Obama, one year in:
-Gitmo is still open.
-The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue.
-Health care still hasn't been passed.
-Economy continues to reel.
I should be pissed or at least disappointed. I probably would be if I thought of Obama as some sort of messiah or for that matter did not understand how government works (more on that later). Efforts to portray him as a socialist have led me to see many of those so opposed to him as bordering on ridiculous. His first year has been more subtle and filled with shades of gray than to allow a superficial up or down assessment.
He is a political incrementalist. Not necessarily my style but I see the logic behind such an approach. It is also this approach that has frustrated many of his most ardent (and unrealistic) supports.
Yet to assess his first year one must distinguish between what he has accomplished, what he has attempted to accomplish and what he is likely to accomplish. To be fair in this assessment one must be honest and note that the President of the United States is not a dictator and can only enact legislation so far as the Congress goes along. In essence, as Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, the real power in the presidency lies in the bully pulpit, the ability to force opinion that will then force the hands of politicians.
Also, as preface, it is necessary to point out what seems to be a completely contradictory set of values blisters him for not getting things accomplished while working simultaneously to thwart any effort he makes. Let's look at Guantanamo as an example: It is true that he has not closed the place as he stated. However, if the full effort here is examined, it becomes apparent that the real block to closing Gitmo is not Obama but rather the manipulation of political and public opinion by members of Congress to prevent any actions that might lead to closure. The reality is that the number of prisoners has been drastically reduced and continues to shrink. Obama continues to pursue the closing and I give him credit for that. On the other hand, John McCain advocated closing Gitmo long ago but now opposes it because it scores political points.
The war in Iraq. While there are still troops there, this war is for all purposes winding down. The U.S. never completely leaves anywhere as the hundreds of thousands of troops all over the world attests, but this war is done. If you're going by when the last troops leave, then WWII and the Korean War are still ongoing. If you mean done as in stopping the further waste of resources and an end in sight, we're there.
Afghanistan. This is Obama's biggest mistake. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from pouring any more resources down this rat hole. I think that Obama is motivated by political concerns that seek to refute any calls that he is weak on security. Of course, that is exactly what would have happened if he had done the correct thing and pulled out. Nonetheless, he should have started this debate with the public and the fight with Congress to end this war.
Health care has been a debacle. Obama likely erred by not pushing for a one-payer system if only as a bargaining chip. In trying not to appear too radical he ended up making a tactical error and then got called a socialist anyway. Of course, the real blame for how health care reform has played out must lie with the Democratic leadership. Even when they had 60 votes, Reid was too lame to get anything through. The Democrats in general played a game where they appeared to represent the people while they assured failure for anything that might threaten the insurance industry. The Republicans revealed themselves to be obstructionist who negotiate in bad faith. Ultimately though the blame falls on the Democrats who turn an eighteen vote majority into a minority. If the Republicans want to filibuster, then damn it, let them talk until they drop.
The economy. Unemployment is at 10 percent, probably closer to 17 if you take in the underemployed and those who've given up and no economist expect this to end in the foreseeable future. Forfeitures and foreclosures are up and there is not much promise ahead. On the other hand, the home market is rebounding and job losses will probably level at around zero this month. I liken his task here to catching an anvil: when he first grabbed hold it pulled him down further until he finally gained control.
Obama takes a lot of heat for deficit spending yet most economist caution that this is not the time for deficit reduction. Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winner in economics, has argued that the stimulus should have been larger and the only thing that can rescue the economy is government spending. I know many of you hate to hear that, but a paralyzed economy is in no one's interest.
One thing the Obama administration has done that has gotten surprisingly little attention is the recouping of the bailout money. The approximately $700 billion that Henry Paulson tried to steal from the Treasury for the largest banks has been largely returned. Paulson's accomplice Tim Geithner, may have finally served his purpose in pointing out where the bodies were buried and now appears to be on his way out the door.
Of late, Obama has been striking an increasingly populist tone when it comes to the economy. Proposing all kinds of tax cuts for small businesses and individuals, he also took Wall Street and corporations to task in the State of the Union address. His deficit reduction plan is pure gimmickry but served to make an interesting point as Republicans who had advocated a deficit reduction committee suddenly came out in opposition. He has maneuvered the Republicans into a position that they are blatantly supporting big business and the banking industry over the people.
Obama has also reversed years of declining American influence and reputation around the world. Even those who are opposed to his policies must acknowledge that he has done an enormous amount in changing the view of America in the world.
