Republicans Ready To Fight

I will be the first to admit that I have been one of Senator Obama's greatest supporters throughout his entire struggle with Senator Clinton and the ongoing war of words with Senator McCain. But with that being said, I will also be the first to acknowledge that a candidate has made a mistake. Lately, it appears Obama has been waffling on core liberal issues and values. Maybe I have just been watching too much CNN, but seeing as the Senator's blog has been littered with negative commentary the past few weeks, I do not believe I am the only one who sees it.

For example, the Iraq war. One of Obama's key principles has been that if elected, he will have all American soldiers pulled out within the first 16 months of his presidency. We have heard it thousands of times. But lately, all of this has been called into question. Senator John McCain said that Obama's remarks on Iraq "have left a significant question as to exactly what he intends." But, despite the growing concerns, Obama denied any suggestion that he was shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

We all know that whenever a Democratic nominee makes a seemingly innocuous comment on a key issue, the Republican hounds come out in full force. Instantly, the Republican National Committee sent out a chain email stating that Obama was attempting to back out of his own policy of withdrawing troops within 16 months. But ex-presidential nominee John Kerry, who himself know a little something about the Republican Machine (anyone remember Swiftboat?), was there to back up Senator Obama:

The Republicans, and John McCain specifically, are trying desperately to get away from the reality of John McCain's position, which is that he has a plan for staying in Iraq and Barack Obama has a plan for getting out of Iraq...[Obama's position] has not changed whatsoever in his fundamental determination to end the war.

In the end, I have come to the realization that I overreacted. At some point, Obama would have to change from the saint that he was once viewed as to a true politician, and this has been a difficult transformation for me. But even if Obama does add a few months to his 16 month withdrawal, anything is better than McCain's plan for 16 years or 16 decades or even 16 lifetimes. 

What Democracy Means

Recently I brought myself around to seeing Michael Moore's controversial documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, for the first time. Released in 2004, a little over a year after the invasion of Iraq, the film examines the first three and a half years of the Bush presidency, beginning with the election controversy in Florida, and moving into September 11, 2001 and its aftermath.

I won't try to say that Moore's account is fair and even-handed, or that there is no liberal bias here. If you want the straight facts to make up your own mind on this issue, then go somewhere else first, or be sure to find an equally conservative source.

That said, this documentary was not necessarily made with the objective of scrupulously reporting all of the facts. It focuses on the facts that support the liberal position, while downplaying those that support the conservative viewpoint. (If you've seen it, did you notice that it features interviews with people opposed to the war, but uses brief soundbites from those who support it?) This movie was made to support a point of view.

However, as I watched, I noticed that there was an entirely separate message that transcended politics. One of Moore's most frequent accusations was that people simply rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to accomplish its agenda unhindered. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the American people as a whole put their trust behind the President, without questioning any of his actions. One scene featured Brittany Spears saying to do just that. The press was accused of not scrutinizing the administration. The Democrats, now well known as the party that wants to leave Iraq as soon as possible, largely supported Bush's initiatives, including the Patriot Act and the Iraq War resolution, without even reading them. Because of this willingness to entrust President Bush with our national security five-plus years ago, we find ourselves in a conflict in Iraq with no visible end, and no clear way to extracting ourselves without further damaging our position. Ladies and gentlemen, don't let this happen again.

I'm not saying you can't support a war, or a politician, or a cause. I'm not saying you can never trust a politician to make the right decision. What I'm trying to say, and what this movie helps to clarify, is that the decision to do so must be made on you own. Don't simply think that having a leader means you no longer have to think about or analyze an issue.

This goes for everyone--liberal, conservative, Socialist, Libertarian, or whatever you happen to be, no matter how much you love your elected officials, don't simply elect them so you don't have to think anymore, because that's not your job as a citizen. We closed our eyes on Bush after 9/11, and this is where we got; it could be so easy to allow this to happen again. When a politician says something, don't nod your head in approval like a brainwashed sheep, think about it. Research the issue, make up your own mind. Tell your politicians to do the same--the Iraq war resolution passed with the support of more than half the Senate Democrats, many of whom now claim that they were opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning (including Hillary Clinton). And yes, the Democrats are as much responsible for Iraq as the Republicans and the Bush administration, seeing as they sat on their hands as the executive branch produced its evidence that al-Qaeda was connected to Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein had and could use weapons of mass destruction.

America is the oldest democratic nation in the world, and democracy is based on the ability of the citizens to partake in the political process, and blindly trusting an elected official is simply not consistent with partaking. So my message to you, America, is to do your job as Americans, and join in the political process. Vote if you are old enough. Pay attention to politics and make your own mind up--don't listen to what Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly say about an issue and think that because they think that, you should too. Don't believe for one minute that the President automatically knows what's best for the country and leave it at that, and that includes our next president, whether he be John McCain or Barack Obama. It's time for America to start paying attention to the issues again.

