Posts Tagged ‘Bush Administration’
Bush Administration, Economics
In Issues and Politics on December 6, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Today, President Bush announced a private sector plan to address the mortgage crisis by freezing the subprime mortgage rates of some borrowers. In a speech today outlining the centerpiece of his plan, President Bush said, “We’ve launched a new initiative at the Federal Housing Administration called FHA Secure. This program gives the FHA greater flexibility to offset refinancing to homeowners — to offer refinancing to homeowners who have good credit histories but cannot afford their current payments.”
The focus on helping homeowners with good credit will exclude many of the people who have bad credit and should not have been offered mortgages to begin with. It’s funny how assistance to rich people is deemed essential to growing the economy but government assistance to low-income people is depicted as crippling the economy.
Among the critics of the plan, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow released a press release that said in part, “The President’s announcement today is a good first step, but I believe more action is needed to assist families in danger of losing their homes…we must immediately do everything we can to help families faced with losing their home. I will continue to lead efforts to pass my measure that will relieve families of a tax burden when their lender forgives a part of their mortgage. No one who is faced with losing their home should be faced with an additional tax bill.”
If you are feeling the pain of this mortgage crisis, call this number 24 hrs a day, 1-800-995-4673.
Stay up fam,
Brandon Q.
"So-called" war on terror, Bush Administration
In Issues and Politics on October 17, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I apologize for being incognito fam. I think the government is trying to shut me down because I have been unable to login to The SuperSpade (for weeks now). Garlin and Steve, thank you for holding me down. In other news, “President Bush says world leaders risk bringing about World War Three if they do not do more to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.” Are we using WWIII now? This to me is scary because it reminds me of the “mushroom cloud” that Condoleezza Rice often invoked.
This fear mongering by Bush and Co. must be confronted with truth, integrity and reason. I have said before that I am worried that Bush has no intention of leaving office and it is talk like this that reminds me why I feel this way. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a President enter the lame duck stage of his presidency with so much bravado?
Stay up fam,
Check me out at MichiganMessenger.com
Black Men, Bush Administration, Hip Hop Caucus, Police Brutality, Race, Rev. Lennox Yearwood
In Issues and Politics on September 12, 2007 at 10:16 am
Cross-posted from Brave New Films Blog.
Rev. Lennox Yearwood released a statement today in response to his 10 Sep 2007 arrest.
My role is to make government more transparent to the people, especially people of color. How am I supposed to convince other African-Americans to come to Capitol Hill to participate in democracy, when Capitol Police will go so far as to jump me when I question my exclusion from a hearing that is open to the public? We all know what 'driving while Black' is, well I'd call this 'democracy while Black.'"
What is so sinister about the demonizing of dissenting voices is precisely what the Yearwood calls out here: if they make examples of a couple of "unfriendly" visitors, others who share their views will be less likely to speak up or act. Sadly, this draconian, Machiavellian sort of opinion squashing is precisely the goal of today's neo-Conservative.
Minority and marginalized people's fragile will to speak up is too often crushed by these sorts of scare tactics. It is therefore imperative that we use this as yet another reason to drive out these leaders who are neither able nor mature enough to answer questions posed by those who do not share their beliefs.
Clarification: Rev. Yearwood's leg is not broken. The police said that yesterday, but after people were actually able to speak to the Reverend, it was made clear that he instead has severe damage to ligaments in his ankles and is on crutches.
The entire press release is below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Black Men, Bush Administration, Hip Hop Caucus, Police Brutality, Race, Rev. Lennox Yearwood
In Issues and Politics on September 12, 2007 at 5:26 am
They broke his legs.
Things like this make it hard to convince young & marginalized people to get involved in the political process when they disagree with the establishment. Sadly, this is exactly the goal of Republicans these days.
One Love. One II.
Update & Clarification: Rev. Yearwood’s leg is not broken. The police said that yesterday, but after people were actually able to speak to the Reverend, it was made clear that he instead has severe damage to ligaments in his ankles and is on crutches.
"So-called" war on terror, Bush Administration, Iran
In Issues and Politics on August 14, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I don’t have any kids but I have been around them enough to know that they have a very short attention span. This reminds me of the Bush administration. An article in WaPo states,
“The United States has decided to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country’s 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a “specially designated global terrorist,” according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group’s business operations and finances.” Read the rest of this entry »
"So-called" war on terror, Bush Administration, Iraq
In Issues and Politics on July 24, 2007 at 7:32 am
This is not a surprise by any means but Bush has a timeline for the Iraq catastrophe. There is a “classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. ‘Sustainable security’ is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.” Read the rest of this entry »
Black Issues, Bush Administration, Economics, Government, Independence, Money, Politics, Race
In Issues and Politics on July 4, 2007 at 6:39 am
Many moons ago, I wrote a piece about the concept of Indivisible Freedom, which essentially came to the conclusion that the notion is does not really exist in practical terms. Today, this “Independence” Day, I’d like to do a similar exploration of the the concept of independence.
Read the rest of this entry »
Bush Administration, Friday Fact, Politics
In Issues and Politics on June 1, 2007 at 11:18 am
Percentage of Americans that wanted Bill Clinton impeached in 1999: 32%
Percentage of Americans that want G. W. Bush impeached as of earlier this month: 39%
Hmmmm… Let’s go one step further:
Bill Clinton’s public approval rating during time of Impeachment: as high as 73%
G. W. Bush’s current approval rating: 28%
So, why was there so much political momentum to impeach Clinton, and so very little to impeach Bush?
One Love. One II.
"So-called" war on terror, Bush Administration, Foreign Policy, Iran
In Issues and Politics on May 23, 2007 at 12:35 pm
This will be the type of ignorant but calculating excuse that Bush would use if and when a conflict would breakout with Iran. In the latest development, “the U.S. Navy staged its latest show of military force off the Iranian coastline on Wednesday, sending two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with 17,000 U.S. Marines and sailors to carry out unannounced exercises in the Persian Gulf.” Read the rest of this entry »
Bush Administration, Iran, Iraq
In Issues and Politics on March 23, 2007 at 9:49 am
Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says. The men were seized when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.
Fortunately, The Royal Navy said the men, who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed.
In the continuing stand off between the West and the Iranian nuclear program, it will be situations like the one just described that will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.
I predict that the Iran government will return the soldiers home unharmed in part to show the world that they are much more humane and reasonable than their Western counterparts would have you believe.
And God forbid these soldiers were American, there would be major saber-rattling on the part of the Bush Administration. Moreover, America’s lack of diplomatic relations would not allow Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice to do what British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett did by being able to summon the Iranian ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an attempt to negotiate the men’s release.
Chances are, it was just an honest misunderstanding but when negotiating is cut off, you simultaneously cut off options for reasonable compromises.
God, I pray for peace in this world.
Stay up fam,
Categories:
Iran
International Affairs
Bush Administration, Democrats, Patriot Act, Politics, Republicans
In Issues and Politics on March 20, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Here are a couple examples of alarming things that were happening during the Bush Administration that we did not know or would never have found out about until we had Congressional Oversight:
FBI Abuses of Spying – This should send chilling reminders of COINTELPRO
Attorney General firing judges who pursued corruption investigations against Republicans
Here are a few things that could possibly have been prevented if there had been Congressional Oversight before this year:
Patriot Act
Warrantless wiretapping
Secret monitoring of Bank Accounts
The Democrats are now the Majority Party in the Senate and the House of Representatives, due to the result of the elections this past November. Now that they have been in for a couple of months (they were elected in November 2006 but not officially sworn in until 4 Jan 2007), you are beginning to see some differences in how things are working.
