Where Do We Fit In?

There's been a lot of talk about the Georgia-Russia conflict lately. Some of it has been pretty scary. Some political commentators are drawing similarities to the Cold War, others are warning that a global conflict is only one nasty incident away. What started off as a fairly regional issue certainly has exploded over the past week or so. Of course, the world's focus on International Relations and the Olympics as of late certainly doesn't help the firestorm that has emerged.

Even with Russia issuing a cease fire in the past day or so (almost immediately after the United States virtually demanded one) there are signs that military action is continuing in Georgia. The conflict started over a few separatist regions in Georgia with very close ties to neighboring Russia. In Georgia's attempt to regain control over these regions, they angered the Russians, who felt the Georgian military had overstepped its authority.

Now we see the Russian military doing the exact same thing. They ruled into Georgia with their tanks and jets and infantry, and even after the separatist regions have been dutifully protected, they continue to bomb and destroy Georgia and its military. Even after claiming that they would stop, they continue to "punish" the Georgians, who can't hope to defend themselves against the far superior Russian army.

The United States has taken a pretty firm stance on the issue. President Bush immediately returned from the Beijing Games and stated that the United States condemns any Russian military action outside of the disputed region, and said that the Russians had been using an inordinate amount of force.

Now with the Russians seemingly ignoring the cease fire they had agreed to, the United States is offering aid to Georgia and its devastated people. Many will begin to ask whether we should be putting ourselves in harms way by doing so, and in my opinion, we absolutely should. If the Russian Government (and even more importantly, ex KGB operative and omnipresent Russian leader Vladmir Putin) get the feeling that they can start rolling into neighboring countries without any resistance from the World community, they will. Especially if they feel they have a good reason to, as in the Georgia situation.

I don't think that this situation will ultimately end in military confrontation between the US and Russia, because I believe at the end of the day, both countries are still afraid of what the other is capable of. The United States can afford to take a hard stance against the Russians, we can afford to offer aid to Georgia, and we can afford to publicly call out the Russian government, because the last thing they want is a fight with us. They can ignore the cease fire, ignore our statements, and ignore everything else the world community is telling them, because the last thing we want is a fight with Russia, and they know it.

It's a standstill. Two immovable objects. Both flexing their muscles for everyone to see, showing the other (and possibly themselves) that they've still got the guts to stand up to the other. In the end, its just sad to see a formerly progressing country like Russia fall into old habits, and even sadder to see President Bush have the chance to face another crisis, right when we thought he was pretty much done.

Question of the Day: What's More Important?

There has been a firestorm over the last couple days over Barack Obama's choice to vote for a bill in Congress. The bill will give communications companies that complied with President Bush's request to illegally wiretap terror suspects immunity from lawsuit. It is an update of FISA, the federal surveillance bill that has caused all the controversy dealing with Bush's wiretapping following the 9/11 attacks in order to keep track of terror suspects within the United States.

Liberals within Congress and within public in general have accosted Obama for what they see as a "sellout" of his values. They accuse him of being compliant with what they see as illegal activities by Bush. They claim that the United States citizen's rights to be free and clear from federal surveillance is more important than providing better security.

The flip side of the argument is that with the wiretapping, the Government is able to have more intelligence on possible terror suspects and hopefully prevent another attack on the scale of 9/11 from happening. As President Bush explained, the bill

will help help us meet our most solemn responsibility: to stop another attack.

My question is, what IS the Government's most solemn responsibility? Should they be more worried about upholding the rights of the people and the Constitution or protecting the people from a possible terror attack. Should they worry more about keeping people happy or keeping people safe? Are those two ideas mutually exclusive? Do we really need to make a choice between safety and the Constitution? Has Barack Obama "sold out?"

Let me know what you think in the comments section.

How Kennedy's Situation Affects the Senate

I'm sure most of you have heard by the time that you're reading this that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has been diagnosed with a malignant glioma (brain tumor) in his left parietal lobe. The prognosis for the condition that he has is anywhere from less than 1 year to live to five years to live (under the best circumstances). For a man of Kennedy's age, such a diagnosis seems to be fatal at some point.

Red & Blue's prayers go out to Sen. Kennedy and his family. Ted's oldest brother Joe died during World War II, and his two other brothers, John and Robert, were both assassinated in the 60's. This family has seen more tragedy than most, so we can only hope that they will be able to deal with this situation and stay strong at Teddy's side. Either way, it seems as though the Lion of the Left may be on his last legs.

Ted Kennedy has been serving in the Senate since 1962, which makes him the second longest serving member of the current Senate, behind President pro-tem Robert Byrd, who is 90 years old. Kennedy was re-elected to a new 6-year term in 2006 and won't be up for re-election again until 2012. So now we need to look at the question, what happens if he cannot complete that term?

If Sen. Kennedy retires or dies in office, Massachusetts law requires that a special election be held to fill the seat somewhere between 145-160 days after he leaves office. That means for a minimum of 145 days, his seat will be vacant. Under the current composition of the Senate, the Democrats and Republicans both hold 49 seats. There are two Independent Senators, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who both caucus with the Democrats. This gives the Democrats a VERY slim 51-49 majority within the senate, especially considering the fact that Dick Cheney, a Republican, would vote to break ties if there were a 50-50 split in the Senate.