Obama has also pressed for increases in investments in education and infrastructure developments. These are two areas where it is clear that America has fallen behind and is destined for diminished stature on the world stage unless we quickly address our deficits. How hard the opposition fights these ideas will be a measure of how interested they are in the well being of the country versus how interested they are in playing politics.
Viewing a four-year-term of office as a four-quarter game provides an apt analogy. The expected franchise savior was met with an all out swarming full court defense at the opening whistle. Double and triple-teamed, every dirty play possible, tripping, pulling his shorts, standing on his toes, fouling after the whistle, etc. was used. Whenever he gained momentum, an endless string of timeouts were called and occasionally a fight broke out in the stands. His bench was useless.
Despite all this, the first quarter ended even. The other team has managed to turn the refs against them (polls show Republicans are blamed 2-1 over Obama for the countries woes) and he has started the second quarter strong. When Fox News cut away from his meeting with GOP house members it was clearly because he was dunking in their faces.
No, Obama has not been perfect nor has he solved every problem of the country. Anyone who thought he would was either naive or stupid. There have been pratfalls, primarily over health care, but even that can still pass (providing someone tells Harry Reid that 59 is more than 41). As pointed out herein, foreign relations are much improved, the economy is no longer in free fall, $700 billion given away by the previous administration has been returned to the Treasury, civil liberties are no longer ridiculed by the president, and we no longer expect to be embarassed when the leader of our country make a speech.
Science has been restored to its place in the decision making process. Environmental regulations are being enforced once again. Competence is more important for a job in the administration than political loyalty. The United States is important in the world for more than its military might. New trade alliances have been developed with India, undercutting China's influence. Corporations are no longer expecting free reign.
We are at a crossroads in our history with the country quickly becoming ungovernable due to partisan politics. More than anything else Obama has provided a calm voice that recognizes the complexity of the world. While the right wing likes to portray him as a Bolshevik, he clearly is a centrist interested more in pragmatic politics than ideology. However, it is just this effort to portray him as other than he is that is the source of his renewed popularity. When the man accusing you of a credibility gap is orange from a tanning booth, when the opposition party suddenly votes against its own bills when adopted, when what passes for debate is to question whether the president was born in the country, then it becomes increasingly difficult to look at Republicans as anything but political opportunists putting their own interests ahead of the nation.
In sum, Obama is still getting the feel of the office. Suffering from unrealistic expectations he was bound to have difficulty living up to them. However, to say that he has not accomplished anything is to believe the Fox News narrative of the world.
I guess people would prefer the first year of his predecessor.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Ronald Dumbsfeld
The Senate Foreign Relations committee has just released a report in which it is revealed that the military had Osama bin-Laden cornered in Tora Bora in the immediate aftermath of the invasion in 2001. It is also noted that then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, apparently feared that to capture or kill bin-Laden would produce a backlash. An absurd fear given the backlash that happened anyway.
Of course, the report from the Senate committee provided little information about the facts on the ground, i.e. that bin-laden was cornered. It seemed inevitable at the time that he would be captured. There were even questions about whether he had been killed or not. It only added to his mystique and elevated him to some quasi-hero status to those we most wanted not to follow him. Then suddenly, we didn't "think that much about him," to quote W.
But was it really that Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush (mis)Administration feared a backlash if they caught bin-Laden. If they had perchance caught him or killed him, again, as seemed inevitable at the time, that might have really disrupted the momentum to invade Iraq. If bin-Laden were gone, the public would have likely been satisfied that 9/11 had been avenged.
Could they really have been this incompetent?
In retrospect it can be seen that Iraq was far more important to the Bush-ites than Afghanistan. Saddam is gone, executed. Most of his inner circle is dead. Osama bin-Laden, Mullah Omar, and others, still in charge.
When satellites can read license plates from space, how do you miss a 6'5' guy on dialysis traveling around in the rural mountains? Answer: You try very hard.
Of course, the report from the Senate committee provided little information about the facts on the ground, i.e. that bin-laden was cornered. It seemed inevitable at the time that he would be captured. There were even questions about whether he had been killed or not. It only added to his mystique and elevated him to some quasi-hero status to those we most wanted not to follow him. Then suddenly, we didn't "think that much about him," to quote W.
