Bush is traveling to Jordan this week to try and find someone to help him out of this ungodly mess he's created in Iraq. On his way, he's making a few stops to visit some of the mighty coalition partners, like Estonia. Until the 1990's, Estonia was part of the Soviet bloc and, as I recall, their main export was a low grade of coal, the consistency of peat, that only burns if it's added to regular coal. Other natural resources were smoke and the color gray. But I digress. While making a speech to the NATO summit, Bush pointed out that when he meets with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri Al-Maliki, in Jordan, he's going to demand some answers, primarily to the question of what is his plan to quell the sectarian violence in Iraq.
It's kinda tacky of the president to suggest that Al-Maliki better figure this out or else. It's not like we've left him much to work with. When we crashed into Iraq, we disbanded the Iraqi army, dismantled a functioning government apparatus, and disenfranchised a large portion of the population using a tactic called "de-baathification", a cleansing operation, if you will, that backfired and energized a massive insurgency. Not to mention the fact that we currently have about 130,000 troops parked in Baghdad, a daily reminder to millions of pissed off people that they're living under occupation. Al-Maliki is fully aware of the stakes and Bush knows that.
What's really happening here is a dilution of responsibility. This war is a disaster and we stand a good chance of losing big. Bush does not want that squarely on his shoulders, especially since he's already picking out carpet for his presidential library, that $500-million institute where he plans to "fine tune" his legacy. Since he's basically out of ideas, Bush thinks everyone else should step up and bail him out, but as soon as they do, he'll make sure some of it sticks to them. He starts by sacking Rumsfeld (one of his most loyal soldiers), then refusing to talk to Iran and Syria, probably so they don't lose their "axis of evil" sheen. Now he wants it to look like the Iraqi government is responsible for the ongoing maelstrom because they are powerless to stop it. He is pinning his biggest hopes on the Hamilton/Baker-led Iraq Study Group but nobody expects to hear anything new and promising coming from them. In fact, they are deeply divided amongst themselves over fundamental strategy (escalate versus evacuate). Bush also says NATO needs to accept more of the "difficult assignments" if this is going to succeed. We can expect that when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January, Bush will ask them where their plan is.
This shortage of ideas and an unwillingness to get more involved underscores the fact that none of these people got us into the war, so you can't really blame them for not having the answers. Ultimately, Bush is Commander in Chief and he is, for that reason alone, directly responsible, but more than that, it was his direct orders that lit the fuse.
While the administration fans out to grasp at anything they can to improve their performance in Iraq, they take that opportunity to manipulate the conversation in ways that give the impression that others are equally culpable for their miscalculations and failures.
Early in our country's history, James Madison said this:
"In war, a physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace."
This is why the constitution is so careful to place war making powers under the control of congress because, as Madison goes on to say, "the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man."
We can see how the Republican-controlled congress abrogated it's constitutional authority by giving Bush carte blanche to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, however it turns out will forever be etched in the legacy of the 43rd Prsident of the United States.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
The Illusion of Control
I'm sort of a football fan. I watch games from time to time and I like my home team (the Bucs) except when they suck. The most enjoyable games are where there's 30 seconds left, the team with the ball is down by 2 points and has the ball at mid-field. The game could be won or lost by either team and could turn on a single play. A nail-biter, as they say. The games I usually wander away from are the ones where it's the fourth quarter and the score is 34 to 3. While it is statistically possible to score 4 touchdowns in a single quarter, there's really no chance and if you're that far behind, the kind of day you've had so far is not likely to improve much. Yet, there's 15 minutes of play left and it's crunch time. Full speed ahead. Besides, there's always next Sunday.
War is a little different. It's not a football game. You don't get tackled, you get your legs blown off. When the opposing team scores, lots of your guys are dead. If you're losing, you're dying in large numbers and there is no next Sunday. And when the head coach more interested in the cheerleaders than in the game, you're in deep shit.
There's a lot of conversation these days about what we should do in Iraq. In fact, most of them start with the phrase "here's what we need to do". That somehow suggests that all it takes is the right plan, we go in and execute it and voila, victory! There is this illusion that we have some sort of control over what we're doing there. This naivete was best summed up by the cheerleader-in-chief (Bush) when he said recently, "We have a plan for victory. It's called winning".
Actually, we have very little control over the situation there. That's why there are so few options, if any, and that's why we hear people like Henry Kissinger saying that there is no possibility of military victory. Kissinger said that. Like so many statements, those are code words for something a bit more ominous. If there is no military option, then all that's left is a diplomatic course. Okay, who do we negotiate with? Al-Maliki? He can't do anything. Iran and Syria? They have the high ground. How about the insurgency leadership? That would mean negotiating with those who we've labeled as terrorists. And besides, want do we have to offer them? Do we threaten them with military strikes? How about sanctions? The fact is that no one in that region has any reason, or need, to negotiate with us. All anyone there wants from us is for us to leave. If we leave, they win. If we don't leave, they still win because it's the fourth quarter and we're down 56 to zero, we've benched our hapless quarterback, the coach is an idiot, the players on the field are all tired and there's no second string.
They say failure is not an option. They're right. It's a foregone conclusion.
I'm sort of a football fan. I watch games from time to time and I like my home team (the Bucs) except when they suck. The most enjoyable games are where there's 30 seconds left, the team with the ball is down by 2 points and has the ball at mid-field. The game could be won or lost by either team and could turn on a single play. A nail-biter, as they say. The games I usually wander away from are the ones where it's the fourth quarter and the score is 34 to 3. While it is statistically possible to score 4 touchdowns in a single quarter, there's really no chance and if you're that far behind, the kind of day you've had so far is not likely to improve much. Yet, there's 15 minutes of play left and it's crunch time. Full speed ahead. Besides, there's always next Sunday.
War is a little different. It's not a football game. You don't get tackled, you get your legs blown off. When the opposing team scores, lots of your guys are dead. If you're losing, you're dying in large numbers and there is no next Sunday. And when the head coach more interested in the cheerleaders than in the game, you're in deep shit.
There's a lot of conversation these days about what we should do in Iraq. In fact, most of them start with the phrase "here's what we need to do". That somehow suggests that all it takes is the right plan, we go in and execute it and voila, victory! There is this illusion that we have some sort of control over what we're doing there. This naivete was best summed up by the cheerleader-in-chief (Bush) when he said recently, "We have a plan for victory. It's called winning".
Actually, we have very little control over the situation there. That's why there are so few options, if any, and that's why we hear people like Henry Kissinger saying that there is no possibility of military victory. Kissinger said that. Like so many statements, those are code words for something a bit more ominous. If there is no military option, then all that's left is a diplomatic course. Okay, who do we negotiate with? Al-Maliki? He can't do anything. Iran and Syria? They have the high ground. How about the insurgency leadership? That would mean negotiating with those who we've labeled as terrorists. And besides, want do we have to offer them? Do we threaten them with military strikes? How about sanctions? The fact is that no one in that region has any reason, or need, to negotiate with us. All anyone there wants from us is for us to leave. If we leave, they win. If we don't leave, they still win because it's the fourth quarter and we're down 56 to zero, we've benched our hapless quarterback, the coach is an idiot, the players on the field are all tired and there's no second string.
