I want to believe it. Who doesn't? Is there anyone out there who wants to believe that this new plan (if we can call it new) won't work? That it will lead to more death? That it will fail to secure Baghdad? That it will not capture those who love violence? We all want to believe 21,500 more troops will help, but will it?
We already have 130,00 troops there, how will 21,500 more help? Some estimates have put the insurgency level as high as 200,000. Are we suppossed to believe that if we throw another 21,500 troops into the mix that will help? What stops the insurgency from moving into the country-side? And, even if we secure Baghdad, do we believe that the Kurds will bow to the Iraqi government? Do we believe anyone in the region will respect the American implanted rulers? We set up the shah of Iran and his people revolted and the resulting government hates us. We backed Sadam in the Iran-Iraq war and he was just hanged by his own people. At what point does it become obvious that we do not know what we are doing in this region?
The President's speech (1/10/07) touched a part of me that wants to believe the improbably could happen, but reality says we stepped into a bad situation and made it worse. Saddam created a modern society as VP of Iraq before becoming President. As president, Sadam was able to hold the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites all under his government. Did he do it well? No. But he did it, and it took him 30+ years to learn how to do it badly. Are we committed to 30 years? Is the government we set-up? Who is most committed to 30 years? The Americans? The Iraqi government? The insurgents? I bet you came up with the same answer I did.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Friday, February 10, 2006
Sunshine Scooter
There is a video game that I love...really the only one that I love (or play for that matter). NCAA Football 2005 from EA sports. As with any sports game there are commentators that cycle through several canned reponses to what is happening in the game. In one such response the one commentator refers to the other as "Scooter." Scooter responds by saying "You left out the sunshine, It's 'Sunshine Scooter.'"
Today my thouhts drift to another Scooter...I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby (former chief of staff to VP Cheney) tesitified before a grand jury that he was authorized by his superiors to release classified information to a reporter. Now, I don't know the White House pecking order, but how many people rank above the VP's cheif of staff? Probably not to many...
A question for my Conservative buddies (a question you will probably answer with a non-answer): What will you all say when it comes out that the overlords of national security authorized a breach of national security?
I'm sure you will respond with apathy...why should you care that the administration leaked classified information because it was poitcally smart? At least we have those "terrorists" wire tapped. Wouldn't want the wrong information to fall into irresponsible nands now would we...
Today my thouhts drift to another Scooter...I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby (former chief of staff to VP Cheney) tesitified before a grand jury that he was authorized by his superiors to release classified information to a reporter. Now, I don't know the White House pecking order, but how many people rank above the VP's cheif of staff? Probably not to many...
A question for my Conservative buddies (a question you will probably answer with a non-answer): What will you all say when it comes out that the overlords of national security authorized a breach of national security?
I'm sure you will respond with apathy...why should you care that the administration leaked classified information because it was poitcally smart? At least we have those "terrorists" wire tapped. Wouldn't want the wrong information to fall into irresponsible nands now would we...
Monday, February 06, 2006
Ahh Mr. McCarthy, We Have Missed You So...
It's Benjamin Franklin all over again! You all know Franklin, he's the one Christians celebrate for requesting prayer at the Constitutional Convention. Franklin said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I would like to ask Mr. Gonzales how we know if someone is a suspected terrorists. Have we already violated their privacy in other ways? We are talking about American citizens here...Maybe if he looks like a terrorist looks? How much do you have to have in common with a terrorist to be a suspected terrorist? Are we talking about a GARB mistake here? Is this second person disassociation? I don't like them, I have no problem with you, but since you hang out with them I now no longer like you...maybe it's like that. Mr McCarthy, can I call ya Joe? It has been a while...
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Freedom on the March
Today is the first of many "big days" for us here at "Left Handed Benjamites." Last night, the leader of the free world gave us his assessment of how he is doing...
For starters, I would like to say "Kudos" to President Bush (for all of you Hebrew students out there, "say" in this sentence is acting both as a marker of direct speech and as a speech act). First he picked up the Democratic banner in an effort to champion the cause of new technology replacing American dependence on Mideast oil. Then he did a nice romp on a "rising tide of responsibility.
I had a hard time deciding what the focus of this post should be. I can not take the time to focus on all of the things I would like to in response to last night, you would become dull of reading and simply move on; even as you read now, you are beginning to skip over words to discover what my main point is going to be.
