----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the editors:
To borrow liberally from Captain Renault in "Casablanca," I am shocked - shocked to find that the Chicago Tribune has decided to endorse George W. Bush for reelection!
After all, it's not as if John Kerry agrees with the editorial board's stances on things like gun control, women's reproductive rights, privacy, large swaths of environmental policy, and tax cuts for the wealthy
I find it most disturbing that the editorial board's single greatest reason for endorsing Bush - namely his "tough stand" against terrorism - is grounded on his taking the fight to the terrorists. It is true that nearly three years ago we had smoking gun evidence of the Taliban's complicity in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The world was behind us and we were right to destroy their ability to harbor and give material aid to terrorists who would plot against us.
But in Iraq there was no evidence of terrorists connected with 9/11, there was some circumstantial evidence of WMDs, but no "smoking gun." In reality there was only the "Butcher of Baghdad." Now that we've unilaterally cut the head off that monster, our military is engaged in a brutal police action, we're neck-deep in an insurgency that is claiming hundreds of lives a month with no end in sight, and there is no clear exit strategy. Meanwhile, the rest of the world stands back and watches in wonder as we cede the moral high ground. We have discovered again that nature not only abhors a vacuum of leadership, but it also abhors vacuous leadership!
I fear that a second Bush term in office will embolden his neoconservative administration in ways that will foster only greater hatred for and fear of our "superpower" status, thus creating a whole new generation of terrorists bent on our destruction, while at the same time further isolating our nation from the fellowship of those countries that might best help us in taking the fight to the terrorists. It is clear to me that John Kerry understands what Bush is either unwilling or unable to contemplate: That terrorism will only be contained by addressing the causes, not the symptoms. Four more years of color-coded warnings and pre-emptive occupations are not the answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't even want to go into all of the reasons why a Kerry/Edwards administration would have been far more palatable than Bush/Vader. The two subsequent vacancies on the SCotUS are reason enough. Rather, I want to look at the foreign policy debacle that has been wrought by the neoconservative WHIG cabal's insistence that Iraq is a winnable front in the "war on turr."
13 months ago over a thousand U.S. troops had died in Iraq. In the 13 months since, another 1,000 have died. Civilian deaths there continue at a clip comparable to that before the election. The Iraqi constitution is a sham, their elections have brought radical religious shiites aligned with Iran into power, and have further alienated the Sunnis who are fueling the insurgency.
Radical Religious Islam is not pleased that Hosni Mubarak threw the Egyptian face of their movement into jail for five years because he commited the crime of challenging the status quo. Yeppers, the Bush doctrine is spreading like wildfire!!
Meanwhile, for its part, Iran - as if to counter-balance a perceived threat from the U.S. - has elected a government with a president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) just as wingnutty as our own. Already wearing the "axis of evil" tag as a badge of honor, under Ahmadinejad Iran is actively pursuing full nuclear cycle capability, has a billion dollar contract to purchase surface-to-air missiles from Russia, and wants to wipe Israel off the map, or at the very least move it to Germany or Austria. Israel is rattling its sabre in response, and 2006 could make Bechtel and Halliburton rich beyond the wildest dreams of avarice.
And in a continuing saga of shock and awe, the rest of the world still stands back in wonder as Bush:
- threatened to veto anti-torture legislation.
- signed said legislation, but then stated that it doesn't apply to him anyway.
- has used the NSA in illegal data-mining to spy on U.S. citizens without so much as giving a reach-around to the FISA court.
- nominated one of the architects of the legal rationale behind said spying as an associate justice of the SCotUS.
- withdrew the nomination as it came to light that said nominee had never actually read the constitution.
- threatened to veto anything short of total reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and then claimed that a one month stop-gap reauthorization was a victory.
- Received a nearly perfect failing grade from the 9/11 committee with regards to administration responsiblities in areas like disaster communications, port-of-entry security, first responders funding, etc.
I haven't even brought Katrina and "Brownie" into play, despite the fact that the administration's inability to deal with a domestic disaster (with all kinds of advance warning) can only reinforce a terrorist's belief that a random attack will wreak simliar havoc.
I could go on and on, but time is the tyrant, and some guys have just exited a blacked-out van and are walking to my door.... More later.
5 comments:
Howard Roberts
A Seven-point plan for an Exit Strategy in Iraq
1) A timetable for the complete withdrawal of American and British forces must be announced.
I envision the following procedure, but suitable fine-tuning can be applied by all the people involved.
A) A ceasefire should be offered by the Occupying side to representatives of both the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite community. These representatives would be guaranteed safe passage, to any meetings. The individual insurgency groups would designate who would attend.
At this meeting a written document declaring a one-month ceasefire, witnessed by a United Nations authority, will be fashioned and eventually signed. This document will be released in full, to all Iraqi newspapers, the foreign press, and the Internet.
B) US and British command will make public its withdrawal, within sixth-months of 80 % of their troops.
C) Every month, a team of United Nations observers will verify the effectiveness of the ceasefire.
All incidences on both sides will be reported.
