Troops are gathering and war is brewing. No I'm not talking about the war in Iraq, or the forgotten war in Aghanistan, I'm talking of course about the conflict between Congressional Democrats and the President. We're hearing a lot from the Republicans, and especially Bush lately about how Democrats are trying to "set a date for surrender" in the war in Iraq. Statements like that, and others, are being used to paint Democrats as unpatriotic and unfriendly to the troops. Democrats on the other hand are saying Bush is out of touch with what the people want.
Bush's popularity is at a near all time low, hanging around 33% with a 60% disapproval rating. A majority of Americans now feel the war was a mistake, and that same majority feel we'll never be able to stablize the country.
We need to ask ourselves some serious questions about this war, and about how this country gets itself into and prosecute wars. Who gets to define our goals? The President is setting our goal as complete safety in Iraq and a stable democracy. I thought our goal was to get their WMDs? Well we did that, they aren't there, so why are we? Okay, okay, so we upset their fragile balance, and we owe it to them to try and fix what we broke. Half a trillion dollars later, more than 3,000 dead later, hundreds of thousands of unhappy troops that are scarred for life after trying to help Iraq...and we have seemingly little to show for it.
So the Democrats want to bring the troops home, and Bush wants them to stay for what really is an unspecified period of time. All the while our ability to push and prod other dangerous areas of the world is severely hampered, our military hardware is falling apart, and our tab for the military is exploding out of control. It's time to consider America first, and get out of there. Our goals there have changed multiple times, and no matter how hard we've tried, we're unable to solve a centuries old conflict that dissident movements are intent on inflaming. So we leave. We never should have gone in the first place, and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be.
But I have to ask, who is to blame in this battle between the President and the Congress? Are the Democrats letting down the troops by not giving Bush carte blanche? Or is the President at fault for not bringing home the troops when the mission went south? Ultimately, the President has to look to the welfare of the nation. Bush felt that abandoning Afghanistan to terrorists was okay, in order to attack Iraq, so I wonder why leaving Iraq wouldn't be okay as well. Democrats still want to leave a force there to fight insurgents and to train Iraqis, but we can't hold their hands anymore. It's time to fly or fall for Iraq. Democrats want to bring the troops home, want to end the suffering, want to repair our image abroad. I think what they have in mind is best for our long term security, as opposed to Bush's half effort that is only meeting with marginal success.
The battle right now is over funding. Democrats want an order to recall troops mixed into the funding bill, Bush refuses to sign it and will veto. If Democrats keep sending him a bill with funds and he keeps vetoing it, and refuses to pull them out, then who is being irresponsible to the troops? The Democrats want to keep them funded, and then want to keep them safe and in America. Bush wants to keep them funded and in Iraq, and refuses to give ground. I say if the President refuses to act as a responsible chief by bringing home the troops when the well runs dry, then he is to blame. The bright side of a democracy is rule by the people, and it's time for him to listen.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Democrats in Charge
So as of yesterday, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, are now in charge of the Congress. I'd be happier if the younger crop of Democrats were in charge, like say, Barrack Obama or even Hillary Clinton, who may not be younger age wise, but she's still part of the younger crop. Some see this as the sign that the end is near. Some say that a revolution is upon us and we've averted disaster.
I don't like going to either extreme like that, but the first few actions of these Democrats is promising, and Republicans look silly in their responses. The first act of the Democrats, to reinstitue "Pay-Go" (pay as you go, only spend money you have, don't borrow from foreign banks), was a great move. I've been wondering for years when the so called "fiscally Conservative" Republicans would finally get back to doing what they used to do best, shrink government and reduce spending. Instead, they reduced income and increased spending. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that when you are spending more than you make, you're in trouble. This from the same Congress that made it a law to increase consumer payments to their credit card issuers to pay down consumer debt faster.
Enough Republican bashing though, their hegemony is over, and it's time to look to the future, figure out how to clean up their mess, and get over the last 12 years or so of political divisiveness. Democrats are trying to end earmarks, which spend billions of taxpayer dollars on pork barrel projects. They're saying no to wasteful tax cuts, to wasteful spending, to billions more spent on the military when the first hundreds of billions were never even blinked at before the checks were signed. The Republican response is the same old tired "Democrats want to raise your taxes." Give it up guys! You've wasted billions, maybe even trillions of dollars for years irresponsibly, and now we have to clean up your mess. We'll do it by cutting billions in spending, but it might also mean raising taxes to pay for the giveaways you gave to the richy riches of the nation. The middle class sees right through it, the poor see through it, and we're sick of your partisan, decade old attacks, so either stop it, or at least find some new relevant material to hit the Democrats with.
