Monday, December 15, 2008
Quite A Feat!
Well, at least Iraqi journalists don't pretend to be "objective".
One serious thought though: This guy was able to throw a shoe at near point-blank range. Bush's rather remarkable reflexes (seriously) prevented him from being hit. But, if the president of the United States is visiting Iraq, shouldn't Americans be confident that he would be safe enough that he wouldn't potentially get beaned by a guy's shoes?
Or is it the case that Secret Service agents are expected to stop a bullet -- but not size 10s?
Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq
Friday, September 12, 2008
Rookie "Luck" -- Or Something Deeper?
Well, is it possible that Obama's judgment -- or political prescience -- has been demonstrated more than just once? Well, noting George W. Bush's reported decision to send special forces into Pakistan, my on-time boss says:
It is worth recalling that in his first major foreign-policy address, in August 2007, Barack Obama proposed raids against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without consultation, and makingthe hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
If the story is correct — and it reads like an official leak — the July date indicates Bush approved this plan while Musharraf was still in power. (He resigned his office in August.) He was, however, vastly weaker and more compromised this past July than he was when Obama made his speech in 2007.
I was among many people who ridiculed the Obama proposal at the time, on the grounds that a) no nation violates the territorial integrity of an ally, even if that ally is problematic, and b) Obama’s bellicosity seemed entirely unbelievable, given that he spoke in the wake of his remarks about meeting with the leaders of the world’s worst regimes “without preconditions.” On the latter point, he was and remains wrong and foolish.
On the former point, though, he was, apparently, precognitive, and may be due an apology.That's an amazing statement coming from a reliable strong hawk like JPod. And, he was hardly alone in saying that Obama's view on Pakistan demonstrated his inexperience and "confused leadership." Actually, this may be the third or fourth time that subsequent events have actually endorsed an Obama viewpoint rather than that of John McCain.
Obama called for greater focus on Afghanistan -- and moving more troops there -- months before McCain agreed that more needed to be done to prevent further deterioration there. And, of course, Obama called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq very early on -- Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki agreed with him and even the Bush administration has had to (rhetorically, at least) come around to that view. That left McCain the odd man out, taking the awkward position that he knew the views of the Iraqi people better than their own prime minister.
Now, two caveats: 1) McCain was right from the start on the surge, the success of which created the on-the-ground conditions that allowed Maliki to push for a timetable. But, that is undermined by the fact McCain refuses to, as the saying goes, "declare victory and get out." 2) Obama may find it uncomfortable that, as much as he says that McCain is a "third term for Bush," in fact Obama and Bush seem pretty close in worldview these days. Ah, irony is wonderful thing.
One last point, seven years and one day after the terrorist attacks on this country: conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish explains why Bush's failure to get the guy responsible for that day is making him listen closely to Barack Obama.
Labels: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, John McCain
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
"Timetable" Is The Word...
So, the question for John McCain: Why not declare victory -- and get out?
Make the point that 1) George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld's early fumbling nearly brought the United States to defeat; 2) You were the one who insisted on the surge mere months after the initial invasion; 3) The surge has "worked"; 4) the US has done as much as it can; 5) the Iraqis are satisfied enough that they want us out.
Good enough. The entire point was to create a sovereign (relatively) democratic Iraq.
Mission accomplished. Take the victory, Johnny Mac -- and the credit.
Labels: Iraq, John McCain, timetable
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Dept of YCMTSU*
And here's another:
"I don't have a daughter now, and I prefer to say that I never had one. That girl humiliated me in front of my family and friends. Speaking with a foreign solider, she lost what is the most precious thing for any woman. 'People from western countries might be shocked, but our girls are not like their daughters that can sleep with any man they want and sometimes even get pregnant
without marrying. Our girls should respect their religion, their family and their bodies.
"I have only two boys from now on. That girl was a mistake in my life. I know God is blessing me for what I did,' he said, his voice swelling with pride. 'My sons are by my side, and they were men enough to help me finish the life of someone who just brought shame to ours."