D) Combined representative armed forces of both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations that agreed to the cease fire will protect the Iraqi people from actions by terrorist cells.
E) Combined representative armed forces from both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations will begin creating a new military and police force. Those who served, without extenuating circumstances, in the previous Iraqi military or police, will be given the first option to serve.
F) After the second month of the ceasefire, and thereafter, in increments of 10-20% ,a total of 80% will be withdrawn, to enclaves in Qatar and Bahrain. The governments of these countries will work out a temporary land-lease housing arrangement for these troops. During the time the troops will be in these countries they will not stand down, and can be re-activated in the theater, if both the chain of the command still in Iraq, the newly formed Iraqi military, the leaders of the insurgency, and two international ombudsman (one from the Arab League, one from the United Nations), as a majority, deem it necessary.
G) One-half of those troops in enclaves will leave three-months after they arrive, for the United States or other locations, not including Iraq.
H) The other half of the troops in enclaves will leave after six-months.
I) The remaining 20 % of the Occupying troops will, during this six month interval, be used as peace-keepers, and will work with all the designated organizations, to aid in reconstruction and nation-building.
J) After four months they will be moved to enclaves in the above mentioned countries.
They will remain, still active, for two month, until their return to the States, Britain and the other involved nations.
2) At the beginning of this period the United States will file a letter with the Secretary General of the Security Council of the United Nations, making null and void all written and proscribed orders by the CPA, under R. Paul Bremer. This will be announced and duly noted.
3) At the beginning of this period all contracts signed by foreign countries will be considered in abeyance until a system of fair bidding, by both Iraqi and foreign countries, will be implemented ,by an interim Productivity and Investment Board, chosen from pertinent sectors of the Iraqi economy.
Local representatives of the 18 provinces of Iraq will put this board together, in local elections.
4) At the beginning of this period, the United Nations will declare that Iraq is a sovereign state again, and will be forming a Union of 18 autonomous regions. Each region will, with the help of international experts, and local bureaucrats, do a census as a first step toward the creation of a municipal government for all 18 provinces. After the census, a voting roll will be completed. Any group that gets a list of 15% of the names on this census will be able to nominate a slate of representatives. When all the parties have chosen their slates, a period of one-month will be allowed for campaigning.
Then in a popular election the group with the most votes will represent that province.
When the voters choose a slate, they will also be asked to choose five individual members of any of the slates.
The individuals who have the five highest vote counts will represent a National government.
This whole process, in every province, will be watched by international observers as well as the local bureaucrats.
During this process of local elections, a central governing board, made up of United Nations, election governing experts, insurgency organizations, US and British peacekeepers, and Arab league representatives, will assume the temporary duties of administering Baghdad, and the central duties of governing.
When the ninety representatives are elected they will assume the legislative duties of Iraq for two years.
Within three months the parties that have at least 15% of the representatives will nominate candidates for President and Prime Minister.
A national wide election for these offices will be held within three months from their nomination.
The President and the Vice President and the Prime Minister will choose their cabinet, after the election.
5) All debts accrued by Iraq will be rescheduled to begin payment, on the principal after one year, and on the interest after two years. If Iraq is able to handle another loan during this period she should be given a grace period of two years, from the taking of the loan, to comply with any structural adjustments.
6) The United States and the United Kingdom shall pay Iraq reparations for its invasion in the total of 120 billion dollars over a period of twenty years for damages to its infrastructure. This money can be defrayed as investment, if the return does not exceed 6.5 %.
7) During the beginning period Saddam Hussein and any other prisoners who are deemed by a Council of Iraqi Judges, elected by the National representative body, as having committed crimes will be put up for trial.
The trial of Saddam Hussein will be before seven judges, chosen from this Council of Judges.
One judge, one jury, again chosen by this Council, will try all other prisoners.
All defendants will have the right to present any evidence they want, and to choose freely their own lawyers.
I'm not sure exactly how this is germane to my post, except that it is an interesting exit strategy proposal and I did say that the current administration has no strategy.
I'll say it again:
Cowards.
Wow, you have the skill of repetition. Exposition and clarity are still worth working on, however. Comments that contribute something to a discussion are appreciated. Comments that do not are useless.
Sorry, Mr Magoo, but they've done it again.
I had a [longwinded] exposition rebutting the "proof by mutual consent" I've seen here that was excised. That's happened fairly regularly.
Group-think covens tend to do that, on both ends of the political spectrum. I've been kicked out of so many liberal and conservative gasbag forums that I've lost count.
I'm in the process of being kicked off this one because I dare to inform people that not only are some of the local "emperors" naked, they aren't even emperors.
That is being defined as "insulting" and my comments removed.
In this topic, I commented that Mr Rabble had previously advertised himself to not have a clue about the subject, and was thus unworthy of reply, but I asked "sevenpointman" some questions relating to his, um, "strategy" that, frankly, would occur even to a first-year student in either a military academy or foreign service academy.
To say that it was superficial is to add a huge depth to the concept of "skin deep".
Post a Comment