I supported Bush going into Afghanistan because I thought we were going to capture bin Laden and those responsible for 9/11.
But now I am worried when I hear Barack Obama and others talk about the infamous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This border by all accounts is the headquarters for evil and apparently everyone knows it but I guess we need more than seven years to figure out how to maneuver those mountains. I have a problem with Obama’s hubris regarding the launching of targeted attacks against al-Qaeda and the Taliban if the Pakistan government is not cooperative. The problem with this logic is that it sounds reasonable on face value but if President Obama were to decide that the Pakistani government is not doing all it that it can to help root out bin Laden and company, he would have already the justification for launching full attacks against Pakistan. This is because there is not a large intellectual gap from not being cooperative to being part of the problem.
Bush had a tricky relationship with Pakistan’s former President Musharraff because Musharraff was a dictator that promised to help to the US in the so-called war on terror. Of course, we have little or nothing to show for it but now that the US doesn’t have to pretend to like Musharraff, there is a window of opportunity to do what the neocons probably wanted to do all along; maintain a significant troop presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This strategy ensures that America can keep a strategic base near China and Russia, further isolate Iran, and bolster the mutually assured destruction principle with respect to Israel.
I think Obama should not trade Iraq for Afghanistan. In Iraq, we were supposed to secure the weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist, and then it turned into a war against Iraq, and then we had to stay to catch the terrorists that migrated to Iraq, and now we have to stay in Iraq to not only rebuild the country, but establish a democracy. Senator Obama, I understood the Afghanistan theater to be focused on holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We don’t need to occupy Afghanistan (like we are doing in Iraq) to achieve this goal. Let’s get back to basics.
I co-hosted a Debate Party on Friday night that doubled as a Fundraiser for Barack Obama. The party was fun, the food was delicious, and the people I watched the debate with, including the Bus Chick & people from YES! Magazine and Reclaim the Media, couldn’t have been cooler.
What could have been better was my candidate’s performance. Here’s why this debate was a lost opportunity:
Too much agreement
Posturing on Pakistan & Afghanistan
Nuclear Iran only posing a threat to Israel
Iran’s army is a terrorist organization
Venezuela is a rogue nation
(All the references I make here can be seen in the Debate Transcript, courtesy of the New York Times.)
Black people have come up with a surefire way to end the occupation in Iraq [and Afghanistan, and pretty much everywhere that America has no business being]: stop enlisting! I am glad to see that so many brothers and sisters are seeing through the trumped-up incentives, increasd military advertising (why the hell does the military even have an ad budget???), and huge enlistment bonuses and understanding that there are other ways to achieve their goals [especially when the president's George W. Bush].
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 »
If you find it hard to read the stories that detail the deaths of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, watch this video. Who in their right mind would continue to support this war? These are humans being sacrificed for perpetual lies. Thanks, Dailykos.
Now former World Bank President, Paul Wolfowitz said of his departure,“People were reacting to a whole string of inaccurate statements and by the time we got to anything approximating accuracy the passions were around the bend.” That’s funny, as a major architect of the war, that seems to be the same strategy Wolfowitz used to push for war in Iraq by getting the public and media to associate 9/11 with Iraq and exaggerating threats concerning WMDs.
Once those lies were discredited, the Bush administration just came up with new reasons to stay like us having to stay in Iraq to rebuild the government, establish some form of democracy, and fight Al-Qaeda there so we don’t have to fight them here. Sorry Paul, karma is a trip.
I am sending a huge and shout out to Jack and Jill Politics for featuring a video by Martin Luther King and his opposition to the war in Vietnam. I won’t go into detail about why I oppose this war but if you listen to this speech and replace Vietnam with Iraq, his speech is even more poignant. One quote I pulled from the speech is that the “A nation that year after year, spends more money on military defense, than on programs of social uplift, is approaching spiritual death.” Meditate on this as you prepare for Memorial Day.
The Democrats in Congress acquiesced to Bush by agreeing to scuttle a timeline for withdrawing the troops. The bill does “include conditions prodding Baghdad to make better progress toward quelling violence or risk losing around $1.3 billion in U.S. reconstruction aid. Bush could waive the provision, however.” Read the rest of this entry »
I really, really don’t like this guy. Why do he and his political allies talk all this noise about “supporting the troops” when they treat them like the little green army men that small children play war with?
It takes a lot for most politicians to be explicit about something. Anything. These two are definitely no exception. The strange similarities between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton’s stances on Iraq continue, but they took a turn for the better yesterday. Instead of dancing around the idea of having a firm date for US troop withdrawal like they did in the past, both of them voted yesterday to set a 31 March 2008 for US troops to be out of Iraq. While it is sad that these two candidates are some of the last to have some Iraq sense knocked into them, this is actually a good sign for anti-occupation efforts.
I don’t know who was first to offer a face-saving way to get out of Iraq but the one I remember distinctly goes like this; if the Iraqi people say they want the US out, we should bring the troops home. This logic always stumped me because it tacitly assumes that we invaded Iraq based on the expressed will of the Iraqi people. The logic spelled says the Iraqi people wanted us to occupy their country so all they have to do is ask us to leave and we’ll go. Now we can put that political rhetoric to the test. Read the rest of this entry »
The top U.S. commander in Iraq says an Iraqi group affiliated with an elite Iranian force carried out an attack last year in which five U.S. soldiers were killed near the Iraqi town of Karbala. The statement by General David Petraeus follows months of suspicion about Iranian involvement in the incident, but the general says he cannot directly connect Iranian agents to the attack.
First of all, if you can’t confirm your claims with evidence, shut up. Do I need to remind you of Colin Powell’s presentation of mobile lab cartoons and the empty vile prop? I am sick and tired of this administration being able to make claims that are passed off as facts but cannot be confirmed.
And seriously, with all of the work that General Patraeus has to do in making the “surge” successful, why are we trying to link Iran to an incident from last year? Maybe if we were more focused on rebuilding Iraq than we were trying to scrimp for reasons to invade Iran, we could bring home the troops. I’m done.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said that the “Iraq war is lost.” I happen to agree with him and I am shocked at how much the truth rattles Washington insiders. Nevertheless, I haven’t really taken time to consider the immediate or future implications for American foreign policy and the geopolitical balance of the Middle East.
There will come a time when our troops come home. But lest we forget, Bush waged preemptive war in our name so once it is “over” it won’t ever be back to normal. People in Iraq, our allies and our enemies resent the arrogance of our actions in Iraq. This resentment will fester for generations to come and I pray that American leaders have the wisdom to foresee the future harm this war is causing.
And with the loss in blood and treasure, I think we have yet to see the true costs of this war. How do you think these costs will be materialized?
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.
For people who may have just recently joined our site, we present an opportunity to get a taste of things we’ve talked about in the past. We’re going to start doing this once per month.
Did you learn about the Vietnam war in history class in middle or high school? Did you learn about the Watergate Scandal? Maybe if we did, our generation would care more about the goings on in today’s government and better understand the importance of participation.
There have been many comparisons drawn between the situation in Iraq and the situation in Vietnam a generation ago. These comparisons speak to the similarities in the shady nature in which the conflicts were handled by the US government, the way that those that did not blindly support the war were ridiculed and negatively typecasted as weak pacifists, how so many principled politicians sat by idly as thousands of soldiers were killed in another country’s civil war, and the idea of the domino theory that once “applied” to communism now “applies” to terrorism.
One thing that characterized the US during the Vietnam War was the effectiveness of protests. There have been protests to the conflict in Iraq since before it began, and the momentum that they are building is reminiscent of those that took place in the 1960s and 70s against Vietnam. These public citizen actions were a catalyst for the Congressional action that ultimately ended the war. Prayerfully, the same will be said about Iraq protests in the very near future.
So why don’t curriculum designers teach students about their country’s activist past? Why don’t standardized tests include reading comprehension sections comprised of pieces describing Vietnam, a war that was taking place only 3 decades ago? It’s hard to believe that this is not on purpose.
What’s the solution?
Contemporary study should cover contemporary events. If you are a parent, why not lobby your school board/district to have unit(s) on Vietnam added? At least ask the question. If it can be done over the useless Intelligent Design debate, it surely can be done over a subject in which a student’s knowledge can allow them to immediately take action in the world today. If you are a student, write a compare-contrast paper on America during Vietnam and America during today’s Iraq conflict. Doing so will educate yourself, your peers, and your instructors. If you are just a concerned citizen, read up on Vietnam.
It’s important to answer questions, especially ones that are never asked.
To give background without getting into a lot of details, our government is set up in a way that each branch has a way to guard itself from being overpowered by the other two branches. The Congress does this in many cases by what is called the “Power of the Purse,” or the ability to control how the government spends money.
With regard to Iraq, [the Democratic] Congress has a lots of options when it comes to finding a way to end the current occupation. The one that is talked about the most is using its “Power of the Purse” to not allow the money to be spent on sending more troops to Iraq. This has been falsely criticized as “not supporting the troops” by spin doctors, but the reasons why that view is misguided are will not be addressed in this article.
If Congress looks beyond the “Power of the Purse,” it is likely to find alternative strategies that are not only possible, but safer politically and less vulnerable to being deemed unpatriotic.
One option is to keep the spending the same while limiting:
The scope of the mission Example: Congress can say that it’s alright to train Iraqi troops but not alright to take non-defensive action
The number of troops sent Example: Congress can cap the size of the troop escalation, setting it ideally to ZERO.
The specific places troops are sent Example: Congress can direct where troops can/cannot go (yes to Afghanistan, no to Iraq, no to Iran).
I don’t see how this could be framed as an unpatriotic. I have no military experience, but being specific and deliberate about where soldiers go and what they do sounds like supporting them to me. From the NY Times article:
…The Supreme Court has long recognized Congress’s authority to set limits on the president’s military power, as in 1799 when it accepted Congress’s power to authorize the seizure of ships going to, but not coming from, French ports…[Former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court] Mr. Rehnquist cited numerous historical examples including a 1940 law prohibiting the deployment of drafted soldiers outside the Western Hemisphere. More recently, under President Clinton, we in the office of legal counsel repeatedly recognized the authority of Congress to limit the scope, nature and duration of military engagements.