But was it really that Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush (mis)Administration feared a backlash if they caught bin-Laden. If they had perchance caught him or killed him, again, as seemed inevitable at the time, that might have really disrupted the momentum to invade Iraq. If bin-Laden were gone, the public would have likely been satisfied that 9/11 had been avenged.
Could they really have been this incompetent?
In retrospect it can be seen that Iraq was far more important to the Bush-ites than Afghanistan. Saddam is gone, executed. Most of his inner circle is dead. Osama bin-Laden, Mullah Omar, and others, still in charge.
When satellites can read license plates from space, how do you miss a 6'5' guy on dialysis traveling around in the rural mountains? Answer: You try very hard.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Our Private Army
Unknown to many Americans is the fact that the United States maintains both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan largely on the backs of "private contractors." These individuals, civilians working for private firms which have contracted with the government, have increasingly replaced soldiers in many positions vital for a military effort.
Some of these individuals, such as those employed by Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR, work primarily in support positions, feeding troops, building quarters, etc. Others, such as Blackwater, now re-branded as Xe, and Wackenhut, serve functions related to security.
Wackenhut, the largest private correctional corporation in the U.S., was recently awarded a $180 million contract to guard the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. This is the same company whose employees have been recently been seen dancing naked, engaging in simulated (and not so simulated) homoerotic acts, guzzling alcohol and generally behaving in a manner that would have gotten soldiers a court martial. Now they are guarding the embassy. Didn't Marines used to do that?
Blackwater, as previously noted on this blog and elsewhere, is the subject of an investigation that alleges murder, gun smuggling, and witness intimidation among the many charges. Their specialty in Iraq has been security. Again, didn't the Marines used to do that?
It is just this use of private firms to do work that is clearly the domain of the military that is troubling. According to the Washington Post, the number of private contractors in Iraq topped 100,000 in 2006. The L.A. Times reported the number had risen to 140,000 by July 4, 2007 and on August 18, 2008, Peter Grier in the Christian Science Monitor noted that the number of civilians employed in Iraq was 190,000. NBC News reported that at least 68,000 are currently in Afghanistan, compared to 52, 000 actual soldiers.
The civilians who work for these private corporations are often paid many times what soldiers in the U.S. military receive for doing the same work. Financial reasons alone makes one wonder why we would ever use such an approach. Combine these problems with the numerous episodes of armed engagement with the civilian populace of Iraq and there becomes a greater moral morass concerning the use of private contractors. These civilians are not held to the same standards of conduct and in some cases it seems unclear how and if the law applies to them.
In the Geneva Conventions, civilians working for private firms are the very definition of "unlawful combatant," not that imposed by the Bush (mis)Administration on individuals clearly fighting a war.
There has long been another name for individuals privately hired to fight in another country - mercenaries. Let us begin to call the private contractors what they are, the mercenary force that allows these wars to continue.
Some of these individuals, such as those employed by Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR, work primarily in support positions, feeding troops, building quarters, etc. Others, such as Blackwater, now re-branded as Xe, and Wackenhut, serve functions related to security.
Wackenhut, the largest private correctional corporation in the U.S., was recently awarded a $180 million contract to guard the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan. This is the same company whose employees have been recently been seen dancing naked, engaging in simulated (and not so simulated) homoerotic acts, guzzling alcohol and generally behaving in a manner that would have gotten soldiers a court martial. Now they are guarding the embassy. Didn't Marines used to do that?
Blackwater, as previously noted on this blog and elsewhere, is the subject of an investigation that alleges murder, gun smuggling, and witness intimidation among the many charges. Their specialty in Iraq has been security. Again, didn't the Marines used to do that?
It is just this use of private firms to do work that is clearly the domain of the military that is troubling. According to the Washington Post, the number of private contractors in Iraq topped 100,000 in 2006. The L.A. Times reported the number had risen to 140,000 by July 4, 2007 and on August 18, 2008, Peter Grier in the Christian Science Monitor noted that the number of civilians employed in Iraq was 190,000. NBC News reported that at least 68,000 are currently in Afghanistan, compared to 52, 000 actual soldiers.
The civilians who work for these private corporations are often paid many times what soldiers in the U.S. military receive for doing the same work. Financial reasons alone makes one wonder why we would ever use such an approach. Combine these problems with the numerous episodes of armed engagement with the civilian populace of Iraq and there becomes a greater moral morass concerning the use of private contractors. These civilians are not held to the same standards of conduct and in some cases it seems unclear how and if the law applies to them.
