

Do you advocate the deaths of millions of Iraqi’s or are you only concerned about your ideology’s agenda?

These are questions that I feel you should answer, since you only seem to criticize without offering anything in the way of a solution.

The reader seems to believe in extremes; that because I favor a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq that somehow I believe in forsaking the Iraqi people, mass murder, civil war, selfishness, and propaganda. I enjoy intelligent commentary from my readers, but this isn’t even making a mountain out of a molehill. You can’t even call this twisting my words, because I have made no words to twist.

 

Bush, Iraq, and Lame Ducks

It took long enough:

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the “stressed” U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

We’ve gone from “mission accomplished” to “staying the course” to “we’re not winning, we’re not losing”.  Politics is a gradual process, but the self-supporting logic has become both obvious and sickening to a war-wary nation.

And what’s more, now strategists are calling for a temporary troop increase, proposing to deploy another 20-30,000 soldiers to Iraq.  This seems fit to the administration’s character: as if over 100,000 soldiers without sufficient equipment and a clear objective isn’t bad enough, let’s add another 30,000.

Even Democrats, straying from their campaign promises, are considering the increase as a temporary and necessary requirement.  Harry Reid seems to be going along with the Iraq mess, and Speaker Pelosi is nowhere to be found.  At a crucial moment such as this, shouldn’t these two be openly condemning the idea of troop increases, especially when the majority of the nation supports troop withdrawals?

Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi might be getting used to the attention and responsibilities of their new positions.  But in terms of a very early assessment, I’ll give them what I consider to be a fair and objective grade: lame ducks.

 

Kissinger to Bush-Leave Iraq

Thoughts on the Iraq War from my favorite Washington Post Columnist and namesake Eugene Robinson:

Good lord, if even Henry Kissinger now says that military victory in Iraq is impossible, pretty soon George W. Bush really will be left with just Laura and Barney on his side…

The sage who wrote in August 2005 that “victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy” is now listing Bush’s conditions for withdrawal — a stable government, ruling all of Iraq, with the ability to control the violence — and pronouncing them unattainable. Will anyone be surprised if Henry the K soon reveals that he knew the whole thing was folly all along?

The president clearly doesn’t want to hear any of this. The bizarre analogy he made in Hanoi — comparing Iraq to Vietnam and saying, “We’ll succeed unless we quit” — doesn’t even make sense in his own parallel universe. He should ask his friend Kissinger to tell him about that Ho Chi Minh guy whose picture is plastered all over Vietnam.

Let’s face it, if even Henry Kissinger doesn’t think the war is working out, it really isn’t working out…

 

Santorum’s Deep Analysis of the Iraq War

Rick Santorum is an idiot:

Embattled U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said America has avoided a second terrorist attack for five years because the “Eye of Mordor” has instead been drawn to Iraq.

Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien’s 1950s fantasy classic, “Lord of the Rings,” to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.

“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else,” Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.

“It’s being drawn to Iraq and it’s not being drawn to the U.S.,” he continued. “You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don’t want the Eye to come back here to the United States.”

On second thought, maybe the childish analogy is appropriate for today’s foreign policy experts…

 

9/11 Thoughts by Kos

From today’s Daily Kos:

Like Attaturk, I think this day belongs to New Yorkers and Washingtonians, who bore the brunt of the attack. It’s not about me, and it’s certainly not about Bush, who after his famous Pet Goat moment cowardly fled and hid out in Nebraska in fear — the same kind of abject fear they’d spend the next five years selling to the American people.

For me, the worst part of the day was telling my mother, who had called me singing “happy birthday”, to please stop and go turn on the television. It was a jarring moment. She thought I was telling her to stop because I felt too old at 30. In reality, I felt like throwing up because the world was changing overnight, and not for the best.

Yet in the years since, it has been the New Yorkers who have shown the most resilience and courage. This was their trauma, and they have worked to recover why conservatives around the country scream for war and piddle their pants in terror while cowering under their beds.

He goes on:

…the strategy of the terrorists is to sow terror….and if sowing terror is their goal, this administration has made the terrorists’ strategy a resounding success. We, as a nation, have evolved from Patrick Henry’s inspirational, “Give me liberty or give me death!”, to Bush’s “Give me your liberties or you’ll die.” We have even color-coded our fear.

Couldn’t have said it better. I’ve always found it sickly ironic when the administration fights “fascist extremism” bent on compromising our national liberties and freedom by…compromising liberty and freedom (see: Japanese Internment 1941-1945). 9/11 changed our world overnight (which I will comment on later), but instead of rallying around freedom and a newly-founded national spirit, we have descended into an Orwellian nightmare of executive abuse and political mishap.