What this tells me that all of this is precedented and has been done before successfully. Why can’t it be done again now? This is the type of plan that I would like to see proposed and passed through legislature at the same time that measures to withdrawtroopsas soonas possible are being debated.
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.”
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor under President Carter, said this, (emphasis mine)
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Don’t be silent, speak out against this misguided policy. Too many Americans are now afraid of what the government in power may do, but time is now for the government to be afraid of the people.
If you haven’t noticed, Iran comes up just as often as Iraq. Of all the problems that is complicating some notion of success in Iraq, Bush and the peanut gallery have decided that Iran’s interference (which is not spelled out, just like the weapons of mass destruction) is a primary role in preventing Iraq from standing on their feet.
Iraq has stated on multiple occasions that they want a dialogue with Iran. So if we are there to help the Iraqis and the Iraqi government thinks it is wise for them to talk to their neighbor, then why has Bush authorized killing Iranian officials who are found in Iraq? The main problem is that focusing attention on Iran is the only way Bush can justify keeping a military presence in the region. Just so we are clear, we are trying to either start or maintain a so-called war in Afghanistan (which you never hear about), Iraq, and Iran. This is idiocy at its finest.
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.
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.
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…
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.
There are a whole lot of people who have said thatthey are running for President in 2008. While d@mn near all of them would be better than the current occupant of said office, this “choice” leads me to wonder: what would the perfect president/presidential candidate look like? Before I weigh in on a specific candidate, I think that this is an important question to think about, and I would encourage all voters to do the same (we’re all voters, right?). I want to take a look at what makes an ideal candidate to me.
1. A Leader that is a Servant
2. A Thinker and a Doer
3. A person of Integrity
4. A Populist
First, Presidents must be leaders. Sure, that is obvious, if you have a simplistic definition of a leader as “the person ‘in charge.’” To me a leader is really a servant. They serve their constituents, the people that they are “in charge” of, the people who put them in that leadership position. They meet the needs of people and organizations. They solve problems. They put forth a concerted, honest effort to make things better. My ideal candidate would subscribe to the servant definition of leadership. They would not see leadership as a title, but as a responsibility. They would not see leadership as an opportunity to exert power, but as an opportunity to induce positive change. They would not see leadership as work, but as service.
(The question then is, who would this servant be serving? In the context of the President of the United States, this person should be serving the citizens of the US. The modern-day election process has made this…complicated. Elections cost money, and most of the time elected officials end up serving the people that pay them money during their campaigns, and them alone. This problem is only solved by taking the money out of politics and returning elections to the voters, but I digress.)
Secondly, Presidents must be both thinkers and doers. Effective Presidents cannot be one or the other, but must be both. The current holder of the office represents the antithesis of thoughtful action. For example, Herbert Hoover was a thinker and Richard Nixon was a doer. They were both failures as Presidents, Hoover due to his impractical yet unwaivering belief in the Efficiency Movement and its theories, Nixon due to his short-sighted and dishonest decision to do just about anything to stay get re-elected. An example of a thinker and a doer is Franklin Roosevelt, who [was by no means perfect but] rethought this country’s economic landscape and laid the foundation for what we now call the Middle Class. My ideal candidate would create through thoughtful action. They would understand the implications and nuances of any actions that they take, and determine how to deal with them before acting. They would be proactive, not reactive. They would consider and consult with all stakeholders in any action that they take.
(One could argue that this is not much of a test because even Nixon thought about what he was doing before he did it. The truth is, this can only apply to leaders that can be trusted, which is the next part of this ideal leader.)
Third, and most important, Presidents must have integrity. Not only do they need to be trusted by the people of this country, but they need to be trusted by everyone throughout the world. They need to be consistent but not bull-headed. They need to be fair but not weak. They need to be conscientious but not indecisive. The difference between someone who has true integrity and someone who is simply a loyalist is that everyone trusts the person with integrity. Those that agree and those that disagree with a person with integrity both know that they will be told the truth, and they also know that a lesser person would likely not be straight with them if they were not on the same side. Nowhere is this more true than in foreign policy, where American distrust is something that far too many nations have in common across the globe. I go back to consistency as part of the integrity of a leader because people have to be able to trust you to do the right thing no matter the situation’s degree of difficulty. My ideal candidate would be trustworthy in the eyes of all Americans and citizens of the planet.They would see the truth as a non-negotiable necessity and not a sliding scale. They would see full-disclosure and transparency as a tool of a functioning democracy and not an enemy to their plans. They would see honesty, especially when it is uncomfortable, as a sign of strength and not of weakness.
(No caveat to this one, other than the obvious one that says it is difficult to find a politician you can trust.)
These first three traits are indeed pretty broad, and I think pretty easy to agree on.
The fourth and final trait my ideal president[ial candidate] would embody is a belief in populism, which means that they believe that people, not entities, should run this nation. They believe that power and influence should be driven by people and what they want, not money and what it can buy. They listen to everyone and are willing to make decisions that will help those that need it most. They are not afraid to ask themselves or other people to sacrifice to benefit another human being. They are empathetic to people’s needs and able to articulate those needs and ways to address them. My ideal candidate empower people by making their voices matter, for real.
That’s my leader.What embodies your ideal candidate?
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.
“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.
I knew it was just a matter of time before Saddam would be executed but the symbolism of his death means everything and nothing in very significant ways.
To the extent that it means nothing, the current violence and lawlessness plaguing Iraq is not dependent on the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. Of course, there will probably be an up tick of violence in light of his execution, but we have seen nothing but increases in violence since we have been in Iraq. So to say pinpoint one reason for the violence is next to impossible. Nevertheless, Saddam’s death will not lead to sectarian fighters laying down their guns and calling a truce.
So I get it, Saddam represents Satan and the Holy Americans figuratively and literally defeated Satan. Symbolism is everything, especially given the fact that Saddam was a secular dictator, not a Muslim extremist. But if you were to ask most people if Saddam was Muslim, they would most certainly say he was.
Now I am glad to see that Saddam is gone but it is truly distressing that his death cost nearly 3,000 American military deaths and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. On some realness, we could have sent 10 Navy Seals to take him out. And even though Saddam is dead, do you think our debacle in Iraq is going to get any better anytime in the realistic future?
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.
I read the news from coast to coast and around the world everyday. In every paper based in major cities, I constantly scan stories that have headlines that read something like, “Young man shot dead, 22 years old.”
I can’t tell you how many times I have quickly read these headlines and continued to scroll down the page. But when I see headlines related to the Iraq war, economy, international relations, etc., I click on these items automatically. Not that these topics are not important, but I find it troubling that I overlook the articles that would otherwise put a damper on my day.
But today while I was reading the Boston Globe, on of the smaller headlines read Boy, 14, is slain; 2d youth wounded. Instantly, I knew they were Black and I saw the faces of boys I know around that age and how precious life is. Questions abounded. Where they did go wrong? How did they get access to a gun? Were they in school? Are people afraid of snitching? I got mad at myself because I found myself addressing all the “structural factors” that made this accident possible. These boys’ parents just lost their children. Feel the pain of the families before you turn on the computer to google “structural, factors, contributing, young, Black, men.” The structural factors are always important but this knee-jerk reaction to analyze situations in these terms serves to distance ourselves from the pain that statistics cannot capture.
A 14-year-old boy was killed and another youth was wounded by gunfire last night in Roslindale, with Boston police scouring the neighborhood for suspects.
The unidentified teenager was rushed to Boston Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. The second victim, an unidentified male, was taken to the pediatric unit of Boston Medical Center, where he was treated for injuries not believed to be life-threatening.
Now I know that news articles should not be woefully emotional but that is where you the reader have to dig deep, avoid instant structural analysis, make it personal, and read for understanding, not for fact overviews.
So last night, while I was at a party with people I graduated with from the University of Michigan, a young Black kid was killed. “But Brandon, you can’t save them all, live your life.” How about no? Instead, how about I refuse to be selective on what I consider to be Black History.
I know I am all over the place but this issue hits home to me in a visceral way. My childhood friend, Shade was gunned down by an off-duty cop after a failed robbery attempt. This happened when I was in high school and I spoke at his funeral and was one of the pallbearers. The story made the news and would you guess what happened when I googled the article? Error: Invalid story key. I know newspapers cannot afford to keep digital archives of every article but Shade’s story is not invalid and lives with me.
So I urge you to not just scan over the negative headlines but read them, learn their names before the cable news networks tell you what is really newsworthy. Anybody getting shot, (especially Black youth who just years before their being shot were probably riding bikes and playing basketball) is worth your attention. We are the only people that can validate our stories.
If you haven’t heard already, an Arab American of Iranian descent studying at UCLA was tasered by campus police for not being able to produce student ID. This incident happened at 3:00am in the library and was caught on tape by a fellow student using the camera on their cell phone. If you ever needed a reason to be called to do something about anything, please watch this video.
Senior Mostafa Tabatabainejad, 23, was asked by Duren and other university police officers for his ID as part of a routine nightly procedure to make sure that everyone using the library after 11 p.m. is a student or otherwise authorized to be there.
Tabatabainejad’s attorney, Stephen Yagman, said his client was shocked five times with the Taser after he refused to show his ID because he thought he was being singled out for his Middle Eastern appearance. Tabatabainejad is of Iranian descent but is a U.S. citizen by birth and a resident of Los Angeles.
Why should you care? Admittedly, I and no one else are privy to all of the facts in this case, but there a few things I know for sure and why you should care.
Racial Profiling
You should care because Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out to us in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This is especially poignant because since 9/11, the long standing understated joke in the Black community is that racial profiling directed towards Blacks was now being directed towards Arab-Americans. But this joke really isn’t funny because if you really think that we have come so far that Black peI am sure it was not just a coincidence that of all the students in the library, the police singled out Mostafa. Just think about all the times you were pulled over or otherwise questioned for no other apparent reason then your being a person of color? Racial fault lines are saturated within the smile lines across people’s faces. If it can happen to Mostafa, it can happen to Tyrone.