The act of exposing and acting as a check and balance within the government is called oversight (when done by Congress, it is Congressional Oversight). That is something we haven’t seen since 2000. What this means is that there is now one branch that can look over the shoulder of the other two. There is someone there to hit the brakes on crazy or dangerous governmental intentions. There is a way now for people to be able to see what is happening in our government and not be stonewalled in the name of national security or not needing to know.
A concept key to how our government works is called Checks and Balances. This basically means that each branch of government (in the U.S., the branches are: Executive (President), Legislative (Senate & House), Judicial (Supreme Court)) has a way to keep the other branches in check and keep power evenly balanced between the branches. If all three branches of government are operating checking and balancing one another, no one branch should dominate the other two. When this is not case, it can lead to terrible things.
Since 2000 when G. W. Bush took office, we have been experiencing governance without checks and balances. The Republican-led Congress laid down for whatever the Republican President said or demanded. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which installed Bush, also sat by idly. That changed with the 2006 election, and now we have a situation where there is a Republican President and a conservative Supreme Court, but there is a Democratic House and Senate, meaning that we are no longer effectively a one-party system.
This is important to understand because understanding how and why things happen the way they do is key to understanding how to make things happen in ways that we want. I believe that we are only scratching the surface when it comes to all of the shady stuff we may find out about that has been going on over the past 6 years. I am also afraid that it will take longer for the Democrats to undo what it only took the Republicans 6 years to do. Thank God they have started down this long road.
So the next time that you or someone asks, “What’s this Congress doing?” You can say, “Their Job.”
One Love. One II.
Categories
Politics
Democrats
Republicans
Congress
Bush Administration, Education, Social Security
In Issues and Politics on March 11, 2007 at 9:43 pm
I recently returned from a working trip in DC and on the way back, I had a very intriguing conversation with an accountant who I will call Joe. The bulk of our conversation was me trying to explain to Joe the serious need and benefits of making college more affordable and accessible. While making college more affordable is good, Joe played a very good devil’s advocate by making me point out that in the end, I really think higher education should be free. He agreed with me but the problem came up with having to pay for it. Joe had an idea that I think should be fleshed out.
Simply put, Joe’s idea involves reforming social security and using the savings to fully fund higher education. But we should first put this issue in context. Social Security was created in 1935 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The bulk of what we usually think of as social security does in fact go to provide retirement benefits to elderly people who are in retirement, but there are earmarks for the widowed, disabled, and unemployed.
Throughout a worker’s career, the Social Security Administration keeps track of his or her earnings. The amount of the monthly benefit to which the worker is entitled depends upon that earnings record and upon the age at which the retiree chooses to begin receiving benefits. For the entire history of Social Security, benefits have been paid almost entirely by using revenue from payroll taxes. It is essentially a pay-as-you-go system.
Unfortunately, by about 2018, years or so, payroll taxes will not be enough to cover the Social Security benefits and the system will begin to withdraw money from the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is estimated to be depleted by 2042 or 2052.
It should be noted that Social Security, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are entitlement programs, which means they are generally free from political interference. Potential beneficiaries of entitlement programs have a legal right, (whenever they meet eligibility conditions) that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. And because it is difficult to know in advance who will meet entitlement requirements from year to year, it makes it that more difficult for the government to plan for the total costs of the program when appropriations bills are marked up.
And with baby boomers coming into retirement age, there is considerable strain being put on the Social Security System. This is because now there are 3.3 workers per beneficiary and as baby boomers draw down these benefits, there will be fewer workers to support them. This, combined with the fact that the Social Security Trust Fund will have to be tapped in the near future is causing many, including President Bush, to make calls for social security reform.
This brings me back to my conversation with Joe. He told me that the death of social security will come when a means test is implemented. Right now, if you pay into social security, you get benefits regardless of your income or assets. A means test (there are various ways this could be implemented) would essentially set a threshold, probably sliding, by which the more money a person made, they would either be ineligible to receive benefits or otherwise be able to collect decreasing amounts of benefits. Conversely, the less money a retiree made the more benefits they would be able to collect. If enacted, this could conceivably preserve the financial integrity of the program while making sure that those who need it the most actually receive the benefits. On face value, it sounds good to me. If you are sitting on 4 million from your income and assets, your social security income isn’t exactly going to make or break you.
But here is the problem, according to Joe and a report by the American Academy of Actuaries, means testing would compromise two important principles that have sustained the political support for social security, universality and earned right. Universality means that regardless of how much money you make, social security will be there for you. Therefore, any perceived threat to social security would affect all current and future beneficiaries. The earned right principle would be jeopardized because if more wealthy workers are paying into a system that they won’t be able to collect on (or collect a disproportionately smaller share) their contributions, it essentially becomes a tax, and we all know taxes are every politician’s death kiss.
But if we could find a means test that was politically feasible, Joe said that we could use these savings to fully fund higher education. Now I don’t know how much it would cost to fully fund higher education but I do know that Social Security alone cost taxpayers in FY 2006, $544 billion. And I am sure that our ability to fund higher education is a whole lot less than half a trillion dollars. Joe mentioned that these savings could be transferred to the public in the form of a tax credit. I am not sure how this would work, or what method would be best, but the principle I think is sound. If people with higher education end up making more money over the course of their lifetimes, they will probably be able to make good use of their money such that they won’t need to rely on social security by the time they are ready to retire. Sounds like a win win to me.
What do you think?
Stay up fam,
Categories:
Education Reform
Social Security
Retirement
Higher Education
Bush Administration, Iran, Iraq
In Issues and Politics on February 25, 2007 at 4:51 pm
For anyone confused as to why there is so much talk about the possibility of a conflict with Iran, I strongly urge you to read this article aptly titled, “The Redirection” by famed journalist, Seymour Hersh. I won’t attempt to provide an analysis as insightful as him but I will leave you an excerpt;
Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when – if you look at the actual casualty numbers – the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”
It is not a game.
Stay up fam,
Categories:
“So-called” war on terror
Iran
Bush Administration, Democrats, Education, Health Care, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, New Orleans, Politics
In Issues and Politics on January 24, 2007 at 10:31 am
Newly-elected Senator Jim Webb from Virginia gave the official Democratic Response to the State of the Union last night. I’d like to break down what he said here.
First, a slight omission: Bush did not give Katrina one sentence; Webb gave it gave it one phrase. I guess that is better than nothing, but it still sucks.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and health care for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
This was a good opening statement, and I agree with all of it it except for the last phrase, which doesn’t make any sense. To say that the Democrats hope “that this administration is serious about…addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans” is not needed because it is clear that this is not a priority. It would have made more sense to phrase this part as a challenge followed by a Democratic plan for the Gulf Coast.
The fact that Webb said “it would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful” is good because it says “we don’t want to argue, we want to act.” I pray that that is more than just rhetoric.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries…In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
This was the strongest part of the speech. It focused on the need to remember that the Middle Class is critical to the success of our nation for both economic and emotional reasons. The economic reasons are relatively obvious in terms of the amount of money that these people can spend. The emotional reasons should be relatively obvious too because this gives those who are poorer something to aspire to. Unfortunately, as Webb points out, there are people in this country who want to eradicate the Middle Class by engaging in class warfare, using the weapons of high education and health care/insurance costs to push those who are currently middle class down to a lower level of economic vitality.
