Political Frenzy

This topic of experience has struck a chord with readers. Many of you have different views on what type of experience a president needs in order to be qualified for the job. Many have some valid points.

In an email one reader told me that foreign policy experience is a must for a would-be president. It is hard to disagree with this, it seems that when a president is criticized it is usually over foreign policy mistakes (cough, cough). When looking at the current candidates I see some very thin foreign policy experience.

Rudy Giuliani, who for some reason I want to like but I don’t, seems to act like he has foreign policy experience. It a recent magazine article Giuliani discussed how he would ‘deal with Iran,’ which seems a bit naive. Here is a guy who was a lawyer and a Mayor trying to say how he would deal with a hostile foreign nation. It is like a basketball player giving directions on how to perform open heart surgery.

I don’t like this, if Giuliani wants to give advice on how to deal with a trash strike I’m all ears. But when he discusses how the U.S. can deal with Iran, “…by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran’s military…,” I wonder where he gets his information.

It just sounds like he is regurgitating information from his aides. As a Mayor I can guarantee you that he never dealt with Iran. Don’t get me wrong Giuliani was a great Mayor. But being a Mayor, whether it is of New York City or of Smallville, does not qualify someone to be president. There are simply too many areas that a president deals with that are in foreign territory for a Mayor.

Today Cindy Sheehan, “war mom,” announced that because Speaker Pelosi didn’t file articles of impeachment against President Bush she will be running for Pelosi’s seat in the House.

Part of me likes this; the other part says…’ehh, what’s the point?’

Sheehan feels that our government is not doing its job and wants to do something about it, which is commendable. The Declaration of Independence says that we have the responsibility to challenge our government when we feel that it isn’t working. I also like that she will be running (if she makes it that far) as an independent.

I don’t like how Sheehan threatened Speaker Pelosi; it’s a bit cocky. As much as it would please a lot of people, impeaching President Bush is simply not realistic. Bush cannot be impeached for making questionable decisions. And, at the risk of sounding like a jerk, her son died while he was in the volunteer Army. President Bush didn’t pull Casey Sheehan out of bed in the middle of the night, give him a M-16, and force him to fight.

Sheehan said that Pelosi has lost touch with the people in her district. At least Pelosi lives in that district, Sheehan lives outside of Sacramento. Can she be more in touch with these people when she lives over an hour away?

Sheehan will run on the familiar platform of universal health care and making college more affordable. Does she even have a clue about how to take on these issues?

Should our politicians have actual experience in government before running for office? Or would they be more effective if they were a bunch of ordinary Joes? With the track record of our politicians it makes me wonder. I know that some people think a chimp could get more done than their congressman!

I live in Congressman Doolittle’s district…enough said.

At an “Ask Mitt Anything” forum today a woman asked presidential candidate Mitt Romney of his 5 sons, “If none of them are (in the military), how do they plan to support this war on terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?”

First of all this question is horribly phrased and backs Romney into a corner. But like a true politician he waltzed his way out by discussing how his niece’s husband, who is in the National Guard, was called up, how his sons chose different career paths and are supporting the military by campaigning for him to be president.

It is a dumb question, but I feel that it needs to be addressed. Must someone be enlisted (or an officer) in the military to be a supporter? What do you think?

The notion that you must be IN the military to be a supporter, is ridiculous. I support the military with all my heart, but I’m not heading off to basic training any time soon. However, if we ever have a draft I will be the first guy at MEPS with my head shaved. The United States is the greatest nation on earth because of sacrifices Americans have made while serving in the military. We would be nowhere without them today.

Military service is not for everybody, just like all careers. Some of the most successful people I know are in the military, but it is not for everybody. To support your country in a time of war you should be doing the things that you are best at, not what someone else is best at. The guy who makes M-16s might not be the best to shoot them, and vice versa.

It is naive for someone to think that to support the military you must be in it, and it is even stupider to try to trap a professional politician by asking such pointed questions.

President Bush (remember him?) met with the President of Afghanistan today. They debated the conditions in Afghanistan and the role of Iran in the current wars.

President Bush is playing defense (just like our troops) on these issues. When the US invaded Afghanistan is seemed that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were defeated and Osama would be captured. Fast-forward 6 years, the Taliban has rebuilt and Osama is wasting perfectly good oxygen in some dark cave (what a hero). On top of that we have an unstable Iraq, and a hostile nation, Iran, building nuclear weapons. Are we back at square one?