They say failure is not an option. They're right. It's a foregone conclusion.
Monday, November 20, 2006
"Mis-underestimating" Iran and Syria
Two major powers in the middle east, and each bordering Iraq, Iran and Syria have reached out to the Iraqi government, and each other. Here we have two countries that represent the two main rival factions in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites, possibly coming together in Iran for a summit to discuss their main problem... the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the unrelenting violence that many feel is exacerbated by that occupation.
This presents a complication, shall we say, to the Bush administration's efforts to get a grip on things. While the pentagon is mulling over their "Go Big, Go Long, Go Home" options, which sounds more like the latest Verizon Wireless plan than a foreign policy, it seems that Syria and Iran clearly see what the rest of the world sees, which is, we don't have a clue what to do right now. Therein lies an opportunity for them to make a power play and this could limit the U.S. options even further (as if these three had any real promise to begin with).
Syria and Iran, separately, present challenges to the U.S. Sryia borders Lebanon and Israel and seems to favor Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is heading nuclear and is already quite powerful. Working in concert, with Iraq as an ally (even reluctantly), creates a swath of influence reaching from Afghanistan to Israel. You think we've got problems now...
For years, Bush has been taking a threatening tone with Syria and Iran. There's enough evidence in the rhetoric to conclude that his plans for these two countries are not that different than his original plan for Iraq, that being military invasion, regime change, installation of a U.S. -approved pseudo-democratic government, with the intended goal of complete U.S. dominance of the middle east. That has been the Neo-con dream all along and they are not shy about saying it. All one needs to do is listen to what comes out of the American Enterprise Institute (the Neo-con think tank).
Iraq was somewhat unique in that it was isolated, even within the region. Our invasion was largely contained and, for the most part, what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq.
However, if we mess with Syria, they're likely to take it out on Israel. And, of course, doing anything to Israel is like hitting a beehive with a baseball bat. Taking on Iran militarily is a whole different ball game than Iraq as well. While Iran can't respond in kind to us (they're not going to park a carrier task force in the Gulf of Mexico), they have said that they possess "deterrent capability", meaning simply that our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan would increase by orders of magnitude if Iran wanted them to. This has tempered the conquest somewhat but it's also easy to imagine that the plan is (was) to continue the adventure from bases in a stable and cooperative Iraq. With the first invasion complete, the oil flowing, the Iraqis happily liberated, American support for the rest of the plan would be easy to come by.
Things have not exactly gone as planned. Iraq is a quagmire and Afghanistan is worsening. Israel lost a war with Hezbollah (at best, a stalemate), demonstrating that it is vulnerable. Our tough talk has held no sway in Iran and our credibility is almost non-existent in the rest of the world. Yet, Bush insists the military option is still on the table and, as Cheney said, its "full speed ahead".
In addition to the fact that the U.S. does not have a plan for Iraq, it is also common knowledge that the U.S. military does not even have the combat troop strength to beef up it's numbers in Iraq, in a sustainable way (as General Abizaid testifed before the Senate Armed Service Committee last week) let alone to get involved in a conflict that spans the entire middle east from Pakistan to the Mediterranian, an area roughly the size of the U.S. east of the Mississippi. Even this doesn't take into account the real possibility of a destabilizing effect on Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia if this thing drags out. We'd have fond memories of when it was only a quagmire and not a full scale morass.
Rep. Charles Rangel has been very vocal about his plan to introduce a bill in the House instituting the draft. No one believes it has a chance but it does put one card on the table. Senator Lindsey Graham insists that we must engage an all-volunteer force and that if we cannot, we would "explore other options". What are those other options? Tactical nukes maybe? If you can't build the volunteer force to the size you need it, and you won't draft, what other means are there to fight a continent-size war, where we must either win decisively, or lose quite spectacularly?
Watch the Iran-Iraq-Syria thing very closely. This is an important development with potentially terrifying possibilities, especially if we continue to not want to talk to them. We complain about Syria not controlling its border with Iraq. We complain about Iran supporting Shiite militias. Does anyone think this is not part of a strategy on the part of those countries? Of course it is. Now they are beginning to move that strategy into its next phase, which it to consolidate power and squeeze the U.S. out.
Don't forget, we still have al-Qaeda waiting in the wings to strike us at home and the best time to do that is when we are at the nadir of our failing effort in the middle east. There's probably not a swingin' thing we can do about it either.
Two major powers in the middle east, and each bordering Iraq, Iran and Syria have reached out to the Iraqi government, and each other. Here we have two countries that represent the two main rival factions in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites, possibly coming together in Iran for a summit to discuss their main problem... the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the unrelenting violence that many feel is exacerbated by that occupation.
This presents a complication, shall we say, to the Bush administration's efforts to get a grip on things. While the pentagon is mulling over their "Go Big, Go Long, Go Home" options, which sounds more like the latest Verizon Wireless plan than a foreign policy, it seems that Syria and Iran clearly see what the rest of the world sees, which is, we don't have a clue what to do right now. Therein lies an opportunity for them to make a power play and this could limit the U.S. options even further (as if these three had any real promise to begin with).
Syria and Iran, separately, present challenges to the U.S. Sryia borders Lebanon and Israel and seems to favor Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is heading nuclear and is already quite powerful. Working in concert, with Iraq as an ally (even reluctantly), creates a swath of influence reaching from Afghanistan to Israel. You think we've got problems now...
For years, Bush has been taking a threatening tone with Syria and Iran. There's enough evidence in the rhetoric to conclude that his plans for these two countries are not that different than his original plan for Iraq, that being military invasion, regime change, installation of a U.S. -approved pseudo-democratic government, with the intended goal of complete U.S. dominance of the middle east. That has been the Neo-con dream all along and they are not shy about saying it. All one needs to do is listen to what comes out of the American Enterprise Institute (the Neo-con think tank).
Iraq was somewhat unique in that it was isolated, even within the region. Our invasion was largely contained and, for the most part, what happens in Iraq stays in Iraq.
However, if we mess with Syria, they're likely to take it out on Israel. And, of course, doing anything to Israel is like hitting a beehive with a baseball bat. Taking on Iran militarily is a whole different ball game than Iraq as well. While Iran can't respond in kind to us (they're not going to park a carrier task force in the Gulf of Mexico), they have said that they possess "deterrent capability", meaning simply that our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan would increase by orders of magnitude if Iran wanted them to. This has tempered the conquest somewhat but it's also easy to imagine that the plan is (was) to continue the adventure from bases in a stable and cooperative Iraq. With the first invasion complete, the oil flowing, the Iraqis happily liberated, American support for the rest of the plan would be easy to come by.
