The question is why would al-Qaeda provoke the Shiite to violence? And why does that justify our troops remain? They are not provoking U.S troops. It seems that because the Sunnis are the underdogs now, they are not experiencing the representation they once had in the government, so they are violently lashing out against the Shiite. And it was said that PM Maliki is making moves within the Iraq government such as moving Sunnis out of positions and replacing them with Shiites. If they are a threat to the U.S. they would be attacking our troops. Yes we do suffer casualties but I would have to put our casualties in the innocent bystander category. Our troops are just on the sidelines.
29 November 2006
I knew there was something unusual about Dick Cheney’s visit to Saudi Arabia.
I keep saying that if the US wants to remedy the situation in Iraq, the US is going to have to take ownership of the problem and that is, our presence there upset an already fragile situatio. And here is an article that is talking about the fact that the US keeps trying to put the burden of this problem on Iraq when this situation was not something they started. And if the people of Iraq feel any animosity against the US can you blame them?
Hmmm....
The meeting between our president and the prime minister of Iraq has been canceled. Hmm. And we are being told that something like this is not unusual. Hmm. Well if you have to tell us that….. Hmmm. And by the way a dinner that was take to place will not include the PM. Hmmm. Whatever the reason the PM backed out of his meeting with the president it is not a good sign. And not to mention the meeting which took place between the Iraqi president and the Iranian president in the back drop of all of this. They have reschedule the meeting for tomorrow morning. And now that I am thinking I wonder if it was the U.S. delegation that offered to extend the meeting to tomorrow? Hmmm.
I was listening to Pat Buchanan on Scarborough Country and he seems to think that none of this is happening by accident. He believes that what leaks there were about PM Maliki were not by accident and that it is a set up for a show down with the cleric al-Sadr and his 40,000 followers. Thus as I stated in an earlier post, this meeting was probably a type of guage to see what was the PM Maliki position and the leak was a little extra? We will see what happens tomorrow.
But if it does come down to a show down between the US and al-Sadr that means we may be in for a show down with Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, Syria, China, because these countries/groups are like allies. Maybe not formally, maybe undercover, but if we go against al-Sadr he could call in this back up and this could very well be what we see play out. This will be that show down with Iran that this administration has been wanting. I hope I am wrong. And you know in the back of my mind I kept thinking it is something about this meeting that just does not sit well. And I too was of the mind set that the leaked memo from the national security advisor was declassified intentionally. They are well able to keep things from getting into the public eye if they need to do so. And to add, to all of this the letter from the Iranian president to the American people? What timing. Could it be a warning? Could he be trying to tell us something? Could it be the handwriting on the wall that a confrontation is coming? Hmmm....
I keep saying that if the US wants to remedy the situation in Iraq, the US is going to have to take ownership of the problem and that is, our presence there upset an already fragile situatio. And here is an article that is talking about the fact that the US keeps trying to put the burden of this problem on Iraq when this situation was not something they started. And if the people of Iraq feel any animosity against the US can you blame them?
Hmmm....
The meeting between our president and the prime minister of Iraq has been canceled. Hmm. And we are being told that something like this is not unusual. Hmm. Well if you have to tell us that….. Hmmm. And by the way a dinner that was take to place will not include the PM. Hmmm. Whatever the reason the PM backed out of his meeting with the president it is not a good sign. And not to mention the meeting which took place between the Iraqi president and the Iranian president in the back drop of all of this. They have reschedule the meeting for tomorrow morning. And now that I am thinking I wonder if it was the U.S. delegation that offered to extend the meeting to tomorrow? Hmmm.
I was listening to Pat Buchanan on Scarborough Country and he seems to think that none of this is happening by accident. He believes that what leaks there were about PM Maliki were not by accident and that it is a set up for a show down with the cleric al-Sadr and his 40,000 followers. Thus as I stated in an earlier post, this meeting was probably a type of guage to see what was the PM Maliki position and the leak was a little extra? We will see what happens tomorrow.
But if it does come down to a show down between the US and al-Sadr that means we may be in for a show down with Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, Syria, China, because these countries/groups are like allies. Maybe not formally, maybe undercover, but if we go against al-Sadr he could call in this back up and this could very well be what we see play out. This will be that show down with Iran that this administration has been wanting. I hope I am wrong. And you know in the back of my mind I kept thinking it is something about this meeting that just does not sit well. And I too was of the mind set that the leaked memo from the national security advisor was declassified intentionally. They are well able to keep things from getting into the public eye if they need to do so. And to add, to all of this the letter from the Iranian president to the American people? What timing. Could it be a warning? Could he be trying to tell us something? Could it be the handwriting on the wall that a confrontation is coming? Hmmm....
28 November 2006
It is going to be interesting to see the fallout from the president's speech today from Latvia. Let the drama begin. I can imagine some of the people listening to that speech have probably walked out. What he is saying is if we leave Iraq it will cause the Sunni and Shiite to pursue their agenda. If we don’t leave they will still pursue it. Would you not want to see if you can spare lives by withdrawing instead of staying where there will be guaranteed loss of life? And in his speech he mentioned oil would be used to blackmail the U.S. and the rest of the free world. Now we get to the real issue at hand. It’s the oil stupid.
He states Al-Qaeda is responsible for the problems in Iraq. Now Al-Qaeda is a Sunni group. Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims are divided and have been divided for generations before all of this began. They are in a struggle with each other for control in Iraq. What triggered this current barrage of fighting was the bombing of the Al-Askariya mosque . What does that have to do with the U.S.? That is between the Sunni and Shiite not the US. The US is on the sideline. The Sunni Muslims are outnumbered by the Shiite Muslims so his reasoning for staying the course does not make sense. Why and how can it be that the Sunnis are responsible for what is going on when they are outnumbered? And why would he blame the Sunnis when it is clear that the definite threat is with the Shiite since it is more in that camp throughout the entire Middle East including the main enemy Iran? It’s the oil. Reading between the lines what he is really saying is whoever gains control in Iraq whether it is Sunni or Shiite they will control the oil. So the agenda here is the US wants to have control of Iraq through a government there that will be linked to our government which would guarantee an uninterrupted flow of oil. So we use Al-Qaeda as our way into Iraq.