I know it’s sadly overshadowed by today’s historical significance, but happy birthday Kos. And happy birthday Mom. Let’s not forget that before September 11th, there was still a September 11th. As long as we can remember that amidst the emotion and turmoil of this day, we might be able to start coping, and perhaps move ahead into a brighter future.

 

Torture? You be the Judge…

In response to questions about 14 prisoners secretly sent to Guantanamo Bay by the CIA, President Bush today reinforced his stance that America will not use torture in its war on terror.  As the big man said himself:

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it — and I will not authorize it.

Weird, because CIA officers explained the methods of “interrogation” to ABC news last night:

The officers told ABC News there was a list of six progressively harsher techniques that were authorized, with the prisoner always handcuffed.

The first — the attention grab, involving the rough shaking of a prisoner.

Second — the attention slap, an open-handed slap to the face.

Third — belly slap, meant to cause temporary pain, but no internal injuries.

Fourth — long-term standing and sleep deprivation, 40 hours at least, described as the most effective technique.

Fifth — the cold room. Prisoners left naked in cells kept in the 50s and frequently doused with cold water.

The CIA sources say the sixth, and harshest, technique  was called “water boarding,” in which a prisoner’s face  was covered with cellophane, and water is poured over it (pictured above) — meant to trigger an unbearable gag reflex.

If this isn’t torture, then I don’t know what is.  All I can say is if President Bush is in fact earnest in his statement, then he and I have stark, irreconcilable differences in our “values”.

 

Let’s Look into the Crystal Ball…

With all of this election talk and some pollsters projecting a Democrat takeover of the House, take a moment to consider what such an event would imply:

Democrats will press to get out of Iraq. They’ll mount investigations into the Bush administration’s record that could rival those of Presidents Nixon in Watergate and Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair. They’ll push a boatload of social-welfare legislation, such as raising the minimum wage, that reflects their pent-up priorities, while blocking the Republican agenda on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and religion.

I’m all for withdrawing troops from Iraq, but it must be done strategically and thoroughly. We cannot be led by our immediate emotional response to an unpopular conflict; for sake of our troops, we must establish the agenda Senate Democrats had discussed earlier this year. This doesn’t mean blindly “maintaining the course”, but rather setting the stage for withdrawal and the conditions for self-sufficiency on part of the newly-formed Iraqi government.

Before any stupid liberals start screaming impeachment, I have to warn against such impulsive reactions. Bush might be a bad President, but on what grounds would he be impeached? Lying to the country? Being a “mass murderer”? Get real, that’s simply not going to happen.

But this would be a great start to establish a progressive agenda that could counter years of regressive policies from Capitol Hill. Despite the fact that I’m yet to be impressed by the idea of a Pelosi-led House, I realize the potential benefit they could provide to average Americans. This would be a great momentous step in the right direction, but I must play the part of the pessimist for a moment. Consider University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato’s warning:

If the Republicans have one (chamber of Congress) and the Democrats have another, hardly anything is going to reach Bush. If Democrats take both, then Bush will probably set an all-time record for vetoes.

This is a big if, as campaigning to capture six seats in the Senate is a daunting task onto itself. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves: much is yet to be determined. Over the next two months, Democrats will have the opportunity to set the agenda they feel a concerned nation will consider. Let’s hope it’s not filled with irrational or emotional-appealing banter, but rather substantial progressive goals that can ultimately rebuild America from years of political infighting and government mistrust.

 

Checking in on Rubber Stamp Santorum in Pennsylvania…

Senate Republicans forgot to give Rick Santorum the memo: bail on the Iraq War or risk losing your office.

Santorum debated various issues with Democratic opponent Bob Casey Jr. on Meet the Press yesterday, where he staunchly

“I think he’s been a terrific president, absolutely,” Santorum said in the nearly hour-long debate on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — whose resignation is being sought by some Republican candidates — “has done a fine job,” he said, and “there is no question that the Iraq war should have commenced.”