In the Geneva Conventions, civilians working for private firms are the very definition of "unlawful combatant," not that imposed by the Bush (mis)Administration on individuals clearly fighting a war.
There has long been another name for individuals privately hired to fight in another country - mercenaries. Let us begin to call the private contractors what they are, the mercenary force that allows these wars to continue.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Whistling Past the Graveyard (of Empires)
Afghanistan: where empires go to die. Ask the Soviets, ask the Brits, ask the Moghuls, ask Alexander the Great. All paid a price here that contributed, if not caused, their demise (see note below). Even Genghis Khan, who came as close to conquering the place as anyone, paid a heavy price.
George Bush we expected to be ignorant of history, but Obama seems to have missed this lesson as well. Today we begin sending more troops to Afghanistan in an effort to, well, it's not altogether clear what this is an effort to do. What are we trying to accomplish? Stabilization, nation building, or one long, slow bleed?
History shows that Afghanistan is an untenable proposition for invaders. As Ronald Dumbsfeld so correctly pointed out, there are no military targets there. Every victory is temporary. A largely ungovernable region, more defined by where the neighboring countries have decided to quit trying, the organization of society is along lines of fractionated tribalism and warlord feudalism.
Obama's commitment to a new effort in Afghanistan seems misplaced. Pledging to follow through with withdrawal in Iraq, continuation here appears calculated to thwart charges that he is militarily naive. But it is just the thought that Afghanistan is winnable that is the exemplar of naivete.
There is nothing to win. Even if we completely took over the country and sent in a million troops, the minute we leave everything reverts to the 13th century. A permanent occupation on the scale required is simply impossible to sustain. When it comes to Afghanistan it is time to be intelligent. Cut our loses and spend those weapons dollars on our own country, not on the futile effort to maintain an empire.
The Empire is done. It died in Afghanistan.
NOTE: For an excellent brief history on this topic, please read Milton Bearden's article in Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2001, "Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires."
George Bush we expected to be ignorant of history, but Obama seems to have missed this lesson as well. Today we begin sending more troops to Afghanistan in an effort to, well, it's not altogether clear what this is an effort to do. What are we trying to accomplish? Stabilization, nation building, or one long, slow bleed?
History shows that Afghanistan is an untenable proposition for invaders. As Ronald Dumbsfeld so correctly pointed out, there are no military targets there. Every victory is temporary. A largely ungovernable region, more defined by where the neighboring countries have decided to quit trying, the organization of society is along lines of fractionated tribalism and warlord feudalism.
Obama's commitment to a new effort in Afghanistan seems misplaced. Pledging to follow through with withdrawal in Iraq, continuation here appears calculated to thwart charges that he is militarily naive. But it is just the thought that Afghanistan is winnable that is the exemplar of naivete.
There is nothing to win. Even if we completely took over the country and sent in a million troops, the minute we leave everything reverts to the 13th century. A permanent occupation on the scale required is simply impossible to sustain. When it comes to Afghanistan it is time to be intelligent. Cut our loses and spend those weapons dollars on our own country, not on the futile effort to maintain an empire.
The Empire is done. It died in Afghanistan.
NOTE: For an excellent brief history on this topic, please read Milton Bearden's article in Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec 2001, "Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires."
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama's First Week
On Inauguration Day I decided not to comment on any decisions, pronouncements or policies until at least one week had passed. I will now join the cacophony with my thoughts on the first week. Before any evaluation of decisions I would first like to note that the sheer volume of work turned out by the Obama Administration in its first week appears to be about six months worth of policy from the previous administration of George number 2. There is so much that I have resorted to a mere listing of the various actions.
The Good:
- Begin the Closing of Guantanamo. Necessary if we are to ever begin the restoration of the moral integrity of our nation and honor our treaty obligations.
- Categorically Prohibit Torture. Adherence to the Army Field Manual and International law is beginning to be restored.
- Restore Transparency to Government. After eight years of a secretive government that classified everything including the lunch menu, this is unbelievable.
- Pay Freeze for Staff. Symbolic, but at least in the right direction. Were they going to get a raise anytime soon? They just started.
- Recognition of the Depth of the Economic Crisis. Compared to the floundering of the Bush Administration which managed to blow another $350 billion in its final days by giving it to banks with no effort at accountability, even acknowledging that the problem is serious and long term was a welcome step forward.