27 November 2006
Yesterday I stated that I heard on MSNBC that Moktada al-Sadr was visiting the wounded in Iraq and giving them money. Well today in the Washington Post they have a story verifying what I heard. Here are some excerpts from the article concerning this similarity that he has with Nasrallah of the Hezbollah group:
Here is the entire article
Sadr is widely believed to be modeling his movement after Lebanon's Shiite Muslim Hezbollah, which has both an armed and a political wing and provides social services to its followers.
At Khadisiya Hospital, militiamen assisted doctors and nurses, carrying patients into emergency rooms, Abid said. With hospital supplies thin, Sadr officials sent over syringes, medicines and other equipment donated by merchants. And with only four ambulances in circulation, most of the wounded were being brought in cars.
.Over the weekend, groups of Sadr officials and Mahdi Army militiamen visited the relatives of victims in large funeral tents erected in front of their houses, a tradition across Iraq. They brought food and envelopes of money, Fartoosi said.
Here is the entire article
Iraq Civil War
NBC and MSNBC have opened up the debate today by announcing they have decided to call the civil strife in Iraq a civil war. So now we have the transition from the war on terror to a civil war
Calling it a civil war cannot fair well with the administration seeing that now they will have to explain why the troops are in Iraq. Calling it a civil war does not work for them as it no longer gives them an excuse to be in Iraq. It goes against their “war or terror” agenda. The package has been torn apart; Pandora’s Box was inside and has been opened
It was said that the Iraqi’s need to fix the problem themselves. There was no civil war when it was decided to take out Sadaam and those weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqis did not create this problem and no matter what the fiasco is called that is going on there, no matter how strategist, analyst, and politicians try to dance around it, the bottom line is that our presence there is the catalyst for the chaos. And if there is a desire to bring stability to the region, there has to be ownership taken for the destabilization there. In the words of Colin Powell, “if you break it fix it”. This is not a popular position to take. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but if they want a resolution to the problem they will have to own up and find a way to get the parties involved to participate in a truce.
It is a non issue to say that Iraq has to take responsibility for establishing their government and take control of the chaos that was created by the US. I am sure they would like nothing more than to do those things but the US presence there is interfering. Whatever they call the turmoil there, no matter how much lipstick they try to put on this pig, it makes the U.S. government under this current administration look inept in its foreign policy.
26 November 2006
"Brother can you spare a dime"
I had to laugh at this when I read it. Especially the opening lines. But what the author is writing about is no laughing matter. And people do not seem to realize that we are on a ticking time bomb called the US Dollar.
It’s that time of the year and we are gleefully spending these hard earned dollars or maybe I should say we are swiftly borrowing to buy now and pay later via the credit cards we own. I like shopping but right now I would not dare use a credit card to make any kind of purchases if could not make a profit from those purchases and I would not dare take out any loans right now either. With our trade imbalance, we are a debtor nation. Let us go into detail about this debtor nation status of ours.
Ok this is how it works. We trade with China and others. To have a balance in trade, the amount of money that we spend in imports should equal the amount of money received in exports or there about. Problem. We hardly have anything to export. Oh we do export jobs though. Mea Culpa. I drifted but that is the first problem. We don’t have anything that we make that we can export anymore in exchange for receiving dollars, so that is contributor number one to our deficit problem in our current account. And because we are not receiving money through exporting or due to the lack thereof and the government’s spending due to the rumble in Iraq (I won’t call it a war because it’s not really) is outpacing the money that we receive, thus we have problem deux. They have cut taxes on behalf of those who most need to pay them, we are not getting any revenue from exports, so how are we getting money to spend you ask? Let’s look at our capital account, the flow of funds in and out of the country.
We sell bonds. We sell treasury bonds, corporate bonds mortgage backed bonds and foreigners and foreign central banks buy our bonds. These kind hearted people have mercy on the US and say ok you give us a bond with x interest and in z years we will earn a return on our purchase. We will pay you in us dollars for your bonds, which we received when you purchased our goods, so that you can have some money to spend. Oh how sweet of them. But it benefits them as well seeing that they do hold large sums of dollars it gives them the opportunity to invest those dollars. But here is where our debtor status comes in.
Keep in mind, we hardly have any exports going out in order to receive revenue from them, those who should be paying taxes and bearing their fair share of the freedom load are getting tax breaks thus no revenue there, and add to that we are tallying up a huge bill for the rumble in Iraq with no incoming revenue to cover. Oh I forgot, BONDS. So when the President goes to congress and says “hey I need more funds for the rumble in Iraq” Congress says “we’ll do” and that tells our treasury department to start the presses. The bonds are auctioned and we get the proceeds. But this is where it gets interesting and leads us down the slippery slope of debt.
With all these dollars floating out and about it pressures our currency value downward. Meaning it becomes cheap for a foreigner to purchase a dollar and expensive for a US citizen to purchase other currencies. To put it another way our goods are cheap, their goods are expensive. Now let’s apply that to those bonds. When say China wants to get a return on their investment or they get mad at us and stop supporting our habit the amount we borrowed originally is not going to be the same amount that we owe because of currency depreciation (inflation.) It will probably cost us more to pay them back because our currency value will cause it to be more expensive for us to pay them if and when we have to pay up. Thus our debtor nation status. The general thought though is that China will continue to support our habit so that we will continue to buy their goods.
So you ask how does this affect Joe Blow me? As mentioned previously, goods become expensive when you are working with a devalued dollar. And if and when countries that hold our currency decide they want a return on their investment or they just don’t want to hold dollars any longer it will cause our currency to devalue. And other things happen too like with inflation comes higher interest rates, companies slowing down their investing because of these higher interest rates; high unemployment on the US side because companies are cutting back because of these higher interest rates which puts the squeeze on them and prevents them from doing too much investing in hiring; no one making any money, not able to pay bills, defaults and bankruptcies etc. because you can’t find a job or you have to accept a job making lower wages. You get the picture. All of this because we pledge allegiance to China via the us dollar and our uncontrollable spending and unwillingness to practice self constraint a.k.a. savings. So there you have it. If you are up to your neck in debt don’t feel bad. We are all in this thing, US Deficit, together. Happy Holidays!