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years…they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
Though obvious to some, this statement cannot be repeated enough: we made the wrong choice when deciding to invade Iraq, and we are continuing to make the wrong choice by staying there. The voters made this clear in November, and the government must pay attention. The Congress must do everything within its constitutional mandate to protect us from a heavy-handed, non-thinking executive. This was not happening when everyone was a Republican. Perhaps that will change now that a different party is running the House and Senate.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction…an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
Note the words “immediate” and “short order.” These can be translated to mean “Get out, and get out now! No ’surge.’ No ’staying until we achieve [the yet-to-be-defined-state-of] victory.” This is what voters told their government in November that they wanted. The government needs to respond to the will of the people.
One Love. One II.
Categories:
Politics
State of the Union
Democrats
Africa, Barack Obama, Bush Administration, Darfur, Democrats, Health Care, Hurricane Katrina, Immigration, Iran, Iraq, New Orleans, Patriot Act, Politics, Republicans, Social Security
In Issues and Politics on January 24, 2007 at 5:37 am
Here is my real-time analysis of G. W. Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address. This is a shortcut for anyone that did not watch the speech on TV or listen to it.
First, an omission. He did not say a word about Hurricane Katrina. That made me so upset that I nearly shed tears.
Madame Speaker…
This actually started well. Hearing this reminds me of how historic it is for Rep. Nancy Pelosi to be the Speaker of the House, the most powerful woman ever in the United States Congress. I wonder if Mr. Bush was sincere in his words to her during his opening remarks.
Decisions are hard, and courage is needed…The will to face difficult challenges…Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities…
These guarded statements are said to try and disarm his opposition within the Democratically-controlled Congress. What these statements basically mean is, “I will give lip service to working together, but expect nothing different out of me and my administration.”
3 Economic Reforms that deserve to be priorities…Balance the Federal Budget…We can do so without raising taxes…What we need is spending discipline in Washington…Earmarks…Entitlements…Commitments of Conscience…Fix Medicare and Medicaid, and save Social Security…
This was the first “meat” of the speech. He spit typical conservative banter about “fiscal responsibility,” and it is simply banter because this administration has been arguably the most fiscally irresponsible administrations in history. A key example of this irresponsibility: Iraq. The “we can do so without raising taxes” part is consistent with Bush’s insistence on cutting taxes while we are at “war,” something that has never happened before.
The stuff on “earmarks” is a joke because those will not go away any time soon since Republicans and Democrats use them all the time.
Conservatives use the term “entitlements” to deceive people. They need to do this so that they can make you feel bad about the government doing things for you. They play up this farce so that people feel bad taking things from the government that they select & elect. Funny how there was no mention of corporate entitlements in the form of war profiteering or the Bankruptcy Bill a.k.a. the worst piece of legislation since the Patriot Act (which a certain person voted for, and that really bothers me).
The future of opportunity requires that all of our citizens have affordable and available health care…For all other Americans, private health insurance provides the best option…Standard Health Insurance Tax Deduction…Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care available to all Americans
I don’t even know why this man fronts like he wants all Americans to have health insurance. If so, he would at least put a dent in the 40+ million people who don’t. He and his friends still think it is a bad idea to realize Universal Health Care through what’s called a Single-payer system. Basically, single-payer means that only one party negotiates for the price of health insurance and services: the government. Every citizen would then have their health costs covered through what they pay in taxes. This would result in higher taxes for the citizens, but those increased costs probably would not add up to the amount that people overpay for health services every day, month, and year. The idea of trying to get everyone to go private is as ridiculous as the privatize social security plan that he had a while back (and still has). This is also consistent with the way that the “war” in Iraq has been privatized. These pro-business, anti-citizen types always think private is the answer so that they can take money away from public institutions and services.
Extending hope and opportunity in this country requires an immigration policy that is worthy of America
I won’t say much on this. I think that Bush’s guest worker idea sounds a whole lot like new school indentured servitude. For those that don’t know, this was the precursor to slavery in this country. I do not think that the parallel is coincidental.
Reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the next 10 years…
How??? His mandatory fuel standard statement was weak at best, especially in the midst of his administration and its energy policy.
Global climate change…
He can’t say global warming because that does not exist. So rather than being a flip-flopper (we know how much he hates those), he has decided to use a different term: global climate change. This is his backwards way of admitting that there is a problem. I guess a small first step is better than no step at all. Is the next step for him to watch this?
To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy…
This was the opening statement to his surprisingly long section on Iraq, Iran, and foreign policy. There was too much B.S. here to sift through. Take a look at some of our analysis to get an idea of the truth. Suffice it to say that this strategy is questionable at best.
Darfur…Fight AIDS on the continent of Africa…Dikembe Mutumbo…
He really mentioned Darfur? That’s a surprise. Too bad he didn’t refer to it as a genocide. Again, I guess a small step is better than no step at all.
It is sad, but the “fighting AIDS in Africa” phrase is being rendered absolutely meaningless. It gets paid so much lip service that people forget that there are actually humans living on the continent of Africa who exist for reasons other than making someone feel good being a philanthropist.
One Love. One II.
Categories
Politics
Foreign Policy
State of the Union
Taxes
Darfur
So-called “War on Terror”
Bush Administration, Iran, Iraq, War On Terror
In Issues and Politics on January 11, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Originally, I was going to post a detailed analysis of Bush’s speech from last night but my analysis was in line with what most political and military experts described as, “More of the same.” However, one marked difference is Bush’s change of tone with respect to his stance toward Iran and Syria.
In a major speech concerning Iraq given in March of 2006, Bush said,
“Some of the most powerful IEDs we are seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti- coalition attacks by providing Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq. Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions, along with Iran’s support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran. And America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”
This excerpt is important in what was not said. Bush does not explain how his administration would help isolate Iran and more importantly, he makes no threat if Iran continues to support terrorism.
Now pay attention to the shift in tone in Bush’s speech on Iraq from last night, January 10th, 2007;
“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
Here is how the logic breaks down,
1. We must succeed in Iraq
2. Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity
3. Iran and Syria are compromising Iraq’s territorial integrity
4. Therefore, we must seek out and destroy networks within Iran and Syria to defend Iraq’s territorial integrity
And not without irony, the same day as Bush’s speech, US forces stormed a building in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six people said to be Iranians, prompting a diplomatic incident. The building that was raided was an Iranian consulate. This may not seem like real news but I am convinced the United States will continue to push and probe Iran with similar incidents until Iran responds. And if Iran even coughs in response to any U.S. provocation (no matter how small), the neoconservatives will waste no time selling the Iranian response as an act of war and worthy of an overwhelming military counter attack.
These are sobering times we live in. My hunch is that this won’t be the last “surge” we will see deployed to the Iraqi region. What’s more scary is that I feel that our “surge” isn’t really intended for Iraq.
God please grant us wisdom and discernment.
Stay up fam,
Stay up fam,.
Categories:
Iran
Bush Administration
Bush Administration, Iran, Iraq
In Issues and Politics on December 28, 2006 at 2:14 pm
I am especially critical of the news during times of mass distraction. This is primarily because often times the government will use these times to do make controversial decisions, knowing that people will be too busy to make a big fuss about it. One example of this includes the resignation of now former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced the day after the midterm election. Keeping true to form, on December 23, 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.