Things have not exactly gone as planned. Iraq is a quagmire and Afghanistan is worsening. Israel lost a war with Hezbollah (at best, a stalemate), demonstrating that it is vulnerable. Our tough talk has held no sway in Iran and our credibility is almost non-existent in the rest of the world. Yet, Bush insists the military option is still on the table and, as Cheney said, its "full speed ahead".
In addition to the fact that the U.S. does not have a plan for Iraq, it is also common knowledge that the U.S. military does not even have the combat troop strength to beef up it's numbers in Iraq, in a sustainable way (as General Abizaid testifed before the Senate Armed Service Committee last week) let alone to get involved in a conflict that spans the entire middle east from Pakistan to the Mediterranian, an area roughly the size of the U.S. east of the Mississippi. Even this doesn't take into account the real possibility of a destabilizing effect on Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia if this thing drags out. We'd have fond memories of when it was only a quagmire and not a full scale morass.
Rep. Charles Rangel has been very vocal about his plan to introduce a bill in the House instituting the draft. No one believes it has a chance but it does put one card on the table. Senator Lindsey Graham insists that we must engage an all-volunteer force and that if we cannot, we would "explore other options". What are those other options? Tactical nukes maybe? If you can't build the volunteer force to the size you need it, and you won't draft, what other means are there to fight a continent-size war, where we must either win decisively, or lose quite spectacularly?
Watch the Iran-Iraq-Syria thing very closely. This is an important development with potentially terrifying possibilities, especially if we continue to not want to talk to them. We complain about Syria not controlling its border with Iraq. We complain about Iran supporting Shiite militias. Does anyone think this is not part of a strategy on the part of those countries? Of course it is. Now they are beginning to move that strategy into its next phase, which it to consolidate power and squeeze the U.S. out.
Don't forget, we still have al-Qaeda waiting in the wings to strike us at home and the best time to do that is when we are at the nadir of our failing effort in the middle east. There's probably not a swingin' thing we can do about it either.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Alternate Endings - The Bush Legacy
It's November 17th, 2009. Whitehouse press secretary David Corn announced today that President Obama's long-anticipated universal health-care program, a bit behind schedule and not without its problems, is due to launch by the first of the year. Nothing since 9/11/2001 has garnered so much media attention, with the exception of the end of the Iraq war, and the mad dash from the Baghdad green zone to the Kuwaiti border now known as the "Exodus", or as Jon Stewart called it, the "Exit U.S." The difference now is that President Obama's initiative will likely save more lives in the first couple of months than the over 10,000 Americans who lost theirs in the war.
A lot of other things have happened recently. The Republicans barely regained control of the Senate in 2008 but the Democrats picked up even more seats in the House, after the investigations into corruption sent 40 of its members to prison and many more into political exile. They're still at each other's throats, but they've made good progress and people seem to be a bit more satisfied. They were able to pass the health plan by a good margin as well as the Alternative Energy Act, part of which will ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles in the U.S. by 2025.
The regime of North Korea collapsed and the country has basically been annexed by China, for the time being, for humanitarian reasons, although talks of reunification of north and south are moving ahead. Once journalists were able to freely travel in North Korea, the world was amazed and sickened at what they saw and the outpouring of aid has been monumental.
Fidel Castro died last year and I've been to Havana twice now. What a cool place and only an hour flight from Tampa. Cuba has become the focus of world attention, some calling it The Hague of the west, as the facility at Guantanamo Bay, which was shut down last year, is being reopened as it awaits its new sole inmate, Osama bin Laden, who was captured 2 months ago in Pakistan and will stand trial in Cuba. The publicity surrounding this trial is already becoming an economic boon for a country struggling to rejoin the free world.
As the first decade of the 21st century comes to a close, we reflect on the events of its rocky start. Foremost among them are the final days of the Bush 43 presidency. Back in 2006, I wrote two alternative endings; basically guessing how he might spend his last 2 years in office.
Alternate Ending #1 :
After the Iraq Study Group report came out in December 2006, it was clear that it was not possible to outsource the solution to the failing effort in Iraq to a committee, even one as distinquished as the ISG. The recommendations were a mix of diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria, minor tactical adjustments, and phased withdrawal with no set timelines. None of these things were appealing to anyone so nothing changed. In early 2007, Congress approved Bush's "final push" plan that would increase troop strength by several tens of thousands. The Democratic controlled congress saw it as a way to either finish the job, or demonstrate that enough was really enough, although there was little confidence in the former and a costly way to prove latter. Republicans also had mixed feelings about it. Senator McCain was its leading proponent, hoping that success would make his presidential hopes a reality. Others reluctantly voted for it for much the same reason as the Democrats in a rare bi-partisan showing.
Despite assurances, the operation was a disaster. With no set-piece battles that the U.S. military would undoubtedly win, the insurgency swelled to astonishing levels, as did the intensity of street fighting and Baghdad became an echo of Fallujah, bombed out and ruined, and more dangerous than ever before. The bulk of the "final push" effort was to reinforce the green zone and protect the cowering Iraqi government and U.S. occupation from ceaseless withering attacks from every direction. The final blow came when several Scud missiles landed in the green zone, to the complete surprise of everyone, inflicting more casualties than in the entire period of occupation up to that point. Referred to as the "Iraqi Tet Offensive", any remaining support for the war evaporated. Newly appointed Defense Secretary Gates resigned along with several Generals and the Bush adminstration was against the wall.
That same week, an underground nuclear explosion was detected in northern Iran, followed by a gloating proclamation from the Iranian government that it was now "ready to talk to the U.S., eye to eye."
In the spring of 2007, U.S. forces abandoned Iraq in a rapid withdrawal to Kuwait. An emboldened insurgency overran the green zone but despite the dire predictions from some, allowed the U.S. to leave with minimal harassment, down the same highway the Iraqis used to flee Kuwait after the first gulf war, known as the "highway of death".
Bush, Cheney, and incoming Defense Secretary Bill Frist, remained myopic, despite the reality on the ground, insisting that the whole point of the war, all along, had been to protect the United States from nuclear attack from Iran. In his final State of the Union Address, Bush referred back to his earlier "mushroom cloud" reference, in the run-up to the war, in a feckless attempt to connect Iran to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. For the first time in recent memory, a President was booed by the Congress during his speech to the joint session.
The Iraqi government, installed during the U.S. occupation, managed to survive, although Prime Minister Maliki was voted out of office and several others in his government were assassinated. Iraq remained in turmoil but with the televised execution of Saddam Hussein behind them and the U.S. gone, violence began to subside and the country began to heal.
Shortly after the elections in 2008, Donald Rumsfeld was arrested at Heathrow airport and sent to Germany to face trial for war crimes. Bush returned to Crawford, Texas, and is said to be involved in a Hydrogen distribution startup. There are no plans as of yet for a George W Bush presidential library due to a lack of financial donors.
Alernate Ending #2 :
After the Iraq Study Group report came out in December 2006, it was clear that it was not possible to outsource the solution to the failing effort in Iraq to a committee, even one as distinquished as the ISG. The recommendations were a mix of diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria, minor tactical adjustments, and phased withdrawal with no set timelines.
