As the administration spends much of its time focusing on the quagmire in Iraq, in Afghanistan the ranks of the Taliban have grown by an estimated 10,000 members — many from our “ally” Pakistan. There have been 90 suicide attacks in Afghanistan in 2006 and nearly 100 people have been killed there in the last two months according to the New York Times.
And still Republicans insist on referring to Iraq as “the central battlefront in the war on terror.” Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said that he adamantly opposes any withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, is actually calling for an increase in troops.
The much-anticipated Baker Commission — thought to be the promise of a real strategy if not an exit plan — seemed to have been dismissed by President George W. Bush. The commission’s satellite discussion today with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair seemed more like a celebration of video conferencing technology than a serious discussion of a war that is killing hundreds of people a day.
Those on the other side of the aisle aren’t much better in spite of promises from the Democrats to put principle before politics. Less than a day after Speaker of the House-elect Nancy Pelosi, D-California, announced Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, as her choice for Majority Leader, a twenty-six-year-old videotape of Mr. Murtha refusing a bribe appeared on the evening news.
So instead of looking for solutions on Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democrats are already at each other’s throats. This infighting costs the new majority and will likely lead to a loss of direction.
Add to this mess the promise of many members of the new leadership not to conduct hearings and investigations and it looks like the electorate got bamboozled again.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen said it best “…it would be … exhilarating if the new Democratic majorities evinced a similar moral indignation. Instead of reassuring the administration's serial fibbers that they will not be required to answer for their statements about Iraq, they should instead be vowing to take apart the ship of state plank by plank until they find the rot -- not impeachment, mind you, just accountability.
“This is not a matter of vengeance or, God forfend, politics, but of restoring the people's faith in their government. How dare these people lie to you and me and send Americans to die in Iraq for reasons that turned out to be wholly nonexistent?”
Meanwhile, the BBC reported today that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is being sued in a German court for his role in the detention of suspected terrorists.
"The complaint was filed by the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of a Saudi man held in Cuba and 11 Iraqis held in Baghdad," the BBC story said.
Of course this story didn't make the evening news. I wonder what gives.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Sunday, November 12, 2006
An apt metaphor
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, writes in today's New York Times Op-Ed pages of a meeting of a handful of Republican senators after the contentious 2000 presidential election. At the time, the Senate stood at 50-50 and Vice President Dick Cheney would have the deciding vote. The senator from Rhode Island thought that the closeness of the election suggested that cooperation and compromise were in order. After all, President-elect George W. Bush had campaigned as "the uniter not divider."
Mr. Chafee writes he "was startled to hear the vice president dismiss suggestions of compromise and instead emphasize an aggressively partisan agenda that included significant tax cuts, the abandonment of international agreements and a muscular, unilateral foreign policy." Mr. Chafee said he "was incredulous."
In a letter to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Chafee writes, "I believe we must maintain discipline both in discretionary spending and in proposals for significant tax cuts. This time of continued relative prosperity and peace is an extremely important opportunity for our country to stay on a firm pathway toward elimination of the debt."
Mr. Chafee "hope(d) the new administration will be open to proposals to reduce the country’s reliance on foreign oil through energy conservation and greater investments in mass transit."
That was in the winter of 2000-01, a full nine months before 9/11, more than three years before the invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Chafee's moderate position in Congress is quite well known. According to the senator, nearly two-thirds of his constituents approved of his performance in the Senate. Appointed to serve the unexpired Senate term of his late father in 1999, Mr. Chafee was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee. He was one of only a few senators — and the only Republican — to vote against the war. And yet he lost the election to a Democrat.
Mr. Chafee advises the new majority to "find common ground for the common good." But Mr. Chafee should well understand if they don't, after all, as he told the Associated Press there are benefits to being a member of the majority party.
In the same story he decries the "pack mentality" in Congress.
"People don't like to step out," Chafee said. "They need a pack to go anywhere. That's not good for the country."
But when asked if he would change parties for the remainder of his term, he demurred. He didn't want to seem like he was "flying the coop."