This is troubling on so many levels. The most important being that with this resolution in hand, U.S. now has the moral authority to claim the support of the “international community” in his saber rattling against Iran. It should be noted that the current resolution was watered down to satisfy concerns of China and Russia (both veto holding members of the United Nations Security Council) that the sanctions were too harsh. In effect, the resolution will not do any serious harm to the Iranian economy but this wasn’t the purpose of the resolution in the first place.
Nevertheless, Bush already used the support of the “international community” to help justify war against Iraq when there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. So the fact that Iran is actually developing a civilian nuclear program will make it that much easier for the Bush administration to make a case for military action against Iran. What’s worse is that previous attempts at resolving this standoff through diplomacy was made unrealistic by Bush’s precondition that Iran stop enriching uranium.
In the coming months, expect Bush to use this resolution as proof that Iran has something to hide for not agreeing to suspend their uranium enrichment. Moreover, expect Bush and mainstream media outlets to continue to blame Iraq’s problems due to Iran’s meddling. Couple this with Bush’s call for a “surge” in the size of the American military and his refusal to rule out using a nuclear strike against Iran; we are witnessing the priming of war with Iran. As a result, I encourage all of you to make your voice heard as it pertains to war policy. Wars cannot exist without public support but your silence will always be interpreted at best support and worst, indifference.
For more on this topic, please read this article
Stay up fam,
Categories:
iran
war
internationalrelations
bushadministration
Bush Administration, Iraq, Politics
In Issues and Politics on October 23, 2006 at 10:35 pm
This line is usually indicative of someone lying. And what do you know? The Bush administration is backtracking on the fact that “stay the course” actually meant, “stay the course.” According to Press Secretary Tony Snow, what had happened was
is that “What you have is not ’stay the course’ but in fact a study in constant motion by the administration.” In a number of previous posts, I have opened up with a quote by Socrates which states, “The misuse of language induces evil in the soul.” The following presents a perfect example of this principle at work. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Bush said with a straight face, “Listen, we’ve never been stay the course.” What’s so bad is that this line would actually be funny in a Bill Maher kind of way if the implications were not so grim.
In the same interview, Bush went on to say, “We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly.” And before we get caught up in semantics, the fact remains that I (and I think many others share this concern) don’t have a clear understanding of what the goal is Mr. President. For surely if you can’t clearly define the goal, then it certainly won’t matter whether or not tactics have changed.
Getting back to Tony Snow’s comment about the Iraq strategy being a study in constant motion, it seems to me that this war has for the most part put into motion three things, lies, arrogance and stupidity. But just pause and think about how the world would be better if American military and foreign policy were guided by truth, humility, and wisdom.
Stay up fam,
Categories:
Bush
So called “war on terror”
politics
Bush Administration, Iran, Voting
In Issues and Politics on October 19, 2006 at 1:18 pm
I have been playing online chess as of late and it started to make me think about chess as a metaphor for life. In chess, the majority of the game can be boiled down to whether or not you respond to or can make credible threats. And while threats are appropriate for discussing chess, I mean threat as the attempt to achieve a goal.
For example, you may make a threat to take out your opponent’s queen but if that will leave your king vulnerable, then that threat is not credible and your opponent will make you pay for it. In the same way, if your opponent makes a credible threat on your king, but you deem it unimportant, this decision will put you at a serious disadvantage.
So with this paradigm, let’s explore how the idea of credible threats plays out in our everyday lives. For those of you who are Christians, you know that at least part of your decision to turn your life over to Christ was your believing in the credible threat that if you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you will spend eternity in hell.
In relationships, if your partner makes a credible threat to leave you if you consider doing the thing that he/she dislikes, not taking them up on this threat will leave you out in the cold.
When you were growing up, many of us would try to duck out of our responsibilities until our parents said they would get the belt or take away some of our privileges.
Right now at General Motors, billionaire shareholder Kirk Kerkorian has made a credible threat to make GM seriously consider merging with another automotive manufacturer. “To bolster its defense, GM has retained two heavyweight investment banking firms… to help prepare for a potential Kerkorian-led proxy fight or other hostile action. The first specific actions were taken Oct. 3, when the GM board changed its bylaws to make it tougher for Kerkorian to elect a slate of directors or put strategic issues to a direct vote of GM shareholders.”
Right now, the Bush administration is trying to threaten North Korea to stop testing nuclear weapons. But with our current engagements in the Middle East, this threat is not exactly credible. The same logic holds true for Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program.
If you are trying to make a threat to request a loan to start your own business but lack proper preparation and don’t have adequate back-up plans, the bank will not feel compelled to grant you that loan.
When applying to college/grad school, failure to make a credible threat that you are not only prepared but uniquely deserving of admission will make admissions counselors call your bluff.
What I have learned playing chess is that in life, we must always prepare for and respond to credible threats. We also should never make threats that are not credible.
There are so many different angles I could take this but I want to know if you have ever underestimated a credible threat coming your way or failed to make credible threats. What were the consequences?
Stay up fam,
Categories:
choices
misc
Bush Administration, Democrats, Iraq, Politics
In Issues and Politics on October 19, 2006 at 12:20 pm
So I read an interesting article today by Jonah Goldberg in the L.A. Times entitled, “Iraq was a worthy mistake.” In the article, Jonah makes underwhelming arguments as it pertains to insignificance of not finding WMD’s and how “the administration did not anticipate a low-intensity civil war in Iraq.” But after fighting through the end of the article, Goldberg (in classic Clintonian fashion) talks about the possible third way out of Iraq. His third way calls for a national Iraqi poll asking whether or not they want coalition troops to stay.
He goes on to say, “If Iraqis voted “stay,” we’d have a mandate to do what’s necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted “go,” our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. And pretty much everyone would have to accept democracy as the only legitimate expression of national will.”
I think it is insulting to ask the Iraqi people whether they think we should leave or not, especially considering the fact we didn’t ask the Iraqis to invade their country. And do you really think after the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent in invading and rebuilding Iraq coupled with the enormous drive to save face, coalition forces would allow their fate to rest with the voice of the Iraqis?
And what’s worse, between the criticism of Democrats that voted for the war and calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign, there is a deafening silence in holding Bush accountable for his mistakes. Just as you would think the Foley scandal would have happened last year if you follow mainstream news, Bush has already blamed intelligence failures on the CIA and before it’s all said and done, Rumsfeld will be blamed for not properly executing the war. So don’t let war fatigue make you ignore the dangerous times we live in.
Do you think there is a third way for Iraq? If so, what do you propose?
Stay up fam,
Categories:
politics
waronterror
bushadministration
Black Issues, Bush Administration, Race, Relationships, Voting
In Issues and Politics on June 15, 2006 at 11:03 am
The Fundies have been at it again lately. For those who have not heard, the Senate debated, voted on, and defeated a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage by explicitly defining marriage as between a mand and a woman. This was a prime example of posturing by conservatives in the Senate to try to “energize” people misguided enough to think that this “issue” is important. Call it another example of the way the current administration chooses to waste the time and resources of people in this country.
Unfortunately, this tactic has worked in the past. G. W. Bush got about 9% of the Black vote in 2004, and this was thanks to the not-so-small roll that the gay marriage “issue” played in the hearts and minds of some Black voters. This was an appeal to voter’s whose “Christian” values would not allow them to support a candidate who did not have a problem with gay people getting married and enjoying the benefits thereof. This is sinister because it could (and in my opinion did) lead to people voting against their own best interests because they wanted a candidate that stood on the “right” side (pun intended) of the gay marriage debate.
