Well it passed. In what is being labeled a bipartisan victory by Democrats, Congress passed a non-binding resolution that opposes the Bush administration's plan to send more troops to Iraq. But even while House Democrats and Republicans were still debating the resolution prior to it's vote, troops were already being deployed to support their brothers and sisters in that war torn hell. So what was the point of the resolution?
We know the resolution wasn't a measure to cut off funding for the war that so many Democrats argue is the wrong direction for this country. So it wasn't an effort to spare 21,500 brave servicemen and women from wasting their lives in Iraq as Senator Obama stated. It also wasn't a resolution to bring our troops already serving home safely and soon as House Speaker Pelosi claimed. In fact, Congress may have actually increased the opposition our troops will face. This is just another example the insurgents will use in their multi-channel media (including ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, NY Times...etc) arsenal to motivate recruitment and increase attacks. Have no doubt, this resolution has done nothing to support our troops abroad. So at the end of the day what has this resolution accomplished?
It's accomplishment is demonstrating to the world that the only thing you can count on from the US is that it'll back down with minimal but sustained opposition. It shows that we don't want to get our hands dirty with the hard work that it takes to improve the world and that we would rather just throw bombs or petty cash at people from afar. It shows that even if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction we would have just killed Saddam, confiscated his weaponry, and left the Iraqis to rot. It tells any pro-democratic Iraqis that they better start making deals with the insurgents in order to live another day under their pending regime. It shows that Americans don't stand for the things we claimed because even now we're sending 21,500 Americans to possibly die for something we disapprove and find meaningless.
In one resolution we've summed up our commitment to face opposition through a show of support for our troops. In a world that embraces terrorists who blow up women and children as freedom fighters and defends the legitimacy of nations developing nuclear programs endangering international stability, that's a fine statement.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
John Edward's to Quit Next
Frankly, I don't even know why he's running in the first place. Oh, that's right... he's out of a job since losing his North Carolina senate seat in 2004.
Well looks like 2 of his campaign staffers have 'quit' too. I think they were brought on as 'hired guns' to socially architect some coup amongst the liberal arts dropouts cruising the blogisphere. Me thinks, they got some Google PR lift and left Edwards to hang in the wind.
Sure Edwards will reap some link equity too by proxy but let's face it the only winners here are the two bloggers (notice how I don't cite or link their names). As for Edwards... he's losing the race again. C'mon the guy ran with John “Swiftboat” Kerry... he has a record to keep.
Well looks like 2 of his campaign staffers have 'quit' too. I think they were brought on as 'hired guns' to socially architect some coup amongst the liberal arts dropouts cruising the blogisphere. Me thinks, they got some Google PR lift and left Edwards to hang in the wind.
Sure Edwards will reap some link equity too by proxy but let's face it the only winners here are the two bloggers (notice how I don't cite or link their names). As for Edwards... he's losing the race again. C'mon the guy ran with John “Swiftboat” Kerry... he has a record to keep.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Democrats - The Terrorists' Party of Choice?
Poor Australian Prime Minister John Howard. He's really started something and it'll be interesting to see how it turns out - for him and us here in the U.S.
A day after Illinois Senator Barack Obama announced his plans to run for 2008 clarifying his 'cut and run' Iraq policy with a timetable, Howard was quick to comment. The Prime Minister claimed that such a dreadful policy would plunge Iraq into further bloodshed and play into the hands of the terrorists. He further added the terrorists are likely praying for a Obama and Democrat party victory in 2008.
Obviously, these words didn't go unchallenged and Senator Obama was quick to defend his policy while blasting back at the U.S. ally. And with Howard facing relection at home later this year, things are heating up down under as well. Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd, quickly siezed upon the moment claiming Howards's comments were tantamount to calling U.S. Democrats the terrorists' party of choice.
Still, I give Howard credit as he defends his criticism about the Illinois Senator's Iraq policy. It isn't easy backing an effort in the Middle East that another country started but isn't willing to see through anymore. It says alot about his character and the Americans.
A day after Illinois Senator Barack Obama announced his plans to run for 2008 clarifying his 'cut and run' Iraq policy with a timetable, Howard was quick to comment. The Prime Minister claimed that such a dreadful policy would plunge Iraq into further bloodshed and play into the hands of the terrorists. He further added the terrorists are likely praying for a Obama and Democrat party victory in 2008.