Surveillance
The sad part of this story is that I doubt if there would be nearly as much attention paid to this story were it not caught on camera. This is indicative of the powerful impact of media priming. Try this thought experiement. How was it so many people were convinced that Iraq had WMDs when there was (and still is) no evidence to support this view but the public at large doesn’t think racism/racial profiling exists unless there is some indisputable proof via video. (e.g. Kramer from Seinfield, Rodney King, Blacks being hosed down in the streets and having dogs sicked on them, etc.) You know that there is injustice in this world so don’t wait until you get an email where the subject reads, “You won’t believe this!” Seek it out, spread the word, and take actions to make sure that perpetrators of injustice know they are not safe from accountability.
Taser
I have had conversations with people that tried to argue being tasered once was OK but the multiple uses of the taser were unacceptable. I wish you could have seen the steam rising from the top of my head. First off, there were four officers. Let me repeat that, there were four officers! This shows me that even if the student refused arrest, (which he didn’t) you can’t tell me that four officers could not have carried the student out of the library. If you noticed from the video, officers kept screaming, “Stand up!” My hunch is that the student went limp as a form of non violent protest and was summarily tasered repeatedly for doing so. Either way, the student didn’t do anything that warranted being tasered…period.
Racial Symbolism
The other problem I have is a matter of racial symbolism. The cop who used the taser is a Black man and an 18-year old veteran of the UCLA campus police. Now I know that from the days of Kid n’ Play, there is widespread disrespect for so-called rent-a-cops, but this is besides the point. Now if anyone should be sensitive to racial profiling, I would expect a Black man to say something before the team went out.
The other problem I have is that it feels like White-dominated power structures are directing conflicts between Black and Brown people. Let me know what you think.
What we are seeing here is a grown man grow a backbone. During the election of 2004, Kerry was coached into playing the passive liberal, and not defending himself against personal attacks and not attacking his opponent rigorously. What this exchange between Kerry and the GOP establishment demonstrates is that you have to confront these people and call them out when they lie, elsewise they will keep doing so. Bill Clinton did this earlier this year, and I don’t doubt that Kerry took a page from the former president here.
Republicans want to equate liberalism with weakness. More steadfast rebuttals of right-wing distortions will destroy such math.
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
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.
The people who are dying are so young
Of the 29 names released this past week, 20 were under 25, including 2 18 year olds. That’s only one year older than me! It is absolutely criminal to make cannon fodder out of these young people by placing them into another country’s civil war.
It’s the same every week. A significant percentage of the military deaths have been men and women under the age of 25. I will not even get into the number of Iraqi people that have died.
What does this tell you about our leadership? Given what we know now about our leadership, would you encourage anyone, young or old, to go fight in Iraq?
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?
For the record, let me say that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will do very little to quell the insurgency in Iraq. The main problem I see with America’s conflict with terrorist groups is that we cast the story in terms of major figure heads. It’s just like how the NBA advertises its teams, Jordan and the Bulls, LeBron and the Cavaliers, etc. This is not a matter of Zarqawi and the Iraqi terrorists.
It is simply the terrorists and any attempt to categorize them into convenient movie-like themes is very destabilizing. Moreover, this type of campaign not only inflates the mystique of terrorists, but when some of them are caught or killed, it gives Americans a false sense of security.
As an aside, what is the difference between the kamikaze attacks on the US by the Japanese during World War II and those in Iraq that engage in suicide attacks? Clearly, both sides felt deeply enough to kill themselves for their cause but a good war-hero will tap into the core beliefs that drive these actions and take steps to steer this energy towards more productive ends. Because like I have said for years now, how can you kill people who are ready to die? That is not a war.
Terrorists are much more decentralized than traditional Western forces. As a result, the killing of an Arab-terrorist figure-head will do less harm than would a similar killing by an American leader. Now think back to the reasons we went to Iraq and tell me how Zarqawi relates back. If you believe popular spin, Zarqawi was the linchpin figure connecting Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda. However, “the Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda.” So what does it matter if Zarqawi is dead if the violence will escalate and his death had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or 9/11. I am afraid we have witnessing Munich II.
One issue that has notoriously been underreported is the Senate debate over repeal of the estate tax. While many of us don’t expect to inherit anything in terms of economic wealth, this bill will have a major impact on our lives. Here’s why.
Before the Bush 2001 tax-cuts, the tax rates on estates ranged from 37% on the low end and 55% on the high end. However, the 2001 tax-cut has two components that essentially cancel the estate tax. For starters, before 2001, estate taxes would not be assessed unless a person’s estate exceeded $1 million dollars. The tax-cut however, does not require estate taxes to be filed unless the estate exceeds the amounts as shown below,
2005: First $1,500,000 in assets
2006-2008: First $2,000,000 in assets
2009: First $3,500,000 in assets
Beyond that, the tax-cuts also decrease the tax rates over time by the following rates,
So you should see that not only more assets are exempt from taxation, but the few who do actually pay this tax are paying less of it. And in 2010, the estate taxes falls to 0% but there is a sunset provision that resets the estate tax provisions to pre-2001 levels. This is why Bush and his Republican colleagues in the Senate are currently trying to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. It’s funny how this estate tax debate has been clouded by the gay marriage amendment and the death of Zarqawi.
“The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this would reduce revenues by $290 billion through 2015, including $72 billion in 2015 alone. But this estimate essentially captures only the cost of four additional years of estate tax repeal; the revenues losses associated with 10 more years of repeal — for the period 2012 through 2021 — are much higher, about $745 billion. And when the associated $225 billion in higher interest payments on the debt are taken into account, the total cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly $1 trillion.”
I suspect that many of the people who read this blog are under 35, but I could be wrong. In any event, if we were to fast forward nine years, many of you will be married, raising children, and probably taking care of your parents. Now let’s assume that the first figure of tax revenues being reduced by $290 billion through 2015 is true. The current national debt is upwards of $8.2 trillion dollars. It is so bad that Congress had to write legislation to raise the federal debt limit to $9 trillion dollars so we can keep living above our means. Now it’s hard for me to imagine that amount of money so percentages sometimes work better. “From 1975 to 2005, debt, as a percentage of GDP was once at 34.7%, now exceeds 60%.”
This is astonishing because foreign countries, China in particular, are financing our national debt, thereby furthering the allusion that everything is ok. And if you thought the price of gas was high, just wait until foreign countries decide to take on less of our debt.
This says nothing of the amount we are paying for our activities in Iraq. Last I checked the war has cost us $320 billion dollars and the Senate is about to authorize more funding. But whatever happened to the pre-war claims that Iraq’s oil revenues would finance most of the war? Jim Hoagland of the Washington points out,
“Iraq’s oil production limps along below prewar levels. Sabotage and neglect hamper production. Corruption that is aided and abetted by neighboring Arab countries drains revenue. Forced to import $6 billion worth of refined petroleum products this year for the domestic market, the Baghdad government will spend the same amount to sustain its security forces in 2006, according to U.S. estimates.”
Speaking of war, I doubt if neo-conservatives know how to fight the war on terrorism with anything but military force so I doubt it Iraq is the last front. (read more money)
And then, there is the issue of healthcare. Once the baby boomers start to get older, they are going to put a huge financial strain on our healthcare system. This in turn will cause politicians to devote even more resources to healthcare so they can satisfy this demographic. What’s worse is that we can’t adequately handle the load we have now, so when a significant portion of the population needs access to healthcare and prescription drugs, it will be tantamount to an entire city, flushing their toilets at the same time. We have to plan ahead and the repealing or shrinking the estate tax will not help the situation.
Lastly, there is the environment because unfortunately, the earth is not getting any cooler and as a result, we will likely see more storms similar to or stronger than Hurricane Katrina. This no doubt will put further strains on the national budget.
So what I am I saying?
Between the national debt, the war on terror, healthcare, and stronger storms due to global warming, repealing the estate tax is one of the dumbest things Congress could be doing right now. Moreover, Republicans are generally regarded as more frugal than Democrats but this Congress takes the cake, the chicken, and the kool-aid! And whenever Bush is pressed on the budget, he excuses everything on the war on terror. So why does he push his annual tax cuts and why is he aiming to kill the estate tax? If the war on terror is such a burden, then why does the government need less money? Especially when we know that when the government has less revenues, education budgets get tighter, and there is an overall decrease of government investment in services and infrastructure. When Bush started the war on terror, he knew good and well that it would be finished during his Presidency. And like the war on terror, future administrations will have to deal with this tax cut until eventually, American’s will be forced to pay the bill. And when that time comes, there will be calls to sacrifice (in the form of higher taxes) to help keep the American Dream alive. I believe this will happen in our lifetime so do know that the decisions of today will affect you tomorrow.
But even after all of that, I still support the estate tax because there is already an industry of tax lawyers and accountants that do nothing but find ways for the rich to pay fewer taxes. Moreover, only less than 2% of the population pays this tax. My take is that if you are in the top 2% wealth bracket, you can sacrifice a little bit. Of course, I can’t tell people what to do with their money but passing on a huge inheritance to children is foolhardy because generally, the money will make these kids spoiled and less inclined to work. I think Warren Buffet said it best;
“Warren Buffet didn’t disinherit his children because he disapproved of their career choices or their character…His desire was to “force them to carve out their own place in the world.” He was determined to leave them “enough money so they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.”
So stay informed and be aware of how repealing the estate tax will affect you and your future,
Ever since 9/11, Americans all over have asked this fateful question, trying to understand why people would hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A severe rejection of wrong doings at the hands of the American government I think fuels such bewilderment amongst the American public. So as we witness the confrontation between Iran and the U.S., it might be a good time to shed some light on history that would help explain (not justify) the fiery remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad.
This post in inspired by a story I read in the Los Angeles Times entitled, U.S. history lesson: stop meddling, by Stephen Kinzer. In the article, Kinzer illustrates the negative long-term effects of American government ousting the governments of at least 14 countries around the world for the past 100 years. He does this to help inform what will probably be the effects of what will happen if and when the U.S. decides to forcibly intervene in Iran.
Getting back to Kinzer’s article, he illustrates how America played a major role in changing the arc of history in Cuba. Kinzer states how,
“Cuba, half a world away from Iran, is a fine example. In 1898, the United States sent troops there to help rebels overthrow Spanish colonial rule. Once victory was secured, the U.S. reneged on its promise to allow Cuba to become independent and turned it into a protectorate. More than 60 years later, in his first speech as leader of the victorious Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro recalled that episode and made a promise. “This time,” he vowed, “it will not be like 1898, when the Americans came in and made themselves masters of the country.”