President Bush, tempered by the "thumping" his party received in the 2006 elections, discarded most of his far-right GOP advisers and made a very visible shift toward his "uniter" stance. In an address to the nation, he as much as apologized for the "miscalculations" of the past six years and committed himself to working with the Democrats in Congress. Because of the cynicism felt by the population, he took the almost unprecedented step of replacing part of his administration with prominent Democrats, including the appointment of Gen. Wesley Clark as National Security Adviser, ignoring the outcry from GOP hardliners. In addition to that, he insisted on weekly meetings with the leadership of the House and Senate majority and minority, calling it the "Unity Council". Each closed-door session was followed by a televised press conference.
The first action of the Unity Council was to devise an exit strategy for Iraq. While pundits complained about the secrecy of the plan, it became quickly apparent that U.S. forces were moving around. Many were redeployed to Kuwait and northern Kurdish areas of Iraq. A large number of troops were redeployed to Afghanistan, but few actually returned to the United States initially.
The U.S. stepped up air strikes on insurgent targets and special forces missions where groups of insurgents or al Qaeda forces could be located and attacked. The U.S. troops on the ground were, in effect, replaced with squardons of unmanned ariel vehicles (UAVs) armed with cameras and hellfire missiles and Iraqi security forces patrolled the streets below. It was an effective strategy that killed many of the insurgency leaders and demoralized its troops. With less U.S. forces on the ground, much of the anti-U.S. insurgency melted away and even sectarian violence began to subside.
The message sent to the new Iraqi government was very clear that their destiny was now in their hands and there was a noticeable rise in nationalism almost immediately. The initial uptick in violence, as a result of the new strategy, threatened to undermine the Unity Council's resolve but the weekly press conferences and joint efforts pushed much of the harsh criticism to the fringes of each party.
By the summer of 2007, most of the U.S. forces were redeployed and the additional attention on Afghanistan began to make inroads into the continuing conflict there. To the American people, the middle east was still a mess, but it was clear that their government was on the same page for the first time since the war began. Other countries began to respond as well and international involvement grew. By the end of the year, Iraq was a low-intensity conflict, a daily but below-the-fold news item, and the exit strategy itself was considered a success, although the war was considered more a stalemate than a victory.
While the war had stood down, and Bush had earned a certain amount of respect for his role, it was election season once again and the GOP was not to fare well.
John McCain, who had supported escalation of the war, narrowly defeated Rudy Giuliani in the primary but was roundly defeated by Barak Obama in the general election. McCain hammered on the continued threat of terrorism during his campaign, but the public euphoria inspired by the end of the Iraq war focused the nation on social issues such as health care, imigration, the environment, jobs and education. While Hillary Clinton had much support, she was simply overwhelmed by Obama's skill and charisma on the campaign trail, though some said she paid the price for her own support of the war.
Shortly after the 2008 elections, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh was found dead in his hotel room from an apparent overdose of pain killers less than a week after a video of him and his gay lover was posted on YouTube. George Bush returned to Crawford Texas to write his memoirs and oversee the construction of his presidential library in Houston.
Well, those were the two predictions I made back in 2006. Interesting how things actually did turn out.
It's November 17th, 2009. Whitehouse press secretary David Corn announced today that President Obama's long-anticipated universal health-care program, a bit behind schedule and not without its problems, is due to launch by the first of the year. Nothing since 9/11/2001 has garnered so much media attention, with the exception of the end of the Iraq war, and the mad dash from the Baghdad green zone to the Kuwaiti border now known as the "Exodus", or as Jon Stewart called it, the "Exit U.S." The difference now is that President Obama's initiative will likely save more lives in the first couple of months than the over 10,000 Americans who lost theirs in the war.
A lot of other things have happened recently. The Republicans barely regained control of the Senate in 2008 but the Democrats picked up even more seats in the House, after the investigations into corruption sent 40 of its members to prison and many more into political exile. They're still at each other's throats, but they've made good progress and people seem to be a bit more satisfied. They were able to pass the health plan by a good margin as well as the Alternative Energy Act, part of which will ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles in the U.S. by 2025.
The regime of North Korea collapsed and the country has basically been annexed by China, for the time being, for humanitarian reasons, although talks of reunification of north and south are moving ahead. Once journalists were able to freely travel in North Korea, the world was amazed and sickened at what they saw and the outpouring of aid has been monumental.
Fidel Castro died last year and I've been to Havana twice now. What a cool place and only an hour flight from Tampa. Cuba has become the focus of world attention, some calling it The Hague of the west, as the facility at Guantanamo Bay, which was shut down last year, is being reopened as it awaits its new sole inmate, Osama bin Laden, who was captured 2 months ago in Pakistan and will stand trial in Cuba. The publicity surrounding this trial is already becoming an economic boon for a country struggling to rejoin the free world.
As the first decade of the 21st century comes to a close, we reflect on the events of its rocky start. Foremost among them are the final days of the Bush 43 presidency. Back in 2006, I wrote two alternative endings; basically guessing how he might spend his last 2 years in office.
Alternate Ending #1 :
After the Iraq Study Group report came out in December 2006, it was clear that it was not possible to outsource the solution to the failing effort in Iraq to a committee, even one as distinquished as the ISG. The recommendations were a mix of diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria, minor tactical adjustments, and phased withdrawal with no set timelines. None of these things were appealing to anyone so nothing changed. In early 2007, Congress approved Bush's "final push" plan that would increase troop strength by several tens of thousands. The Democratic controlled congress saw it as a way to either finish the job, or demonstrate that enough was really enough, although there was little confidence in the former and a costly way to prove latter. Republicans also had mixed feelings about it. Senator McCain was its leading proponent, hoping that success would make his presidential hopes a reality. Others reluctantly voted for it for much the same reason as the Democrats in a rare bi-partisan showing.
Despite assurances, the operation was a disaster. With no set-piece battles that the U.S. military would undoubtedly win, the insurgency swelled to astonishing levels, as did the intensity of street fighting and Baghdad became an echo of Fallujah, bombed out and ruined, and more dangerous than ever before. The bulk of the "final push" effort was to reinforce the green zone and protect the cowering Iraqi government and U.S. occupation from ceaseless withering attacks from every direction. The final blow came when several Scud missiles landed in the green zone, to the complete surprise of everyone, inflicting more casualties than in the entire period of occupation up to that point. Referred to as the "Iraqi Tet Offensive", any remaining support for the war evaporated. Newly appointed Defense Secretary Gates resigned along with several Generals and the Bush adminstration was against the wall.
That same week, an underground nuclear explosion was detected in northern Iran, followed by a gloating proclamation from the Iranian government that it was now "ready to talk to the U.S., eye to eye."
In the spring of 2007, U.S. forces abandoned Iraq in a rapid withdrawal to Kuwait. An emboldened insurgency overran the green zone but despite the dire predictions from some, allowed the U.S. to leave with minimal harassment, down the same highway the Iraqis used to flee Kuwait after the first gulf war, known as the "highway of death".