Abdel-Qader, a Shia, says he was released from the police station "because everyone knows that honour killings sometimes are impossible not to commit". Chillingly, he said: "The officers were by my side during all the time I was there, congratulating me on what I had done." It's a statement that, if true, provides an insight into how vast the gulf remains between cultures in Iraq and between the Basra police the British army that trains them.
Sources have indicated that Abdel-Qader, who works in the health department, has been asked to leave because of the bad publicity, yet he will continue to draw a salary.
On the other hand, the Dubai Classic is one of the favorite stops for top golfers, so maybe Bagdad will be some day.
Labels: Iraq
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Wars Come Home
Cops in the DC metropolitan area start running low on ammo:
To varying degrees, officials in Montgomery, Loudoun and Anne Arundel counties said, they have begun rationing or making other adjustments to accommodate delivery schedules that have changed markedly since the military campaigns began in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Before the war, lag time from order to delivery was three to four months; now it's six months to a year," said James Gutshall, property supervisor for the Loudoun Sheriff's Office. "I purchased as much as I could this year because I was worried it would be a problem."
Montgomery police began limiting the amount of ammunition available to officers on the practice range a little more than year ago, said Lucille Baur, a county police spokeswoman. The number of cases a group of officers can use in a training session has been cut from 10 to three.
Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), said dozens of chiefs at a meeting of the organization two weeks ago agreed that scarcity of ammunition is a widespread problem. He said rifle ammunition, which is used by the military and many police agencies, was a particular concern.
"It mostly has to with delays where it's impacting training more than anything else," Voegtlin said. "The chiefs are doing what they can to adjust to it."
Labels: Afghanistan, Iraq
Monday, July 30, 2007
Go Figure...
And, of course, the score had to be 1-0. That's known as an offensive "surge" in footy terms!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
End of An Era
There is an element of poetic irony in the PM career of Blair: He came into office viewed as a Clinton-like politician who revitalized "New Labor." He leaves tied at the ideological -- and "popularity" -- hip with Clinton's successor George W. Bush, because of Iraq.
On a marginally related note, the man whose swing away a decade ago from the Tories and toward Labor helped usher in the Blair era, explains his plan to make his media company carbon-neutral.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Iraq, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Cruel Month -- or Moment of Clarity?
Trent Lott joins House Minority Leader John Boehner in singing the autumnal blues.
Labels: Iraq, John Boehner, Republicans, Trent Lott
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
A GOP Prescription?
He then responds to Jonah Goldberg's assessment of Brooks:
I think this is largely right as analysis, and it's precisely why the Right is in such difficulties. Reaganism ran out of steam in the late 1990s: It had succeeded on many fronts, been co-opted by the Democrats on others, and run up against a wall of pro-welfare state public opinion on still others. "Compassionate conservatism" was an attempt to address the new political landscape by promising to reform government in a conservative direction, rather than simply slashing it to the bone; it was a terrible slogan, to my mind, but the underlying idea was basically a good one. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration was a disaster on a variety of fronts, and even though the substance of compassionate conservatism was arguably the least of the Administration's problems, Bush's deviations from small-government principle have provided a convenient scapegoat for conservatives looking to explain what's gone wrong in the last six years without addressing, say, why the public rejected Social Security reform or why Iraq has been such a disaster.There's a sense is that this is the spark for a lengthy discussion of what conservatism/ Republicanism will be/should be in the post-Bush era.
As a result, conservatives who think the movement needs to adapt to a post-Reaganite landscape, rather than hunkering down and getting back to basics, are deemed to have been discredited by George W. Bush, and the prevailing attitude on the right is that the way out of the current mess is to commit the GOP to a platform of cutting government waste, extending Bush's tax cuts, and talking really, really tough about the war on terror and Iran. The result is that the Right is back where it was in the late 1990s, headed toward what Chris Caldwell has termed "Southern captivity", and convinced that going in this direction constitutes a change for the better.
However, as The Washington Post notes today, on the contentious issue of the day -- Iraq -- it may surprise many, but Bush's base remains with him. Any GOP candidate running (or planning to do so) in 2008 must deal with the fact that the Iraq War remains popular among Republicans -- even as it has fallen out of favor with Democrats and, especially, independents.