- Advocacy for Green Infrastructure. Needs to push for even more. Solar panels on 100 million houses and building would sure stimulate the economy and provide for a greater degree of energy independence (see previous blogs and link "The Myth of Energy Independence," to see why this won't happen).
- Al- Arabiya interview that set a new tone for American foreign policy. In a complete about face of the previous administration's policy, Obama set the stage for an effort at resolution of the long standing grievances between the rest of the world and the U.S. That's right, the whole world. Bush has turned everyone against us, even putative allies. Obama already possesses greater stature on the international stage than Bush ever had.
The Bad:
- Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner, who will oversee the IRS, did not pay his taxes.
- Bill Lynn, ex-lobbyist for Raytheon, nominated to number two post in the Pentagon. Violating the pledge of no lobbyist in the administration, Lynn requires an exception to the ethics rules outlined by Obama.
- Economic Compromise: his efforts to gain GOP support for the economy recovery will only be weakened by attempting to enlist their support. As a party they have no coherent philosophy and can only result to being in opposition. Mitigating this is his "I won," statement that suggests he may impose his will upon them if they continue to obfuscate.
The Ugly:
- Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang at the OK Corral are still walking around free. I can't tell if Obama is just trying to stay clear of the issue and let Congress do the work of investigating the Bush (mis)Administration or if he doesn't have the will to defend the Constitution. If he believes that what they did were crimes and he does anything to prevent their prosecution, he is acting as an accessory.
- Bombing of Pakistan by CIA. Allegedly he was briefed, so it would appear he gave his consent, unless, of course, the CIA is running its own war.
& We'll See:
- Iraq: So far, just talk. When do we leave?
All in all a very good start. Clearly though, this first week, especially Pakistan, shows us that change will not be immediate or complete. However, compared to his predecessor, he is inconceivably better.
I'm sure I've missed many things. As I said it was a busy week. It good to have a President who is not an embarrassment. Above all else, this makes me proud to have Obama in office. Also sad, because I realize how much George W. Bush destroyed this country. We are now proud to simply not be embarrassed.
The Good:
- Begin the Closing of Guantanamo. Necessary if we are to ever begin the restoration of the moral integrity of our nation and honor our treaty obligations.
- Categorically Prohibit Torture. Adherence to the Army Field Manual and International law is beginning to be restored.
- Restore Transparency to Government. After eight years of a secretive government that classified everything including the lunch menu, this is unbelievable.
- Pay Freeze for Staff. Symbolic, but at least in the right direction. Were they going to get a raise anytime soon? They just started.
- Recognition of the Depth of the Economic Crisis. Compared to the floundering of the Bush Administration which managed to blow another $350 billion in its final days by giving it to banks with no effort at accountability, even acknowledging that the problem is serious and long term was a welcome step forward.
- Advocacy for Green Infrastructure. Needs to push for even more. Solar panels on 100 million houses and building would sure stimulate the economy and provide for a greater degree of energy independence (see previous blogs and link "The Myth of Energy Independence," to see why this won't happen).
- Al- Arabiya interview that set a new tone for American foreign policy. In a complete about face of the previous administration's policy, Obama set the stage for an effort at resolution of the long standing grievances between the rest of the world and the U.S. That's right, the whole world. Bush has turned everyone against us, even putative allies. Obama already possesses greater stature on the international stage than Bush ever had.
The Bad:
- Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner, who will oversee the IRS, did not pay his taxes.
- Bill Lynn, ex-lobbyist for Raytheon, nominated to number two post in the Pentagon. Violating the pledge of no lobbyist in the administration, Lynn requires an exception to the ethics rules outlined by Obama.
- Economic Compromise: his efforts to gain GOP support for the economy recovery will only be weakened by attempting to enlist their support. As a party they have no coherent philosophy and can only result to being in opposition. Mitigating this is his "I won," statement that suggests he may impose his will upon them if they continue to obfuscate.
The Ugly:
- Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang at the OK Corral are still walking around free. I can't tell if Obama is just trying to stay clear of the issue and let Congress do the work of investigating the Bush (mis)Administration or if he doesn't have the will to defend the Constitution. If he believes that what they did were crimes and he does anything to prevent their prosecution, he is acting as an accessory.
- Bombing of Pakistan by CIA. Allegedly he was briefed, so it would appear he gave his consent, unless, of course, the CIA is running its own war.