In other words he wants to appear to be a chicken rather than a mustang. A more apt metaphor for the Republican rubber stamp Congress has yet to be uttered. Too bad it took six years of worldwide suffering before it became clear to the rest of the country.
Mr. Chafee writes he "was startled to hear the vice president dismiss suggestions of compromise and instead emphasize an aggressively partisan agenda that included significant tax cuts, the abandonment of international agreements and a muscular, unilateral foreign policy." Mr. Chafee said he "was incredulous."
In a letter to Mr. Cheney, Mr. Chafee writes, "I believe we must maintain discipline both in discretionary spending and in proposals for significant tax cuts. This time of continued relative prosperity and peace is an extremely important opportunity for our country to stay on a firm pathway toward elimination of the debt."
Mr. Chafee "hope(d) the new administration will be open to proposals to reduce the country’s reliance on foreign oil through energy conservation and greater investments in mass transit."
That was in the winter of 2000-01, a full nine months before 9/11, more than three years before the invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Chafee's moderate position in Congress is quite well known. According to the senator, nearly two-thirds of his constituents approved of his performance in the Senate. Appointed to serve the unexpired Senate term of his late father in 1999, Mr. Chafee was a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee. He was one of only a few senators — and the only Republican — to vote against the war. And yet he lost the election to a Democrat.
Mr. Chafee advises the new majority to "find common ground for the common good." But Mr. Chafee should well understand if they don't, after all, as he told the Associated Press there are benefits to being a member of the majority party.
In the same story he decries the "pack mentality" in Congress.
"People don't like to step out," Chafee said. "They need a pack to go anywhere. That's not good for the country."
But when asked if he would change parties for the remainder of his term, he demurred. He didn't want to seem like he was "flying the coop."
In other words he wants to appear to be a chicken rather than a mustang. A more apt metaphor for the Republican rubber stamp Congress has yet to be uttered. Too bad it took six years of worldwide suffering before it became clear to the rest of the country.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Now what?
With the concession of Sen. George Webb, R-Va., yesterday, the Democrats now hold the majority in both houses of Congress.
There are calls for punishment and impeachment of George W. Bush by the party's left-wing warriors who've spent the last six years in the grass keeping the faithful alive and hopeful.
Meanwhile, the future Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., has promised to work with the Bush White House and that impeachment is "off the table."
But the administration isn't waiting to see if this make-nice attitude is real or rhetorical. They are pushing for legislation to legitimize the NSA wire-tap-without-a-warrant program and for the recess of Ambassador John Bolton to be permanent.
It seems a betrayal to those truly faithful Democrats who have kept track of every offense against the Constitution: an insult to each grass-roots organizer and volunteer who spent countless hours working to get people to see beyond fear.
And the pundits and pontificators of the "safety-first" right aren't making nice. Their rhetoric is completely apocalyptic. A Fox News anchor wondered wistfully if Donald Rumsfeld's resignation caused cheering in Afghani caves and in Iraqi insurgent cells, as though a victory for the Democrats is a victory for Osama.
The troops on the ground in Iraq don't seem to care who is leading the Pentagon, it doesn't make them any less vulnerable, any more bomb or bulletproof.
There will be no impeachment, no repealing of the Patriot Act. The Democrats will go out of the way to prove how cooperative they can be, how bipartisan. They will compromise with the GOP and give further ground. The troops will likely be in Iraq until the 2008 elections, dying for a policy that never should have been.
The election's winners don't see the vote as a mandate for restoring the Constitution or bringing home the troops. They don't see the elections as a call for diplomacy and international cooperation. They don't view them as a call for responsible environmental and energy policies. They don't hear the cry for reversing an economy that punishes the poor. Instead they see them as an opportunity to run conferences and committees; to get back to the lobbyist troughs.
The groups and individuals that have suffered so greatly under the conservative control, the ones who worked so hard to make the system better will be left bitter and asking, "Now what?"
There are calls for punishment and impeachment of George W. Bush by the party's left-wing warriors who've spent the last six years in the grass keeping the faithful alive and hopeful.
Meanwhile, the future Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., has promised to work with the Bush White House and that impeachment is "off the table."