Bush, Cheney, and incoming Defense Secretary Bill Frist, remained myopic, despite the reality on the ground, insisting that the whole point of the war, all along, had been to protect the United States from nuclear attack from Iran. In his final State of the Union Address, Bush referred back to his earlier "mushroom cloud" reference, in the run-up to the war, in a feckless attempt to connect Iran to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. For the first time in recent memory, a President was booed by the Congress during his speech to the joint session.
The Iraqi government, installed during the U.S. occupation, managed to survive, although Prime Minister Maliki was voted out of office and several others in his government were assassinated. Iraq remained in turmoil but with the televised execution of Saddam Hussein behind them and the U.S. gone, violence began to subside and the country began to heal.
Shortly after the elections in 2008, Donald Rumsfeld was arrested at Heathrow airport and sent to Germany to face trial for war crimes. Bush returned to Crawford, Texas, and is said to be involved in a Hydrogen distribution startup. There are no plans as of yet for a George W Bush presidential library due to a lack of financial donors.
Alernate Ending #2 :
After the Iraq Study Group report came out in December 2006, it was clear that it was not possible to outsource the solution to the failing effort in Iraq to a committee, even one as distinquished as the ISG. The recommendations were a mix of diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria, minor tactical adjustments, and phased withdrawal with no set timelines.
President Bush, tempered by the "thumping" his party received in the 2006 elections, discarded most of his far-right GOP advisers and made a very visible shift toward his "uniter" stance. In an address to the nation, he as much as apologized for the "miscalculations" of the past six years and committed himself to working with the Democrats in Congress. Because of the cynicism felt by the population, he took the almost unprecedented step of replacing part of his administration with prominent Democrats, including the appointment of Gen. Wesley Clark as National Security Adviser, ignoring the outcry from GOP hardliners. In addition to that, he insisted on weekly meetings with the leadership of the House and Senate majority and minority, calling it the "Unity Council". Each closed-door session was followed by a televised press conference.
The first action of the Unity Council was to devise an exit strategy for Iraq. While pundits complained about the secrecy of the plan, it became quickly apparent that U.S. forces were moving around. Many were redeployed to Kuwait and northern Kurdish areas of Iraq. A large number of troops were redeployed to Afghanistan, but few actually returned to the United States initially.
The U.S. stepped up air strikes on insurgent targets and special forces missions where groups of insurgents or al Qaeda forces could be located and attacked. The U.S. troops on the ground were, in effect, replaced with squardons of unmanned ariel vehicles (UAVs) armed with cameras and hellfire missiles and Iraqi security forces patrolled the streets below. It was an effective strategy that killed many of the insurgency leaders and demoralized its troops. With less U.S. forces on the ground, much of the anti-U.S. insurgency melted away and even sectarian violence began to subside.
The message sent to the new Iraqi government was very clear that their destiny was now in their hands and there was a noticeable rise in nationalism almost immediately. The initial uptick in violence, as a result of the new strategy, threatened to undermine the Unity Council's resolve but the weekly press conferences and joint efforts pushed much of the harsh criticism to the fringes of each party.
By the summer of 2007, most of the U.S. forces were redeployed and the additional attention on Afghanistan began to make inroads into the continuing conflict there. To the American people, the middle east was still a mess, but it was clear that their government was on the same page for the first time since the war began. Other countries began to respond as well and international involvement grew. By the end of the year, Iraq was a low-intensity conflict, a daily but below-the-fold news item, and the exit strategy itself was considered a success, although the war was considered more a stalemate than a victory.
While the war had stood down, and Bush had earned a certain amount of respect for his role, it was election season once again and the GOP was not to fare well.
John McCain, who had supported escalation of the war, narrowly defeated Rudy Giuliani in the primary but was roundly defeated by Barak Obama in the general election. McCain hammered on the continued threat of terrorism during his campaign, but the public euphoria inspired by the end of the Iraq war focused the nation on social issues such as health care, imigration, the environment, jobs and education. While Hillary Clinton had much support, she was simply overwhelmed by Obama's skill and charisma on the campaign trail, though some said she paid the price for her own support of the war.
Shortly after the 2008 elections, conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh was found dead in his hotel room from an apparent overdose of pain killers less than a week after a video of him and his gay lover was posted on YouTube. George Bush returned to Crawford Texas to write his memoirs and oversee the construction of his presidential library in Houston.
Well, those were the two predictions I made back in 2006. Interesting how things actually did turn out.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
The Business of War
Lip service is abundant everywhere you point your ear. We hear day after day, from both the adminstration and Congress, that our goal is to win the wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on Terror. If you try to reconcile rhetoric with action, what that actually translates to is that we want to successfully manage these wars to a conclusion that probably looks nothing like the traditional war winning that comes to the minds of most of us History Channel addicts.
Let me explain.
The first rule of the consulting business is that in the absence of a clear solution, there is certainly money to be made by prolonging the problem. In fact, many fortunes have been made by those who've developed such expertise.
Before 9/11, our economy was heading quickly away from the gains made during the Clinton years and this was due in large part to NAFTA, globalization, outsourcing and a host of other ideas that seemed good at the time. One could argue that Bush inherited this, and I agree with that, but he also lacked the skill to deal with it intelligently. Then he received a gift from Osama.
One of the first things to happen in the war room under the Whitehouse, according to Richard Clarke (who was present at the time), even while the dust settled in New York, was a very clear order to link that event to Saddam Hussein. They'd been looking for a way to justify what they had wanted to do all along, and now they had it.
The invasion of Iraq was a business decision made for a number of reasons. It was initially intended to consolidate the power of the U.S. to guarantee continued profits to multi-national corporations by controlling a resource-rich part of the world that could not be controlled through any competitive advantage of the U.S. over China, Russia and India. It required a more definitive (forceful) approach. Second to that was to bolster a dipping U.S. economy by firing up its military industrial complex. The social impact of a war, in someone else's country, is an economic lift across the board in this country. In the case of a middle east war, the oil markets go wild too, and that has a broad reach. Manufacturing needs materials, demand drives prices, gobs of money gets dumped into every corner of society. The only problem is what I call the "Rogaine Paradox". To sustain this illusion of prosperity means the need for endless war. Once you stop the blood-letting, the economy quickly reverts back to it's pre-war state and the speed of this regression is what makes the difference between a recession (a slow downward trend) and a full-on depression (a crash landing).
This is further illustrated by the range of opinions on what we should do. Ideologically, the further right, the more support for continuing the conflict. The further left, the more support for rapid withdrawal. This is natural because the right is usually more pro-business while the left is usually more pro-social. While the right answer is probably somewhere in the middle, there may not even be an answer.
The fact is that we're there. We've drawn deeply off the crack pipe of war and now the choices are grim. Continue the war - with its loss of life and treasure, reputation and strength, or withdraw now and face the economic reality. As for the other arguments against withdrawal, such as what unpleasantness will fill the vacuum left behind in Iraq, that is where my own opinion solidifies.