But that's just the start of what Democrats want to do. To be honest, they won't get half of what they want, because half of their new initiatives cost money, and I don't think they'll be able to offset all the costs to pay for them under their own rules. But let's talk about another of their big talk items, Bush and the war in Iraq. Bush this week will unveil a request for 20,000 or more troops, and billions more in spending. Democrats have already said they will not write a blank check like Republicans did. Bush has to actually justify his request, what he thinks it would solve, why he wants it, and why it actually might be worth it. Finally. Let me say it again, finally. Congressional oversight has been missing for at least the last six years, during the Bush presidency. I'm not saying I want them to say no to Bush automatically, but finally we're going to hear them ask for his justification, his reasoning, what he thinks will be accomplished, and if we're lucky, some actual specifics rather than generalities. If Bush wants something, he can't just ask and get it now, he has to tell us all the details, or Congress will say no, and he'll either have to find the money somewhere else, or he'll make a foolhardy blunder.
The Democrats have plenty of other ideas. They want to raise the minimum wage, which has a decent chance of passing. They want to cut the interest rate on college loans, which is 50/50, and is more likely to get a 25% reduction, rather than a 50%. They want to overhaul education, look into Katrina fraud, overhaul Congressional ethics rules, enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations, increase money for port security, eliminate the AMT (which is starting to hit middle class families), and this isn't their 2 year plan, this is their 100 hour plan. It's ambitious, and not likely to succeed entirely, but it's exciting, and most people can't argue with what they want to do. The only question is, can they actually do it?
I don't like going to either extreme like that, but the first few actions of these Democrats is promising, and Republicans look silly in their responses. The first act of the Democrats, to reinstitue "Pay-Go" (pay as you go, only spend money you have, don't borrow from foreign banks), was a great move. I've been wondering for years when the so called "fiscally Conservative" Republicans would finally get back to doing what they used to do best, shrink government and reduce spending. Instead, they reduced income and increased spending. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that when you are spending more than you make, you're in trouble. This from the same Congress that made it a law to increase consumer payments to their credit card issuers to pay down consumer debt faster.
Enough Republican bashing though, their hegemony is over, and it's time to look to the future, figure out how to clean up their mess, and get over the last 12 years or so of political divisiveness. Democrats are trying to end earmarks, which spend billions of taxpayer dollars on pork barrel projects. They're saying no to wasteful tax cuts, to wasteful spending, to billions more spent on the military when the first hundreds of billions were never even blinked at before the checks were signed. The Republican response is the same old tired "Democrats want to raise your taxes." Give it up guys! You've wasted billions, maybe even trillions of dollars for years irresponsibly, and now we have to clean up your mess. We'll do it by cutting billions in spending, but it might also mean raising taxes to pay for the giveaways you gave to the richy riches of the nation. The middle class sees right through it, the poor see through it, and we're sick of your partisan, decade old attacks, so either stop it, or at least find some new relevant material to hit the Democrats with.
But that's just the start of what Democrats want to do. To be honest, they won't get half of what they want, because half of their new initiatives cost money, and I don't think they'll be able to offset all the costs to pay for them under their own rules. But let's talk about another of their big talk items, Bush and the war in Iraq. Bush this week will unveil a request for 20,000 or more troops, and billions more in spending. Democrats have already said they will not write a blank check like Republicans did. Bush has to actually justify his request, what he thinks it would solve, why he wants it, and why it actually might be worth it. Finally. Let me say it again, finally. Congressional oversight has been missing for at least the last six years, during the Bush presidency. I'm not saying I want them to say no to Bush automatically, but finally we're going to hear them ask for his justification, his reasoning, what he thinks will be accomplished, and if we're lucky, some actual specifics rather than generalities. If Bush wants something, he can't just ask and get it now, he has to tell us all the details, or Congress will say no, and he'll either have to find the money somewhere else, or he'll make a foolhardy blunder.