Isn’t it interesting how revolutionaries use history to justify their actions and how democratic countries use the future? Fidel Castro was born in 1926 so obviously, Castro, like other Revolutionaries, don’t have a short-term memory. So where most Americans miss the boat is not understanding that many terrorists see Americans as having blood on their hands from administrations that may be before their time. So rather than keep up their end of the bargain, the US has provided the fodder a dictator become a constant thorn in their sides for decades. Iran however, presents a more interesting case because in 1953, Iran was a baby democracy when they elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and he was largely popular amongst Iranians. But as Kinzer points out, things became thorny between Iran and the US when,
“Mossadegh angered the West by nationalizing his country’s oil industry. President Eisenhower sent the CIA to depose him. The coup was successful, but it set the stage for future disaster.” “The CIA placed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi back on the Peacock Throne. His repressive rule led, 25 years later, to the Islamic Revolution. That revolution brought to power a clique of bitterly anti-Western mullahs who have spent the decades since working
intensely, and sometimes violently, to undermine U.S. interests around the world.”
Kinzer later added that, “Today, Latin America and the Middle East are the regions of the world in the most open political rebellion against U.S. policies. It is no coincidence that these are the regions where the U.S. has intervened most often. Resentment over intervention festers. It passes from generation to generation. Ultimately it produces a backlash.”
A backlash? To me this means that any meaningful negotiations between Iran and the “international community” has to address issues from past generations. But after you sort through all the historical mess, Iran and the US actually have similar goals that Kinzer points out, “Both want to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, assure the free flow of Middle East oil and crush radical Sunni movements like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What prevents talks from materializing is the deep resentment both sides feel over past interventions.”
So let’s stop drinking the kool-aid that the American government only has good intentions when it comes to regime change along with the notion that any country that is occupied by the U.S. should be grateful. And what is lost on many Americans is that they think that if they themselves did not do something wrong, then they should not be held responsible for the consequences. While this thinking is rational and plausible, many terrorists (not just Arabs) cite history from past generations as justification for their current behavior. What this tells me is that Americans claiming that they didn’t do anything wrong fails to account for the ramifications of past decisions by previous administrations. This is chess, not checkers.
Stay up fam,
Brandon
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
–George Santayana
Politics is war without bloodshed. War is politics with bloodshed.
–Huey Newton
Michigan, my home state, is one with an elite educational system at the university level. University of Michigan (http://www.umich.edu/), Michigan State University (http://www.msu.edu/), Wayne State University (http://www.wayne.edu/), and others are great schools. Michigan also has a number of private colleges that serve the citizenry, such as Kalamazoo College (http://www.kzoo.edu/) and Lawrence Technological University (http://www.ltu.edu/). I’d like to talk about one private school in particular: Baker College (http://www.baker.edu/). Maybe I’m ignorant, but I think that a college should be able to graduate more that 19% of its students (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006604170386), but that’s exactly (well, the *exact* rate is 19.2%) the graduation rate at the particular institution. Why is this? How does this happen? Let us attempt to address these questions and others.
There are millions of possible reasons for a student to go to a college and not finish it by graduating. Some may argue the legitimacy of these claims, but they are what they are. Ones I’ve heard have been, but are not limited to:
1. “It was too expensive.”
2. “They didn’t have anything that really interested me.”
3. “I wanted to move back home.”
4. “I had a child.”
5. “School is not for me.”
6. “This is hard/I don’t feel like I can succeed here.”
7. “I’m not getting the support I need.”
8. “I don’t like the students/faculty/staff here.”
I list these here to say that there are plenty of reasons (or excuses, depending on your perspective) to start and not finish college. Some are personal, others financial, others institutional. I envision a world where we eliminate financial and institutional barriers to education, leaving only the psychological to be dealt with on an individual basis. My reasoning for this is that if a system exists to distribute education as a common good, it should then minimize things that inhibit the public to receive that goods’ benefits. The analogy is your local power company. If there is a power company that charges you for electricity, it is up to them to run wires in a way that is accessible to you as a paying customer. They should not run cable up to 1 mile away from your house and then expect you to connect that last mile. That is essentially what is asked of people who want to be educated and cannot afford to: it’s here and it’s great, so find a way to pay for it! My conservative friends may see this as calling for educational welfare, but I see it as common sense. It is criminal to dangle something that a person needs in front of them when they do not have the means to get it and you can just give it to them!
With all of that said, let’s take a look at some quotes from the article and go a bit deeper into what’s going on.
“In Michigan and many other states, ‘money is directed at getting people enrolled, rather than getting them degrees,’ said Joni Finney, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in California. ‘Michigan is getting the results it is paying for.’”
What this is describing is classic misappropriation: using a resource in the wrong way. This happens all the time in life with money, emotions, energy, and all sorts of things. A prime example or mis-spent money, as given to me by a good friend of mine today, was her description of a woman she saw who had purchased her three year old daughter a Louis Vuitton purse. If the reason for this being asinine are not apparent to you, please email me at TheSuperSpade@gmail.com for further explanation. Digressing from that, my point is that people do this, and the government does as well. This is normally the result of a lack of focus on what’s important. Instead of focusing on more pressing domestic issues like the situation in New Orleans, our current administration has prioritized these concerns below our interests in Iraq. As made painfully clear, misappropriation of anything leads to someone or something getting hurt, badly hurt. In the case of Baker, and the approach of the state of Michigan to higher education, the victims are students who have been able to enter into the collegiate ranks and then feel as though they’ve been left to fail. My conservative friends may see this as calling for educational welfare (yes, I did repeat this statement on purpose), but I retort by saying that anyone who needs help, or wants help, in any situation [including education], should be able to access it.
“One question is whether Michigan’s ultra-tight budget can afford to pay for students to try college rather than to finish college. Those who would like to see changes in higher education have said that Michigan should set graduation standards and allocate tax dollars based on specific results.”
Again, this is dealing with what the state’s focus is or should be. People who are really big on empirical evidence driving their decisions (often called technocrats) will find this data hard to ignore. But let me be clear in saying that it is not wrong to spend large sums of money to get kids into college. The suggestion made in the quote could be a valid one if it is instituted fairly. Unfortunately, ideas like this one have a history of being corrupted by personal bias and systemic prejudice. Therefore, such a system would have to have very careful oversight. That is highly unlikely given that Baker College is in the state that it is in due to lack of oversight.
“Baker Chief Executive Officer F. James Cummins said last week it’s misleading to judge the school on graduation rates because the college attracts many students with ‘formidable hurdles to retention.’”
Ok, so Baker takes on students that have challenges. That is admirable. In fact, all you need to get into Baker is a diploma. But stories like this make me question Baker’s policy for accepting any and everyone. Are they really doing it because they believe education is a basic right and need? Are they doing it because they genuinely believe that any student who graduated from high school can graduate from college? Are they doing it because they get a truckload of money from the state for each student they take? The motivation is difficult to discern and is probably some combination of these three and others. On its face, Cummin’s statement may have merit. Compare it to what Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point (haven’t read it yet, but I plan to) and Blink (interesting book, worth a read) calls The Pitbull Paradox. This basically says that Pit Bulls bite more people in part because they are more ferocious, but also because they are even-tempered; what people often overlook is the even-tempered part. Similarly, Cummins is saying that we graduate less students because we take on the students that lots of students in general and lots of students with “formidable retention hurdles.” The engineer in me says that his argument maybe has a hair of merit. The human that dominates me says that Cummins is looking for a cop-out to explain his schools poor performance. I’d like to hear what you all think and if I’m being unfair.
“‘I’m not happy with it,’ Cummins said. ‘I’d like to see it north of 30%.’”
This is just sad because of the low expectations. I’m no educator, but I’d like to think that if I ran what could be referred to as an educational institution, I’d be able to ensure the successful completion of at least half of my students. Cummins here is saying that he wants to step up from 1 in 5 students graduating to 1 in 3. Improvement is improvement, I’ll give him that. I think it is time to take big steps and not baby steps.
I have been pondering the current ramifications of the immigration debate and I have come up with more questions than answers. And unfortunately, I am no where as near well-versed on this issue as I would like to be. But I would like to take some time to at least steer us in the right direction.
Language
For starters, (this applies to any issue) we have to pay strict attention to the way in which language is used to frame a debate. When commentators use the words, “alien” and “illegal,” the ensuing argument already assumes its own conclusion. And to call someone an “illegal” is just plain ignorant. I heard a guy on NPR ask, “Why don’t we call Martha Stewart an illegal CEO after she was indicted?” Similarly, if you ever had to go to court to contest a speeding ticket, the bailiff or judge doesn’t label you as an illegal driver. So why are so many of us so comfortable with using this term with respect to Latinos? If we are going to have an intelligent debate, we need to create language that is clear and respectful to both sides.
Distraction
You know what is killing me about all of these Black commentators talking about how Latinos are taking away jobs is baffling. I say that because like most Black folk (perhaps with the exception of those living in the Southwest) never seriously thought or wrote about immigration policy. But now, poll numbers show that Blacks and the rest of the country consider immigration policy to be an important national issue. Did you ever once consider that maybe this immigration debate is a convenient distraction for Bush and the Republicans to not talk about the ongoing civil war in Iraq? Not to mention that while Iran is upping the ante, our national government is obsessing over immigration. So for all the Black writers who recently discovered the importance of immigration reform, go back to what you were writing before instead of taking your talking/writing points from the mainstream press establishment.
Patriotism
Another thing that perplexes me is Black commentator’s assertion that we can’t let “illegal immigrants” sneak into our country. I don’t need to get into the nuances of why Black people may not have the warmest affection for America, but I condemn anyone that will use racism/discrimination to solidify their patriotic ideals. Because when Katrina survivors STILL can’t depend on FEMA to help them and when our country ignores the plight of those in Darfur, Black patriotism for America is hard to find.