& We'll See:
- Iraq: So far, just talk. When do we leave?
All in all a very good start. Clearly though, this first week, especially Pakistan, shows us that change will not be immediate or complete. However, compared to his predecessor, he is inconceivably better.
I'm sure I've missed many things. As I said it was a busy week. It good to have a President who is not an embarrassment. Above all else, this makes me proud to have Obama in office. Also sad, because I realize how much George W. Bush destroyed this country. We are now proud to simply not be embarrassed.
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Bottom of Our Shoes
Bush's surprise visit to Iraq, turned into a surprise on him. An Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, tossed his shoes at Bush. The ultimate insult in Iraq, it means the recipient is considered lower than dirt. Mr. al-Zaidi is now being held by the Maliki government although it is unclear what law he has broken.
Bush, glib as always, commented that the shoe was a "size 10." The shoe would have had to have been Shaquille O' Neal's (size 22) to have matched the world's disdain. But the Decider doesn't get it. He's been living in a brush bubble in Crawford.
The media seems to be missing the message in this story. The U.S. press seems to be covering the story primarily as a filler. Mostly, it is approached as a bizarre type of human interest story. As I write this, Contessa Brewer is asking on MSNBC if the shoes were his own or if he brought in an extra pair. What next, a penetrating discussion of the brand of shoe? An Iraqi journalist commented that al-Zaidi has "ruined his career."
Nothing could be further off. Muntader al-Zaidi has likely already become a household name throughout the Middle East and soon, throughout the world. The story here is that someone has finally had the nerve to express the outrage the Bush Administration so richly deserves. George Bush has nearly destroyed the world and he must be remembered as such.
Bush's current effort to rewrite history must not be allowed to pass. For eight years George Bush has shown complete disregard for the opinions and people of the world. He has shredded the Constitution, claimed the powers of a king and ruined the reputation of America in the world.
As al-Zaidi threw his shoes he proclaimed in Arabic, "This is a gift from the Iraqi's, this is the farewell kiss, you dog!" On the second shoe: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." Muntader al-Zaidi spoke for the Iraqi people and that is why thousands are now in the streets of Baghdad protesting his detention.
Those of us who have opposed Bush as he lied us into war, opened prisons to circumvent U.S. law (Guantanamo), rationalized torture and generally dared an impotent Congress to stop him, now are coming to terms with the fact that he has gotten away with it. I used to think there would be leaders who would step forward to oppose him, that his crimes would eventually be exposed, even that he might have to answer for his crimes against humanity before a War Crimes Tribunal. Now, it is clear that he will return to his silver plated life and a village in Texas will regain its idiot.
Muntader al-Zaini has shown us the way. The Iraqi insult of the bottom of the shoe must become our own. No need to throw it, just show it. Should any of us be so unfortunate as to find ourselves in the presence of the "W", present the bottom of your shoe, and hold it as high as you can reach.
Bush, glib as always, commented that the shoe was a "size 10." The shoe would have had to have been Shaquille O' Neal's (size 22) to have matched the world's disdain. But the Decider doesn't get it. He's been living in a brush bubble in Crawford.
The media seems to be missing the message in this story. The U.S. press seems to be covering the story primarily as a filler. Mostly, it is approached as a bizarre type of human interest story. As I write this, Contessa Brewer is asking on MSNBC if the shoes were his own or if he brought in an extra pair. What next, a penetrating discussion of the brand of shoe? An Iraqi journalist commented that al-Zaidi has "ruined his career."
Nothing could be further off. Muntader al-Zaidi has likely already become a household name throughout the Middle East and soon, throughout the world. The story here is that someone has finally had the nerve to express the outrage the Bush Administration so richly deserves. George Bush has nearly destroyed the world and he must be remembered as such.
Bush's current effort to rewrite history must not be allowed to pass. For eight years George Bush has shown complete disregard for the opinions and people of the world. He has shredded the Constitution, claimed the powers of a king and ruined the reputation of America in the world.
As al-Zaidi threw his shoes he proclaimed in Arabic, "This is a gift from the Iraqi's, this is the farewell kiss, you dog!" On the second shoe: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." Muntader al-Zaidi spoke for the Iraqi people and that is why thousands are now in the streets of Baghdad protesting his detention.