I ran across this newsletter and they talk about the falling dollar among other things. It explains a further what I have written about.
It’s that time of the year and we are gleefully spending these hard earned dollars or maybe I should say we are swiftly borrowing to buy now and pay later via the credit cards we own. I like shopping but right now I would not dare use a credit card to make any kind of purchases if could not make a profit from those purchases and I would not dare take out any loans right now either. With our trade imbalance, we are a debtor nation. Let us go into detail about this debtor nation status of ours.
Ok this is how it works. We trade with China and others. To have a balance in trade, the amount of money that we spend in imports should equal the amount of money received in exports or there about. Problem. We hardly have anything to export. Oh we do export jobs though. Mea Culpa. I drifted but that is the first problem. We don’t have anything that we make that we can export anymore in exchange for receiving dollars, so that is contributor number one to our deficit problem in our current account. And because we are not receiving money through exporting or due to the lack thereof and the government’s spending due to the rumble in Iraq (I won’t call it a war because it’s not really) is outpacing the money that we receive, thus we have problem deux. They have cut taxes on behalf of those who most need to pay them, we are not getting any revenue from exports, so how are we getting money to spend you ask? Let’s look at our capital account, the flow of funds in and out of the country.
We sell bonds. We sell treasury bonds, corporate bonds mortgage backed bonds and foreigners and foreign central banks buy our bonds. These kind hearted people have mercy on the US and say ok you give us a bond with x interest and in z years we will earn a return on our purchase. We will pay you in us dollars for your bonds, which we received when you purchased our goods, so that you can have some money to spend. Oh how sweet of them. But it benefits them as well seeing that they do hold large sums of dollars it gives them the opportunity to invest those dollars. But here is where our debtor status comes in.Keep in mind, we hardly have any exports going out in order to receive revenue from them, those who should be paying taxes and bearing their fair share of the freedom load are getting tax breaks thus no revenue there, and add to that we are tallying up a huge bill for the rumble in Iraq with no incoming revenue to cover. Oh I forgot, BONDS. So when the President goes to congress and says “hey I need more funds for the rumble in Iraq” Congress says “we’ll do” and that tells our treasury department to start the presses. The bonds are auctioned and we get the proceeds. But this is where it gets interesting and leads us down the slippery slope of debt.
With all these dollars floating out and about it pressures our currency value downward. Meaning it becomes cheap for a foreigner to purchase a dollar and expensive for a US citizen to purchase other currencies. To put it another way our goods are cheap, their goods are expensive. Now let’s apply that to those bonds. When say China wants to get a return on their investment or they get mad at us and stop supporting our habit the amount we borrowed originally is not going to be the same amount that we owe because of currency depreciation (inflation.) It will probably cost us more to pay them back because our currency value will cause it to be more expensive for us to pay them if and when we have to pay up. Thus our debtor nation status. The general thought though is that China will continue to support our habit so that we will continue to buy their goods.
So you ask how does this affect Joe Blow me? As mentioned previously, goods become expensive when you are working with a devalued dollar. And if and when countries that hold our currency decide they want a return on their investment or they just don’t want to hold dollars any longer it will cause our currency to devalue. And other things happen too like with inflation comes higher interest rates, companies slowing down their investing because of these higher interest rates; high unemployment on the US side because companies are cutting back because of these higher interest rates which puts the squeeze on them and prevents them from doing too much investing in hiring; no one making any money, not able to pay bills, defaults and bankruptcies etc. because you can’t find a job or you have to accept a job making lower wages. You get the picture. All of this because we pledge allegiance to China via the us dollar and our uncontrollable spending and unwillingness to practice self constraint a.k.a. savings. So there you have it. If you are up to your neck in debt don’t feel bad. We are all in this thing, US Deficit, together. Happy Holidays!
I ran across this newsletter and they talk about the falling dollar among other things. It explains a further what I have written about.
25 November 2006
Of note, listening to MSNBC today yet again, lol, I heard a report, that is if I heard correctly, that Moqtada al-Sadr was visiting those who are in the hospitals and giving them money? Hezbollah anyone? Possible link? Watch the links. Are the dots starting to connect?
If the US administration had not disconnected themselves from the region this crisis would not exist in its current state. Now if the US wants to see any type of progress in that region they may have to rethink its Middle Eastern policy. This is what disengagement will bring. We may have disengaged ourselves out of the Middle East. The US position in the Middle East could become marginal at best unless they are willing to have talks with the groups that potentially could create alliances. Those groups being Hamas, Hezbollah, the Mehdi Army, and Iran. Above all the US needs to take ownership of the situation in Iraq. A mea culpa would do niceley.
Check out this interesting article
If the US administration had not disconnected themselves from the region this crisis would not exist in its current state. Now if the US wants to see any type of progress in that region they may have to rethink its Middle Eastern policy. This is what disengagement will bring. We may have disengaged ourselves out of the Middle East. The US position in the Middle East could become marginal at best unless they are willing to have talks with the groups that potentially could create alliances. Those groups being Hamas, Hezbollah, the Mehdi Army, and Iran. Above all the US needs to take ownership of the situation in Iraq. A mea culpa would do niceley.
Check out this interesting article
24 November 2006
Iraq Pt Deux
I was watching MSNBC this morning and listening to a reporter from the Huffington Post by the name of Tom Hayden. In his interview he disclosed some information that makes the administration look not so good. He wrote an article which states that there may be some talks going on between some of our government officials and Sunni Muslims in the area to replace the current Shiite led government. Well, well, well. This is a major embarrassment. Sadam Hussein himself was a Sunni and if this report is true this is like saying we should have left Sadam in power. Now there is a move to revert back to a Sunni led government because they did not realize that this same Shiite led Iraqi government could one day unite with the Shiite government that is in Iran (think about this weekend’s summit between Syria Iraq and Iran and the possibility of Lebanon joining in via Hezbollah).