The bigger question is, why does this work? What makes two people getting married, regardless of their sex, so important to me or you? In my view, it has worked because people have been successfully fooled into letting other people set their priorities. Who are these chosen priority setters? Maybe it’s your president. Maybe it’s your pastor. Either way, if it’s not you, then three is a problem. The bottom line is that we should do what we can to not let our agency be taken from us. We deal a lot with all of the reason why it’s asinine to let G. W. Bush & company to set our priorities. In a later post, I will deal with the danger in letting your pastor do it for you.
Back to the specific issue of this post, this is an issue of control. Some people want the government to control any and every aspect of life. What is ironic here is that conservatives are pushing this notion upon people’s personal lives when it is conservatives who believe in “smaller” government. This current crop certainly believes in small government when it comes to its workings with major corporations. Think about this: the constitution, with all of its flaws, was a document [in theory] written to grant rights. This proposed amendment would have been the first change to the document (had it been accepted) that would have specifically and explicitly excluded a group of people from something (before you jump on me the 3/5 provision does not do this). They want to exclude people from getting married in the legal sense of the word. However, does not having the legal means to do something mean that it won’t happen? Does it make relationships between individuals of the same sex any less meaningful? NO.
For these reasons, and others, this is a non-issue. There are other things that I’d rather see our citizenry and our government spend their resources addressing. Out site is subtitled “Black Thought at the HIGHEST Level” because we want everyone to elevate their thinking beyond the petty tactics and strategies of those who wish to harm us through tricking us into acting in ways harmful to ourselves. We can achieve this through talking about the issues amongst ourselves so that we have a concrete understanding of what’s really going on so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves.
One Love. One II.
Black Issues, Bush Administration, Civil Rights, Race
In Issues and Politics on May 10, 2006 at 6:05 pm
We have talked about the pros and cons of Black faces in high places on this site before. This is a concept worth revisiting in light of a survey by the Washington Post that says the G. W. Bush has brought on less females and minorities in his administration than Bill Clinton.
Conservative reaction to this story is not surprising (an example is here), but it does raise an interesting question. To quote conservative columnist Michelle Malkin:
“In other words, Bush is an enemy of progress and civil rights because he has appointed too many minorities and women to top Cabinet positions–and not enough to lower, less important jobs!”
This is a matter of quantity versus quality. I think you can have both here, but maybe you can’t. Which would you rather see: a few Black folks in prominent leadership positions or lots of Black people working in lower positions?
Bush Administration
In Issues and Politics on May 10, 2006 at 10:22 am
So if you haven’t heard yet, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote an 18-page letter to Bush outlining contradictions in the international arena. And if President Ahmadinejad is nothing else, he is not stupid. He made some points that are so clear that they can’t be denied. I encourage all of you to read the text for yourself rather than having someone tell you what it meant. Unfortunately, the link I have is only 8 pages but that is better than nothing.
And what really disturbs me is that not in any world could I see Bush writing an 18-page letter on ANYTHING, yet alone engaging President Ahmadinejad in a meeting of the minds. Now was Ahmadinejad’s letter purely political, probably so, but what isn’t in international affairs. And more importantly, why does Bush insist that all options are on the table when he keeps ducking opportunities to talk. It may be because all the options only include sanctions or military strikes because diplomacy doesn’t seem to exist with this administration. And just what may I ask is wrong with talking or writing letters?
Isn’t communicating the most productive feature of human civilization? And that is what one of the traits I disdain in Bush, he seems to relish the point at which talking is no more feasible rather than take advantage of the time when it is.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
Bush Administration, Iraq
In Issues and Politics on April 12, 2006 at 10:09 am
As if this is any surprise, the Bush administration is caught in another lie related to the flawed reasons why the US invaded Iraq. You remember those mobile weapons labs that could be used for developing anthrax or smallpox? Well, at the time Bush made this harrowing claim, “U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.”
By now, I hope no one believes that the reasons for invading Iraq were anything but fluff. However, as the truth slowly comes to light, we should be careful not to become desensitized to the enormous harm these mishaps have cost America in blood and treasure.
Having said that, try to comprehend how brazen Bush is in his lying. “Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.” Bush’s lie was when he claimed, “we have found the weapons of mass destruction.” To be sure, Colin Powell talked about these same mobile weapons labs in his testimony before the UN, but if you looked at the pictures, they just looked like empty trucks.
What’s more alarming is that “the three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped “secret” and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.” The report was conducted by the Defense Intelligence Agency (which would have a clear bias in my opinion) which means that rather than the typical assertion that this whole debauchery is based on Bush receiving bad intelligence, Bush’s own civilian-led Pentagon had it right, but he ignored their findings.
The previous story is eerily related to the other discovery that Bush was outed by Scooter Libby when Libby testified that Bush authorized the declassification of documents that resulted in the outing of Valerie Plame. This is wrong on many levels but I will only cover three for the sake of brevity. When the Valerie Plame story broke, Bush repeatedly asserted “If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. … I want to know the truth. Leaks of classified information are bad things.” But he is the one who authorized the leak!!! Secondly, it is disturbing that had not Scooter Libby forced Bush’s hand, it would have taken years before the truth came to light. Bush, if you are reading this post, lies of omission are just as bad as lies of commission. And lastly, Bush authorized the leak eight days after Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, criticized the administration for manipulating pre-war intelligence to exacerbate a war with Iraq.
I have no doubt that as time progresses, even more lies will be accounted for, but in the mean time, I urge everyone not to get war fatigued. The people who wanted this war went to great lengths (and probably sold their soul) to make it happen so we who believe in justice and truth must meet and overcome this challenge. But it will take stamina so if you are tired, hopefully this post gave you some energy.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
Bush Administration, Iran, Iraq, Voting, War On Terror
In Issues and Politics on March 14, 2006 at 11:22 am
As we approach the third anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bush gave a speech yesterday trying to drum up support for the war in Iraq. But if you missed it, don’t worry because we here at Superspade have you covered and will help you understand what Bush said and what he didn’t.
Now before Bush reached the meat of the speech by stating, “Next week will mark the three-year anniversary of the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” September 11th was mentioned three times. This ladies and gentlemen is known as framing because even back in 2003, Bush told a reporter that “we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.” But Bush knows that were it not for 9/11, he would not have had the almost unquestioned authority to invade Iraq. Therefore, he constantly evokes 9/11 to confuse the public for the real reasons we invaded that country.
After detailing every political landmark in Iraq without discussing quality of life issues, (like having running water, electricity, jobs) Bush went on to say, “Our goal in Iraq is victory, and victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks against our nation.”
But re-read that quote carefully because Bush outlines when victory will be achieved but he fails to let the public know what victory is. This is very troubling because all Bush has to do is change up how and/or when victory is achieved without ever having to be held accountable. In other words, if this idea of when extends beyond Bush’s current term, then he doesn’t have to worry about cleaning up the inevitable mess we created in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush’s three when ideas are all vague and can easily be re-worded but the first point troubles me the most. Bush said, “Victory will be achieved when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy.” One of the most troublesome myths I see developing is the idea that once you have democracy, everything else more or less will fall into place. And as we can currently see in Iraq, the Iraqi people seem to vote every four months but the Iraqi government is so inept and corrupt that they are quite adept at messing up things on their own. Therefore, democracy does not equal stable and effective governing just because people vote. But it is easier for Bush to talk about Iraqi democracy instead of the Iraqi government, and for good reason.