That dichotomy is going to make for an interesting -- though frustrating -- debate in the coming months and years.
Labels: conservatives, David Brooks, Iraq, Republicans
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Hagelian War Logic
He is skeptical of how much change a President Hagel might bring.
Labels: Chuck Hagel, foreign policy, GOP 2008 President, Iraq
Thursday, March 08, 2007
McCain's War Blues
The poll shows Mr. McCain's problems are partly personal, and partly the result of the Iraq war's shadow over the broader political environment. After years in which his maverick stance on issues from taxes to campaign finance grated on the party faithful, one in five Republicans express negative views of Mr. McCain and a similar proportion vow not to vote for him. That is double the negative views about Mr. Giuliani.But, McCain isn't just "supporting" sending more troops to Iraq: He has been front-and-center on the more-troops issue from the beginning. Indeed, his ongoing battle with Donald Rumsfeld was over the troops issue. But, what was the right idea -- policy-wise and politically -- on Day One, may not be the right one politically now. Sadly for McCain, the public isn't buying it. He's in the worst of all possible worlds: He criticized the Bush administration for going into Iraq without enough troops, but now that the administration is sending more troops in, McCain is suffering the political cost of a war that the public has given up on.
Some 30% of Americans overall, and 22% of Republicans express reservations about the fact that Mr. McCain, now 70 years old, would be the oldest president elected to a first term. More ominously, 72% of Americans and 50% of Republicans express discomfort with his support for sending more U.S. troops to Iraq.
Another irony: even though McCain and Cheney hate each other -- as demonstrated by the Veep's defending Rumsfeld two weeks ago -- McCain is the one whom GOP voters may punish as Bush's VP-stand-in during the primaries.
Meanwhile, though Giuliani supports the "surge" idea, it's not "his" plan. He hasn't been out front commenting on it and offering strategic guidance from the Senate from the start; thus, as noted here last week, he hasn't had to suffer the collapse of GOP support for the war to the degree McCain is. He is free to offer a new perspective:
Mr. Giuliani's camp is counting on his strong security profile as "America's Mayor" after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- and that a restless public will seek change from outside Washington. The latest encouraging sign for that view: the criminal conviction this week of former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak case.
Labels: Iraq, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Brother, Here For Art Thou
It looks like a clear winner emerged from that David Geffen-initiated Obama-Clinton dust up. Based on this new Washington Post poll, it is that certain ethnic candidate from Illinois. At least in terms of blacks, Obama has surged (so to speak) past Hillary.
I don't think that is simply a sudden "Oh, wow, he really is black" moment from African Americans for this switch (thought that may be a factor). Last week's war of words shine some intense light momentarily on the race.
The added light accrued to Obama's benefit, because he's the new kid on the block. Furthermore, the greater attention makes more people aware of his clear anti-Iraq war views -- and Hillary's more complicated position. It happens that African-Americans have been the most solidly anti-Iraq electoral group for some time.
Now, they have a candidate with whom they can coalesce their views.
The anti-war element in the country may also be a factor in McCain's losing support to Rudy Giuliani among Republicans. While the former New York mayor supports the war, McCain has attached himself to George W. Bush -- particularly with respect to the surge -- to such an extent that the war has now become "his." Yes, McCain has many problems with respect to the GOP base, but Iraq remains the predominant issue. And the news that McCain did make last week was all about the war: He went after Rumsfeld; Cheney went after him for going after Rumsfeld, etc. And Giuliani's lead increased: This suggests that Republican electorate is sick of the war as well, but want to vote for a clear, authoritative leader: Right now, that seems to be Rudy.
Both McCain and Hillary are losing support to candidates who have no fingerprints on either the authorization or strategic implementation of the Iraq war.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic 2008 Presidential, GOP 2008 President, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain
Monday, February 19, 2007
Nancy's Consigliere
Murtha has made clear the nonbinding resolution, whose merely symbolic nature infuriates anti-war activists, was only the "first step." Murtha, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, did not hide the point of setting standards for training, equipping and resting troops: "They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work."Of course, that language -- which is about as "defeatist" as one can imagine -- helped energize the House GOP and was likely the major reason why Republican defections on the resolution were kept at 17, when many predicted as many as 30 would vote to disapprove of the troops surge.