But don't take my word for it.

You know, I always got the impression that the reason we created a separation of powers in our government to begin with was to encourage discussion and reasoned debate about issues before jumping to a decision. I always got the impression though that cooperation wasn't GWB's strong suit. However, I persisted in the hope that somewhere there were people who had his ear, who weren't simple yes men, and who at least had some sort of debate before a decision was reached.

Today, I finally lost that hope, as I read one of the articles in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/world/middleeast/17bremer.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

In a nutshell, L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the top civilian commander in Iraq at the time of the invasion in 2003, announced to the President and his aides that he was completely dissolving the Iraqi army. This news was a surprise to most of the staff, and was not discussed with any of the President's closest advisers, with the exception of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Not even Colin Powell, the secretary of state, was consulted--a step that one would think to be very wise. Powell considers the order a large mistake, and when he asked GWB's national security adviser Condi Rice for an explanation, she responded:

"I was surprised too, but it is a decision that has been made and the president is standing behind Jerry's decision."

There was no more debate on the matter.

I am going to be honest. I am ashamed that something like this was allowed to happen, that the president can surround himself with subordinates who value loyalty to the president than to their true employers, the people of the United States. His advisers failed to act in any sort of advisory capacity, and this has possibly changed the course of the Iraq war for the worse over the past five years. Admittedly, much of the blame resides with Dubya himself, for putting his agenda before his duty as president, but I personally would have expected his advisers to take a more active role in his policies, and prevent him from making blunders of this degree.

Was dissolving the Iraq army a mistake? Ostensibly, the purpose was to rid the country of the remaining Baathist institutions, as a sign to the Iraqi people that America was committed. However, this has turned out to be a colossal misjudgement, as it placed the security of the entire country in the hands of American soldiers, while the infrastructure of the Iraqi army was destroyed, leaving our troops quite alone. Now, faced with the prospect of withdrawal, the United States will soon be struggling...to create an Iraqi army...

What thought process lead to the notion that this was a good idea? It can be easily argued that the more the United States did to shake up that region...well, the more shaken up it would become. (In math terms, this equation looks something like 1=1.) Anyone with common sense could have seen this coming! Whats more, if Bush had taken the time to consult important people before agreeing to this, then the army might never have been dissolved, and we could have been working with the Iraqis from day one to crush the resistance. (This is not to say that invading in the first place was the right decision. It wasn't. However, once we had stormed in, you would think that the president could make the effort to run the war right.) Here's a bright idea--why not use Iraqis to rebuild Iraq? Because they were part of an institution begun by Saddam Hussein? Sorry, George, but next time plan it out before risking American lives.

Fortunately, with less than a year to go, and the Democrats in control of Congress, there won't be a next time.

Surge in Oil Prices-- When Will it Stop?

Has anyone besides me felt as if oil prices have just kept rising? Let's take a look at the facts. Back in 2003, oil was under $25 a barrel, but ever since the August of 2005, it has raised from $60 dollars a barrel, then to $75, (there was a brief interval when it dropped to $50/barrel, but that was because of pure economic luck--Bush took advantage of it and said he had decreased oil prices); and now, now ladies and gentlemen, we're at over $100 a barrel. You could pretty much say the Saudis are having a field day.

Just this past summer at a student forum, I was given the opportunity to talk with students and professors from Dubai. Surprisingly, I found out that many oil-rich Middle Eastern countries are rising prices on purpose; they know that the American people will blame their president, not the countries themselves. But c'mon, are we really to blame? Think about it. Just last week Bush said, "Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?" when when a reporter mentioned the possibility of pumping gas for $4 a gallon. Mr. President, be realistic. I know you think the American people are a bunch of clowns who tap-dance just like you at press conferences, but sometimes you just take it too far.

Anyway, we'll have to wait and see if the economists are right about the gas prices. It's safe to say that they will be, especially with many of them having predicted the big R word back in mid-2007 (Bush's reply: "Huh? What? What's the R stand for?"). But one thing is certain, our country needs an economic savior, and fast.

Bush Vetoes Anti-Torture Bill

You couldn't make this up if you tried.

Today George Bush vetoed a bill that would prevent the CIA from using interrogation techniques many consider to be torture. One of the methods that the bill would have outlawed, waterboarding, includes strapping the prisoner to a board and pouring vast amounts of water into their breathing passages.

Bush said that the bill "would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror." Really, Mr. President? Torturing foreign suspects is a tool in your war on terror? To hell with the Constitution and morals of this country, right?

Both houses of Congress passed the bill, but as we all know, Bush knows best. We can only hope that Congress overrides the veto, but don't count on it.