But the administration isn't waiting to see if this make-nice attitude is real or rhetorical. They are pushing for legislation to legitimize the NSA wire-tap-without-a-warrant program and for the recess of Ambassador John Bolton to be permanent.
It seems a betrayal to those truly faithful Democrats who have kept track of every offense against the Constitution: an insult to each grass-roots organizer and volunteer who spent countless hours working to get people to see beyond fear.
And the pundits and pontificators of the "safety-first" right aren't making nice. Their rhetoric is completely apocalyptic. A Fox News anchor wondered wistfully if Donald Rumsfeld's resignation caused cheering in Afghani caves and in Iraqi insurgent cells, as though a victory for the Democrats is a victory for Osama.
The troops on the ground in Iraq don't seem to care who is leading the Pentagon, it doesn't make them any less vulnerable, any more bomb or bulletproof.
There will be no impeachment, no repealing of the Patriot Act. The Democrats will go out of the way to prove how cooperative they can be, how bipartisan. They will compromise with the GOP and give further ground. The troops will likely be in Iraq until the 2008 elections, dying for a policy that never should have been.
The election's winners don't see the vote as a mandate for restoring the Constitution or bringing home the troops. They don't see the elections as a call for diplomacy and international cooperation. They don't view them as a call for responsible environmental and energy policies. They don't hear the cry for reversing an economy that punishes the poor. Instead they see them as an opportunity to run conferences and committees; to get back to the lobbyist troughs.
The groups and individuals that have suffered so greatly under the conservative control, the ones who worked so hard to make the system better will be left bitter and asking, "Now what?"
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
GOP Crybaby calls for Protest
One of the wonderful things about the 24-hour news cycle is that late night election coverage will broadcast just about anything live. At 1:40 a.m. CST, Tony Paraica — the GOP candidate for Cook County Board president — went on WMAQ NBC 5 and in an angry voice complained because all of the ballots hadn't made it to the board of elections.
"We're not going to let them steal the vote," Mr. Paraica screamed to his supporters at the Intercontinental Hotel in downtown Chicago. "We should all march down there (to the Cook County Board of Elections) and insist that they can't steal our votes."
After a few more minutes of screaming and hecklers decrying the "Democrats" and "the machine," Paraica concluded his remarks with supporters shouting that they would make the walk to the Board of Elections. Paraica's campaign manager said that the ballots which still weren't counted were from "white ethnic wards" — effectively playing the race card (Stroger is black, Paraica is white).
In spite of Paraica's claim that ballots were being delivered to the BOE by people "in plain clothes" rather than uniformed sheriff's deputies, NBC reported that deputies had, in fact, delivered all of the ballots. The reporter also said that the candidate's lawyer was already at the BOE.
Paraica also complained that Cook County had spent $60 million dollars for technology and that he was "outraged" by the "incompetence."
"This is outrageous," Paraica said. "We're not going to let anyone steal this election."
Paraica claimed that he would stay at the board "all night" to make sure that every vote is counted.
As WMAQ went to commercial I realized that this is just like Florida in 2000 with angry Republicans trying to intimidate election officials. Even on election night late night TV still shows reruns.
"We're not going to let them steal the vote," Mr. Paraica screamed to his supporters at the Intercontinental Hotel in downtown Chicago. "We should all march down there (to the Cook County Board of Elections) and insist that they can't steal our votes."
After a few more minutes of screaming and hecklers decrying the "Democrats" and "the machine," Paraica concluded his remarks with supporters shouting that they would make the walk to the Board of Elections. Paraica's campaign manager said that the ballots which still weren't counted were from "white ethnic wards" — effectively playing the race card (Stroger is black, Paraica is white).
In spite of Paraica's claim that ballots were being delivered to the BOE by people "in plain clothes" rather than uniformed sheriff's deputies, NBC reported that deputies had, in fact, delivered all of the ballots. The reporter also said that the candidate's lawyer was already at the BOE.
Paraica also complained that Cook County had spent $60 million dollars for technology and that he was "outraged" by the "incompetence."
"This is outrageous," Paraica said. "We're not going to let anyone steal this election."
Paraica claimed that he would stay at the board "all night" to make sure that every vote is counted.