West Indian Immigrants
And I haven’t heard anyone talk about the vast numbers of West Indians (I am speaking generally, of course) that are patiently awaiting their green card. So my gripe with Bush’s proposed guest worker program is that I wonder how much easier it would be for Mexicans and other Latinos to participate in this program than it would be for West Indians. Again, a historic note would be fitting because if you really think that people would be trying to keep Elian Gonzalez here if he was a Jamaican, then you are seriously mistaken. My hope is that immigration reform should be just as easy to take advantage of as Mexicans or West Indians, or any one else who wants to come to this country. More importantly, letting people work illegally without any intentions of granting them citizenship is just wrong. And for all the people talking about how illegal immigration closes job opportunities for Blacks is narrow-minded at best. We see the same flawed logic used in affirmative action when people imagine two applicants where one White applicant directly competes against a Black applicant who has lower credentials. The fact is that college admissions, like the economy, is dynamic and the market place (with healthy assistance from the government interference) and therefore, cannot be simplified to one Black and one Latino competing for one job. The fact is that if American corporations were more concerned about producing better products and services than cutting costs, there would be enough jobs for everybody.
Black and Brown Unity
Hopefully, this immigration debate will serve as the bridge between Blacks and Latinos because if you keep it real, it hasn’t really been robust. More importantly, Black people are not the judges of whether a “civil rights movement” is justified. I appreciate our unique history in this country but in the same way not “every” Black person was involved during the Civil Rights Movement, not every Black person have to take sides on the immigration debate. That is to say that not every quest for civil rights requires the involvement of Black people. I think Latinos have showed themselves to be quite capable or organizing themselves around this issue. As such, Blacks people’s presence or lack thereof, is not the deciding factor in determining Black/Latino relations. We have to define our own destiny.
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.
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.
I watched the Million Man March on television in October of 1995. I attended the Millions More Movement in October of 2005. I have helped organize similar actions both in Detroit and in Seattle. I have attended numerous meetings and gatherings to plan other mobilizations. I say all of this to say that this was the most inspirational action I have ever personally witnessed and/or participated in. It wasn’t because of the great speakers; there were many. It wasn’t because of the great food; there was plenty. It was because of the people I met and interacted with, the sharing or their Katrina experiences with me, and their pride and resilliance and focus on improving the current situation and building a better future.
First let me describe the event and what happened. The rally began at about 8 AM. I did not know what time it began, and was quite dismayed to wake up a 9 and turn on CNN only to hear them saying “…Bill Cosby is just finishing up here in New Orleans…” Oh well. I got there at about 945. The speakers at the rally included Rev. Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Cosby, Michael Eric Dyson (I arrived just before his address), Marc Morial, [current] Mayor Ray Nagin, and Bruce Gordon, among others. The rally before the march was MC’d by Judge Greg Mathis, and it was concluded by a suprisingly decent performance by John Legend.
We then aligned ourselves to march across the Mississippi River Bridge to Gretna, LA. Why? Because it was on this bridge that hundreds of Hurricane survivors were met with police resistance in the days immediately following Katrina as they tried to cross searching for higher and safer ground. The goal was to have the thousands that gathered today to march across this bridge, symbolically saying “You stopped us then, yet we survived. You cannot stop us now.” Stop us from what? is the next logical question. The answer is voting, or more precisely, having a fair election. New Orleans is scheduled to hold a mayoral election on April 22, 2006. Many oppose this, arguing that due to wide dispersal, those in New Orleans now do not accurately reflect New Orlean’s true residents (Translation: since so many Black folks have been displaced, the fear is that there will be a mayor elected who will not listen to or care about the interests of New Orleans’ Black residents). “Stopping us” above refers to disenfranchising voters. Signs were held by marchers that read “Iraq has fairer elections.” This pointing out the fact that during Iraq’s elections last year, Iraqi citizens were able to vote from satellite locations in the United States. The activists want the election to be postponed so that satellite locations can be set up in places where evacuees now reside. The U.S. Department of Justice has OK’d the election to move forward with its April 22 date in spite of these requests. A goal of the march was to symbolize the residents’ opposition to this.
After we marched the approx. 2.5 miles from the Convention Center across the bridge to Oakbrook Mall, we reassembled and heard remarks from the organizers and local leaders. Here they (William Jefferson, Diana Bajoie, and other members of the Louisiana Legislativ Black Caucuss) summarized the next steps that they are taking legislatively and told people specific things that they could do to help. The largest step they would take would be issuance of a demand for Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco to exercise her executive authority and issue an executive order that would authorize satellite polling locations and postpone the election until they are set up. The idea is that if the federal government won’t stop it, maybe the state government will. As for what the people can do, we were advised to contact our representatives and urge them to lean on Blanco to issue the order, while in the meantime informing those we know who left New Orleans of how to register for and receive an absentee ballot. Those who wanted to be were then transported back across the bridge to the Convention Center. It all was done around 4 PM.
What is described in and of itself is the makings of an effective substantive and symbolic action. What is happening here is the re-emergence of the poll taxes of the Jim Crow South of the 20th century. Telling people that they have to (well had to, considering that the deadline for registration was March 22 (click here and go to the middle of the page)) come to New Orleans to register to vote (if they are not registered or 1st time voters) and then return to vote on April 22 is a sinister way of saying, “You can vote if an only if you can afford 2 trips. If not, oh well, sucks to be you.”
Since this is turning out to be much longer than anticipated (some people said my stuff is too long!!!), I will put my chronicles of different conversations I had in a separate post. Pictures from the rally are forthcoming, along with hopefully some scanned versions of some of the handouts I received.
“The misuse of language induces evil in the soul.” -Socrates
After being denied direct questions for years, Bush finally took a question from journalist Helen Thomas. She asked (and I am paraphrasing), “Why did we really go to war?” Seems like a simple enough question right? Read on to see how Bush responded.
Let me first say that I have a lot of respect for Helen Thomas but I would have revised her question to say, “Why did we go to Iraq?” and then let Bush goes for what he knows. Because for anyone who has seen “Fog of War,” you know that politicians and public officials are notorious for responding to tough questions by answering the questions they would have preferred to answer, regardless if the answer has nothing to do with the question being asked. And at this point in his Presidency, Bush has his script so down-packed, we shouldn’t expect any kernel of truth to slip out.
Regardless of all that, Bush took an uncomfortably long time to answer Helen’s question so I am going to give you an in-depth analysis of their exchange. I pulled part of the transcript from the Washington Post and the relevant exchange proceeds as follows and my comments are in italics.
QUESTION (Thomas): Why did you really want to go to war? This question already provides a way to Bush to avoid the spirit of the question.
BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist – that I didn’t want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect. And Bush sneaks out the back door.
QUESTION (Thomas): And … Thomas tries to catch Bush at the back door.
BUSH: Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me. Excuse me. Bush is trying to gather his thoughts, trying to remember the script.
BUSH: No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it’s just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. When we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Bush gains his confidence because whenever war is the topic, you can never leave home without your 9/11 card, even though we are approaching 3,000 military deaths in Iraq.
BUSH: Our foreign policy changed on that day. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. Apparently, Bush forgot about that atomic bomb thing in Japan.
BUSH: And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people, that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy, and that’s why I went into Iraq. So in other words, we went into Iraq because we wanted to make sure Saddam and/or Iraq didn’t provide a safe haven to an enemy. Even though Bush doesn’t define people and Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have any Al-Qaeda or Taliban rebels causing mess in his country, Afghanistan’s housing of the Taliban was simlar to Iraq’s housing of Al-Qaeda. Come on man!
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Hold on for a second. Excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al-Qaeda. Didn’t Bush mean to say that Iraq provided a safe haven for Al-Qaeda? Nevertheless, if we follow Bush’s logic, Saddam provided a safe haven for the Taliban and the Taliban provided a safe haven for Al-Qaeda, so that’s why we went into Iraq. Are you confused yet?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Helen, excuse me. That’s where – Afghanistan provided safe haven for al-Qaida. That’s where they trained, that’s where they plotted, that’s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. So did Afghanistan or the Taliban provide a safe haven to Al-Qaeda? Why then should we draw a distinction between Afghanistan and Taliban?
BUSH: I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That’s why I went to the Security Council. That’s why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. This is the line of the week. “I also saw a threat in Iraq.” Now I know see how we went from Afghanistan to Iraq, it was because Bush saw a threat, although it was totally based on his misuse of evidence and language.
BUSH: And the world said, Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences. And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. Have you noticed how WMD have completely left Bush’s vocabulary?
BUSH: And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it. So we went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. OK So how did the mission change such that we are now nation-building based on democratic ideals and simultaneously providing national security until the Iraqis stand up?
To be clear, I don’t want the Iraqis to suffer but when an entire war/invasion is based on the misuse of language AND evidence, I can’t imagine anything good coming from it. Can you?
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.
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,
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?
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.
I waited to write about the Dubai issue until it was clear who was going to back down first. In the end, opportunistic politicians and an irrational public won along with terrorism recruiters. And while Bush lost this battle, he won a tiny bit of my respect.
Everyone is against it
For starters, let me say that just because the proverbial “everyone” seems to be against the port deal, doesn’t make that position any less vulnerable to criticism or ignorance. In fact, when it seems like “everyone” is doing it, the chances of that position being flawed is usually high. In a previous post, I made reference to a poll where the majority of soldiers in Iraq believed they were in Iraq to retaliate against Saddam Hussein for his involvement in 9/11. Now of course, this is not true but this is just one small example of how being in a majority does not make your position right.
Port management not port security
Companies like DP World are not responsible for providing security at the ports. Port security is maintained by the US Coast Guard and Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “For instance, in New Orleans, P&O is one of eight terminal operators responsible for marketing the port, signing agreements with shipping lines, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo …We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard,” says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. “That won’t change no matter who is operating the terminal.” So for all the people against this deal, who prefaced their opinion by stating that this is not about “Arab” countries, please know that the US would still be responsible for security no matter which company operated the ports.
But here is a better analogy that explains how ignorant the media and politicians have twisted the truth; “It’s like I go to an apartment building that has 50 apartments, and I rent an apartment. This does not mean I took over the management of the whole building.” And if you are really concerned about national security, take Bush to task for funding “only one-fifth of what the port authorities had identified as needed to properly secure the ports.”