So, should Ted leave the senate, for 145 days, the Senate would be 50-49 Democratic advantage. They would keep the majority, but barely. If in the special election, a Republican wins the seat, the Senate will suddenly be split 50-50, and the Republicans will have the majority as long as a Republican stays in the White House.

The composition of the Senate is already shaky for the Democrats, considering the fact that one of the Independents they NEED to retain majority is supporting John McCain in the upcoming election, and seems to be showing even more Republican tendencies as time goes by. I am talking of course about Joe Lieberman. If he were to change his mind and caucus with the Republicans, the Senate would be split 50-50. It is almost assured this won't happen, since it would be political suicide for Lieberman in Connecticut, but the possibility remains.

Either way, Kennedy's situation greatly affects the Senate, and you can be sure people will be watching what happens to him very closely, especially President Bush. But Kennedy is a fighter, and considering his loyalty to the Democratic party, and how much his seat means to the party, you can be certain he won't be resigning any time soon.

Kyle: You have to keep in mind, though, that Kennedy represents Massachusetts, one of the most consistently Democratic states in the nation. Currently, all 10 Congressmen are Democrats, as well as Kennedy and Junior Senator John Kerry, and it is well known as a liberal bastion. It seems unlikely that a Republican would be able to win a Senate seat in this political environment, so I think the more serious issue here will be the loss of Kennedy as a leader in the Senate and in the Democratic Party.

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.

LIke President, Like Cabinet

Alphonso R. Jackson, the current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), has been under criticism the last couple of days, jepordizing his leadership as a cabinet member. It is said that Jackson secretly channeled hundreds of thousdands of dollars of government money to personal friends in New Orleans and the Virgin Islands. This is just the icing on top of his cake of corruption.

As if this were not enough, Jackson and other senior HUD officials exchanged emails in which they talked about taking away federal aid from Philadelphia housing chief Carl R. Greene. Senators such as Christopher J. Dodd and Bob Casey, as well as myself, are disgusted with these actions that undermine the public's faith in government officials. It seems that from the beginning of the Bush administration public confidence in our government has been greatly decreasing, mainly due to bad decisions and shady dealings.

These actions only restate the obvious: the fact that we need someone to bring change in the next election. So to Bush and all his cabinet members, being lame ducks, don't try anything fancy in your last couple months in federal office, like redirecting federal money away from helpless Katrina victims to your personal friends. What you did Jackson, is quite shocking, but like I said, like president like cabinet.

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.

Heated FISA Debate Leads to Closed Session

The House of Representative has been debating proposed revisions to FISA and other Federal surveillance laws recently. After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush starting using the National Security Agency to track phone calls, emails, and all other types of communication of suspected terrorists outside the United States.

The problem is that the program allows this warrantless wiretapping to take place even if one of the communicating parties lies within the United States. Bush has argued that they aren't spying on the American people, just making sure that the government has intelligence of any suspected terrorist activity. Many are outraged, however, feeling that NSA overstepped its bounds and has violated the 4th Amendment and FISA, the federal surveillance legislation.

Anyways, the debate right now is whether to protect privately contracted communications companies who complied with Bush's wiretapping program from lawsuits by those who feel slighted. The Republicans feel as though the companies should be given "retroactive immunity" but many Democrats think the companies should be open to any type of lawsuit in order to protect the rights of the American people.

The debate has become so heated, that Republican Whip Roy Blunt asked for a closed session of congress to take place on Thursday, March 14th so that confidential information could be presented on the floor. Such a closed session has not taken place since 1983, and it means that the American people will not have any knowledge of what is going on inside the House chamber.

Call me crazy, but I think this might actually be a step in the right direction. How many citizens actually care about what House members are saying on the floor? What people care about is results, and if this closed session can lead to a resolution of the issue, I think people will be satisfied.

It's important that Congress remains connected with the people, but this is an isolated event, and since confidential information needs to be discussed, I really don't see any other option. A few Democrats are opposed to the idea of closing the House on Thursday (cough cough Kucinich) but for the most part, they agree that it needs to take place.

That being said, I'd really like to know what's being said in that historic session. Maybe I could call Bush and ask him to wiretap it for me. He'd probably go along with it. Who cares if it's illegal.

More on this to come as it develops.....

UPDATE!! The Democratic version of the bill passed in congress today. Those who were in the closed session last night are reporting that not much was accomplished in terms of moving towards a workable compromise. President Bush has already promised to veto the legislation, which follows the Democrats idea of not providing immunity to the communications compaines. Even in private, it seems like Washington can't get anything done these days....

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.

John McCain-Superstar, or So He Thinks

John McCain kept President George W. Bush waiting at the White House Wednesday. Call me crazy, but that's just ridiculous. Granted McCain had won the Republican nomination for President the day before, but he kept the President of the United States waiting for him. Need I remind you John McCain that you are still just a Senator from Arizona. You are a war hero, an honorable guy I'm sure, but come on as a military man you should know all about respect. Show the Commander in Chief some. Sure, he's a lame duck. Sure, he's unpopular, but he's still the President. For once, I'm on your side George.