Casey has called Santorum a “rubber stamp” for Bush, blindly supporting his policies, as imprudent as they appeared. While many will brand this as Labor Day mudslinging, it’s not without warrant. With recent polls showing Casey leading Santorum among now-disillusioned Conservatives in Pennsylvania, many thought Santorum would distance himself from the Bush camp and consolidate support among the undecided moderates fed-up with a war gone sour and an ever-growing executive. But instead, Santorum has lived up to his “rubber stamp” reputation as the exemplary, unapologetic political sychophant. Perhaps Santorum is the idealist rather than the realist, but one thing is for certain: Iraq will be the main issue debated this fall as voters plan their trips to the polls, and it doesn’t look like Santorum is budging.

Santorum has often justified America’s presence in the Mid-East, citing destabilizing presences from Iran and Syria as the main source of concern for a newly-democratic Iraq. However, on Meet the Press yesterday, he reiterated a past point, maintaining that Americans have found “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. Once again, Santorum missed the memo, alluding not to the phantom arsenal Saddam Hussein supposedly had, but to shells left over from the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

Santorum might be fighting a losing battle at the moment, but at least he’s saving what face he had by maintaining his political priorities. In this Lieberman-esque age where flip-flopping is a common trend, it’s refreshing, in a very sour and particular way, that there is still a semblance of loyalty around Capitol Hill, even if it is misguided and obtuse.

But Santorum has to be reasonable: it’s only a matter of time before voters, especially in a moderate state like Pennsylvania, will ascertain the truth on the pertinent issues of the day. He could maintain his political loyalty and still apologetically concede the err of his party, but something tells me that old “rubber stamp” doesn’t have that in him.

 

A Confederacy of Dunces

Jon Chait wrote a very good piece for The New Republic today, observing the seemingly futile state of the political status quo, which he describes as “zero sum politics”:

One of the odd things about the current political moment is that everybody thinks they’re losing. Liberals are bitter that the government has been run for years by incompetent reactionaries. And even those hopeful ones who anticipate winning control of Congress in November know in the back of their minds that the only thing they’ll gain is the ability to limit the damage George W. Bush could inflict on the country. Conservatives, meanwhile, are bitter that Bush’s presidency is going down in flames, and they blame the Republican Party for abandoning small-government principles.

Chait reiterates a past point I made about bipartisan cooperation. Both parties are tainted by misdirection and political leaders ignoring ideals in favor of temporary and short-sighted decisions. The Bush presidency is about as devoid of any “small government” qualities that Conservatives are enamored with than any other Republican Executive. Chait is absolutely correct to describe current Conservative politics as a “corrupt brand of right-wing corporatism” devoid of any of the philosophical principles that the GOP has been fortified on for decades. And while this detriment to the republican rock might be perceived as a liberal victory, we must pause for a moment and consider the liberal response. Liberals are fragmented and obscured by partisan infighting; as Chait concedes, “…even those hopeful ones who anticipate winning control of Congress in November know in the back of their minds that the only thing they’ll gain is the ability to limit the damage George W. Bush could inflict on the country.” So critical of the current administration, the left has forgotten their own agenda, losing their own voice in the national debate.

In sum, the political situation in the nation is dismal, and for good reason.

Political strife, like war, often produces little benefit, and what little benefit is accumulated is unfortunately negated by the strain of turmoil and acrimonious rhetoric that lingers through the national collective conscience. Both sides are losing because they have lost sight of what it is to win this supposed “contest”.

I’m no economist, but I’m sure there’s a theory that expresses this ideal. In any situation, it would seem that cooperation, or at least a cessation of conflict, coinciding with a rational consideration of various options would be more beneficial in the long run.

 

Skewed Perceptions and Foiled Bombings in England

Josh Marshall commented on Bush’s assessment of today’s foiled terrorist attacks in England:

President Bush just said the events in London are “a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.”

Also a pretty stark reminder that President Bush’s War on Terror, the way he’s chosen to fight it, is at best irrelevant to combatting this sort of danger. These are homegrown Brits apparently trying to blow up planes over the Atlantic. Good thing we’ve got a 150,000 or so troops in Iraq to take the fight to them.

Good point. This “war on terror” we are supposedly fighting abroad defies both reality and definition; it assumes that terrorism is an external threat when it is, in fact, internal. While this seems obvious to me, it seems to be confusing the policy-makers of the current administration.

 

A Flip Flopping Connecticut Yankee in King Bush’s Court

Today’s Democratic primary in Connecticut will be a very interesting indicator of future events for the Democratic Party. As voters head to the polls, they will seek to set the standard for the future direction of the party and determine the future of a relic’s political career, once established but now deteriorating.