Those of us who have opposed Bush as he lied us into war, opened prisons to circumvent U.S. law (Guantanamo), rationalized torture and generally dared an impotent Congress to stop him, now are coming to terms with the fact that he has gotten away with it. I used to think there would be leaders who would step forward to oppose him, that his crimes would eventually be exposed, even that he might have to answer for his crimes against humanity before a War Crimes Tribunal. Now, it is clear that he will return to his silver plated life and a village in Texas will regain its idiot.
Muntader al-Zaini has shown us the way. The Iraqi insult of the bottom of the shoe must become our own. No need to throw it, just show it. Should any of us be so unfortunate as to find ourselves in the presence of the "W", present the bottom of your shoe, and hold it as high as you can reach.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Saved (Momentarily) by Incompetence
In failing to pass the bail-out/give-away to Wall Street, the House of Representative stumbled, at least momentarily, into carrying out the will of the people. This failure is most noteworthy, not for its effect on the economy, but for its stunning defeat in an era when the final votes are a foregone conclusion.
Cowed by fear of voters so close to the election, the House members voted in whatever way would benefit them back in the home district. A few dogmatic sorts on both sides, for completely different reasons, banded together with those afraid of their constituents, and the "Peevish 12," who apparently changed their votes at the last minute because their feelings were hurt. This group formed the nucleus of those who voted "no." For the time being we are saved.
One might reasonably argue with analysis that suggests the failure of the give-away is a necessarily good and saves us. However, what seems inarguable is that the bill failed not because our representatives did not desire to turn over $700 billion to $1trillion to the greedy, incompetent miscreants that caused this alleged crisis, it is that they were unable to do it in a way that satisfied their own needs.
But do not rest easy. Those who are bent to steal all of the common wealth of the nation have only a little while longer to pillage before the worst administration in history is out of office. The politicians in Congress, the worst that money can buy, will now be called onto the rug for their attempted display of independence. A bill will eventually be passed and you can be assured that the details will show who really pulls our leaders strings.
We cannot expect the momentary display of incompetence to save us forever. Usually the incompetence of politicians works against us (e.g. the failure of the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in every election they have blown over the years). Soon the incompetent will rise to their usual level.
Certainly the Democrats are trying. What possesses this bunch of spineless, weak-willed, alleged liberals, that keeps them toadying up to, and voting for the policies of the Bush Administration? If the Democrats had any competence as a party at all they would refuse to go along with anything proposed by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration, wrong on almost everything; Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Patriot Act, energy policy, human rights, etc., suddenly is about to be given a blank check. If the Democrats have any ability to see past trying to blow another election or have any concern for the people they claim to represent, they will refuse to accept this bail-out/give-away. If they truly want to lead this country and represent the people they should demand equity ownership of any corporation participating in this action. Further, any money that goes out should be loaned, with interest. We're talking about bankers, they should understand interest. Finally, if the government is going to get into the banking business it should at least be smart about it. Rather than overpaying for assets, the government, as the representative of "We the People," should dictate terms just like good capitalist bankers do, and pay pennies on the dollar for these assets. That's the way the free market would operate if the situations were reversed. To do otherwise is to allow theft from the public.
Time, for once, to be saved by competence. What of the odds of that? I don't know. Let's bet $700 billion.
Cowed by fear of voters so close to the election, the House members voted in whatever way would benefit them back in the home district. A few dogmatic sorts on both sides, for completely different reasons, banded together with those afraid of their constituents, and the "Peevish 12," who apparently changed their votes at the last minute because their feelings were hurt. This group formed the nucleus of those who voted "no." For the time being we are saved.
One might reasonably argue with analysis that suggests the failure of the give-away is a necessarily good and saves us. However, what seems inarguable is that the bill failed not because our representatives did not desire to turn over $700 billion to $1trillion to the greedy, incompetent miscreants that caused this alleged crisis, it is that they were unable to do it in a way that satisfied their own needs.
But do not rest easy. Those who are bent to steal all of the common wealth of the nation have only a little while longer to pillage before the worst administration in history is out of office. The politicians in Congress, the worst that money can buy, will now be called onto the rug for their attempted display of independence. A bill will eventually be passed and you can be assured that the details will show who really pulls our leaders strings.
We cannot expect the momentary display of incompetence to save us forever. Usually the incompetence of politicians works against us (e.g. the failure of the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in every election they have blown over the years). Soon the incompetent will rise to their usual level.