Further reading of this article unfolds what appears to be a total roll back of every premise this “war” was designed to take care of. Wow. What an embarrassment, secret meetings with the Sunnis and even the secretary of state doing a Colin Powell. You have to wonder what were they drinking, I mean thinking? Now that role reversal is underway what will the Shiite Muslims do? Lay down and roll over? Probably not. These low level talks that Mr. Hayden has reported about are, according to his article, suppose to help bring some type of truce. But I don’t see how if the talks are one sided. Moktada al-Sadr does not appear to be the type of person that is going to take any such transition eating ice cream and the Shiite in Iraq have their Iranian connection being that the government in Iran is Shiite also. Can you say escalated chaos?
So next will be a showdown between the Mahdi Army who are led by al-Sadr and US forces, if the Sunnis do gain control in Iraq. But with Iraqi President Talabani going to Iran this weekend to meet with Ahmadinejad, that is something that makes you go mmm. What if he asks the Iranian president for support against such a move?
Our leaders are expected to be in the region next week and it will be very interesting to see what plays out over there. The president is going to be meeting with the Iraqi prime minister next week and no doubt he will want to know what happened in that meeting between the Iranian and the Iraqi presidents.
If there is any connection between these low level talks with the Sunni and the President no doubt his meeting with the Prime Minister will be a gauge as to what should be the next move. And in light of pass statements made by Prime Minister al-Maliki not to long ago, most notable, that “I’m not America’s man in Iraq” statement, he may be getting that vote of confidence you get when you are getting the heave ho.
Further reading of this article unfolds what appears to be a total roll back of every premise this “war” was designed to take care of. Wow. What an embarrassment, secret meetings with the Sunnis and even the secretary of state doing a Colin Powell. You have to wonder what were they drinking, I mean thinking? Now that role reversal is underway what will the Shiite Muslims do? Lay down and roll over? Probably not. These low level talks that Mr. Hayden has reported about are, according to his article, suppose to help bring some type of truce. But I don’t see how if the talks are one sided. Moktada al-Sadr does not appear to be the type of person that is going to take any such transition eating ice cream and the Shiite in Iraq have their Iranian connection being that the government in Iran is Shiite also. Can you say escalated chaos?
So next will be a showdown between the Mahdi Army who are led by al-Sadr and US forces, if the Sunnis do gain control in Iraq. But with Iraqi President Talabani going to Iran this weekend to meet with Ahmadinejad, that is something that makes you go mmm. What if he asks the Iranian president for support against such a move?
Our leaders are expected to be in the region next week and it will be very interesting to see what plays out over there. The president is going to be meeting with the Iraqi prime minister next week and no doubt he will want to know what happened in that meeting between the Iranian and the Iraqi presidents.
If there is any connection between these low level talks with the Sunni and the President no doubt his meeting with the Prime Minister will be a gauge as to what should be the next move. And in light of pass statements made by Prime Minister al-Maliki not to long ago, most notable, that “I’m not America’s man in Iraq” statement, he may be getting that vote of confidence you get when you are getting the heave ho.
23 November 2006
22 November 2006
Quagmire Quandary You Choose
Our leaders will have no one to blame but themselves if what goes down this weekend in the Middle East ends up being a love feast for a power grab in the middle east. This meeting between the leaders of Iraq, Syria, and Iran is a good thing but I hope that it is a genuine effort on the part of the leaders of Iran and Syria to stem the tide of violence in Iraq and help them stabilize that country thereby leading to a more stable middle east.
You know things have a way of backfiring on you especially when the things that you do are not right to begin with. So now we are in Iraq where there were no connections to Al Qaeda in regards to 9-11 and there were no weapons of mass destruction but we have created a potentially explosive situation.
Here you have Ahmadinjad whom is believed to be building nuclear weapons and supports terrorists groups. Then there is Assad who also supports terrorists groups. Not only are we in a quagmire or as Kofi Anan said today “trapped in Iraq” we may find we are also in a quandary. What happens when these leaders meet with the Iraqi prime minister this weekend it turns out to bring an un-welcomed unity between these countries in the region? And not to mention the events in Lebanon where the Christian representative in their parliament because he challenged Syria’s involvement in Lebanon’s government was assassinated and where there is a move by Hezbollah, the terrorist group supported by both Iran and Syria, to topple the Lebanese government. What happens if all these events line up to be a power consolidation move? Oh joy. Then what we have essentially created in our haste to get into Iraq is the beginning of a new Muslim nation, Shiite dominated ruled by Ahmadinejad. Worse case scenario. Now look at what we have gone and done.
It’s all about engagement. You have to engage your enemies. Especially when the stakes are so high. Enemies have mutual respect for each other as long as you don’t cross their line. In this case invade their sovereignty. I respect your power and you respect mine. When you engage your enemy neither one will come to the table expecting to relinquish anything but when you get up from the table you have a new found respect for each other and we can come to some kind of understanding and some agreements. And this is the failure of our leaders, the failure of engagement.
If you sit down with these leaders you gain their respect because at least you were willing to treat them as equals as they should be treated because they are in leadership positions, and treat them fairly. When you engage diplomatically with these leaders, they can express what their positions are and our leaders can express our position, all the cards are on the table and we can negotiate our way to peaceful resolutions.
In the absence of this scenario we get the results that have been playing out in the Middle East. No diplomatic interventions, no willingness to work out differences, no peace. Thus we are on course for a potential power consolidation unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime. I suspect though that the true force behind this weekend’s summit is the Baker-Hamilton Commission, the hidden hand of diplomacy.
With so many things being said about Ahmadinejad it would be nice to hear that he is not what is being said about him in the media. Some reports I read say he is not building nuclear weapons for malicious reasons while other reports say that he is. I hope this meeting this weekend will prove that he genuinely wants to be a part of the world community and play his part along with Syria’s Assad to bring peace and stability in that region
You know things have a way of backfiring on you especially when the things that you do are not right to begin with. So now we are in Iraq where there were no connections to Al Qaeda in regards to 9-11 and there were no weapons of mass destruction but we have created a potentially explosive situation.