Obviously, these words didn't go unchallenged and Senator Obama was quick to defend his policy while blasting back at the U.S. ally. And with Howard facing relection at home later this year, things are heating up down under as well. Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd, quickly siezed upon the moment claiming Howards's comments were tantamount to calling U.S. Democrats the terrorists' party of choice.
Still, I give Howard credit as he defends his criticism about the Illinois Senator's Iraq policy. It isn't easy backing an effort in the Middle East that another country started but isn't willing to see through anymore. It says alot about his character and the Americans.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Osama?
It may not be Prime Minister John Howard's exact words but it ain't far from the truth either. A day after Illinois Senator Barack Hussein Obama formally declared his 2008 bid for presidency, it didn't take long for the senator to draw criticism for his Iraq policy and rebuke a U.S. ally.
Don't get me wrong, Howard called out Obama first and his words were sharp -- but they were a directed reaction to the senator's statements. During his announcement Osama's pledged to cut support for the war and withdraw troops by March 2008 should he be elected president. Australia has supported the U.S. government in it's war on terror and actions in Iraq. As a consequence, Australia and it's prime minister have a vested interest in how things turn out there as you would expect. Personally, I think P.M. Howard was out of line pointing out Osama personally but in today's media circus where a Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad are allowed a forum at Turtle Bay it was hardly outrageous.
But how does the next great 'uniter' respond? Obama attacks a U.S. ally. "I think that it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me a day after I announced my candidacy for president. I take that as a compliment," senator Obama responded. Last time I checked, Australia was backing the U.S. and it's war on terror -- not George Bushland. The senator later went on to chastize Australia for not sending more troops into Iraq. Frankly, for the great diplomat that he aspires to be or is made out to be, I find his response to the P.M. disturbing. (Look out for more articles on this soon....)
At the end of the day, no one has any real idea where Obama stands with the war on terror or much of anything else yet. Not a bad thing for Obama yet really. We only know the Senator has made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in the future of Iraq or it's people. Regardless of support for our reasons going into Iraq in the first place, it's clear that there's a real and serious consequence to us pulling out of that country now. Obama even acknowledged that civil war is likely to errupt in Iraq should the U.S. withdraw it's troops. The apathy to this crisis on the part of the senator is frankly perplexing since Obama doesn't think we are doing enough for Darfur.
However, when Al Qaeda senior members, international intelligence analysts, and allies all agree that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will be a major win for the terrrorists then one is only left to speculate about Senator Obama's vision for international stability. Knowing as little about this candidate as we do, veiled questions like "does a vote for Obama mean a vote for Osama" are likely to come up even from self-serving democrats given the little Obama has chosen to share. You decide...
Don't get me wrong, Howard called out Obama first and his words were sharp -- but they were a directed reaction to the senator's statements. During his announcement Osama's pledged to cut support for the war and withdraw troops by March 2008 should he be elected president. Australia has supported the U.S. government in it's war on terror and actions in Iraq. As a consequence, Australia and it's prime minister have a vested interest in how things turn out there as you would expect. Personally, I think P.M. Howard was out of line pointing out Osama personally but in today's media circus where a Hugo Chavez or Ahmadinejad are allowed a forum at Turtle Bay it was hardly outrageous.
But how does the next great 'uniter' respond? Obama attacks a U.S. ally. "I think that it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me a day after I announced my candidacy for president. I take that as a compliment," senator Obama responded. Last time I checked, Australia was backing the U.S. and it's war on terror -- not George Bushland. The senator later went on to chastize Australia for not sending more troops into Iraq. Frankly, for the great diplomat that he aspires to be or is made out to be, I find his response to the P.M. disturbing. (Look out for more articles on this soon....)
At the end of the day, no one has any real idea where Obama stands with the war on terror or much of anything else yet. Not a bad thing for Obama yet really. We only know the Senator has made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in the future of Iraq or it's people. Regardless of support for our reasons going into Iraq in the first place, it's clear that there's a real and serious consequence to us pulling out of that country now. Obama even acknowledged that civil war is likely to errupt in Iraq should the U.S. withdraw it's troops. The apathy to this crisis on the part of the senator is frankly perplexing since Obama doesn't think we are doing enough for Darfur.
However, when Al Qaeda senior members, international intelligence analysts, and allies all agree that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will be a major win for the terrrorists then one is only left to speculate about Senator Obama's vision for international stability. Knowing as little about this candidate as we do, veiled questions like "does a vote for Obama mean a vote for Osama" are likely to come up even from self-serving democrats given the little Obama has chosen to share. You decide...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)