Now, were I an anti-war Democrat, strategically, Murtha is someone I would want out there, figuring out ways to block Bush's plans.
Tactically, however, Murtha is a nightmare: He has this inability to keep his mouth shut. Thus, here he blabs to the MoveOn crowd that this resolution is a "first step" before they move to shut off funds in other areas.
The week before, in "support" of Pelosi's request for an Air Force plane to transport her to and from her district, Murtha blatantly waved the defense appropriations process as a non-subtle threat to the Pentagon.
Add this to his checkered career as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal and his penchant for linking contributions and pork, and it is very easy for the average person to consider Murtha an elected thug and master shakedown artist. But this is the guy that Speaker Pelosi entrusts with coordinating the Iraq war policy?
The polls suggest that Democrats may be where the public is on trying chart a way out of Iraq, but John Murtha is about as horrific a front man as they could find.
Labels: Democrats, Iraq, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Whose Party?
Some seven GOP senators are said to be wavering between the Democratic resolution and the McCain Graham-Lieberman alternative supporting Gen. Petraeus and the troops. They are Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Sununu of New Hampshire, and George Voinovich of Ohio. Alexander, Coleman, and Sununu are up for reelection in 2008. Some or all of the seven may still choose to stand with the president and the troops, and to give Petraeus a chance. This would leave the Democratic resolution short of the 60 votes needed to end debate. Perhaps the four ignominious ones could even reconsider and sign on with McCain, Graham, and Lieberman (whose resolution of support includes, incidentally, "benchmarks" of performance that the Iraqi government is expected to meet).(Emphasis added).
In any case, Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 might remember this: The American political system has primaries as well as general elections. In 1978 and 1980, as Reagan conservatives took over the party from détente-establishment types, Reaganite challengers ousted incumbent GOP senators in New Jersey and New York. Surely there are victory-oriented Republicans who might step forward today in Nebraska, Virginia, Oregon, and Maine--and, if necessary, in Tennessee, Minnesota, and New Hampshire--to seek to vindicate the honor, and brighten the future, of the party of Reagan.
Uh, Mr. Kristol, would that be the "party" of this Reagan?
Labels: Iraq, Republicans, William Kristol
Friday, January 26, 2007
The GOP Anti-War Candidate?
UPDATE: Chuck gets love from Peggy.
Labels: Chuck Hagel, GOP 2008 President, Iraq
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Hagel On Fire
For what it's worth, I don't think Hagel is just playing to the cameras. One of the criticisms that he gets hit with is that he's "self-serving" (I mean, more than the average senator). I don't think that's the case here. I think he's saying what he really believes to be the case with the Iraq situation.
Right or wrong, he's calling it as he sees it.
Labels: Chuck Hagel, Iraq
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Bush & Webb States of the Union
Watching it, I thought the best thing about it was the beginning and the ending -- his very gracious recognition of Nancy Pelosi as "Madam Speaker", the first woman to hold that position. She seemed genuinely moved at the president's words -- particularly his noting of her father's service in the House. At the conclusion, the gesture to the "everyday Americans" has been a cliche at SOTU addresses for a quarter century now. However, putting all of them together made for a very powerful impact. It was especially nice to see New York "subway superhero" Wesley Autrey spontaneously send out a salute/kiss to Bush and then turn and hug fellow gallery guest Sgt. Tommy Rieman.
But, the rest of the speech didn't move me much.