No, we are back at square -5.

Karzai, the Afghani President, says that Iran has played a “helpful role” in Afghanistan. Considering that Iran is providing the IEDs that are killing our troops daily in Iraq, I would say that Iran is being “less than helpful.”

President Bush said, it was up to Iran ‘to prove it is not a “destabilizing force” in the region.’ I agree with this, Iran is secretive and blatantly hostile towards the US. Iran needs to show that it is being helpful, and President Bush needs to find out why President Karzai thinks that Iran is.

It is always nice to know if you are in bed with the enemy.

Source: BarackObama.com

Barack Obama’s views on the use of military have been making headlines lately. He made a comment about how, as president there would be no use of nuclear weapons…on civilian targets. Which was criticized by the other candidates including John Edwards who said, “A candidate for president should, in general, avoid talking about the potential use of nuclear weapons.”

Now other campaigns are giving campaign advice?

Obama then made a comment about attacking al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, which caused everyone within a 10,000-mile radius to try to spin it to harm his campaign…ahh yes good old politics.

Obama’s comments also caused President Bush to call the President of Pakistan and discuss how the comments, “were unsavory and often prompted by political considerations in an environment of electioneering.” A presidential candidate has that much pull? I’m impressed.

The Obama campaign has been ratcheting up its display of a ‘tough’ Obama who will fight terrorism. An update email to supporters displayed the image above of an angry Obama and talked about the pressing need to deal with Taliban and al Qaeda and how the Bush Administration missed its chance to take them out. All other update emails have been about ending war, then highlighting his views on domestic issues…there must have been a poll that suggested he would gain points if he took a tough terrorism stance.

I like the move because every other Democratic candidate is preaching the same things. Obama realizes that he must beat the other candidates to get the nomination, to do so he must separate himself from them.

It is good to see the anti-war candidate talking about something other than a pullout. A pullout will only cause the strife in the Middle East to fester.

Senator Clinton plans to introduce an amendment repealing the Congressional authorization for the war; it would require President Bush to seek Congressional authorization to extend the war past October 11, 2007.

One word: VETO

Why would President Bush even consider signing this? He seems hell bent on staying in Iraq, and will veto anything that comes within a 5-mile radius of his desk that has to do with pulling out of Iraq. Congress has tried the timetables and it didn’t work. They tried the timetables again, didn’t work. They are currently trying the timetables again (sneak preview…didn’t work).

Now Senator Clinton is trying to slip this in as if the president and will not realize it’s there and accidentally sign it. This isn’t a mortage application! Sorry Hillary, he WILL see it.

Barack Obama has even said that Clinton’s approach is ”a convoluted approach to the problem.” Obama went on to reiterate that he was against the war from the start and if elected he would meet with military leaders to determine an exit strategy.

Obama also said the he believes the U.S. has a ”humanitarian obligation and national security interest in ensuring there’s not a complete collapse in Iraq.”

This is the first time I have heard an anti-war candidate say something about Iraq other than PULL OUT. Obama realizes that our troops are currently needed in Iraq, he (like most people now) just disagrees with the reason why we invaded in 2003.

If we only had a crystal ball.

Today GOP Senators blocked an Amendment that would allow our troops to actually have breaks between tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Amendment, sponsored by Senator Webb, a Vietnam veteran who wore his son’s combat boots during his entire campaign, fell 4 votes shy of being voted on, you read that correctly. They had a vote to vote, very productive. As much as I love Congress sometimes they just makes me shake my head and say ‘what?’

The Amendment states, “No unit or member of the Armed Forces…be redeployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom unless the period between the deployment…is equal to or longer than the period of such previous deployment.”

The Amendment was supported by the Military Officers Association of America saying in a letter to Senator Jim Webb, “MOAA is very concerned that steps must be taken to protect our most precious military asset – the all-volunteer force – from having to bear such a disproportionate share of national wartime sacrifice.”

Seven Republicans voted for the Amendment, six of which are up for re-election in 2008… big surprise.

An editorial in the Army Times discussed how the current deployment strategy doesn’t work. “It means more mental health problems for soldiers, more stress on families and less support for the mission at home….This is a bad policy.” Longer tours, they discuss, threaten the very strength of the Army. It was found that, “…mental health issues increase in direct relation to the length and frequency of deployments and the amount of combat experience soldiers endure.” The Army Times realized that the Amendment would not pass but said it “would force a debate on how to answer the call in Iraq without destroying the Army in the process.”