As WMAQ went to commercial I realized that this is just like Florida in 2000 with angry Republicans trying to intimidate election officials. Even on election night late night TV still shows reruns.
GOP cheats and Dems demure
Whatever the final tally of Tuesday's general election, the GOP is finally being called out for its dirty tricks. The so-called 72-hour strategy involved "robocalls" that were scripted to deceive voters to think that Democratic candidates were calling at odd hours repeatedly were ringing phones of voters in close races. The Washington Post and others reported the story in the last two days — possibly too late for some voters to get the word.
And much as I hate to bash my own profession, the media seems not to be concerned by what is clearly a dirty tactic. This goes beyond negative TV ads — even the racist ones in Tennessee — it suggests that winning is everything. And few journalists are giving it half as much attention as a bad joke told poorly.
Add these last minute robocalls to the laundry list of rotten tactics the Republicans have pulled in the last six years. Police intimidation in Florida, refusing to perform a full recount in that same state, alleged calls to voters saying that police would arrest voters with outstanding parking tickets at polls in Virginia, purging voter rolls, creating barriers to minority voters in Ohio in 2004 and the list goes on.
In fact, by 6 p.m. CST on Tuesday, Tim Russert of NBC was suggesting that Democrats not go after President Bush with investigations and hearings so they didn't appear as an opposition party. Democrats should reach across the aisle because this vote was a referendum on divisive politics.
A couple of hours later, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-IL, was on NBC saying that the House under Democrats would work to unite the country and put it back on the right track. In other words, the American people who in poll after poll said that the GOP scandals and the war in Iraq caused them to doubt the President and the party. They demanded change and wanted to know who was responsible for the mess the country is in. There are at least fifteen new Democrats in the House who ran against the President. Those voters expect the Congressmen-elect to at least officially look at the run-up to the Iraq invasion and Foley scandal.
If Mr. Emmanuel is taken at his word, it appears that there will be no real change in Congress. The left-wing blogosphere will once again be Cassandras, only this time in an election that showed strong gains for the party believed to be liberal.
Democrat Tammy Duckworth, an Army reservist who lost both her legs when here Blackhawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq, lost to a Republican by the slimmest of margins. Her supporters were vocal in their desire to see someone hold the administration’s feet to the fire. Mr. Emmanuel and the DCCC literally poured millions of dollars into her election and she lost. Conversely they all but ignored Rep. Melissa Bean, D-IL, who won reelection to a seat that hadn't had a Democrat in decades when she took it in 2004. I'm not suggesting that the DCCC shouldn't be happy with their success in retaking the house for the first time in more than a decade, but clearly they didn't pitch a shutout with their message.
One hopes Mr. Emmanuel was merely emulating President Bush with a phony "uniter not divider" sound bite before doing the opposite.
And much as I hate to bash my own profession, the media seems not to be concerned by what is clearly a dirty tactic. This goes beyond negative TV ads — even the racist ones in Tennessee — it suggests that winning is everything. And few journalists are giving it half as much attention as a bad joke told poorly.
Add these last minute robocalls to the laundry list of rotten tactics the Republicans have pulled in the last six years. Police intimidation in Florida, refusing to perform a full recount in that same state, alleged calls to voters saying that police would arrest voters with outstanding parking tickets at polls in Virginia, purging voter rolls, creating barriers to minority voters in Ohio in 2004 and the list goes on.
In fact, by 6 p.m. CST on Tuesday, Tim Russert of NBC was suggesting that Democrats not go after President Bush with investigations and hearings so they didn't appear as an opposition party. Democrats should reach across the aisle because this vote was a referendum on divisive politics.
A couple of hours later, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-IL, was on NBC saying that the House under Democrats would work to unite the country and put it back on the right track. In other words, the American people who in poll after poll said that the GOP scandals and the war in Iraq caused them to doubt the President and the party. They demanded change and wanted to know who was responsible for the mess the country is in. There are at least fifteen new Democrats in the House who ran against the President. Those voters expect the Congressmen-elect to at least officially look at the run-up to the Iraq invasion and Foley scandal.