But here was the real clincher, once you delete the obligatory greetings and acknowledgements, Bush spent an astonishing 24% of his speech detailing how dangerous Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are to Coalition troops and Iraqi civilians. Now I don’t doubt that IEDs are a major problem in Iraq but its how Bush ended this section that disturbed me the most. He said,
“Some of the most powerful IEDs we are seeing in Iraq today includes components that came from Iran. Our director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, told the Congress Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti- coalition attacks by providing Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq.”
I highlighted “some” because I want you to be aware of how the speech writers wrote “some” into the background. There is no data provided that would help the public understand if “some” is miniscule or catastrophic. And the first sentence says that some of the IEDs include components that came from Iran. I insist on being a stickler for words because components could mean anything from paint to the actual gun powder. But most people who heard that sentence probably understood it to mean that Iran is supplying terrorists with IED components. Now I am not saying Iran is certain of doing this or not, but I am sick and tired of the Administration acting like what they say is as good as gold without providing evidence. Do you remember the yellow cake from Niger?
And in the second sentence, Bush cites the National Director of Intelligence Congressional testimony that Tehran has been helping the Shi’a militia with the capabilities to build IEDs. Can someone help me understand what capabilities Iran is guilty of? Now I know that there are some honest employees that work in the intelligence community but some political appointees distorted the truth to fit their goals. And when you consider how much information comes from torturing suspects, how much can you trust the testimony of Negroponte?
Bush went on to say, “Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions, along with Iran’s support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran. And America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”
If some IEDs and components were clearly produced in Iran, can I see a receipt, UPC Code, or something that will let me know that when Bush says clearly, he can be trusted?
But here is the bigger picture going on, just pay attention to Bush’s logic;
1) IEDs are the most dangerous and effective tool terrorists use against Coalition troops.
2) Iran has contributed some IEDs and components of IEDs to some Iraqi terrorists
3) Iran supports terrorism and is seeking a nuclear weapons program
4) Therefore, “America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats.”
This is twisted logic but understand how Bush is making the connections between Iraq and Iran. Do you remember we were in Afghanistan and we invaded Iraq? I remember thinking to myself, “These boys are slick.” Now the same types of innuendos are being used to build the case against Iran. But the common thread here is no supporting evidence. And if you think that it is impossible for Bush to rally a war in Iran, you are sadly mistaken.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
Bush Administration, Iraq
In Issues and Politics, Technology on March 1, 2006 at 11:41 am
This phrase, while noble, has been misconstrued as a reason to support the war. Let it be said that one can support the troops while not supporting the war. With that said, for all the people who conflate supporting the troops with supporting the war, I point your attention to a recent poll that showed nearly three quarters (72%) of American troops in Iraq think the United States should leave the country within a year. Isn’t it funny how people argue about the war but don’t take the time to ask the troops how they feel?
Now before you think that this poll was done be some crazy left-wing organization, think again. The poll was conducted by Zogby International and Le Moyne College in Syracuse in NY. And for the record, Zogby has one of the best reputations in the field of opinion polling and is used ad nauseam to predict Presidential elections in the United States. Their reputation aside, the poll interviewed 944 soldiers face-to-face. And while that may seem like a small proportion of the total number of troops there, do know that a vast majority of the polls used study American opinion, poll about 1,000 individuals across the country to make claims on how millions of Americans feel with a high degree of statistical accuracy.
Now if the troops don’t want to be in Iraq for more than a year longer and we know that at the rate we’re going, leaving within a year is a joke, just how are we supporting the troops? And if the troops on the front line don’t want to be there, then does it really matter what the public thinks? I think not. But the larger implication of this poll strongly suggests that having the most up to date technology is not enough to win wars. This is because if the collective will and belief that you are doing something positive is not sustainable, then victory will be extremely difficult to attain. This says nothing of the fact that the Bush administration changes what constitutes victory like they change clothes.
Moreover, the poll that was conducted reflects the notion that the troops, as a whole, do not see the connection between what they are doing and the greater good. “The poll showed that 93 percent of respondents believe that removing weapons of mass destruction was not the reason why the United States was in Iraq; while 85 percent said the U.S. mission was ‘mainly to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks’ — a role that has never been established.” Now let’s start with the idea that WMD was the overarching reason for us invading Iraq (remember Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations?) and that has since proven to be an outright lie. But Saddam’s supposed connection to 9/11 was the most provocative reason that I think many people supported the war.
And I am still trying to figure out how we went from attacking Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fighting Saddam in Iraq and unfortunately, I think many of the troops are still scratching their heads. But a recent article by Paul Krugman of the New York Times perhaps said it best; “The administration successfully linked Iraq and 9/11 in public perceptions through a campaign of constant insinuation and occasional outright lies. In the process, it also created a state of mind in which all Arabs were lumped together in the camp of evildoers. Osama, Saddam – what’s the difference?”
But a quote from Donald Rumsfeld will go down as the biggest symbol of where American policy changed the world for the worse when he told military commanders on 9/11, “’Judge whether good enough hit S. H. [Saddam Hussein] @ same time – not only UBL [Osama bin Laden],’ read an aide’s handwritten notes about his instructions.” Now I would like to believe that soldiers need to hold on to a singular idea as motivation for fighting a war. Now if 93% of the troops understand the truth about WMD and 85% understand the truth about Saddam’s connection to WMD, what in the world are we doing in Iraq? And this is how we support the troops?
Stay up fam and my prayers go out to American troops and the innocent Afghans and Iraqis that are caught up in this mess.
Brandon
Bush Administration, Iran, Iraq, Race, War On Terror
In Issues and Politics on February 3, 2006 at 10:14 am
In a recent speech, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said “the United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world.”.
I am so surprised that after the coalition launched its attack on Iraq, the predictions of a quick victory and no plans for an occupation have faltered. The implications of Rumsfeld’s speech are profound because it seems odd that Presidents get credit for starting wars and once that machine is in motion, it takes monumental circumstances for the political elite to actually end the war. But at least the characters are set up with Rumsfeld comparing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Which makes me wonder why we would want to catch Osama when it is his being elusive that provided much of the impetus for invading Iraq? Just imagine how future historians will look back on this war; Bush vs. Bin Laden. It is so simplistic it is nauseating.
And with the Bush administration doggedly resisting all forms of a timetable, they are just waiting to pass on the real mess of this war to future Presidents. This will in turn allow Bush Jr. to enjoy fishing with his father saying “Dad, I really wanted to finish that war but those dang old term limits nipped me in the bud.” But on a more serious note, Rumsfeld and others have noted the war on terrorism could take years. Do you really think the neo-conservatives thought the US would invade Iraq and bring the troops home? Just think about the timing of the US media sudden infatuation with Iran and how it coincided with the ‘major’ elections in Iraq. The boys are already overseas, so we might as well keep them busy right?
All of this war-mongering is set against the backdrop of the Pentagon’s report stating the US Army is “in a race against time to adjust to the demands of war ‘or risk ‘breaking’ the force in the form of a catastrophic decline’ in recruitment and re-enlistment.” But who needs to really worry about troops when our troop levels revolve around our Star-Wars type weapons systems as confirmed by the “relatively minor adjustments in key weapons systems, with the biggest programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat Systems escaping virtually unscathed.”