The current re-deployment policy states that soldiers may have 12 months at home for every 15 months in a war zone. This is not true. I have friends who are currently in war zones in the Middle East. I can guarantee you that after their 15 month tours they got nowhere close to 12 months at home before they were sent back to the sand.

I always like to see Senators voting against their party, it shows that they are thinking for themselves. Re-evaluating the redeployment policy is a great idea. Our soldiers are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we cannot overuse them.

“War Mom” Cindy Sheehan, who retired from the peace movement in May, has ‘threatened’ to run against Speaker Nancy Pelosi if Pelosi doesn’t file articles of impeachment against President Bush by July 23rd.

Sheehan feels betrayed by Democratic leadership saying, “We hired them to bring an end to the war.” and is encouraging others to “run against Congress members who aren’t doing their jobs, and are beholden to special interests.”

I respect that Sheehan is challenging the system but maybe she doesn’t realize that even if she found a way to run a campaign with no money it would just force the Speaker to go even further into debt with special interests. It is just the sad truth about our politics today.

Since the death of her son in Iraq Sheehan has had a bone to pick with President Bush, and now she is calling out Congress…she should take a number. Historically it is very rare if the public as a whole is satisfied with the presidency or Congress.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, Congress is listed as the least trusted in a list of 16 prominent institutions. The most trusted was the military with 69% of people having a high level of trust; the presidency garnered 25%, Congress checked in with an abysmal 14%. Lower than both big business and HMOs.

This Congress is now facing criticism for not getting much done. According to a recent CBS News poll 59% of people think that this Congress has accomplished less than previous Congresses did in their first 6 months. It is sad that a do-nothing Congress is expected when two parties are in power.

Congress isn’t the only one taking heat; President Bush is now seeing his Iraq surge plan being abandoned in the Senate. Congress members are facing pressure to pass a bill forcing a major change in Iraq policy before their August recess when they will have to “face constituents.” It seems a bit odd that they only want to get things done when they have to face their constituents, and we wonder why nobody trusts them.

Maybe President Bush should encourage the articles of impeachment; it did wonders for President Clinton’s approval ratings!

The recent fad in student ‘activism’ is to kick military recruiters out of schools, sometimes leading to hostility, shouting matches, and occasionally physical violence which this blogger has actually been privy to. While accusing the right wing of reducing everything to a sound byte, they themselves have become just as guilty - Books Not Bombs my Persian butt. Indeed.

One student in a recent walk-out at Seattle Central had the nerve and gall to claim that recruiters at the community college were racially profiling students from lower class backgrounds simply by showing up to campus. This is obscenely absurd and the result of fanciful extrapolations from their expectations of the right wing, not reality. People from lower class backgrounds rarely attend the community college, it costs a damn arm and a leg. And the majority of the student population is white! Besides, the army and marines booth is often passed over. Soldiers come back from action to learn at the college, but those already there rarely have incentive to leave.

Besides, no one is forcing anyone to recruit ever! It is a cognitive choice. Like any organization, our armed forces have the right to be there. And for many, service in the military is a great option, giving them free room and board, free education, and a fine paycheck. My mother served in the Navy as a communications officer in Guam and later in Alaska, providing her with the money to later become an alumnus of the University of Washington. Before her both my maternal Grandfather and Grandmother served during World War II, the former as a machinery operator for the Army Corps of Engineers and the latter as a secretary in the Marines.

If I didn’t have the financial backing of my parents to afford to go to college now, I would gladly sign up for the Coast Guard because I feel strongly about stopping the importation of drugs and defending the US border at sea. But no recruiter will convince me to, they simply provide information on the armed services, and a resource for joining if that’s right for you.

What really needs to be done is provide better funding for military hospitals, ensure the contractual rights of National Guardsmen and Soldiers so that they can come home safely and quickly without further delay, and have our great country provide as much to our men and women in uniform as they provide to us.