Joe Lieberman, once a Democratic staple and former Vice-Presidential candidate has always maintained a certain independence to his political career, varying in scope with various issues. Ned Lamont, a businessman with little-to-no political experience, has targeted Lieberman with accusations of, essentially, party betrayal. Lamont’s campaign has pointed to pictures of Lieberman embracing Bush, going as far as to call him “Bush’s best friend”.

Lieberman’s defense from this past Sunday (From the Washington Post):

The “biggest lie being told about me by the other side,” Lieberman declared, is “the false charge that I am George Bush’s best friend and enabler.” Lieberman’s closing speech reflected a clear recognition that he had no chance of surviving as long as voters associated him with Bush.

We were then reminded that…

Lieberman “clearly disagreed with and criticized the president” on many aspects of Bush’s Iraq policy.

Strange, because this was a statement he made this past December:

“It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he’ll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.”

Lieberman is clearly desperate, realizing that he will lose the election if his name is directly or indirectly associated with Bush. His campaign has degenerated, once focusing on labor issues in Connecticut and the inexperience of his opposition, to proclaiming his discontent with the current situation in Iraq and the Bush administration. Too little too late.

Lieberman (and myself) hoped that this election does not revolve around this one issue. But it unfortunately does.

Lieberman’s outspoken support of the Iraq War has pushed him into the moderate camp, isolating him from his former Democratic allies and constituents. Connecticut, a strongly liberal state, is now rallying around Lamont because of a promise to fight against the war. And as much as Lieberman can squirm at the last minute to convince undecided voters that he has changed, he continues to lose what little credibility he had left.

Lieberman has gone as far as to say that “in Washington Lamont would be polarizing”. But if 80% of the Democrats think the Iraq War was a mistake and Lamont agrees with them, then who is he polarizing to? The Republicans?

Lieberman’s independence from his party has been his MO for most of his career. He’s never been Democrat Joe Lieberman, but Joe Lieberman, Democrat. His varying political identity has been his appeal, representing not an established party but his own ideals and that of his state.

But now Lieberman’s independence is his downfall, as it has indirectly led him into Republican graces. In an age of intense political infighting and character attacks on Capitol Hill, this can be tantamount to career suicide.

I would have preferred if Lieberman maintained his moderately conservative idealism, because at least he would still be Joe Lieberman. Nostalgia has a strange way of removing the taste of vomit from your mouth, and I momentarily forgive his conservative leanings. But his actions over the past few days are simply indicative of “Joe Cool”, transcending his Democratic identity to a self-created greater ideal.

What does this imply for the future of the party? Will moderates be attacked by polarizing issues by candidates who know when and where to strike? How about the dependence of a candidate on the rigidness of a party platform versus an autonomous agenda?

The impending issue arises if Lieberman loses. He has declared that he will run as an independent in November if he loses today, and with his experience and reputation, he will put up a great fight. What will this mean for Democrats with respect to the critical seats in Congress in jeopardy? Lieberman has always been a lone-wolf of sorts, but is his ego going to take precedent over his obligation to the party he once represented?

Lieberman’s unapologetic “flip flopping” offends me. What kind of indication is this, of both his personal and political character? Unfortunately, desperation makes good men do bad things, but in a career where moral integrity is a rare asset, how much faith can Connecticut keep in their once favored Senator? Will Lieberman realize the error of his ways and fade out of the spotlight with integrity, or will he drag this on as an acrimonious issue that Democrats will have to deal with for another four months?

 

Slippery Slopes, Hypocrisy, Stem Cells, and Another Bush Fiasco

Is anyone else as surprised as I am that President Bush took five years to veto his first bill in the White House? One of the most controversial and ultra-conservative Presidents in our nation’s history, Bush has seemed to push the envelope on all issues, domestic and foreign. But it was an issue about stem cells, which the Bush Administration proclaimed was a “slippery slope” to moral chaos, that forced him to sign the veto. Interestingly enough, he did so in private, away from the public eye and the critical media. That’s not so surprising.

A thought from the American Prospect:

Asked by a friendly reporter in the press corps about the destruction of “thousands and thousands” of embryos, Snow said: “That is a tragedy, but the president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something that is living and making it dead for the purpose of research.”

Thousands and thousands of embryos being destroyed constitutes a tragedy, but 2,500 dead Americans in Iraq “is a number,” according to Snow.