We've lost the war in Iraq. That's not just my opinion. It's being said by senior military and goverment officials everywhere. Maybe they're not using the "L" word (yet), but they seem to be uniformly convinced that there is no military solution. The Iraq Study Group report, due out in a few weeks, will most certainly underline that assertion. We've lost the war in much the same way as we did in Vietnam. The military has no ability to defeat the insurgency or even provide effective security in Iraq and popular support for the at war home is disappearing. So, what do we do? Hang out for another few years and let the body bags pile up a little higher before finally escaping off the embassy rooftop? Or getting out now, taking our lumps for it, but being able to look back in 2 years relieved at how well we've healed since we pulled out those 2 years ago.
Despite lip service to the contrary, it just seems too obvious that the plan was never to get in and get out, like was suggested by Rumsfeld prior to the invasion (you may remember his "six days...six weeks...I doubt six months" estimate). And the Pentagon and other war-making agencies are full of seasoned smart people who had to have known better. The fact is, they did. Could anyone be so inept as to not think there would be insurgency, sectarian violence, an influx of foreign fighters, backing of major factions by other countries in the region (Iran and Syria), tribal loyalty over nationlism in the Iraqi police and security forces, retribution against decades of abuse and a non-startable democratic government where nothing of the sort had existed in the lifetimes of most of its members? It was as if the war was planned, sold, and prosecuted by the Poofters Froth Junior High Cheerleading Squad, with the consent of Congress.
But that's not what it was about. We want a big footprint in middle of that region and we're willing to sacrifice a lot to put it there. Heck, look at the price of conquest in WWII. Germany and Japan had their sights set on something and look what they put into it. Something like 50 million dead before either one of them decided it was over. Of course they lost big but the point is that on a new-world-order scale of things, our losses and those of the Iraqis aint shit to these neocons. They want to reshape the planet and civilization and their ideology tells them they have no choice. Well, like every single other conquest in the entire history of conquests, this one will not turn out the way they hoped. Chaos is the constant nemesis of pragmatism.
Not only is the war lost, left to whatever political or face-saving maneuver we can devise to get out of it, but the neocon dream is sidelined, at least while they are not in complete control. Bush still has his legacy to worry about. In fact, that's about all he really has to do anymore since he's not going to get too much done pushing his existing agenda. He is already going to go down in history as presiding over one of the worst strategic blunders in human history but how will that chapter end?
We went willingly to war, lured like compliant little consumers by an astonishingly brazen marketing campaign. As the money machine began to hum, and the pigs jostled for position at the trough, the messy reality of war began to overwhelm the project. With no controls in place, it has taken on a life of its own and we are virtually powerless to control it. Is it any wonder that any concensus among the war makers, sparse as that may be, is the realization that there really are no good ideas and "stay the course", in all its vernacular forms, is merely a euphemism for "hang on for dear life". That's no way to run a business.
Lip service is abundant everywhere you point your ear. We hear day after day, from both the adminstration and Congress, that our goal is to win the wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on Terror. If you try to reconcile rhetoric with action, what that actually translates to is that we want to successfully manage these wars to a conclusion that probably looks nothing like the traditional war winning that comes to the minds of most of us History Channel addicts.
Let me explain.
The first rule of the consulting business is that in the absence of a clear solution, there is certainly money to be made by prolonging the problem. In fact, many fortunes have been made by those who've developed such expertise.
Before 9/11, our economy was heading quickly away from the gains made during the Clinton years and this was due in large part to NAFTA, globalization, outsourcing and a host of other ideas that seemed good at the time. One could argue that Bush inherited this, and I agree with that, but he also lacked the skill to deal with it intelligently. Then he received a gift from Osama.
One of the first things to happen in the war room under the Whitehouse, according to Richard Clarke (who was present at the time), even while the dust settled in New York, was a very clear order to link that event to Saddam Hussein. They'd been looking for a way to justify what they had wanted to do all along, and now they had it.
The invasion of Iraq was a business decision made for a number of reasons. It was initially intended to consolidate the power of the U.S. to guarantee continued profits to multi-national corporations by controlling a resource-rich part of the world that could not be controlled through any competitive advantage of the U.S. over China, Russia and India. It required a more definitive (forceful) approach. Second to that was to bolster a dipping U.S. economy by firing up its military industrial complex. The social impact of a war, in someone else's country, is an economic lift across the board in this country. In the case of a middle east war, the oil markets go wild too, and that has a broad reach. Manufacturing needs materials, demand drives prices, gobs of money gets dumped into every corner of society. The only problem is what I call the "Rogaine Paradox". To sustain this illusion of prosperity means the need for endless war. Once you stop the blood-letting, the economy quickly reverts back to it's pre-war state and the speed of this regression is what makes the difference between a recession (a slow downward trend) and a full-on depression (a crash landing).
This is further illustrated by the range of opinions on what we should do. Ideologically, the further right, the more support for continuing the conflict. The further left, the more support for rapid withdrawal. This is natural because the right is usually more pro-business while the left is usually more pro-social. While the right answer is probably somewhere in the middle, there may not even be an answer.
The fact is that we're there. We've drawn deeply off the crack pipe of war and now the choices are grim. Continue the war - with its loss of life and treasure, reputation and strength, or withdraw now and face the economic reality. As for the other arguments against withdrawal, such as what unpleasantness will fill the vacuum left behind in Iraq, that is where my own opinion solidifies.
We've lost the war in Iraq. That's not just my opinion. It's being said by senior military and goverment officials everywhere. Maybe they're not using the "L" word (yet), but they seem to be uniformly convinced that there is no military solution. The Iraq Study Group report, due out in a few weeks, will most certainly underline that assertion. We've lost the war in much the same way as we did in Vietnam. The military has no ability to defeat the insurgency or even provide effective security in Iraq and popular support for the at war home is disappearing. So, what do we do? Hang out for another few years and let the body bags pile up a little higher before finally escaping off the embassy rooftop? Or getting out now, taking our lumps for it, but being able to look back in 2 years relieved at how well we've healed since we pulled out those 2 years ago.
Despite lip service to the contrary, it just seems too obvious that the plan was never to get in and get out, like was suggested by Rumsfeld prior to the invasion (you may remember his "six days...six weeks...I doubt six months" estimate). And the Pentagon and other war-making agencies are full of seasoned smart people who had to have known better. The fact is, they did. Could anyone be so inept as to not think there would be insurgency, sectarian violence, an influx of foreign fighters, backing of major factions by other countries in the region (Iran and Syria), tribal loyalty over nationlism in the Iraqi police and security forces, retribution against decades of abuse and a non-startable democratic government where nothing of the sort had existed in the lifetimes of most of its members? It was as if the war was planned, sold, and prosecuted by the Poofters Froth Junior High Cheerleading Squad, with the consent of Congress.