If Mr. Emmanuel is taken at his word, it appears that there will be no real change in Congress. The left-wing blogosphere will once again be Cassandras, only this time in an election that showed strong gains for the party believed to be liberal.
Democrat Tammy Duckworth, an Army reservist who lost both her legs when here Blackhawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq, lost to a Republican by the slimmest of margins. Her supporters were vocal in their desire to see someone hold the administration’s feet to the fire. Mr. Emmanuel and the DCCC literally poured millions of dollars into her election and she lost. Conversely they all but ignored Rep. Melissa Bean, D-IL, who won reelection to a seat that hadn't had a Democrat in decades when she took it in 2004. I'm not suggesting that the DCCC shouldn't be happy with their success in retaking the house for the first time in more than a decade, but clearly they didn't pitch a shutout with their message.
One hopes Mr. Emmanuel was merely emulating President Bush with a phony "uniter not divider" sound bite before doing the opposite.
Bush family history
What a week for the Bush family history. Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, separated by a decade of prosperity, each managed to lead a nation into two wars as president: H.W. into Kuwait and Somalia and W. into Afghanistan and Iraq. Each presided over a stalled economy. Each sought and took advice from Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Each viewed Saddam Hussein as a threat to American security. Each saw a soaring national debt and was unable to do anything about it.
And now, in a strange twist of history, each will spend two years as president with Daniel Ortega leading Nicaragua. On the same day that Saddam Hussein’s death sentence was announced, 40-percent of Nicaraguans voted that Mr. Ortega, the once and future president, take the reins over what is said to be the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. When Mr. Ortega last ran Nicaragua, there was a protracted civil war between his ruling Sandinistas and the US-backed Contras.
H.W., then serving as President Ronald Reagan’s vice-president, was linked to a secret (and illegal) operation wherein the US sold missiles and technology to Iran and used the money to fund the Contras. There were congressional hearings, accusations of an executive branch over-stepping its bounds and a deceived American people.
The revelation that there had been secret meetings between Iranian leaders and H.W. wherein the missile sale was promised for an agreement not to release 52 American hostages in Tehran until after the election led many Americans to question GOP election strategies. It also introduced “October surprise” into the political lexicon. The result of this deal led to untold deaths in Central America and prolonged the Iran-Iraq War.
W., serving as a lame duck president (especially if the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress), will likely face congressional hearings on accusations of an executive branch overstepping its bounds and deceiving the American people.
Although Mr. Ortega’s first election as president may have been less than legitimate, his presidency from the current vote cannot be. He collected 40-percent of the vote in a national election with multiple candidates and finished more than 5-percent ahead of the runner-up. In the run-up to the election, the US threatened to discontinue aid to the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere if Ortega was elected.
This policy — if adopted — will create further suffering for people who have been through nearly 70 years of corrupt governments all of whom ignored human rights and killed those in the opposition. The US should meet with Ortega and promise continued aid for his promise of more progressive economic policies than his socialist past would indicate. They should make this offer loudly and repeatedly. If the old Ortega emerges, the US can wash its hands of the Central American country. If a new Ortega embraces progressive policies and ensures human rights then the old US policy of benevolence will bring a new generation of citizens who see the US as a beacon of freedom and a model of the power of self-governance.
It could be an historic event in the Bush family history. It could change the perception of this presidency from one of bullying failure to diplomatic victory. Two years is a long time for a president interested in his legacy. Or two years could be an eternity of suffering for the world.
And now, in a strange twist of history, each will spend two years as president with Daniel Ortega leading Nicaragua. On the same day that Saddam Hussein’s death sentence was announced, 40-percent of Nicaraguans voted that Mr. Ortega, the once and future president, take the reins over what is said to be the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. When Mr. Ortega last ran Nicaragua, there was a protracted civil war between his ruling Sandinistas and the US-backed Contras.
H.W., then serving as President Ronald Reagan’s vice-president, was linked to a secret (and illegal) operation wherein the US sold missiles and technology to Iran and used the money to fund the Contras. There were congressional hearings, accusations of an executive branch over-stepping its bounds and a deceived American people.