The obvious school yard hypocrisy is not what bothers me; this is almost expected at this juncture in Bush’s occupation of the Presidency. What does bother me, and is simply a tribute to the faulty logical basis of most of their rationales, is the “truthy” responses to the press:

Snow was on a rampage just after Bush vetoed the bill. The president was not holding back scientific progress, he insisted, flailingly: “You’re just flat wrong,” he told a reporter, “Just flat wrong. I mean, that is basically an attempt to substitute an insult for an argument. I’ve given you the argument, and I’ve rebutted the insult.”

So now our critical eye is “insulting” to the President and our questions are “just flat wrong”. Glad to see that open-mindedness is flourishing in our bastion of hope to the free world.

I have untold amounts of problems with Bush’s decision to veto this bill. If we want to assess this decision from a political standpoint, Bush alienated not only liberal Democrats but moderate to orthodox Republicans as well. Bush made his choice and sided with the religious right, not exactly the best way to form coalitions and cooperation with your supporters. Why else would he veto the bill in private: his decision did not represent the aggregate consensus of the nation, of which he swore to serve and protect.

The issue, therefore, is not about the stem cells, but a greater reflection of President Bush’s willingness to achieve his own personal agenda, even at the cost of consensus.

Even Senator Bill Frist, once a staunch opponent of Stem Cell research, now openly supports the practice, realizing the medical potential of such research. Bush is no doctor; Frist certainly is. We will get our chance to speak out on this issue in November, but at the moment this is yet another sobering example of the “truthy” President letting his gut emotion dictate his judgement and,consequently and unfortunately, the direction of our nation.

 

Bush: Leader of the Free World or Frat Boy in Disguise?

In a previous post, I simplistically labeled President Bush’s foibles and complex character flaws as “stupid”. Maureen Dowd says the same thing in her Wednesday column, but perhaps in a more refined, posh way:

“In many regards, the Bush I knew did not seem to be built for what lay ahead,” wrote Frank Bruni, the Times writer who covered W.’s ascent, in his book “Ambling Into History.” “The Bush I knew was part scamp and part bumbler, a timeless fraternity boy and heedless cutup, a weekday gym rat and weekend napster, an adult with an inner child that often brimmed to the surface or burst through.”

The open-microphone incident at the G-8 lunch in St. Petersburg on Monday illustrated once more that W. never made any effort to adapt. The president has enshrined his immaturity and insularity, turning every environment he inhabits — no matter how decorous or serious — into a comfortable frat house.

No matter what the trappings or the ceremonies require of the leader of the free world, he brings the same DKE bearing and cadences, the same insouciance and smart-alecky attitude, the same simplistic approach — swearing, swaggering, talking to Tony Blair with his mouth full of buttered roll, and giving a startled Angela Merkel an impromptu shoulder rub. He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger.

So now Bush is not stupid, but an unwitting frat guy who moonlights as the leader of the free world. Fair assessment, I suppose.

Our president is supposed to be the embodiment of the American spirit, the emblem of over 200 years of history and sacrifice. He is the representation of you and me; our hope is that he would proudly exude our own wishes and dreams abroad. But instead Bush propagates the aforementioned image, and makes little effort to change. Abroad, he is notoriously known for his penchant for Cheetos and butchering multi-syllable words and mixing up Southern adages, increasing the already negative image of Americans (Editors Note: interestingly enough, pretzel sales in South Korea shot up after news of the pretzel choking incident in the White House). But this is not what bothers me about our leader, for in the end, we are all flawed individuals with our own “quirks”.

What does bother me is what is echoed in this article: I’ve always suspected that President Bush never had his heart nor his head completely in his work. He always seems distant, but I never could put my finger on whether it was a political ploy to lull pundits into a false sense of security or if he really was planning his next bike ride/White House kegger. He always seemed to be too relaxed with his position. Was this intentional, or was he really that clueless? The resulting conflict has been within the public eye since 2000: his personality is no doubt amiable, but is the trade-off of comfort and friendliness for professionalism worth it?

Bush, in this sense, not only acknowledges his flaws, but exacerbates them by attempting to do nothing to mitigate them.

Which is unfortunate in today’s day and age, where the leader of the free world should try to stop the planet from blowing itself up or self-destructing via disease and poverty. But the man in such a position has done little to alleviate the current state of the world, magnifying his already growing international buffoonery.

Anyone in Berkeley can tell you that Bush is a mockery of a leader; walk down Telegraph Avenue and you’ll see vendors selling t-shirts with his mugshot coupled with current and past jokes. Within the status quo, Bush has become synonymous with jokes. But the biggest joke is Bush himself, who views the Presidency not as an obligation, but as a right and, unfortunately, a burden.

 

Pretty Good Description of Things…