Here you have Ahmadinjad whom is believed to be building nuclear weapons and supports terrorists groups. Then there is Assad who also supports terrorists groups. Not only are we in a quagmire or as Kofi Anan said today “trapped in Iraq” we may find we are also in a quandary. What happens when these leaders meet with the Iraqi prime minister this weekend it turns out to bring an un-welcomed unity between these countries in the region? And not to mention the events in Lebanon where the Christian representative in their parliament because he challenged Syria’s involvement in Lebanon’s government was assassinated and where there is a move by Hezbollah, the terrorist group supported by both Iran and Syria, to topple the Lebanese government. What happens if all these events line up to be a power consolidation move? Oh joy. Then what we have essentially created in our haste to get into Iraq is the beginning of a new Muslim nation, Shiite dominated ruled by Ahmadinejad. Worse case scenario. Now look at what we have gone and done.
It’s all about engagement. You have to engage your enemies. Especially when the stakes are so high. Enemies have mutual respect for each other as long as you don’t cross their line. In this case invade their sovereignty. I respect your power and you respect mine. When you engage your enemy neither one will come to the table expecting to relinquish anything but when you get up from the table you have a new found respect for each other and we can come to some kind of understanding and some agreements. And this is the failure of our leaders, the failure of engagement.
If you sit down with these leaders you gain their respect because at least you were willing to treat them as equals as they should be treated because they are in leadership positions, and treat them fairly. When you engage diplomatically with these leaders, they can express what their positions are and our leaders can express our position, all the cards are on the table and we can negotiate our way to peaceful resolutions.
In the absence of this scenario we get the results that have been playing out in the Middle East. No diplomatic interventions, no willingness to work out differences, no peace. Thus we are on course for a potential power consolidation unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime. I suspect though that the true force behind this weekend’s summit is the Baker-Hamilton Commission, the hidden hand of diplomacy.
With so many things being said about Ahmadinejad it would be nice to hear that he is not what is being said about him in the media. Some reports I read say he is not building nuclear weapons for malicious reasons while other reports say that he is. I hope this meeting this weekend will prove that he genuinely wants to be a part of the world community and play his part along with Syria’s Assad to bring peace and stability in that region
20 November 2006
"I Said That"
I was listening to an analyst today on MSNBC stating what I said yesterday. The Democrats need to come up with their own unified plan for an Iraq exit strategy. They can’t “scapegoat” on the Baker-Hamilton commission or that the American people did not expect them to have a unified plan but just wanted anyone other than a Republican in congress. The analyst name was Chris Cillizza.
Also here is a portion of an article from the Washington Post reaffirming what I said a few days ago about MSNBC:
For MSNBC, Time to Get Political
November's Shouting Over, A Network Finds Its Voice
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff WriterMonday, November 20, 2006; Page C01
MSNBC has seen the future, and it is politics.
Delivered with plenty of opinion.
Preferably with lots of cameo appearances by big-name news stars from the mothership.
The perennial third-place cable news channel enjoyed a nice bump in the ratings during the midterm campaign, in part because the likes of Brian Williams, Tim Russert, David Gregory and Campbell Brown broke away from their NBC duties to help out.
"We've found a voice as of late, and a large part of that voice is politics," says MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams. And although he doesn't plan to put on "all politics all the time until 2008," Abrams says he wants to continue "branding" MSNBC as a haven for political junkies.
They go on to say:
“There's no plan to transform the channel into an extended version of Chris Matthews's "Hardball," but MSNBC covered the House leadership shootout between Jack Murtha and Steny Hoyer with presidential-campaign intensity.”
Well they should. Or create a political cable channel. Also here’s another "I said that" from the New York Post:
CRITICS TO KICK RUDY PATOOTIE
By DAVID SEIFMAN City Hall Bureau Chief;
Indeed, there are a number of issues that could weigh Giuliani down as he tries to move from being "America's Mayor" to America's president:
* Bernard Kerik. His implosion as President Bush's Homeland Security nominee is bound to taint Giuliani. New York's former top cop under Giuliani was forced to withdraw his nomination amid revelations that he employed an illegal immigrant nanny, had ties to mob-connected businesses and carried on simultaneous extramarital affairs with two women.
* Marital woes. Giuliani was once married to a cousin, Regina Peruggi, then went through a bitter divorce with wife No. 2, Donna Hanover, while publicly romancing wife No. 3, Judith Nathan.
They mentioned other things about Mr. Giuliani that were really anti Republican agenda. And as another MSNBC analyst stated he would not survive their primary.
Also here is a portion of an article from the Washington Post reaffirming what I said a few days ago about MSNBC:
For MSNBC, Time to Get Political
November's Shouting Over, A Network Finds Its Voice
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff WriterMonday, November 20, 2006; Page C01
MSNBC has seen the future, and it is politics.
Delivered with plenty of opinion.
Preferably with lots of cameo appearances by big-name news stars from the mothership.
The perennial third-place cable news channel enjoyed a nice bump in the ratings during the midterm campaign, in part because the likes of Brian Williams, Tim Russert, David Gregory and Campbell Brown broke away from their NBC duties to help out.
"We've found a voice as of late, and a large part of that voice is politics," says MSNBC General Manager Dan Abrams. And although he doesn't plan to put on "all politics all the time until 2008," Abrams says he wants to continue "branding" MSNBC as a haven for political junkies.
They go on to say:
“There's no plan to transform the channel into an extended version of Chris Matthews's "Hardball," but MSNBC covered the House leadership shootout between Jack Murtha and Steny Hoyer with presidential-campaign intensity.”