The revelation that there had been secret meetings between Iranian leaders and H.W. wherein the missile sale was promised for an agreement not to release 52 American hostages in Tehran until after the election led many Americans to question GOP election strategies. It also introduced “October surprise” into the political lexicon. The result of this deal led to untold deaths in Central America and prolonged the Iran-Iraq War.
W., serving as a lame duck president (especially if the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress), will likely face congressional hearings on accusations of an executive branch overstepping its bounds and deceiving the American people.
Although Mr. Ortega’s first election as president may have been less than legitimate, his presidency from the current vote cannot be. He collected 40-percent of the vote in a national election with multiple candidates and finished more than 5-percent ahead of the runner-up. In the run-up to the election, the US threatened to discontinue aid to the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere if Ortega was elected.
This policy — if adopted — will create further suffering for people who have been through nearly 70 years of corrupt governments all of whom ignored human rights and killed those in the opposition. The US should meet with Ortega and promise continued aid for his promise of more progressive economic policies than his socialist past would indicate. They should make this offer loudly and repeatedly. If the old Ortega emerges, the US can wash its hands of the Central American country. If a new Ortega embraces progressive policies and ensures human rights then the old US policy of benevolence will bring a new generation of citizens who see the US as a beacon of freedom and a model of the power of self-governance.
It could be an historic event in the Bush family history. It could change the perception of this presidency from one of bullying failure to diplomatic victory. Two years is a long time for a president interested in his legacy. Or two years could be an eternity of suffering for the world.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Kerry should apologize
Much has been made over the last couple of days about Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., trying to be funny— and as usual missing the mark — with a comment about President George W. Bush and the administration's policies in Iraq.
Pols, pundits and "patriots" are calling for an apology from Mr. Kerry for his insensitivity to our troops by suggesting that the lack of an education lands one in Iraq. Mr. Kerry has insisted that he misspoke and what he meant to say was that "if you're intellectually lazy, you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq — just ask President Bush." He mangled the line and it seemed to suggest that enlisted military aren't that bright.
The White House press secretary Tony Snow was incredulous and was outraged at Mr. Kerry. Mr. Snow did not have the same outrage last year when President Bush showed some slides of himself searching the Oval Office for WMD. Mr. Snow has never criticized Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for repeatedly making flippant remarks to and about soldiers and generals.
But I too join in the calls for an apology from Mr. Kerry. I too think that he owes the American people and the troops an apology.
He should apologize to the American people for putting himself in the public eye after being defeated in the 2004 presidential elections. He should go back to Massachusetts and quietly continue to serve in the senate. How many other senators have lost presidential bids and still tried to be the face of their party? Sen. John McCain, R-AZ., — poised to take over the top spot in 2008 — notwithstanding, most senators have quietly gone away. Kennedy, Dole, Hart, and others have had the good sense to stay out of the national spotlight.
Like a moth, Mr. Kerry is compelled to put himself in front of the cameras. Didn't he embarrass the Democrats enough by losing to Mr. Bush? The decorated veteran was made to look like a draft dodger by an AWOL reservist. With all of the evidence that Mr. Bush vacationed us into 9/11, lied us into Iraq, drove us into a record national debt and sat back watching as businesses defrauded the government and the people, Mr. Kerry still lost.
He should have had the good sense to take what was left of his pride — as former Vice President Al Gore did — and ducked the national spotlight. But Mr. Kerry's fatal flaw is that he has no sense of shame, no sense of honor.
Mr. Kerry owes the people — Democrats in particular — an apology for allowing the right to goad him into the spotlight. When the Republican propagandists need a quick hit Mr. Kerry lobs them a soft one every time.
But more than the Democrats, Mr. Kerry — and his party cohorts — owes the American people a heartfelt apology for allowing this administration carte blanche in Iraq and the "War on Terror." Mr. Kerry voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq. Mr. Kerry approved the post-9/11 measures that led us into becoming a country were the Constitution is now seconded to the will of the President, where international law and multi-lateralism is scoffed and mocked.