But UAE has helped terrorist networks
So what!!!! I don’t say that to mean that we should be doing business with the likes of Bin Laden, BUT since when did the actions of certain individuals come to reflect the beliefs of that government? And if you are willing to do that, then tell me why we haven’t invaded Saudi Arabia because we know that most of the hijackers of 9/11 were from there? And I understand that “Dubai was the distribution hub of rogue Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s nuclear black market. But truer still is the cooperation Dubai’s intelligence officials gave the US in helping unravel Dr. Khan’s network.” After 9/11, people had to change the way they did business with the United States. And maybe, just maybe if people knew how responsive the UAE were to these changes, then people might understand that Arabs, like most people, just want a better life for their families.
But how can we trust the UAE?
Well, if you did your homework, you would know that the UAE was the “first Middle Eastern government to accept the US Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America. In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the US Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment – evidence of a commitment to invest in technology. In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.” Now for some people, that might not be enough but if Dubai did all of this work just to get denied due American prejudices, then what more do you want from them? There is a point where being friends hurts more than being enemies. And I blame Bush for painting this global conflict as “you are either with us or against us,” and then get surprised when the public responds to this port deal with the same ignorance.
Sorry Democrats
However, I have been most disappointed with the Democrats who are trying to out-hawk the Republicans on this issue. Now anyone who reads the Superspade, knows that I am very critical of the so-called war on terror and I think we must re-examine Western business and foreign policy that fuels terrorism. And it is not just on religious grounds but I digress. The Democrats are weak on defense issues because they think that if they appear tougher than Republicans, they will gain majorities in the House and Senate. However, a proven martial arts principle informs us that the best way to defeat opponents is to find ways not to fight. Democrats would gain my respect if they showed any hint of understanding that principle.
Why I agree with Bush
Now that the deal is done, I must say I was impressed when Bush said, “I’m concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East.” But my major contention is that Dubai and the UAE played by rules of democracy and capitalism while also showing itself to be an ally in the war on terror. Now my guess is that most wars are fought in part to create better business conditions for those involved. So if Dubai can’t get the hook up in getting some extra business deals for helping the US, then benefits are there for helping the US? Not to mention that by most accounts, UAE is considered a moderate Arab country. Given that, what incentive do we give other moderate countries to help the US when in the end, you probably won’t be able to get the financial hook up or any boost in nuclear arsenals.
“It is hypocritical for America to want democracy in the Middle East, to champion capitalism as the best economic framework while pushing for reform, transparency, and anticorruption practices in its businesses, and then turn protectionist when a Dubai-owned company turns up on our shores having played the capitalist takeover game responsibly and transparently.”
Nothing is free in this world and the UAE scratched the US back by helping in the war on terror so now it is time for the US to scratch the UAE’s back. Unfortunately, DP World and UAE now probably feel like they have been stabbed in the back. And if you were the leader of a moderate Arab country, would you feel comfortable doing business with the US? Of course not!!!! And of course if the UAE becomes a hub for terrorists, critics will say this had nothing to do with the ports deal. But the main point is that the biggest recruiting hub for terrorists can be found in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I’m sure that the US is going to be fighting this so-called war on terror long after Bush is gone from office, but we have to understand that we are living in a world that requires strategies more akin to chess than checkers.
For years now, I have tried to sustain my excitement over protecting the environment to no avail. But two things I am passionate about, politics and war, have served to help me understand the bigger picture. And when you finish this post, it will help you too.
Now if the world’s demand for water is set to increase by 40% over the next 20 years and pollution is And pollution is making more of the water that is available to us unfit for use (see Aral Sea), then who will determine who gets what and how much? And this says nothing of the growing lack of agricultural land.
The key point in this quote is that religious and political strife will not disappear which means that if we are fighting the war on terror, America and its allies won’t call off the war and decide to resume once the world has enough water to sustain its growing population. On the contrary, if China has access to the last remaining water supply and they decide to be stingy with the water, do you think the “international community” will just sit back and relax? Thank God most industrialized countries have nuclear weapons they can use responsibly to ensure a fair distribution of resources not based on politics.
But all hope is not lost. YOU can do something about protecting the environment and using your voice and sphere of influence to help others do the same. So if the environment is low on your list of priorities, hopefully the idea of “resource wars” will inspire you to get on the ball. The future of our planet is at stake.
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.
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
The Middle East is going to be the center of world attention for many years to come. And if you think that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t affect you, think again. So as we witness the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections, along with the war in Iraq and the brewing battle over Iran’s nuclear program, what will history say about where Black people stood during these tumultuous times?
And although we could break down every conflict in the Middle East, no situation is more controversial than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So my question is simple but the issue is complex.
Where do you stand in the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Should Black people have a natural bias towards either group? Is it any of our business?
I have heard some say that Palestinians are victims of Israeli aggression in much the same way Black Americans suffered under slavery and segregation. Likewise I have heard some say that Blacks have a natural bias towards Jews/Israel due to the support Jews they showed Blacks before and during the Civil Rights movement.
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?
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.
.
Tonight was the continuation of an American tradition in which the elected executive stands before the whole of the remaining two branches of government and delivers their thoughts and visions on and for the Nation. It is a good opportunity to listen to what the president has to say about America: what do do they care about? What do they want to do? What have they done?
G. W. Bush had a few main points tonight, which included:
1. Isolationism = Defeatism
2. Democracy everywhere is the future
3. Building on existing domestic momentum
That is what he said. Here is what it actually means. We will approach this line-by-line, with parallel translation of rhetoric.
“Act in a spirit of goodwill and respect.”
G. W. Used this in reference to the heated, partisan tone of recent Washington debates (Patriot Act Extension, Alito Confirmation Hearings, Domestic Spying Inquiries). What this really means is “Democrats need to stop making noise. Get down or lay down.” It means that conservatives don’t want any disagreement, regardless of its merit (more on this below).
“Isolationism leads to danger and defeat.”
This is how G. W. Began his foreign policy section. This is a challenge to those of us who feel that domestic matters outweigh foreign affairs. Isolationist is conservative code for “having one’s priorities in logical order.” Is it “danger and defeat” if you care more about someone else’s house than your own family’s well-being? Of course not: it’s stupid.
“We seek the end of tyranny in the world…democracies replace resentment with hope…” This was how G. W. Justified his *Offensive Democracy* foreign policy approach. Research has shown that “fighting them there so they don’t fight us here” holds as much water as a spider web. What does tyranny mean? It can be summed up in two words: unchecked leadership. America was designed to protect against such a thing, but with all three branches compromised, that protection has disappeared. As for democracy replacing resentment, is there resentment in American democracy? That’s another spider web full of Kool-Aid.
Mentioned Zimbabwe among non-democracies The African continent made an appearance this year. The last time the Earth’s source was mentioned by G. W. was when he lied about Iraq getting weapons of mass destruction from Niger. I don’t think this mention will stir as much reaction.
“Terrorists chose the weapon of fear”
This is the first nominee for Line of the Night. BushCo has pedaled fear and propaganda in order to justify their foolish, selfish policies, including [but not limited to] the Patriot Act and the Domestic Spying program and the so-called “War on Terror.”
“The US will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil” More code for “isolationism” being bad. See above.
“Clear plan for victory” in Iraq
This is the second nominee for Line of the Night. All I can say about this is this: when the “clear plan” is made “clear” by not “clearly” defining success, then is it really that “clear?”
“Iraq: 3 years to sovereignty…we are winning” Sovereignty? G. W. Still hasn’t figured out what sovereignty means. What government is sovereign when it is supported, financed, and protected by another government. And “we are winning?” See above for an explanation on why you can’t win when you don’t know what winning means or looks like.
“The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home” This is a feeble attempt at defining winning. Any idiot knows that when a “war” is “over,” the troops will come home. This is simply an empty, rhetorical, admission of the obvious.
Responsible Criticism vs. Defeatism
G. W. has touched on this before. Responsible criticism might as well mean total, blind agreement. Anything less is defeatism in the eyes of conservatives.
“Keep our word…stand behind the American military” The “keep our word” part is the same as the “stay the course” B.S. that we’ve been hearing since the election of 2004. It means “I [and my backers] am too damn hard-headed to see my flawed actions and decisions of the past, and I refuse to change my tactics in spite of my mistakes.” It is an unfortunate reality that we meddled in and broke Iraq. Oh well in my opinion. I would much rather see resources expended in the Gulf Coast than the Persian Gulf.
“Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law…”
The timing of this statement is matched only by its irony. We are amid scandal and corruption in Washington, yet the President is calling for “the rule of law” in other nations. Apparently Americans can be above the law. Well, Americans WITH MONEY (read: Republicans) can be above the law.
America wants to be “the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran” This is laughable considering that we will likely be invading Iran in the near future. Whether they were free or democratic, they would get invaded.
Spying: “appropriate members of Congress kept informed” More attempts to justify “Terrorism Surveillance.” What defines “appropriate?” Why wasn’t the “appropriate,” appointed FISA Court informed?
“Roosevelt, Kennedy rejected isolation and retreat”
Sprinkle of rhetoric here about why “isolationism” is bad. We’ve already covered why that’s just plain dumb.
“I urge the Congress to act responsibly and make the tax cuts permanent.” This oxymoron is the third nominee for Line of the Night. This means the the legislature should “responsibly” withhold money from important domestic affairs to reward the wealthy. Permanent tax cuts would be as irresponsible as permanent tax increases. Since one cannot predict future occurrences, tax policy should be periodically, organically evaluated.
The Special-Interest problem can be tackled with the Line-Item Veto
Never seen a President that didn’t want a Line-Item Veto, so that’s nothing new. The question is, would he really, really do something about lobbyists if he had one? I doubt it.
“Keeping America competitive requires affordable Health Care…Strengthen Health Spending Accounts…Make coverage portable” The first and third phrases sound decent enough to me, given that I want the ultimate in affordable, portable coverage: Universal Health Care. The second phrase is one that I have a problem with. This point, nestled between two decent ideas, is part of G. W.’s Ownership Society message. The problem is that 45 million Americans don’t have Health care and cannot afford it, another would not be able to afford or understand HSAs as proposed. The beauty of Universal Health Care is that is based on a simple notion: you need health care, you get it, period. HSAs are no more than funnels leading to the pockets of HMOs and Insurance companies. Do not be fooled.