However, later, actually reading it, I have to give Bush some credit: Putting aside the usual laundry list of domestic initiatives which will be either DOA under a Democratic Congress (the health insurance tax plan) or will be twisted beyond recognition (the renewal of No Child Left Behind). In contrast, the recount of the war on terror -- some of the actual victories combined with an assessment of what is going on in Iraq on both the Sunni and Shiite sides -- was quite refreshing:
Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an Al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an Al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.It seemed for one of the rare times in the last few years that Bush was actually in command of the details of what is happening in Iraq. That's not the same as being in command of the events on the ground, of course. But unlike his many pedestrian Iraq-focused speeches of recent years, this one seemed more grounded, with little grandiose statements of what would be happening.
It may not change any minds immediately, but, along with new Iraq operations chief Lt. Gen. David Petraeus' testimony at his confirmation hearing, it may presage a period of candor from the administration that might create enough time to get its new Iraq strategy under way.
But is it too late?
Listening to Jim Webb (launch the video player), it was perfectly clear why the Democrats chose him to deliver the Democratic response (again, this sounds like it had Chuck Schumer's fingerprints all over it). As a number pundits mentioned afterwards, he tore up the original speech that the Democrats wanted him to deliver and wrote his own: Very good idea. It was personal, philosophical and political. He mixed in a photo of his Dad serving in World War II and made a generational connection to his own service and that of his currently serving son:
I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.He then followed that up with a list of all the strategic and tactical errors the administration has made on Iraq. Unlike the average Democrat who might have given this speech, there wasn't the usual cant. There weren't the typical histrionics. His tone was straightforward, yet forceful. Confident without being arrogant.Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
It was a speech that would appeal to men and women equally.
Jim Webb can sure make a persuasive case for the need to address economic disparity. Republicans might call it "class warfare," but a man like Webb can inspire more people than you might think to enlist on the side of the workers rather than on the side of the CEOs. Hmmm... wonder how John McCain felt to hear Webb swipe Teddy Roosevelt as an example of a president who saw the need to address economic inequality?
Whoever the Democratic presidential nominee is, that person would be a fool not to ask Jim Webb to their running mate.
Labels: Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, Jim Webb, Republicans
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Brownback On Iraq
Consider it reflections of an Iraq hawk (with italicized emphases added).We all wish the situation was better, but I am particularly disappointed. I’ve had a long-term interest in Iraq. When I first served in the United States Senate, first came to the Senate in 1996, I served on the Foreign Relations Committee and chaired the Middle East subcommittee that held some of the first hearings on what to do about Saddam Hussein’s regime.
I carried the Iraq Liberation Act on the floor of the Senate that was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, I helped get the initial $100 million for the Iraqi National Congress top help organize the opposition to Saddam Hussein.
I attended the first INC meeting, the Iraqi National Congress meeting, with Senator Bob Kerry of Nebraska, and we both went to New York City to meet with the opposition about what to do about Saddam Hussein. I attended the first INC meeting in London. I have been committed to a free, safe and secure Iraq from the very beginning.
But during my meetings last week I found less reason for optimism. Sunni leaders blame everything on the Shi'a. Shi'a leaders, likewise, blame everything on the Sunnis. The Kurdish leadership pointed out that the Sunni and Shi'a only meet when the Kurds call the meeting.
All of this suggests that at the present time, the United States cares more about a peaceful Iraq than the Iraqis do. If that is the case, it is difficult to understand why more U.S. troops would make a difference.
One other bright spot I would talk about during my time in Iraq, as I previously noted, was my visit to the northern part of the country, the Kurdish region. Here, the security situation is stable and business is booming. Some number of people are moving out of Iraq, moving into the northern Iraq into the Kurdish region.
Kurds are demonstrating what is possible for the rest of Iraq when the violence recedes. Kurds are pragmatic; they are worried about committing Kurdish forces to Baghdad. I even asked Brazani, would he commit Kurdish forces for the peace in Baghdad? He declined to do so at that time, of actual Kurdish forces. They don’t want to get caught in the middle of the sectarian fight. If Iraqi Kurds feel this way, why should we feel any different?
Simply put, the Iraqis have to resolve these sectarian differences; we cannot do it for them. This does not mean we should pull out of Iraq and leave behind a security vacuum or a safe haven for terrorists. I do not support that alternative.