So what shall it be? Should I focus on the details of last night's speech and point out that screwing over seniors is not a "fix" to social security and medicare? Should I point out that the economy we are leading the world with is $4 trillion plus in the hole and getting deeper by the day (&400B + on Bush's watch)? Should I challenge President Bush to ask Bill Ford if he thinks we are the envy of Japan? Should I point out that by not beginning to nationalize health care we are hoping for great innovations tomorrow when we can't even afford today? Should I point out that the "compassion of America" continues to ignore atrocities in the Sudan? Should I give an extended treatise on how the focus of education needs to be about more than American competition abroad if we are to truly leave no child behind? Maybe I should not focus on any of these issues and instead take my cue from President Bush and discuss general, "Big Picture" type issues. Details are boring, the President has clearly discovered that, but the Republican Party needs to be reminded that it takes more than "Vision" (a nice postmodern term) to lead. This is something any Davis College student can attest to.
Since I can not settle upon a topic that will hold your attention beyond this paragraph, I will end with this: Hindsight may not be wisdom, and second guessing may not be a strategy, but failing to consider that your vision may be flawed and ignoring the lessons learned from hindsight is reckless leadership. Tim Kaine did an excellent job emphasizing the mismanagement of the Republican leadership in Washington. Vision is not enough, you need to execute well, get everyone on board, and change direction once it becomes clear that you vision is clouded.
For starters, I would like to say "Kudos" to President Bush (for all of you Hebrew students out there, "say" in this sentence is acting both as a marker of direct speech and as a speech act). First he picked up the Democratic banner in an effort to champion the cause of new technology replacing American dependence on Mideast oil. Then he did a nice romp on a "rising tide of responsibility.
I had a hard time deciding what the focus of this post should be. I can not take the time to focus on all of the things I would like to in response to last night, you would become dull of reading and simply move on; even as you read now, you are beginning to skip over words to discover what my main point is going to be.
So what shall it be? Should I focus on the details of last night's speech and point out that screwing over seniors is not a "fix" to social security and medicare? Should I point out that the economy we are leading the world with is $4 trillion plus in the hole and getting deeper by the day (&400B + on Bush's watch)? Should I challenge President Bush to ask Bill Ford if he thinks we are the envy of Japan? Should I point out that by not beginning to nationalize health care we are hoping for great innovations tomorrow when we can't even afford today? Should I point out that the "compassion of America" continues to ignore atrocities in the Sudan? Should I give an extended treatise on how the focus of education needs to be about more than American competition abroad if we are to truly leave no child behind? Maybe I should not focus on any of these issues and instead take my cue from President Bush and discuss general, "Big Picture" type issues. Details are boring, the President has clearly discovered that, but the Republican Party needs to be reminded that it takes more than "Vision" (a nice postmodern term) to lead. This is something any Davis College student can attest to.
Since I can not settle upon a topic that will hold your attention beyond this paragraph, I will end with this: Hindsight may not be wisdom, and second guessing may not be a strategy, but failing to consider that your vision may be flawed and ignoring the lessons learned from hindsight is reckless leadership. Tim Kaine did an excellent job emphasizing the mismanagement of the Republican leadership in Washington. Vision is not enough, you need to execute well, get everyone on board, and change direction once it becomes clear that you vision is clouded.
Monday, January 30, 2006
We're in the Money, We're in the Money...
Is it a surprise to anyone that the most successful U.S. company in history over any three month span is the 4th quater Exxon-Mobile of 2005? Record gas prices coupled with the coming of the cold season has catapulted Exxon-Mobile to the greatest take home of any U.S. company in any quarter in history. For all of my conservative buddies who are reading this blog and not the voice of the democratic part, Al Franken (???), I offer this:
Political party that received the most amount of money from "big oil" in 2004?
...and the winner is...The Republicans!!!! A not-so-shocking 4-to-1 margin over the Democratic Party.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_exxon_mobil;_ylt=AkDTkzfc7TYmgonRwXRAx5Cs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGI2aDNqBHNlYwM3NDk
Who's got your back? We know who has Exxon's back
Political party that received the most amount of money from "big oil" in 2004?
...and the winner is...The Republicans!!!! A not-so-shocking 4-to-1 margin over the Democratic Party.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_exxon_mobil;_ylt=AkDTkzfc7TYmgonRwXRAx5Cs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGI2aDNqBHNlYwM3NDk
Who's got your back? We know who has Exxon's back
Mistaken Identity
Are we so naive as to believe that all liberals ought to be painted with the same stripe? How would you conservatives react if I assumed Arlen Specter, Rick Santorum, and John McCain were cracked from the same mold simply because they are part of the same party? John Kerry and Theodore Kennedy have called for a filibuster against Amuel Allito; however, over the weekend, Barack Obama joined Charles Schumer and Harry Reid in denouncing the filibuster as a legitimate maneuver. These Senators have argued that if this nominee is worth filibustering, they ought to have done a better job convincing the American people. Conservatives ought to remember that there are well thoughtout, moral, hard-working men and women on the other-side of ideological spectrum. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060129/ap_on_go_su_co/alito;_ylt=As7HkRdGU02gw2_601gHW1us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