“America is addicted to oil…Advanced Energy Initiative…Replace 75% of Middle Eastern oil dependence by 2025″
This is actually a good idea. Increase research in ethanol and zero-emission coal power is a good thing. However, I can’t imagine BushCo’s oil buddies letting this kind of thing actually result in lower oil consumption.
“American Competitiveness Initiative” Again, another good idea in theory. Doubling our commitment to natural sciences, permanent research tax credits, encouraging more math & science in secondary education, all good stuff. I just hope they don’t use No Child Left Behind as the model for implementation.
Work with Black churches to fight AIDS
Black folks came up again at the end. This marks the first time I had ever heard a White Republican cite statistics on AIDS in Black America. While I am happy about that (it is a step in the right direction), I am worried that the Black church path is a flawed one. BushCo has coaxed the Black church into supporting him on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and he may be at it again. I would not trust these guys, as a fear that they are more concerned with gaining votes that saving Black lives.
There you have it.
Please share your thoughts and reactions to the speech and my reactions.
Understanding Iran’s position: nuclear technology meets national defense.
If you have been reading any news lately, then I am sure you aware of the uproar that the “international community” has expressed over Iran breaking the UN seals at three of its nuclear facilities.
Remember when President Bush’s named Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as the “axis of evil” in 2002? If so, then you can get an idea of how long the media and government officials have trained the public en masse to not distinguish between Iran, illegal nuclear weapons, and evil. “It was harmful both conceptually and operationally,” said Graham Allison, government professor and former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. “Conceptually, the ‘axis’ suggested a relationship among the entities that doesn’t exist. More important, operationally, the reaction of the world and the North Korea debacle demonstrates that it was a mistake.”
What I don’t get with respect to the axis of evil is that by naming the countries you intend to shake down, you invariably add more fuel to the fire. Ergo, if Iran was only thinking about developing nuclear weapons, then wouldn’t they fiercely want nuclear weapons now? The main thing I don’t understand is this; why does the so-called war on terror assume that named countries won’t take decisive actions to defend themselves against attack? That is why I am so dismayed at current US foreign policy towards Iran. I am going to lay out a series of facts that lay out how Iran might be justified in their saber rattling towards the West.
1) As the war Afghanistan and Iraq progresses, a quick look at a map will show you that Iran is strategically trapped between US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2) You have been named as part of the axis of evil.
3) Israel and the US have developed or are developing plans for a preemptive attack.
4) The current conflict is further exacerbated because “the same technology needed to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants can also produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, the West believes that Iran intends to use this capability to stockpile weapons-usable nuclear materials.” So what we have is the West trying to have it both ways because while the West can allow states to develop peaceful technology and sometimes nuclear weapons, (like Pakistan) it can simultaneously claim that the state in question is seeking nuclear weaponry. This is also known as a catch-22.
I am not defending Iran, I am just pointing out that when you back someone into the corner, they will sometimes do almost anything to get out of that corner. And let’s face it, Iran has the upper hand because “the United States is quickly acquiring the ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ - the decision never to venture abroad again, after being so stung by the disaster which has become the occupation of Iraq. It has no stomach for a new battle: and Tehran knows it.”
And if you have been following the news, you know that Russia opposes economic sanctions against Iran and you know China is thirsty for oil like a fat kid loves cake. Both Russia and China are permanent members of the UN Security Council and the same way the US goes out of its way to veto sanctions/resolutions that go against Israel, Russia and China are prepared to do the same for Iran.
And I don’t even have to explain how much gas would sky rocket, because if you don’t know, Iran is the second largest exporter in the world.
The bottom-line is that the threat of war is the best guarantor of peace and while I wish we lived in a world where there were no nuclear weapons at all. But the doctrine of mutually assured destruction seems to be holding up pretty well. Moreover, if one were to observe the way the US dealt with Iraq and North Korea, then it is reasonable to assume that the possession of nuclear weaponry demands respect from the international community. Iraq was invaded and North Korea is not a signatory to the NPT and is essentially being offered carrots to peacefully contain its nuclear program.
I know the US is isolated by two oceans but we don’t live in a vacuum. Countries, like people respond to threats. And while the US may be the most powerful country in the world, the world is getting flat and traditional forms of power just won’t cut it. Because as we see in this Iran conflict, when you have different rules for different countries, soon enough, the countries that have traditionally been locked out will find ways to get in. We need a foreign policy that makes wanting nuclear weaponry unattractive because until we do that, the axis of evil will take on a life of its own.
Look for more analysis of the Iran conflict in the future.
I am not naive enough to believe that any move of international policy is a wholly innocent one. With that said, I am happy to see foreign investment in African nations that is NOT some sort of conditional debt relief. Deals such as the CNOOC deal show that there is value in Nigerian industry, a fact well known to people in that region, and one that should be increasingly more obvious to the rest of the planet in the near future. Maybe the reason is simple. Maybe the Chinese realize that the way to overtake White, Western world dominance is to unite all non-White peoples socially, intellectually, and economically (which is a great idea, I think we should do that here. I’ll get to that on a later post). This sort of “populist” approach to growth is a healthy and organic one, which I would like to see expand. I would like to see unions between all of Asia and Africa and South America. Why can’t we have a trans-national oil deal between Venezuela, Nigeria, and China? That may scare the daylights out of the Americans, but alliances such as these are essential for the world to advance to one that is fair to all of its inhabitants.
What is important about these alliances, and what makes them sustainable in my opinion, is that they would be peaceful. Problems with war-time alliances is that they are short-lived. If there is peace, why should I talk to you? is the attitude that persists. Then, you get countries making unilateral decisions to invade non-confrontational states like Iraq.
Like it or not, money is an important part of life. It is not the defining characteristic, but it is here and has a purpose. How about we unite companies on peaceful economic levels and instead of attacking countries to protect cash cows, like the U.S. did in Iraq. Perhaps this Chinese-Nigerian pact can be the blueprint for other deals that can create peaceful alliance among countries with shared financial interests.
The most important, and oft-overlooked piece of such a deal is what is done by the players to help their neighboring countries. China needs to share wealth with Vietnam, Taiwan (who they hate), Thai Land, and others in the region. Nigeria should do the same with its neighbors (e.g. Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, etc.). This notion of “Regional Wealth” can prove to be a powerful one that will build both pride and economic vitality in corners of the world that may have never known either.
I have concluded that it must be hard to be a politician. That’s because all the politicians I observer and/or deal with never seem to make honest, direct statements. Take this quote from Powell:
“My own judgment is that it didn’t seem to me, anyway, that it would have been that hard to go get the warrants…And even in the case of an emergency, you go and do it. The law provides for that…for reasons that the president has discussed and the attorney general has spoken to, they chose not to do it that way…I see absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions.”
My humble interpretation of the above is that Powell knows what went down is wrong and illegal, but he thinks it falls under the umbrella of Presidential prerogative. The reason that this thinking is both crazy AND dangerous is because of the consistent dishonesty of this administration. Such lies have included (but are not limited to):
Let’s get stupid about this: if a man lies to you repeatedly, do you trust anything about them: words, [displayed] emotions, intentions/motives? NO!!! Why on earth would anyone think that G.W. has any good intentions with this spying? Why would anyone trust his judgement that has been wrong on so many things before? That is just ridiculous.
The “keep us safe” line has been used too often to fool anyone with sense. We can refer to the country’s leadership as “The Crew who Cried Wolf.” How many times will we fall for it? Colin Powell keeps falling for it, but I do not think many good people will do so for much longer.
Let’s get to the first excerpt where Phillips explains,
“Americans are many things. We are compassionate, industrious and brave. Americans are kind; we are good, we are also winners! Democratic political hopes in 2006 may hinge on their ability to convince Americans that Democratic leaders believe in American virtue.”
I’m sorry, but when did being good become synonymous with winning? In other words, if you win a game because you cheated that doesn’t make you good. And likewise, if you are good, you may not always win (enslavement of Black people anyone?). And the logic that I think that has probably done more harm to the world is that things are “either or”. SO what does it mean to say that Americans are winners? This must mean that there are losers right? Why are the losers never named! Why do we know every detail about every American life lost, but it wasn’t until a couple weeks ago (during the busy holidays I might add) that when Bush was asked about the number of dead Iraqis he stated, “30,000 more or less.” Imagine if he would have used “more or less” while describing American lives lost in this war. And Phillips has the nerve to write that “We are compassionate.’ Because like most people and societies, America is filled to the brim with contradictions and to not highlight these contradictions is to be a liar. Lying aside, Phillips goes on to say,
“Americans may disagree on the wisdom of this war and the manner in which it is being waged. But the idea of losing is hateful to us. The only thing more hateful is the idea of leadership that is uninterested in winning and thinks us incapable or undeserving of victory.”
The first fallacy of this quote is that losing is hateful to Americans. But when you look at your own life, you can not reject the fact that the most important life lessons you learned was when you failed and learned how to pick yourself up. When a baby is learning how to walk, you don’t pick them up every time they fall down. So if that logic makes sense, then why is losing so hateful to Americans? Its because Americans don’t want to confront our own contradictions. Policy makers are experts at pointing out the faults in other countries but when we can’t get our act like together, like we did in Hurricane Katrina, we reject the aid of Cuba because we need to act like we have it under control. And more importantly, can anyone define what victory means in Iraq? Forget the witty comments and all of that. Just someone define that for me because if the terrorists wait to attack until the coalition leaves, then do we have to go back to get the job done?
War is not a game and people are dying for reasons that change from month to month and sometimes week to week. And for any troops reading this blog, you are in my prayers and I hope you can get home as soon as possible.
We actually are reducing the number of troops in Iraq??? According to Donald Rumsfeld, we are. However, don’t let the propaganda fool you. We increased the number of troops by 20,000 before the elections last week. From the article:
“The Pentagon sent an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq to bolster security during the recent elections, and Rumsfeld has previously said those 20,000 would be withdrawn in January to return U.S. force levels to a 138,000 baseline.”