It does mean that there must be bipartisan agreement for our military commitment on Iraq. We cannot fight a war with the support of only one political party. And it does mean that the parties in Iraq--Sunni, Shi’a and Kurds--must get to a political agreement, to a political equilibrium.
I think most people agree that a cut and run strategy does not serve our interest at all, nor those of the world, nor those of the region, nor those of the Iraqi people. So I invite my colleagues, all around, particularly on the other side of the aisle, to indicate what level of commitment they can support.
We need to come together in Congress and as a nation on a strategy that will make real progress in Iraq and gain as much support as possible from the American people. Only a broadly supported, bipartisan strategy will allow us to remain in Iraq for the length of time necessary to ensure regional stability and the defeat the terrorists. And that is our object.
UPDATE: After a visit, another GOP Senator expresses skepticism over Iraq, given the refusal of government to address Shiite militia. But, wait!! Prime Minister Maliki announces a round-up of 400 of the Sh'ia usual suspects.
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Iraq, Sam Brownback
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Snatching Defeat From Victory...
In Thursday's grilling of Secretary of State Condolleezza Rice on the Bush administration's "surge" plan, Boxer unloaded this bromide:
"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family"? (emphasis added). Rice's status as a, "spinster" (as they used to call it) is now fair game to add rhetorical flare to an attack on administration policy?Boxer made it personal.
"I'm not going to pay a personal price," she said. "My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."
Boxer talked about families losing loved ones and soldiers in hospital burn units. "These are the people who pay the price."
Rice said evenly that she understands the sacrifice of service members and families.
"I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom. ..."
Boxer cut her off.
"Madam Secretary, please," she said. "I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions."
Despicable.
Consider the uproar if a Republican senator said something similar to, say, Janet Reno in the Clinton administration? But Boxer should get a free pass because she happens to be the same gender as Rice? No way.
Going after the bollixed-up Iraq policy was fair game -- from senators of both parties, no question. Ripping the whole "surge" plan is also fine. But suggesting the secretary of state doesn't care about the human costs because she's childless?
And the Democrats wonder why the public is wary about their ability to govern with any sense of fairness or decency. It's this kind of haughty, condescending behavior that turned Americans against Democrats in the first place.
Well, anyway, I'll remember this great example that Sen. Boxer has given the country.
In turn, perhaps it might be good to remind the public about why a wealthy white Democratic woman of privilege has no problem supporting public schools that leave poor black kids uneducated and prepped for a lives of low wages and likely incarceration.
More vile comments like that above and it won't be too long before the country starts waxing nostalgic for that Republican majority -- a thought that Boxer's fellow Democrats don't want to consider.
Yep, Barbara Boxer -- Evil and Stupid.
Labels: Barbara Boxer, Condoleezza Rice, Iraq
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
To Surge, With Love*
In fact, Roberts is only partly right: Iraq is, in many ways, already in the administration's rear-veiw mirror: Iran is the central policy concern right now -- as the recent military leadership changes suggest. Thus, the surge is not really a "distraction," as such. But by committing only 20,000 troops (as if there were more to send out), it is a temporary band-aid while broader strategic moves are put into place, as Ralph Peters explores here).
Furthermore, as the ongoing developments in Somalia show, a commander-in-chief has remarkable options at his disposal. The Democratic Congress had better realize what is going on here. Ted Kennedy can give his full-throated opposition to the surge all he wants. There is greater U.S.-sparked movement on the "War on Terror" chessboard than, arguably, at any point since the beginning of the 2003 Iraq invasion. It is Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan and more.
As far as the Iraq portion goes, I can't say that I am exactly optimistic. I'll be listening closely to the president's speech tonight, but from the early details leaked, it seems that there is definite decision on how to get the Sunni and Shiite forces to agree to run the country together.
As long as Prime Minister Maliki chooses to take orders for Moqtada al-Sadr (rather than the other way around), U.S. forces will continue fighting with one arm tied behind their backs -- trying to figure out which way the bullets are coming from and where all the IEDs are planted.
*Sorry it took me so long to drop that awful pun.
Labels: George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Ted Kennedy, war on terror