No matter how much we spend on our military, the million dollar question is how are we defining success, because surely you can’t end terrorism right? And in the words of my good friend Garlin, “when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”
It will be interesting to see how future historians analyze this war. That is if they ever get a chance to study the war that never ends.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
Bush Administration, Iraq
In Issues and Politics on February 2, 2006 at 3:08 pm
How much more can you convince moderate Muslims that you don’t respect their culture any more than by printing caricatures of Muhammad wearing a headdress shaped like a bomb, while another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers. Ask the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten.
I wrote about a similar situation involving the media salivated over reporting about Bin Laden’s niece posing for GQ Magazine. What I failed to mention in my earlier piece is that the so-called war on terror is not happening in the abstract. The terrorists and their would-be supporters respond to stimuli, which hearken back to the Bush administration’s often cited claim that we are in a fight to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. And while I am all for free speech, is printing articles disrespecting Islam and the prophet Muhammad really helping the cause for freedom and democracy?
Furthermore, Denmark has troops in Iraq (about 500 give or take) and they have already been exposed for torturing Iraqi prisoners, so what in the world was the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten thinking? Maybe they were thought they were supporting the troops. But let’s keep it real, the terrorists are not easily dissuaded from their aims but the terrorists do not represent the majority of the Muslim population. Therefore, it is probably not wise to disrespect Islam because this will only encourage more people to join terrorist organizations.
This is what really gets me heated though; these caricatures were first published in Denmark on September 30, 2005. Muslim ambassadors in Denmark complained to the Danish PM on October 20th. So someone tell me why between January and February, reprints of the cartoons appeared in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Norway? That is a three month window!! So this clearly means that the papers in these countries had no respect for the fallout these cartoons raised and wanted to throw gas on the fire.
And to top it off, “Reporters Without Borders said the reaction in the Arab world ‘betrays a lack of understanding’ of press freedom as an ‘essential accomplishment of democracy’.” A lack of understanding!! Are you serious? Now let’s flip the script and have publications in Muslim countries print cartoons that have Jesus and the Virgin Mary having sex. Now I could be wrong, but I don’t think Western countries, or any country for that matter, would look at the cartoons and say, “Thank goodness for free speech!” There is a line that has been crossed repeatedly during this war that makes winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and Muslims-at large unreasonably difficult.
But apparently, the powers that be don’t get it yet.
.
Bush Administration, Politics
In Issues and Politics on December 23, 2005 at 1:15 am
John Conyers is (D-MI)calling for the censure and possible impeachment of G.W. He is not alone. Truthout is running a story about whispers of impeachment becoming public.
Conyers is the only member of Congress to see first-hand two impeachment proceedings. He called for the impeachment of Richard Nixon one week before Watergate. He vehemently opposed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Given these experiences, I think it is safe to say that Conyers has a pretty good notion of what it means to impeach someone, and what impeachments should look like. Therefore, when he says it’s worth looking at, I think that it’s probably legitimate. Not to mention that I think G.W. should be out anyway, but I digress.
(Maybe the other reason I like John Conyers is because he’s a member of my church and a childhood friend of my grandmother.)
Bush Administration, Iraq
In Issues and Politics on December 19, 2005 at 1:26 am
G.W. addressed the nation this Sunday during prime time to talk about Iraq. Let me summarize the speech for you:
-Our ‘clear’ mission in Iraq is threefold: Security, democracy, and reconstruction
-We are faced with 2 options: victory or defeat
-Those who oppose the President and his war and want immediate withdrawal of troops have a defeatist attitude
The million dollar question is “did this speech have any value?” I think that depends on whom you ask? Conservative hawks may be surprised that G.W. actually admitted mistakes were made leading up to this invasion/occupation. Those on the opposite side will view the pleas for war opposers and American citizens to have ‘patience,’ and that they would respect and act upon ‘positive criticism’ (whatever that is), as the punchline to a not-so-funny 3+ year long running gag.
I see the talk as a decent move politically. The President’s poll numbers have seen a slight uptick since he started admitting stuff. Even though the administration claims to not pay attention to polls, I bet the sun won’t set for a while on this stream of apologies and admissions.
That being said, I think the speech was complete and total B.S. Don’t piss on my neck and tell me it’s raining.
It kills me how both liberals and conservatives claim the media is against them. G.W. said that the terrorists do what they do, in part, because they know it will make the news. Let’s get stupid about that for one second: if someone breaks into your home and you defend youself and/or attempt to remove that person from the premises, do you do that because you want a news spot or because you want them out of you house? According to the President, we are not facing threats now because of American provocation. 9/11 in his mind was unprovoked, he said. I guess we were just innocent victims of violent extremism.
We have more than 2 options in my opinion, with 4 of them being:
1. Stay indefinitely
2. Stay for another X months/years and leave
3. Leave immediately militarily and remain diplomatically
4. Leave immediately militarily and diplomatically
Choices 1 and 2 are idiotic. Choice 3 I can stomach. Choice 4 would be ideal. Notice how none of these four fit neatly into the victory/defeat rhetorical buckets. This is a direct consequence of the many flaws inherent in this invasion/occupation. This is analogous to striving for victory in a contest with yourself to see how fast I can drive into a brick wall: you LOSE every time. The win/lose rhetoric is used here because of its simplicity. Conservatives are good at using simplicity to mask reality. Now that we are in Iraq and have been for over 1000 days, the answers and implications are no longer simple (if we would have simply said no to the invasion, then simplicity would make sense). I personally am a fan of reality rhetoric, not B.S. I guess that’s why I’m not a politician.
Another thing: since when did anyone who disagreed with illegal foreign occupations become defeatists? The BushCo has an intersting take on dissention. What’s ironic is that aren’t ‘terrorists’ in most cases dissenters who were not given a chance to voice their opinions peacefully or diplomatically and as a result resorted to violence? Why should Iraqi people, Sunni Arabs specifically, believe for one microsecond that the U.S. will value opinions that do not mirror their own? This speech further solidifies the notion that the U.S.’s version of democracy has no room for healthy, civil debate.
Everything has causality. Everything. How that causality is defined depends on the credibility of the persons presenting the case. Do I believe Bush when he says 9/11 was unprovoked? No. Do I believe Bush when he says that staying in Iraq indefinitely will help us ‘win the war on terror?’ No. Do I believe Bush when he says an immediate withdrawal is irresponsible? No. Do I believe Bush has any credibility whatsoever? No.
What do you believe?
–
Garlin Gilchrist II
http://www.thesuperspade.com
Sent via Wireless Handheld
Bush Administration, Iraq, Politics
In Issues and Politics on December 18, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Did someone change my last name to Bush this week? They must have because after the September 11 attacks, Big Brother Bush authorized secret spying on Americans and suspected terrorists without obtaining a court warrant. Let me first say how disappointed I am in the New York Times for sitting on this story for this long. Lest we forget about Judy Miller and her unreasonable coziness with advocating the Administration’s rationale for war, this spying story goes to show how much the freedom of the press is in shackles. What’s worse is that the NYT claimed that they were withholding the story because of national security concerns. This makes no sense at all because the story did not name any of the suspects that the US was spying on. Therefore, the secret warrants issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was too cumbersome for the Administration and the National Security Agency needed to circumvent the lag time of getting warrants and focus on catching terrorists.