The Democrats have plenty of other ideas. They want to raise the minimum wage, which has a decent chance of passing. They want to cut the interest rate on college loans, which is 50/50, and is more likely to get a 25% reduction, rather than a 50%. They want to overhaul education, look into Katrina fraud, overhaul Congressional ethics rules, enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations, increase money for port security, eliminate the AMT (which is starting to hit middle class families), and this isn't their 2 year plan, this is their 100 hour plan. It's ambitious, and not likely to succeed entirely, but it's exciting, and most people can't argue with what they want to do. The only question is, can they actually do it?
Friday, December 8, 2006
Winning and Losing
This first post will be a short one just to get the blog started. As I don't expect this thing to really take off anytime soon, brevity probably won't be either punished or awarded.
Yesterday the Baker Commission Report was released to the Public. It's left me with the firm position that our war in Iraq can neither be won or lost by American forces. It is the Iraqi people who must decide how they want their nation to turn out. They can't seem to agree on much of anything, all are vying for control and making power plays, and we're stuck in the middle paying a very high cost for being their referee. Framing the debate as a "are we winning or losing?" argument ignores the situation as it stands. Without a massive new troop commitment, we don't have the ability to seriously influence the situation. We should stop talking about whether we are winning or losing because quite frankly it doesn't matter. Until Iraq decides what sort of nation it wants to be, we're just bystanders on their little journey to democracy.
New resources should be put into treating the disease that is causing our ills, not just the symptoms. Other than Iraq, if you ask any insurgent or anti-American fighter in the Middle East why he is fighting against us, the answer you will get is Israel. Our support for Israel has caused us severe damage, monetarily, politically, and in lives. While I don't think we should ever withdraw support from Israel, I do think that instead of throwing a half trillion dollars at Iraq, we should spend a fraction of that money and those resources to solve the problem of Palestine and Israel. Creating a stable Palestinian state, and ending the conflict there, will remove a huge barrier to peace between the MidEast and the West, and will be a major PR coup for the US, at a time when a major PR coup is badly needed.
Let's put out the flames we can, and try to contain the ones we can't, but bickering over whether we are winning or losing isn't going to solve the problem. It's time we all opened our eyes and located the real source of the problem over there: Iraqis. They don't know what they want, and several years of us telling them that we know what they want hasn't worked. We can try and help guide them, but we can't decide for them what type of country they will have. That much, should be painfully obvious by now. It's time to reevaluate this war, and what role we should be playing in it.
Yesterday the Baker Commission Report was released to the Public. It's left me with the firm position that our war in Iraq can neither be won or lost by American forces. It is the Iraqi people who must decide how they want their nation to turn out. They can't seem to agree on much of anything, all are vying for control and making power plays, and we're stuck in the middle paying a very high cost for being their referee. Framing the debate as a "are we winning or losing?" argument ignores the situation as it stands. Without a massive new troop commitment, we don't have the ability to seriously influence the situation. We should stop talking about whether we are winning or losing because quite frankly it doesn't matter. Until Iraq decides what sort of nation it wants to be, we're just bystanders on their little journey to democracy.
New resources should be put into treating the disease that is causing our ills, not just the symptoms. Other than Iraq, if you ask any insurgent or anti-American fighter in the Middle East why he is fighting against us, the answer you will get is Israel. Our support for Israel has caused us severe damage, monetarily, politically, and in lives. While I don't think we should ever withdraw support from Israel, I do think that instead of throwing a half trillion dollars at Iraq, we should spend a fraction of that money and those resources to solve the problem of Palestine and Israel. Creating a stable Palestinian state, and ending the conflict there, will remove a huge barrier to peace between the MidEast and the West, and will be a major PR coup for the US, at a time when a major PR coup is badly needed.
Let's put out the flames we can, and try to contain the ones we can't, but bickering over whether we are winning or losing isn't going to solve the problem. It's time we all opened our eyes and located the real source of the problem over there: Iraqis. They don't know what they want, and several years of us telling them that we know what they want hasn't worked. We can try and help guide them, but we can't decide for them what type of country they will have. That much, should be painfully obvious by now. It's time to reevaluate this war, and what role we should be playing in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)