Certainly the Democrats are trying. What possesses this bunch of spineless, weak-willed, alleged liberals, that keeps them toadying up to, and voting for the policies of the Bush Administration? If the Democrats had any competence as a party at all they would refuse to go along with anything proposed by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration, wrong on almost everything; Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, Patriot Act, energy policy, human rights, etc., suddenly is about to be given a blank check. If the Democrats have any ability to see past trying to blow another election or have any concern for the people they claim to represent, they will refuse to accept this bail-out/give-away. If they truly want to lead this country and represent the people they should demand equity ownership of any corporation participating in this action. Further, any money that goes out should be loaned, with interest. We're talking about bankers, they should understand interest. Finally, if the government is going to get into the banking business it should at least be smart about it. Rather than overpaying for assets, the government, as the representative of "We the People," should dictate terms just like good capitalist bankers do, and pay pennies on the dollar for these assets. That's the way the free market would operate if the situations were reversed. To do otherwise is to allow theft from the public.
Time, for once, to be saved by competence. What of the odds of that? I don't know. Let's bet $700 billion.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Fooled Again?
Recently there have been familiar rumbles coming out of Washington concerning Iran. The ratcheting up of the rhetoric and the belligerent posturing towards another nation seems like just another summer rerun. The demonization of their government and the alarm over their weaponry have long been undercurrents in the U.S. politicization of relations with Iran. The Democrats are so afraid of being called unpatriotic during an election year that they seem to, once again, be going along with Bush Administration policies.
The European Union has joined in the complicity. By giving even symbolic backing to the U.S. in it threats towards Iran, which it did in threatening sanctions, the EU has created the conditions by which the Bush Administration can claim international support for its efforts to start its third war.
Maybe the U.S. isn't trying to start a war. Maybe it's setting the conditions for Israel to act as its proxy and bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. Perhaps the clandestine beginnings of the war have already been initiated. How would we know?
The lack of coverage in the American press over this most pressing issue is disturbing. As this slow build of hostilities begin, the media appears fascinated with flag pins, questions of patriotism and other absurdities. Why is this not the lead story on every news outlet every day? If not the lead, one would think it would be there with the other lead stories about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the Taliban has apparently regrouped.
Would that these were the stories pushing out the crucial news of Iran. But this is simply not the case. Take whatever news outlets you normally rely upon and note how much of the news is devoted to these crucial stories. Better yet, simply divide the news you receive into important and trivial. See what you think of your news sources now. Let us all demand that our media outlets immediately begin to cover the real news of the day. Only an informed populace can properly maintain a democracy.
The latest run-up in tensions with Iran seems eerily familiar. Just as disturbing is the seeming media complicity in keeping the tensions sufficiently out of sight that we aren't quite sure what's going on. Even news junkies are having trouble getting to the truth of such issues as Israel's bombing of the alleged Syrian nuclear site and reported border incursions. Like the Iraq War we seems to be headed to a point where war is a forgone conclusion, or at least is presented that way. Will we get fooled again?
The European Union has joined in the complicity. By giving even symbolic backing to the U.S. in it threats towards Iran, which it did in threatening sanctions, the EU has created the conditions by which the Bush Administration can claim international support for its efforts to start its third war.
Maybe the U.S. isn't trying to start a war. Maybe it's setting the conditions for Israel to act as its proxy and bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. Perhaps the clandestine beginnings of the war have already been initiated. How would we know?
The lack of coverage in the American press over this most pressing issue is disturbing. As this slow build of hostilities begin, the media appears fascinated with flag pins, questions of patriotism and other absurdities. Why is this not the lead story on every news outlet every day? If not the lead, one would think it would be there with the other lead stories about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the Taliban has apparently regrouped.
Would that these were the stories pushing out the crucial news of Iran. But this is simply not the case. Take whatever news outlets you normally rely upon and note how much of the news is devoted to these crucial stories. Better yet, simply divide the news you receive into important and trivial. See what you think of your news sources now. Let us all demand that our media outlets immediately begin to cover the real news of the day. Only an informed populace can properly maintain a democracy.
The latest run-up in tensions with Iran seems eerily familiar. Just as disturbing is the seeming media complicity in keeping the tensions sufficiently out of sight that we aren't quite sure what's going on. Even news junkies are having trouble getting to the truth of such issues as Israel's bombing of the alleged Syrian nuclear site and reported border incursions. Like the Iraq War we seems to be headed to a point where war is a forgone conclusion, or at least is presented that way. Will we get fooled again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
