August 2006 Archives

The latest White House spokesman, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, revealed the essential nature of current foreign and domestic security policy yesterday in a speech before the American Legion's national convention, yesterday. His central theme was terrorists, and his strategy was to invoke fear. Secretary Rumsfeld likened our war against terrorists and in Iraq to that of WWII, alluding to the prospect of Islamic Fascism seeking to take over the world and subjecting freedom loving people's everywhere to their fascist regimes. This was quite illuminating for its glaring falsehood and overreaching.

One huge glaring error was comparing Islamic terrorists today to the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy and to Imperial Japan of the 1930's. These were nation states which sought to overpower the militaries and the people of other nation states and incorporate them, subjugating their people's to their expanded nation state's regime. Terrorists today are nation less, and lack military power and might to annex other nations and subjugate their peoples. So, why do Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice, all of whom have made similar arguments this week, create this false image for public consumption? There are at least two reasons, military expansion, and fear of the American population.

Try asking the American people if either the Republican or Democratic party is the answer to America's woes and future needs. They will answer in majority with a clear and stoutly resonated "NO"! Did our Constitution's drafters fail to adequately account for human behavior and foibles?

Polls show confidence in the Republican and Democratic Parties is AWL, Absent With Leave by the actions of the parties. Apparently, the public has two options to address the broken system; vote out incumbents regardless of party, or overthrow the government, and convene a new Continental Congress to draft a new Constitution which starts with the old one, but, removes money and parties from their roles as primary movers of politicians.

Congress men and women are all back home with their constituents trying to figure out what they can tell you to get your vote. So, what is it you want to hear in order to give them your vote? Or, given swelling anti-incumbent sentiment, is it too late for that?

Feeling Bush's Pain

| | Comments (0)

The NY Times reports July was the bloodiest yet for Iraqi civilians, with the body count at 3,438. That is a 9% increase over the previous month. And in another story the NYT reports Bush expressed frustration Monday "that the new Iraqi government - and the Iraqi people - had not shown greater public support for the American mission...". If one has any heart at all, President Bush's self made Catch-22, called the Iraq occupation, must elicit a large dose of empathy if not sympathy.

Droves of politicians from the Right and Left are distancing themselves, as best they can, from having had anything to do with the decision to invade Iraq as election day approaches. Conservative politicians are doing a real Texas 3 step away from the President in hopes of salvaging their political careers. When I take a moment to consider how I would feel if I were in President Bush's shoes this week, it makes me immensely sad. Simultaneously however, the thought comes to mind PDQ that I would never, in his shoes, have made that decision to invade Iraq. War is one of the gravest decisions any people can ever commit themselves to.

Ned Lamont has won the Democratic primary election to run as the party's Senate candidate on November's ballot. With 97% of the vote counted, Lamont held a lead by less than 3.5%. My mild disappointment is not that Lamont won, but the small margin. If Connecticut were in the throes of an anti-incumbent fever, Lamont would have won over Sen. Joseph Lieberman by a landslide. On the flip side, another incumbent lost tonight, Rep. Cynthia McKinney lost her bid.

I will go on record now and say, November's race between Lamont as Democrat, and Lieberman as Democratic Independent, will go one of two ways. Either, Lamont will succeed in painting Lieberman as a divider of Connecticut and the Democratic Party, and a man who doesn't like playing by the party's rules. Or, Lieberman will succeed with a lot of help from Independent and Republican voters who see more conservative prospects from Sen. Joe than their own Republican candidate (who has little chance in this predominantly Democratic state). You can hold me to this call.

It is painful and with deep regret that I have to reiterate what was obvious to some of us all along. Invading Iraq would lead to civil war and unaffordable American deficits, our national debt and deficits would reach or exceed 11 trillion bankrupting the Social Security and Medicare safety nets, and a one party Republican government would lead to government failure, defined by an inability to solve the nation's most pressing problems.

Iraq - The top Generals sitting beside Donald Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, before a Congressional hearing admitted today Iraq is going badly, and civil war may be in the cards. For a change, they were almost fully truthful. If they had acceded that Iraq is already engaged in civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, they would have scored 100 on truthfullness. But they denied thinking that this civil war was in the cards. So, why is it, I and many others were predicting civil war and the White House and Pentagon couldn't?

Contact

Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.25

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from August 2006 listed from newest to oldest.

July 2006 is the previous archive.

September 2006 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Offsite Links