People on the far left confused our troops for the war, and while I feel we need to allow the Iraqi nation to evolve into whatever it will become without further assistance from us, the armed forces are this nation’s best possible way to train and employ our population as possible. Kicking out recruiters isn’t the answer, people. Focus on what’s important instead of blindly attacking whatever is closest.

books not bombs, liberalism, sound byte, student activism

The Republican party is, as usual, inconsistent. Shashank Bengali of the Ledger-Enquirer reported today that plans for a wall in Baghdad, which troops have nicknamed the “Great Wall of Adhemiya”, is in jeopardy of falling to pieces now that Iraqis have come together to stop what some have called a “racist wall”. The wall would be constructed to section off Sunni areas from Shiia-controlled neighborhoods.

That this wall would even be considered is evidence that Baghdad is not safe. Unless, of course, Tim Walberg wants to propose plans to carve up Ann Arbor in Detroit’s West Side to keep the West Side Gang, Latin Kings, and West Willow Crips from each other. Obviously the rivalry between the Crips and Latin Kings, who are notorious for their violent shoot-outs, is still not as bad as the Sunni and Shiia problem in Iraq. I guess Baghdad isn’t as safe as Detroit, which Walberg assessed last month.

These assessments of “safety” are based on gut feelings and wishful thinking, not on empirical evidence. Last Wednesday a car bomb killed 82 people in Baghdad. Even if that had been an isolated incident, it is still staggering. But it is not an isolated event. People are dying by the dozens in Baghdad every day, to say nothing of the rest of the country. The death toll in Baghdad blows away anything we have here in the US.

Though I hate to jump on the bandwagon, it is totally insane that when McCain assessed that Baghdad was so safe, he was wearing a massive flak jacket and surrounded by dozens of troops. I have never needed a flak jacket, let alone armed escort, to walk through any US city.

As for the troop surge “working”, we have here the classic Socratic problem of definition. What does it mean for the troop surge to be working? Working at what?

*In March it was reported that for four straight months the US was suffering 80 fatalities per month.
*I also must reiterate the 82 deaths in Baghdad last week.
*Commander General David Petraeus said “We got down at the people level and are staying. Once the people know that we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen.” No word on what kind of things will start to happen.
*A military report last month contained this: “Iraq, USAF F-16s dropped GBU-12s and GBU-38s on enemy buildings near Baghdad. Large secondary explosions were noted after the initial strike, indicating the destruction of explosive material within the structure.” Blowing up stuff that was dangerous because it could blow up. Excellent.

Look, I have a good idea of how to stop an Iraqi civil war. Make them different countries. Iraq is a constructed entity anyway, carved up in the Middle East by British and American interests, incorporating Arabs, Persians, and Kurds. So give the Kurds their Kurdistan, the Persian Iraqis a Persistan, and the Arab Iraqis an Arabstan or something (just don’t put me on the naming committee)

There can’t be sectarian violence if there are no sects. They’re all pissed off because they don’t want people with conflicting interests running their country. So don’t let it happen! Give them separate nations and let them run themselves. It worked, for the most part, with India and Pakistan (with Kashmir being the exception), so why couldn’t it work here?

Americans desperately want a victory, but we wouldn’t know a victory in Iraq if it came up and bit us in the rear. We have no idea what victory in Iraq looks like, so how in the world do we expect to reach it? If we want a path to victory, we need to know where we’re going first.

If we want peace, let’s give the Iraqi partisans their piece.

The White House is now seeking a “war czar” to take over administration of the Iraqi and Afghani wars, in order to co-ordinate efforts between traditionally rival organizations in the United States war machine, such as the CIA, NSA, and Armed Forces.

First of all, the US should never have an anything “czar”. That’s just weird. But we do. (Google “drug czar”)

Second of all… good idea! If only we had had such a position earlier, we might have caught Osama!

When the CIA had Osama trapped, they didn’t receive the military back up they wanted because Donald Rumsfeld thought that the CIA was incompetent, and refused to endorse their action. When the military needed help and had Osama just in their grasp, the CIA failed them because Cheney thought that CIA efforts would be better placed elsewhere. If only we had, like, one guy running the whole thing.

Other than Bush, of course.

What a buttload of silliness.

For the first time in far too long, Congress is standing up to the White House, and flexing its legislative muscles - although the atrophy might make the first bits hurt.

What has annoyed this reporter for far too long is the de facto displacement of power from congress to the White House. Even though congress is the only arm of the government with the power to declare war, almost 100,000 American soldiers have died in combat initiated by Presidential authority alone - Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq have all been wars undeclared by congress. Our current President is completely determined to become a wartime leader, and will not let us forget that we are at war, but no declaration of war has been made by congress; Bush has abused his powers as Commander-In-Chief to wage a de facto war, while de jure he has no right to command them into conflict without authorization from Capitol Hill.