Moreover Mr. Kerry and the entire senate owe an apology to the troops who are being demoralized and decimated by endless deployments to Iraq. Someone in the senate should have pushed the administration to enact the selective service system. Besides providing much needed replacements to the fighting forces, such a move would have forced the American people to really consider our policies in Iraq, to share the burden so to speak. When teens from the suburbs are forced into the military, suburbanites don't take it lightly. But as long as it is a military made up of folks from small towns and the inner cities, the war is something distant something that other people are doing. It becomes just one other tidbit on the news.
If Sen. Kerry had pushed for a draft in 2003 when the war started, Americans would have looked at the President's rhetoric a whole lot differently in 2004. College students would have been forced from their apathy. Doubtlessly some would have joined the military, others would have fled the country, and still others would have taken to the streets in protest demanding that Congress hold the President responsible.
Mr. Kerry understands from experience the power of young people protesting presidential policies. Mr. Kerry made his political career on it.
Pols, pundits and "patriots" are calling for an apology from Mr. Kerry for his insensitivity to our troops by suggesting that the lack of an education lands one in Iraq. Mr. Kerry has insisted that he misspoke and what he meant to say was that "if you're intellectually lazy, you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq — just ask President Bush." He mangled the line and it seemed to suggest that enlisted military aren't that bright.
The White House press secretary Tony Snow was incredulous and was outraged at Mr. Kerry. Mr. Snow did not have the same outrage last year when President Bush showed some slides of himself searching the Oval Office for WMD. Mr. Snow has never criticized Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for repeatedly making flippant remarks to and about soldiers and generals.
But I too join in the calls for an apology from Mr. Kerry. I too think that he owes the American people and the troops an apology.
He should apologize to the American people for putting himself in the public eye after being defeated in the 2004 presidential elections. He should go back to Massachusetts and quietly continue to serve in the senate. How many other senators have lost presidential bids and still tried to be the face of their party? Sen. John McCain, R-AZ., — poised to take over the top spot in 2008 — notwithstanding, most senators have quietly gone away. Kennedy, Dole, Hart, and others have had the good sense to stay out of the national spotlight.
Like a moth, Mr. Kerry is compelled to put himself in front of the cameras. Didn't he embarrass the Democrats enough by losing to Mr. Bush? The decorated veteran was made to look like a draft dodger by an AWOL reservist. With all of the evidence that Mr. Bush vacationed us into 9/11, lied us into Iraq, drove us into a record national debt and sat back watching as businesses defrauded the government and the people, Mr. Kerry still lost.
He should have had the good sense to take what was left of his pride — as former Vice President Al Gore did — and ducked the national spotlight. But Mr. Kerry's fatal flaw is that he has no sense of shame, no sense of honor.
Mr. Kerry owes the people — Democrats in particular — an apology for allowing the right to goad him into the spotlight. When the Republican propagandists need a quick hit Mr. Kerry lobs them a soft one every time.
But more than the Democrats, Mr. Kerry — and his party cohorts — owes the American people a heartfelt apology for allowing this administration carte blanche in Iraq and the "War on Terror." Mr. Kerry voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq. Mr. Kerry approved the post-9/11 measures that led us into becoming a country were the Constitution is now seconded to the will of the President, where international law and multi-lateralism is scoffed and mocked.
Moreover Mr. Kerry and the entire senate owe an apology to the troops who are being demoralized and decimated by endless deployments to Iraq. Someone in the senate should have pushed the administration to enact the selective service system. Besides providing much needed replacements to the fighting forces, such a move would have forced the American people to really consider our policies in Iraq, to share the burden so to speak. When teens from the suburbs are forced into the military, suburbanites don't take it lightly. But as long as it is a military made up of folks from small towns and the inner cities, the war is something distant something that other people are doing. It becomes just one other tidbit on the news.
If Sen. Kerry had pushed for a draft in 2003 when the war started, Americans would have looked at the President's rhetoric a whole lot differently in 2004. College students would have been forced from their apathy. Doubtlessly some would have joined the military, others would have fled the country, and still others would have taken to the streets in protest demanding that Congress hold the President responsible.
Mr. Kerry understands from experience the power of young people protesting presidential policies. Mr. Kerry made his political career on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)