Well they should. Or create a political cable channel. Also here’s another "I said that" from the New York Post:
CRITICS TO KICK RUDY PATOOTIE
By DAVID SEIFMAN City Hall Bureau Chief;
Indeed, there are a number of issues that could weigh Giuliani down as he tries to move from being "America's Mayor" to America's president:
* Bernard Kerik. His implosion as President Bush's Homeland Security nominee is bound to taint Giuliani. New York's former top cop under Giuliani was forced to withdraw his nomination amid revelations that he employed an illegal immigrant nanny, had ties to mob-connected businesses and carried on simultaneous extramarital affairs with two women.
* Marital woes. Giuliani was once married to a cousin, Regina Peruggi, then went through a bitter divorce with wife No. 2, Donna Hanover, while publicly romancing wife No. 3, Judith Nathan.
They mentioned other things about Mr. Giuliani that were really anti Republican agenda. And as another MSNBC analyst stated he would not survive their primary.
19 November 2006
Today's word "Originality"
“As the Baker-Hamilton commission deliberates recommendations for Iraq, it faces a tremendous opportunity and responsibility. The opportunity is to help generate for the president and Congress a bipartisan way forward. The responsibility is to make the hard choices that are required to turn our Iraq policy around. If it fails to make those choices, its efforts will be in vain.” From The Minimum Necessary by Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Sunday, November 19, 2006; Page B07 the Washington Post
I’m glad and all about The Baker-Hamilton commission attempting to chart a new course for Iraq. And by the way, news reported today on MSNBC is that a Syrian foreign minister is heading to Iraq for talks. Looks like what I mentioned in my post the other day is coming to fruition (undercover diplomacy taking place). That aside my question is why have not the Democrats been able to formulate there own Iraq exit strategy and why they always seem to be throwing off on the Baker –Hamilton commission’s recommendations? This brings me to my word for the day "originality".
You see when the Democrats won the power vote it was for a new direction. Granted the Baker-Hamilton commission is working toward that end in Iraq, the Democrats also should work on a plan of their own which they can present before the people of the nation as their own. I watch democratic analyst be asked “what is the Democrats’ plan for an Iraq exit strategy?” and I here a lot of stuttering and incoherent un-uniformed answers. You have to credit the Republicans, when they had a talking point everyone rank and file said the same thing. They had a theme about themselves. And it is most effective when an entire group speaks the same thing.
Now the Democrats like to be known as the party that represents diversity. That is all well and good when you are talking about the people you represent. But when it comes to policy there should be no diversity within the party. There will be disagreements and differences of course but you should end up with a unified policy. And when that unified policy is in place and everyone is speaking the same thing as related to that policy, it will be reinforce with the listener because they are hearing that theme over and over until they get the message. Granted the Republican’s theme was a little off but it sold because they would repeat their theme over and over from talk show to talk show. And because they would say the same thing so much the listeners believed what they were hearing. I’d like to see the Democrats implement some of that.
That being said it would be nice to see Democrats come up with their own distinct, step by step plan for an Iraq exit strategy. Nothing replaces coming up with your own solution and being able to say this is what we came up with. And it would allow them to stand on their own solid plan instead of one that is in essence being authored by the Republican camp. When the 2008 presidential campaigns hit high gear who will be able to say we came up with a solution for Iraq and run that as the highlight of their campaign speeches? How can the Democrats say they did when they keep falling back on the Baker-Hamilton commission? It’s almost as if they are wholly depending on that commission’s report to be their solution to free them of the responsibility of coming up with their own solution. As if the commission is the last hope for Iraq. So what if it does not work? Then what? It would be back to square one, one party blaming the other.
If the Baker-Hamilton commission’s plan does provide a workable solution to the Iraq crisis it will be a good thing for all involved especially for the citizens of Iraq and US troops. But what a shame the Democrats are squandering a grand opportunity to come out ahead on finding an exit strategy for Iraq. It would be an asset to them to be able to affirm “We had the Plan” or “We were the party with the plan”. Democrats are handing another victory to the Republicans by not proactively defining their own agenda for Iraq. And come 2008 who will the people of the nation see as leaders? Let’s get some originality going Democrats.
Sunday, November 19, 2006; Page B07 the Washington Post
I’m glad and all about The Baker-Hamilton commission attempting to chart a new course for Iraq. And by the way, news reported today on MSNBC is that a Syrian foreign minister is heading to Iraq for talks. Looks like what I mentioned in my post the other day is coming to fruition (undercover diplomacy taking place). That aside my question is why have not the Democrats been able to formulate there own Iraq exit strategy and why they always seem to be throwing off on the Baker –Hamilton commission’s recommendations? This brings me to my word for the day "originality".
You see when the Democrats won the power vote it was for a new direction. Granted the Baker-Hamilton commission is working toward that end in Iraq, the Democrats also should work on a plan of their own which they can present before the people of the nation as their own. I watch democratic analyst be asked “what is the Democrats’ plan for an Iraq exit strategy?” and I here a lot of stuttering and incoherent un-uniformed answers. You have to credit the Republicans, when they had a talking point everyone rank and file said the same thing. They had a theme about themselves. And it is most effective when an entire group speaks the same thing.
Now the Democrats like to be known as the party that represents diversity. That is all well and good when you are talking about the people you represent. But when it comes to policy there should be no diversity within the party. There will be disagreements and differences of course but you should end up with a unified policy. And when that unified policy is in place and everyone is speaking the same thing as related to that policy, it will be reinforce with the listener because they are hearing that theme over and over until they get the message. Granted the Republican’s theme was a little off but it sold because they would repeat their theme over and over from talk show to talk show. And because they would say the same thing so much the listeners believed what they were hearing. I’d like to see the Democrats implement some of that.
That being said it would be nice to see Democrats come up with their own distinct, step by step plan for an Iraq exit strategy. Nothing replaces coming up with your own solution and being able to say this is what we came up with. And it would allow them to stand on their own solid plan instead of one that is in essence being authored by the Republican camp. When the 2008 presidential campaigns hit high gear who will be able to say we came up with a solution for Iraq and run that as the highlight of their campaign speeches? How can the Democrats say they did when they keep falling back on the Baker-Hamilton commission? It’s almost as if they are wholly depending on that commission’s report to be their solution to free them of the responsibility of coming up with their own solution. As if the commission is the last hope for Iraq. So what if it does not work? Then what? It would be back to square one, one party blaming the other.