I hate to say this ladies and gentlemen, but the more the country is willing to excuse itself of constitutionally protected rights, the more we show how effective the terrorists were in changing the American way of life. Just listen to an excerpt of Bush’s speech when he said that “he acted in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks because the United States had failed to detect communications that might have tipped it off to the plot.” Forgive my fuzzy memory but wasn’t there some Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001 that was entitled, Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US? But that aside, what is really making me mad about this war debate is Bush now insisting that if we leave, Iraq will become a headquarters for terrorists to use against the United States. Well last time I checked, there were about 1 billion Muslims in the world and while I know not all of them are terrorists, if were to assume that one half one percent were indeed radical terrorists, that gives us about 500,000 people who are spread across the entire world. And what’s more important is that if the terrorists didn’t need Iraq before 9/11 what makes the US think that the terrorists need Iraq now? This so-called war cannot be fought using conventional tactics of war. The first rule (according to my book) of war is to understand the goals and motivations of your enemy. And the US has yet to demonstrate that we understand their goals and if the government does understand, they are too stubborn to re-examine our international policies that will weaken the support that terrorists currently receive.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
Bush Administration, Civil Rights, Iraq, Patriot Act, Social Security, Voting
In Issues and Politics on December 14, 2005 at 4:15 pm
The House has approved extensions to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is not one of those pieces of legislation that is just there to make Congress look like they are “earning” their pay. It is actually the most sinister act of the Bush administration. I said it. To me, this is worse than the Iraq war, worse than G.W.’s vacations, worse than his Social Security plan, worse than his “war-time” tax cuts, worse than it all.
This is arguably the largest infringement on civil liberties since the Jim Crow laws of the late 1800s. My feelings for this are too many to enumerate here, but they can be summed up quite simply and concisely.
If a piece of legislation is positive and has merit, why would we set a sunset to provisions of that legislation? This works for both sides of the argument. If the Voting Rights Act of 1965* was legitimate and indicative of how the people and the government truly felt, why did it have an expiration date? Laws are not perishable goods – well, good ones should not be. The only reason you enact something temporarily is because you do not totally agree with or like it and are pandering to some other party, or that you know it is wrong. The Voting Rights Act is in the “pandering” bucket. The Patriot Act is in the “wrong” bucket.
* Please note that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does have certain important provisions that will need to be extended/made permanent over the next few years. However, contrary to popular opinion, even in the relatively unlikely event that those specific provisions are not extended, people will not lose their right to vote as a result. I hate when people don’t do their homework. SuperSpades cannot be ignorant.
Bush Administration, Iraq
In Issues and Politics on December 14, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Ladies and gentlemen: silence please. President Bush took responsibility for taking the country for war on bad intelligence. Granted, we have been in Iraq for almost three years without hearing such candor, but it is good to hear it nonetheless. The President went on to defend the war on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security. Now anyone in their right mind will know that Saddam didn’t have the infrastructure to wage a prolonged war against the US, especially on our soil. And more importantly, the only reason Bush was able to invade Iraq was because his administration conned a whole lot of people into believing there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Of course we know there was no such connection and the prisoner we got that information from lied to his Egyptian captives so he could get better treatment.
But here’s the rub. Now I know Saddam was toppling him worth the deaths of over 30,000 Iraqis and over 2100 American soldiers? I think not. And if the Iraqis really wanted freedom en masse, they would have fought for it by themselves. Moreover, Iraq is really comprised of three main ethnic blocks which doesn’t align with the Western idea of every citizen finding a sense of unity under the flag.
But Bush is hoping that the Iraqi election will bring about unity in Iraq but it won’t. And I don’t say that because I want to see the Iraqis suffer but America is engaging in a cookie-cutter democracy and one size does not fit all.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
Bush Administration, Iraq
In Issues and Politics, Technology on December 12, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Today I was reading an article in the Washington Post about how China has surpassed the United States as the world’s top exporter of laptop computers, mobile phones and other information and communications technology devices in 2004, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said on Monday. It was interesting to see how the scant amount of commentary about this topic, especially given the harsh climate of the American job market. Already, Bill Ford and other leading US firms are wrapping themselves with the US flag and making the plea that the best way to support America (and by extension, the troops) is to buy American. What’s so ironic however, is that
One major factor promoting China’s rapid growth is its fixed currency (the yuan), which allows China to keep its currency relatively lower than the US, thereby making China’s goods cheaper than the US. The other advantage that China has is America’s gluttony. Just how do you think Bush was able to pass tax cuts year after year while we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Bush administration has tax cuts as its centerpiece of picking up the economy but as we run up more and more debt, guess who is buying up this debt? You guessed it, China. So if China suddenly decided that they didn’t want to buy American debt for some set of geo-political reasons, the interest rates in America would go through the roof. And my political folks will know what I mean when I say, “It’s the economy stupid.” And besides the fact that China has more than one-fifth of the world’s population, I should point out that China is a communist country? Don’t you think it’s funny how the wealthy communist countries are never referred to as communist but poorer countries are? But I guarantee you that if China and the US were having serious disagreements that might lead to war, the communist refrain would be deafening.
But I digress. The main point of today’s blog is to highlight that if we are living in a knowledge based economy that is fueled by technology, then the Chinese leading the world in information/computer technology is a sign that the US has been comfortable for too long and when we can’t beat a country on purely economic terms, the military might will be soon to follow. I believe Samuel Huntington wrote a book talking about the clash of civilizations. I am not suggesting that the Chinese and the US are posturing themselves for war but Thomas Friedman talked about how we are living in a flat society, which means that advances in technology have made the world a more level playing field. So whatever country takes the lead in technology (patents, faster computer chips, etc.) will have a comparative advantage that will make international relations a bit more nuanced than times of old. America’s economy is stuffed like you were after Thanksgiving, but unless get on Kanye’s workout plan, we will see the Chinese use their new found wealth to invest in their military and create a middle class that will want the excesses of American culture. In the long term, different countries will take sides and we will witness a clash none like the world has ever seen.
Stay up fam,
Bush Administration, Democrats, Iraq, Politics, Republicans
In Issues and Politics on December 7, 2005 at 2:19 pm
All over but the pullout
I keep writing about the war because it has struck a nerve ever since the Bush administration pulled the ultimate switch-aroo; going from 9/11 to going into Afghanistan (which I supported) to invading Iraq. It makes no sense to me. And how/why are we having tax cuts when are fighting a war? This is asinine. But nevertheless, I read a good article in the Washington Post that basically predicted Bush would have to start pulling out of Iraq by next spring or else give Democrats the club they would then use to bludgeon the Republicans in 2006 Congressional midterm elections. I predicted in earlier posts that the media will help present a rosy picture of Iraq on top of being the microphone for Iraqi leaders pleading for the Americans to leave. This two-fold effect will allow the administration to claim when they pull out, “We have achieved victory in Iraq and we are humble enough to acquiesce to the Iraqi government’s request that we leave them so they can govern their own country.”
The article explained the political reality of why Bush will pull out in order to save face and save the Republican party from certain defeat next year. The logic is simple, if the troops stay Bush and Republicans lose. If the troops begin to leave, then the Democrats are forced to follow the President, the same way they did when they voted to authorize the war. And we all know followers are losers in American politics, which is part of the reason Kerry could not explain how he voted for and against the war.
But my heart goes out to the Iraqis. I heard John McCain on Meet The Press discuss quite gleefully, how the Iraqis are starting to die in battle so therefore, the President’s strategy is working. (As Iraqis stand up we stand down) But why do Iraqis have to die if it was the American coalition that initiated the violence? How is it the deaths of Iraqi soldiers turn into a positive situation? Call me a pacifist but an American life is no better/worse than that of an Iraqi. And maybe, just maybe if we valued life more than money and power, we wouldn’t be in this mess right now.
Stay up fam,