The acts of congress in the past few decades have been weak at best. They have been less than leaders, and little more than an assembly of grouchy old men and women shouting at each other and bringing new meaning to the term “filibuster” by bringing it to us on C-SPAN. But now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to assemble Democrats to cut off funding through the power of the purse.

Vice President Dick Cheney had this to say: “It’s time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you’re going to quit”

Quite right, Mister Cheney. Only one problem. We’ve already lost. It’s time to give up. Sorry. I know, it’s hard to cope, but let’s face it. We can stay there and keep shooting things, but let’s face it, the insurgents, terrorists, guerrillas, and radicals just aren’t going to disappear before we actually do run out of money. It’s better to cut our losses and run. “Cut and runner!” Yes. Cut and run, dammit. We have enough problems at home. Shut up.

Like many times, Doonesbury says it best:

Congress, Power of the Purse, Harry Reid, Doonesbury

This reporter is tired today, so to combat the insane amount of anti-Iranian propaganda available on the internet, I’ve found a few little glimpses into the daily lives of Iranians on YouTube to share with my readers. I hope you stop associating Ahmadinejad with Iran and start associating the nation with its people: these people.

This one is great. It is a video of protests happening in Tehran. They are shouting “Death to the Dictator” in Farsi, regarding their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They are all from the Amir Kabir University of Technology, and are trying to break down the doors to the Presidential Palace. The police did stop the students, but they did significant damage.

White House Spokeswoman Dana Perino spoke critically of Iran lack of compliance with the UN’s nuclear resolution. In order to get her point across, Perino talked down to the Iranian people:

We hope the Iranian people would see that the hard-line policies and the rhetoric that is coming out of its leaders such as President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad is not helpful to the country

They elected him and they see him on television all the time. The breeze from the east is that Ahmadinejad is indeed an unpopular president because he is focusing on external affairs more than the domestic problems he promised to address in his election campaign. But it’s offensive that she would attempt to tell Iranians what’s good for them. “I know what’s best for you even though you don’t”.

The UN placed sanctions on Iran in response: financial and arms. Arms sanctions. Who was selling to Iran before? And why did they think that could possibly be a good idea? Oh wait, yea. That was us. And by us, I mean the US.

But the UK has been much more upset at Iran recently. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard captured several British sailors, and sent out a warning against attacking the Islamic Republic. Tony Blair and his cabinet have been working hard through diplomatic channels to have the sailors returned, but it has had little to yield as of yet.

Although this may inspire a conflict between Iran and the UK, the White House has made it very clear that it does not want to go to war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is painfully clear that if the US attempted an attack on Iran, it would lose. But Iran has an axe to grind with both the US and the UK after Operation Ajax. I urge all my readers to read the Wikipedia article here, and to go out to their local bookstore and pick up All the Shah’s Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer to understand exactly why this is happening.

Dana Perino, Tony Blair, Operation Ajax, Iran, White House

According to Reuters, in a military court in Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted to being the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the bombing of an Indonesian nightclub, and attempted shoe bombings. In fact, the terrorist admitted to over 30 attacks or attempted attacks, including an attempt on Pope John Paul II, launching a Russian missile at a Jewish airliner from Mombasa, and an assassination attempt on then-President Bill Clinton.

The hearing was to judge whether or not he will be classified as an enemy combatant by military standards. It’s very unlikely he will be determined not to be an enemy combatant, but if he were he would be sent back to Pakistan, his nation of origin.

Afterwards the transcript of the hearing was released to the public (available here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf), but was highly censored. Among the censored material was one of Mohammed’s offenses, which I personally found disturbing. Also, I found this very odd excerpt on Page 8:

RECORDER: Sir, would you hold one moment?
PRESIDENT: Yes.
RECORDER: Ah, before the Detainee makes a statement, ah, I’d like to ah.
PRESIDENT: Question of the oath?
RECORDER: Ah, no sir.
RECORDER: Concerning classified evidence.
PRESIDENT: Very well.

The evidence’s appearance in court is never described in the transcript. Why?

I am confused by this, and I wonder at what our government is hiding from us.

Middle East, United States, al-Qaida, Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 9/11, Military Court