If the Baker-Hamilton commission’s plan does provide a workable solution to the Iraq crisis it will be a good thing for all involved especially for the citizens of Iraq and US troops. But what a shame the Democrats are squandering a grand opportunity to come out ahead on finding an exit strategy for Iraq. It would be an asset to them to be able to affirm “We had the Plan” or “We were the party with the plan”. Democrats are handing another victory to the Republicans by not proactively defining their own agenda for Iraq. And come 2008 who will the people of the nation see as leaders? Let’s get some originality going Democrats.
18 November 2006
We can see the effects of the leadership change in Washington already. There is an article in the New York Times today reporting some undercover diplomacy taking place with the Syrians by members of the Baker Commission. Though I am not a part of the republican party it is good to see them at least reaching out to the nations in that region to work on a plan to bring order in Iraq.
November 18, 2006
Syrian Officials and Iraq Study Group Met, Envoy Says
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state who is now Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan group examining strategic options in Iraq, has met several times with Syrian officials to discuss how they might cooperate with the United States, the Syrian ambassador here said Friday.
“What would it take Syria to help on Iraq?” the Syrian ambassador, Imad Moustapha, recalled Mr. Baker asking Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Muallem, during a meeting in New York at the Waldorf-Astoria in September. Mr. Moustapha described the session as “very promising.”
During a 45-minute interview at the Syrian Embassy on Friday morning, the ambassador said he arranged the New York meeting, also attended by other members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, at Mr. Baker’s request. Separately, Ambassador Moustapha met twice with the study group in Washington.
The ambassador would not provide specifics, but said he had told the study group “in detail what actual things we can do, and what are the things that we cannot do. We were very candid with each other. We explained to them why it is in our own national interest to try to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.”
The Bush administration maintains low-level diplomatic relations with Syria, but has withdrawn its ambassador to Damascus and has said it will not authorize higher-level contacts because of Syria’s role in supporting terrorist groups, insurgents in Iraq and forces opposed to Lebanon’s elected government. The White House said Friday that Syria could play a positive role in the region, if it desired.
“The United States and the international community have made very clear the constructive role that Syria can play in the region,” said Dana Perino, a deputy White House press secretary, adding: “Even the Iraqis have said that Syria and Iran have not been constructive in Iraq; they have not supported the Iraqi unity government.”
Neither Mr. Baker nor his Democratic co-chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman, would comment on the meetings with Syrian officials. But there is speculation that the study group will advocate greater cooperation among the United States and Syria and Iran.
But Mr. Baker said at a news conference in September that the group intended to meet with officials of both countries. An outside adviser to the group, speaking on condition of anonymity, said in an interview this week that the panel had also interviewed the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif.
Mr. Baker has made little secret of his belief that the United States should negotiate with nations that it regards as enemies. He often likes to recount how, as secretary of state under the first President Bush, he traveled 15 times to Damascus in pursuit of a Middle East peace agreement. Earlier this week, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain delivered a widely publicized speech in which he suggested the West should pursue greater engagement with Iran and Syria.
President Bush, though, has not seemed open to dramatic policy shifts. During an appearance in the Oval Office on Monday, Mr. Bush called on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and stop “harboring terrorists,” and said Iran must suspend uranium enrichment before talks could begin.
“If the Iranians want to have a dialogue with us, we have shown them a way forward,” Mr. Bush said. On Syria, he said, “The Syrian president knows my position.”
In the interview on Friday, Mr. Moustapha said Syria was motivated to play a role in Iraq for several reasons: its historical ties to Iraq, concerns about the loss of life among its Iraqi “brothers and sisters” and fears that Iraq’s sectarian conflict could ignite fighting among corresponding factions in Syria.
“If the situation in Iraq spirals toward civil war, the repercussions would be terrible,” Mr. Moustapha said. “Who would we side with? We are friendly with all the parties.”
Mr. Moustapha said Syria cooperated with the United States before the invasion of Iraq, providing intelligence that, he said, thwarted two Al Qaeda plots. Relations broke off after the invasion, resumed in August 2004 and broke off again in early 2005, after the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri.
Mr. Moustapha described his sessions with Mr. Baker and the Iraq Study Group as very encouraging, saying they addressed “every single issue in the Middle East,” including Syria’s support for the group that captured two Israeli soldiers this past summer, which helped to spark a war between Israel and Hezbollah.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
November 18, 2006
Syrian Officials and Iraq Study Group Met, Envoy Says
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 — James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state who is now Republican co-chairman of a bipartisan group examining strategic options in Iraq, has met several times with Syrian officials to discuss how they might cooperate with the United States, the Syrian ambassador here said Friday.
“What would it take Syria to help on Iraq?” the Syrian ambassador, Imad Moustapha, recalled Mr. Baker asking Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Muallem, during a meeting in New York at the Waldorf-Astoria in September. Mr. Moustapha described the session as “very promising.”
During a 45-minute interview at the Syrian Embassy on Friday morning, the ambassador said he arranged the New York meeting, also attended by other members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, at Mr. Baker’s request. Separately, Ambassador Moustapha met twice with the study group in Washington.
The ambassador would not provide specifics, but said he had told the study group “in detail what actual things we can do, and what are the things that we cannot do. We were very candid with each other. We explained to them why it is in our own national interest to try to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.”
The Bush administration maintains low-level diplomatic relations with Syria, but has withdrawn its ambassador to Damascus and has said it will not authorize higher-level contacts because of Syria’s role in supporting terrorist groups, insurgents in Iraq and forces opposed to Lebanon’s elected government. The White House said Friday that Syria could play a positive role in the region, if it desired.
“The United States and the international community have made very clear the constructive role that Syria can play in the region,” said Dana Perino, a deputy White House press secretary, adding: “Even the Iraqis have said that Syria and Iran have not been constructive in Iraq; they have not supported the Iraqi unity government.”