Translation: this is a fake, propaganda pullout that is designed to get media spin to help increase the public’s approval of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
This will likely be spun by the administration as evidence of progress. You know, less troops = more progress. To me, no troops = now we’ve come to our senses.
I don’t think we’re progressing, but I have been told by some that my level of understanding of most things is minimal at best.
The BBC today has a story about the escalating conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. This story talks about how U.N. peacekeepers are leaving, more specifically, have been ordered to leave by the U.N. Security Council, by Friday. Who knew about this? Not most Americans. Instead, we are talking about Iraq.
What’s interesting is that the article says:
“On Wednesday, the UN Security Council decided to evacuate US, Canadian and European staff serving in the mission…Most of the UN peacekeepers monitoring the border following a war between the two countries that ended in 2000 are from Asian and African countries and these will stay.”
This is interesting for 2 reasons:
1. It’s funny how all the white people get to leave and the non-whites are staying. I can’t call this surprising. It would be nice is we used this as an Iraq exit strategy. Oh wait, we can’t because we pissed off the U.N. when we unilaterally invaded Iraq in the first place.
2. Why is this not considered taking an irresponsible, defeatist attitude? Aren’t we in this case pulling out of an ‘unfinished’ conflict where violence is still prevalent? Won’t the exit of U.N. peacekeepers increase the resolve of the warmongers in the region?
Maybe #2 only applies to Iraq, and not to the Horn of the Mother Continent.
G.W. said last night that one of our focuses in Iraq was security of Iraqis and Americans. According to them, the’ ‘terrorists’ must be fought and dealth with in Irqq [and Afghanistan] so they are not dealt with in America. If that is the case, then why was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was captured and released by coalition forces?!?!?!?! He was released because he could not be identified?!?!?! Why do I get racially profiled when nobody has seen my picture, and this cat publishes videos of himself and they couldn’t tell who he was when looking him in the face?!?!?! This further proves that this invastion/occupation is total malarky.
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
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.
We have been in Iraq for 1,000 days now. This is a nice, round number, one that encourages reflection. G.W. has been reflecting too, finally admitting that US stup–, intelligence was faulty. We have [at least] 30,000 Iraqi citizens dead. Let’s put that in its proper context: that’s equivalent to an overcrowded classroom being exterminated everyday for over 3 1/2 years. We have [as of today] 2,140 American soldiers killed. Again, put that into proper context: a set of parents a day.
I haven’t led to the untimely death of anyone. Maybe I should be President. Then > 30K would at least be alive. Let’s pray we’re not in Iraq for another 1K days.
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.
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.
The hawks get upset when we demand immediate removal of US occupying forces from Iraq. They say that “cutting & running” only adds to the resolve of the “enemy.” I wonder how they feel if the “enemy” is internal?
The head of the Red Cross quit today. Note that that is 1 Red Cross resigner/domestic disaster in the 21st century (September 11 being the first). At this rate…
Could you define these two as “cutters & runners?” I think so. Let’s do a bit of comparitive analysis. The Iraq war is a failure. The response to Hurricane Katrina is a failure. The rebuilding of Iraq is a failure. The rebuilding of New Orleans is a failure. The accountability for the Iraq war is zero. The accountability for the Katrina response is zero. We did not do things in Iraq to prevent war. We did not do things in New Orleans to prevent levee damage and therefore flooding. I could go on and on and on.
Therefore, I say that Madame Marsha J. Evans is “cutting & running.” She took her $651,957 and bounced. Why doesn’t G.W. accuse her of trying to “re-write history?” Why doesn’t he say she is terrible for leaving a job “unfinished?” Why doesn’t she “stay the course” and achieve victory? Didn’t she learn that in the Navy? Oh wait, we can’t talk bad about her because the individuals that were victims of her negligence were refu-, I mean nigg-, I mean Americans?!?!?! These things happened on American soil. I guess we are far-sighted.
This is more than a double standard. It’s a Dubya Standard. And we all know what those are worth.
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.
The following is a great list on how to convince people of whatever you want them to believe. Perhaps we can employ this on positive messages instead of the war in Iraq and other stupidity…
1. Propagandist must have access to intelligence concerning events and public opinion.
2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
a. It must issue all the propaganda directives.
b. It must explain propaganda directives to important officials and maintain their morale.
c. It must oversee other agencies’ activities which have propaganda consequences
3. The propaganda consequences of an action must be considered in planning that action.
4. Propaganda must affect the enemy’s policy and action.
a. By suppressing propagandistically desirable material which can provide the enemy with useful intelligence
b. By openly disseminating propaganda whose content or tone causes the enemy to draw the desired conclusions
c. By goading the enemy into revealing vital information about himself
d. By making no reference to a desired enemy activity when any reference would discredit that activity
5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a propaganda campaign
6. To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.
7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.
8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of enemy propaganda; the strength and effects of an expose; and the nature of current propaganda campaigns determine whether enemy propaganda should be ignored or refuted.
9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine whether propaganda materials should be censored.
10. Material from enemy propaganda may be utilized in operations when it helps diminish that enemy’s prestige or lends support to the propagandist’s own objective.
11. Black rather than white propaganda may be employed when the latter is less credible or produces undesirable effects.
12. Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.
13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing propaganda.
b. A propaganda campaign must begin at the optimum moment
c. A propaganda theme must be repeated, but not beyond some point of diminishing effectiveness
14. Propaganda must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in appropriate situations
d. They must be boomerang-proof
15. Propaganda to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which can be blasted by future events.
16. Propaganda to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Propaganda must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat
b. Propaganda must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves.
17. Propaganda to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated
18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.
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.
I just read a headline in the Detroit Free Press entitled, Bush Aide: Troop Reduction May Come in ‘06. I guess the spin never stops huh? How many times have we heard the troops “may” come home? This is one of the most outrageous and disrespectful things I have ever heard. The opening quote was, The United States may be ready to reduce troops in Iraq next year if Iraqis continue making progress at the current rate, President Bush’s national security adviser said Sunday. Did anyone catch the word “may”? Almost every other week I read about how the troops may stay in Iraq for up to ten years. So in other words basically, the troops may come home next year or end up staying for ten years, we are just crossing our fingers to see what the Iraqis MAY do. This is not a strategy Mr. President!!!! If a certain strategy solely depends on what someone else does, then it is not a strategy. Right now we are stuck in Iraq and I predict that we will hear more forceful calls from the Iraqi interim government for us to withdrawal, at which point, the US can save face and say, they didn’t want us there so we respected their wishes. One reason Bush has brought up recently for why we should stay is because he says the terrorists want to use Iraq as an operations base to launch attacks against the US. But if the terrorists didn’t need Iraq to attack us on 9/11, then why would they need it now?
Props to Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for presenting a resolution on getting a timetable to get the troops out of Iraq. Unfortunately, the Republicans changed the spirit of the resolution to say that we should pull out the troop immediately. Of course, this was not Murtha’s intention and it was not passed. But as a decorated Veteran and noted hawkish Democrat, Murtha’s comments has caused an uproar in the political climate concerning this invasion (war is really a misnomer).
But here’s the catch. On Meet the Press, he went on to say that he made a mistake for voting for the war. Even John Edwards penned an article claiming that he regrets his vote to authorize war. But on Meet the Press, I was ashamed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who distanced themselves from Murtha’s comments. This week, TIME and the mainstream establishment will make sure to paint Murtha as a flip-flopper (Murtha voted for the war) and at the same time, make the push that we should stay in Iraq. But in all honesty, what good will come from our staying in Iraq? Especially when the political will is rapidly declining and almost three years into this war, the public still questions if and how the President misled the country into this war. That is insane people! As Murtha put it, our presence in Iraq is only going to make the situation worse. Bush often says, “as Iraqi stand up we will stand down.” But as nice as this sounds, the future of Iraq and many American lives are in the hands of Iraqis. So if our success is based on what the Iraqis do or don’t do, how can we say whether we are successful or not? This war is out of our hands, literally and figuratively.
In a figurative sense, Bush is going to have to go to Iraq and drive around in an unarmored Humvee with guns blazing just to show that he believes we should stay in Iraq. But seriously, with the 2006 elections fast approaching, we have reached a breaking point in this war. When politicians are able and willing to say “I was wrong,” that is especially poignant. And it is only a matter of time before other Democrats and some Republicans start saying the same thing. And when they do, the Congress will wrest control of this war from this President and find a way out of Iraq so they can keep their seat. Shout out to John Murtha!
So November 11, 2005 (Veteran’s Day) Bush gave a speech to fire back at critics of the war. But before I get into the analysis, let’s point out two things, 1) Bush billed his speech for Friday, which in the media represents the day where all the news items are swept under the rug. If Bush really wanted to make a statement, he would have given his speech on Monday to set the agenda but the timing is representative of how weak this President is in the polls. Secondly, he focused his criticism on Democrats when many people of all political stripes found themselves in opposition to the war before it began. By limiting the scope of the debate, Bush tried to avoid the deep well of discontent over the rationale for this war and its management.
Now that we got that out the way, I cannot believe Bush had the audacity to accuse anyone of trying to re-write history. To be clear, I will be the last person to try and defend many of the spineless Democrats for their complicity in this atrocious war. But Bush is trying to re-write history because conservative historians will look back during this time and say that “the poor President and Congress were victims of bad intelligence, shame on the CIA.” Just think back to the spin put on the failure of government services to help Hurricane Katrina victims. It is tantamount to saying that since everybody messed up, nobody messed up. I give Bush credit for knowing how to frame the debate to his advantage. However, Bush has proven to be a liar and he can do nothing to save his legacy.
And please my being remiss to not point out that Bush has re-written history numerous times with respect to this war. So twenty years from now when someone younger asks you why we invaded Iraq what will you say? To help you out, I included a link that breaks out the 21 reasons why we went to war. From regime change, the Iraqi connection to 9/11, and those WMD, I wonder what Bush does to sleep at night as he finds new ways to rewrite history.
About The SuperSpade
The SuperSpade: Black Thought at the Highest Level, is a forum that presents critical, intellectual perspectives on the current issues, seeking to elevate the level of Black political thought. The goal of this space is to provide actionable commentary on social, political, and personal issues affecting the daily ... Continue reading »