But that's not what it was about. We want a big footprint in middle of that region and we're willing to sacrifice a lot to put it there. Heck, look at the price of conquest in WWII. Germany and Japan had their sights set on something and look what they put into it. Something like 50 million dead before either one of them decided it was over. Of course they lost big but the point is that on a new-world-order scale of things, our losses and those of the Iraqis aint shit to these neocons. They want to reshape the planet and civilization and their ideology tells them they have no choice. Well, like every single other conquest in the entire history of conquests, this one will not turn out the way they hoped. Chaos is the constant nemesis of pragmatism.
Not only is the war lost, left to whatever political or face-saving maneuver we can devise to get out of it, but the neocon dream is sidelined, at least while they are not in complete control. Bush still has his legacy to worry about. In fact, that's about all he really has to do anymore since he's not going to get too much done pushing his existing agenda. He is already going to go down in history as presiding over one of the worst strategic blunders in human history but how will that chapter end?
We went willingly to war, lured like compliant little consumers by an astonishingly brazen marketing campaign. As the money machine began to hum, and the pigs jostled for position at the trough, the messy reality of war began to overwhelm the project. With no controls in place, it has taken on a life of its own and we are virtually powerless to control it. Is it any wonder that any concensus among the war makers, sparse as that may be, is the realization that there really are no good ideas and "stay the course", in all its vernacular forms, is merely a euphemism for "hang on for dear life". That's no way to run a business.
Friday, November 10, 2006
How will the Republicans Comport Themselves?
Now that the Republicans are firmly ensconced in the minority, at least for the next 2 years, it remains to be seen how they will carry themselves.
It's fairly evident that, to them, the end (their agenda) justifies the means (anything goes). When Clinton was elected, and even before, he was pilloried for every conceivable thing the Republicans could come up with that could bring him down, from Whitewater and Travelgate to Monica Lewinski (the latter clearly a self-inflicted wound). The result was probably the beginning of the end of Republican domination because it showed that they were much more interested in power for the sake of power than doing anything meaningful for the rest of us (Remember us? American citizens?).
In the midst of all the crap, wasted time, millions spent on witch-hunt investigations, Clinton still managed to get quite a bit done and who knows what the government, as a whole, would have accomplished had they not been at war with each other.
For the last 6 years, it's been all GOP all the time and while they've managed to get some things done, it's not hard to see what those things are: wars, monumental deficits, increased debt, destroyed credibility, increased vulnerability, corruption scandals, and on and on, all the while telling Democrats to just sit down and shut up. That's one-party rule for you. Lord Acton's take on absolute power is a law of nature.
Now the Congress is a counterweight to the adminstration, not a rubber stamp, and both parties are on notice. The Dems have an opportunity to contrast themselves to the Reps not only in ideology and direction, but in how they choose to share power. It was promising to hear Pelosi say that she would be speaker of the House, not the Democrats. While that might just be honeymoon pillow-talk, she's right. They have to work together now because, for so long, the Congress has only really represented half the country, and that has been very destructive.
Don't misunderstand me here. The Dems are in power now and the Reps are not going to get much of they want. For example, Joe Biden, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said yesterday that the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN was "dead on arrival". Yeah, it sucks losing power. But other things, like the conduct of the war, will need to be managed by compromise and concensus.
How will the parties comport themselves? We've heard the commitments made by both that they intend to work together, but the Democrats have the upper hand. If the Republicans can learn the art of negotiating from a point of disadvantage, they can remain relevant and we will ALL be better for it. If they follow their usual philosophy that their agenda is the only valid one, a mission from God as they like to think of it, they will continue to drift toward the political margins.
Impeachment - On or Off the Table?
According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and reaffirmed by Rep. John Conyers, the Democrat majority will not seek impeachment proceedings against Bush. But does that mean they do not see that as a potential eventuality?
In the early 1970's, the rumblings over increasingly apparent malfeasance in the Nixon administration, that eventually led to Watergate, were becoming louder and louder as each new revelation added fuel to the fire. Yet, the Democrats, even in 1973, stated that impeachment was not on the table. But, it didn't need to be. They did not need to risk political capital by instigating that kind of action against a president of the other party, a huge risk that the Democrats of today undoubtedly understand. What did happen were the investigations, the non-optional constitutional duty of Congress, and the light they began to shine on Nixon led him to commit political suicide. Nixon didn't need to be impeached. He tripped and fell on his own sword. His arrogance fueled by power was quickly replaced with contrition fueled by exposure and the resulting public outcry.
If I was in the Congressional Democrats' shoes, I would be looking at Watergate as a model for what I was about to unleash on Bush. Compared to what this adminstration has done, Watergate is akin to parking in a handicap spot. All the Dems have to do is their constitutionally-required oversight duty and the rest will take care of itself.
What a Difference a Word Makes
A follow-up to my last post, it's amazing how so much can turn on so little. If I had to sum up, in one word, what has completely transformed the landscape in Washington, that word would be "Macaca".
Now that the Republicans are firmly ensconced in the minority, at least for the next 2 years, it remains to be seen how they will carry themselves.
It's fairly evident that, to them, the end (their agenda) justifies the means (anything goes). When Clinton was elected, and even before, he was pilloried for every conceivable thing the Republicans could come up with that could bring him down, from Whitewater and Travelgate to Monica Lewinski (the latter clearly a self-inflicted wound). The result was probably the beginning of the end of Republican domination because it showed that they were much more interested in power for the sake of power than doing anything meaningful for the rest of us (Remember us? American citizens?).
In the midst of all the crap, wasted time, millions spent on witch-hunt investigations, Clinton still managed to get quite a bit done and who knows what the government, as a whole, would have accomplished had they not been at war with each other.
For the last 6 years, it's been all GOP all the time and while they've managed to get some things done, it's not hard to see what those things are: wars, monumental deficits, increased debt, destroyed credibility, increased vulnerability, corruption scandals, and on and on, all the while telling Democrats to just sit down and shut up. That's one-party rule for you. Lord Acton's take on absolute power is a law of nature.
Now the Congress is a counterweight to the adminstration, not a rubber stamp, and both parties are on notice. The Dems have an opportunity to contrast themselves to the Reps not only in ideology and direction, but in how they choose to share power. It was promising to hear Pelosi say that she would be speaker of the House, not the Democrats. While that might just be honeymoon pillow-talk, she's right. They have to work together now because, for so long, the Congress has only really represented half the country, and that has been very destructive.
Don't misunderstand me here. The Dems are in power now and the Reps are not going to get much of they want. For example, Joe Biden, incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, said yesterday that the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN was "dead on arrival". Yeah, it sucks losing power. But other things, like the conduct of the war, will need to be managed by compromise and concensus.
How will the parties comport themselves? We've heard the commitments made by both that they intend to work together, but the Democrats have the upper hand. If the Republicans can learn the art of negotiating from a point of disadvantage, they can remain relevant and we will ALL be better for it. If they follow their usual philosophy that their agenda is the only valid one, a mission from God as they like to think of it, they will continue to drift toward the political margins.
Impeachment - On or Off the Table?
According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and reaffirmed by Rep. John Conyers, the Democrat majority will not seek impeachment proceedings against Bush. But does that mean they do not see that as a potential eventuality?
In the early 1970's, the rumblings over increasingly apparent malfeasance in the Nixon administration, that eventually led to Watergate, were becoming louder and louder as each new revelation added fuel to the fire. Yet, the Democrats, even in 1973, stated that impeachment was not on the table. But, it didn't need to be. They did not need to risk political capital by instigating that kind of action against a president of the other party, a huge risk that the Democrats of today undoubtedly understand. What did happen were the investigations, the non-optional constitutional duty of Congress, and the light they began to shine on Nixon led him to commit political suicide. Nixon didn't need to be impeached. He tripped and fell on his own sword. His arrogance fueled by power was quickly replaced with contrition fueled by exposure and the resulting public outcry.
If I was in the Congressional Democrats' shoes, I would be looking at Watergate as a model for what I was about to unleash on Bush. Compared to what this adminstration has done, Watergate is akin to parking in a handicap spot. All the Dems have to do is their constitutionally-required oversight duty and the rest will take care of itself.
What a Difference a Word Makes
A follow-up to my last post, it's amazing how so much can turn on so little. If I had to sum up, in one word, what has completely transformed the landscape in Washington, that word would be "Macaca".
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
What a difference a day makes
Or, in the immortal words of Nelson Muntz, "HA ha".
It seems things are about to change. Even the beleaguered Iraqis are once again hopeful, cautiously optimistic at least. The House of Representatives and, dare I project, the Senate, are now under the control of the Democrats. Some people, rightfully so, have every reason to be worried about their futures. Others, this writer among them, are hopeful that a balance of power between the legislative and adminstrative branches of government will stop the bleeding.
While there is a general giddyness in Democratic circles, I am not seeing the arrogance we saw in 1994 when the Republicans wrested control from the Democrats. This is a positive as far as I'm concerned. The Democrats in Congress have contributed much to the problems we are faced with, mainly through their annoying tendency to cower and hide from the ideals we want them to represent. They've been given a chance by the electorate, many from the ranks of disgusted GOPers, to show that they can be an effective counterweight to a runaway adminstration and to show they can stem the tide of K-Street corruption, the latter being the biggest issue among certain exit poll results. But, the Dems are on probation. We're all watching. 2008 will be the real report card.
Nancy Pelosi is poised to become the most powerful woman in American history, if not world history, becoming the first woman Speaker of the House. Congratulations in advance! Tough-as-nails, experienced, but also a grandmother, she has put forward a 100-hour plan that doesn't include any baby-eating, devil worship, or nomination of Osama bin Laden as supreme overlord. Her plan does include increasing the minimum wage, enacting the 911 commission recommendations, cutting the student loan interest rate in half, and changing the prescription drug plan to allow the government to negotiate lower prices from drug companies. Her plans also include curtailing subsidies to the hugely profitable oil companies, more funding for homeland security, etc. As far as furthering the homosexual agenda, the GOP seems to be doing fine with that. While she can present her agenda and get it passed in Congress, it still faces the veto pen of the President and we'll certainly see how that works out. What I hope to see from Speaker Pelosi is a calm, measured and intelligent management of the House that brings together the skill of her experience as a tenacious legislator and leader with her experience as a nurturing mother and grandmother. I also expect her to devote a certain amount of time to exposing the dark underbelly of the Bush administation and GOP and nailing some of these fuckholes to the wall.
While nobody wants a singular focus on investigations, the way it was while Clinton was in office, there is an expectation that there be hearings, firings, indictments, prison terms and copious amounts of public ridicule of those who have done so much damage and, in some cases, have committed crimes. At the very least, there is an obligation under our system of laws to investigate and prosecute crimes if there is probable cause, and there certainly is that. Look for C-Span ratings to improve somewhat over the months to come.
The greater agenda should be a positive, inclusive, and uplifting one, but there must be an example set for future leaders that trampling our Constitution is not to be tolerated.
One last thing:
Katherine Harris, you're a trainwreck. You blew your family fortune and still got your ass kicked. Nobody wants you around anymore, especially your own party. Go get a job at the make-up counter at Walmart, after you finish posting your concession speech on fugly.com.
Or, in the immortal words of Nelson Muntz, "HA ha".
It seems things are about to change. Even the beleaguered Iraqis are once again hopeful, cautiously optimistic at least. The House of Representatives and, dare I project, the Senate, are now under the control of the Democrats. Some people, rightfully so, have every reason to be worried about their futures. Others, this writer among them, are hopeful that a balance of power between the legislative and adminstrative branches of government will stop the bleeding.
While there is a general giddyness in Democratic circles, I am not seeing the arrogance we saw in 1994 when the Republicans wrested control from the Democrats. This is a positive as far as I'm concerned. The Democrats in Congress have contributed much to the problems we are faced with, mainly through their annoying tendency to cower and hide from the ideals we want them to represent. They've been given a chance by the electorate, many from the ranks of disgusted GOPers, to show that they can be an effective counterweight to a runaway adminstration and to show they can stem the tide of K-Street corruption, the latter being the biggest issue among certain exit poll results. But, the Dems are on probation. We're all watching. 2008 will be the real report card.
Nancy Pelosi is poised to become the most powerful woman in American history, if not world history, becoming the first woman Speaker of the House. Congratulations in advance! Tough-as-nails, experienced, but also a grandmother, she has put forward a 100-hour plan that doesn't include any baby-eating, devil worship, or nomination of Osama bin Laden as supreme overlord. Her plan does include increasing the minimum wage, enacting the 911 commission recommendations, cutting the student loan interest rate in half, and changing the prescription drug plan to allow the government to negotiate lower prices from drug companies. Her plans also include curtailing subsidies to the hugely profitable oil companies, more funding for homeland security, etc. As far as furthering the homosexual agenda, the GOP seems to be doing fine with that. While she can present her agenda and get it passed in Congress, it still faces the veto pen of the President and we'll certainly see how that works out. What I hope to see from Speaker Pelosi is a calm, measured and intelligent management of the House that brings together the skill of her experience as a tenacious legislator and leader with her experience as a nurturing mother and grandmother. I also expect her to devote a certain amount of time to exposing the dark underbelly of the Bush administation and GOP and nailing some of these fuckholes to the wall.
While nobody wants a singular focus on investigations, the way it was while Clinton was in office, there is an expectation that there be hearings, firings, indictments, prison terms and copious amounts of public ridicule of those who have done so much damage and, in some cases, have committed crimes. At the very least, there is an obligation under our system of laws to investigate and prosecute crimes if there is probable cause, and there certainly is that. Look for C-Span ratings to improve somewhat over the months to come.
The greater agenda should be a positive, inclusive, and uplifting one, but there must be an example set for future leaders that trampling our Constitution is not to be tolerated.
One last thing:
Katherine Harris, you're a trainwreck. You blew your family fortune and still got your ass kicked. Nobody wants you around anymore, especially your own party. Go get a job at the make-up counter at Walmart, after you finish posting your concession speech on fugly.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