Neither Mr. Baker nor his Democratic co-chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman, would comment on the meetings with Syrian officials. But there is speculation that the study group will advocate greater cooperation among the United States and Syria and Iran.
But Mr. Baker said at a news conference in September that the group intended to meet with officials of both countries. An outside adviser to the group, speaking on condition of anonymity, said in an interview this week that the panel had also interviewed the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif.
Mr. Baker has made little secret of his belief that the United States should negotiate with nations that it regards as enemies. He often likes to recount how, as secretary of state under the first President Bush, he traveled 15 times to Damascus in pursuit of a Middle East peace agreement. Earlier this week, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain delivered a widely publicized speech in which he suggested the West should pursue greater engagement with Iran and Syria.
President Bush, though, has not seemed open to dramatic policy shifts. During an appearance in the Oval Office on Monday, Mr. Bush called on Syria to withdraw from Lebanon and stop “harboring terrorists,” and said Iran must suspend uranium enrichment before talks could begin.
“If the Iranians want to have a dialogue with us, we have shown them a way forward,” Mr. Bush said. On Syria, he said, “The Syrian president knows my position.”
In the interview on Friday, Mr. Moustapha said Syria was motivated to play a role in Iraq for several reasons: its historical ties to Iraq, concerns about the loss of life among its Iraqi “brothers and sisters” and fears that Iraq’s sectarian conflict could ignite fighting among corresponding factions in Syria.
“If the situation in Iraq spirals toward civil war, the repercussions would be terrible,” Mr. Moustapha said. “Who would we side with? We are friendly with all the parties.”
Mr. Moustapha said Syria cooperated with the United States before the invasion of Iraq, providing intelligence that, he said, thwarted two Al Qaeda plots. Relations broke off after the invasion, resumed in August 2004 and broke off again in early 2005, after the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri.
Mr. Moustapha described his sessions with Mr. Baker and the Iraq Study Group as very encouraging, saying they addressed “every single issue in the Middle East,” including Syria’s support for the group that captured two Israeli soldiers this past summer, which helped to spark a war between Israel and Hezbollah.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
17 November 2006
Word for today "Objective"
After watching the commotion going on within the Democratic Party for the past few days I hope this is not what we have to look forward to in the days ahead. Because of her new leadership position, Speaker Pelosi would do well to set aside any personal differences for the good of the party which brings me to our word for today “objective”. I’ve been watching Mrs. Pelosi and she looks to me to be salivating. New found power and all. If first impressions are anything, she is off to a bad start. In her position, to take sides in a leadership competition when it was to be determined by vote who would be chosen to hold the Majority leadership position, made her look bad. (And her man lost). And any behind the scenes arm twisting did not help endear her to the rest of the party. Her positioning was based on some bad history between herself and Congressman Hoyer. And then there was the 26 year old taping of a sting operation involving Congressman Murtha that comes up out of the blue and its like what is going on with the Democrats? Even though there may have been some differences between Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Hoyer those differences should have been left on the side and she should have taken a “hands off” posture towards the outcome of the vote.
I like Congressman Murtha because he was willing to take an unpopular stand against the war in Iraq but, when Mrs. Pelosi in her past speeches talks about the culture of corruption in the Republican Party, she dashed any hopes of Murtha being the second in command. She should have known based on that to just stay out of the competition between Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Murtha. And that regardless of Murtha’s past dealings. It worked out that Hoyer did win because if he had not, the Democrats would have taken a lashing. And we don’t need that starting out of the gate.
I hope she will be able to redeem herself with the next round of leadership appointments. She has an opportunity to show those good leadership skills that I am confident she possesses. If she can handle that better than the Hoyer Murtha affair maybe she will be able to recoup some if that political capital she lost. Let the healing begin and show me the unity! …James Carville Another story.
When I watched their press conference yesterday announcing the new Democratic Party leaders, I felt really sad for Congressman Murtha. He was clearly hurt by the results. I was happy to see that Speaker Pelosi did at least acknowledge him and that he is going to chair the Armed Services Committee although I’m sure being the Majority leader would have been his preference. I will give her credit for standing by Congressman Murtha through thick and thin but being objective would be a better approach for Speaker Pelosi.
I like Congressman Murtha because he was willing to take an unpopular stand against the war in Iraq but, when Mrs. Pelosi in her past speeches talks about the culture of corruption in the Republican Party, she dashed any hopes of Murtha being the second in command. She should have known based on that to just stay out of the competition between Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Murtha. And that regardless of Murtha’s past dealings. It worked out that Hoyer did win because if he had not, the Democrats would have taken a lashing. And we don’t need that starting out of the gate.
I hope she will be able to redeem herself with the next round of leadership appointments. She has an opportunity to show those good leadership skills that I am confident she possesses. If she can handle that better than the Hoyer Murtha affair maybe she will be able to recoup some if that political capital she lost. Let the healing begin and show me the unity! …James Carville Another story.
When I watched their press conference yesterday announcing the new Democratic Party leaders, I felt really sad for Congressman Murtha. He was clearly hurt by the results. I was happy to see that Speaker Pelosi did at least acknowledge him and that he is going to chair the Armed Services Committee although I’m sure being the Majority leader would have been his preference. I will give her credit for standing by Congressman Murtha through thick and thin but being objective would be a better approach for Speaker Pelosi.
Dennis Kucinich has the same idea as I stated on yesterday’s word of the day, Ownership. While he did not talk about ownership, part of what he did say was that the presence of American troops in the region is a contributor to the insurgency. He was being interviewed by Tucker Carlson on his show today which if I may add if you are a political junkie MSNBC is must see TV. They deliver the best all day political analysis. And Dennis Kucinich is always on point.
16 November 2006
The word for today "Ownership"
The top priority for our leaders is an Iraq exit strategy. How do we do this without loosing face? How do we do this without leaving a power vacuum? Hmmm let’s see. Well number one, this is what happens when you enter into a "pre-emptive" conflict half prepared, uninformed, and hell bent on "my way or the highway" thinking. Number two every thing requires protocol, some type of procedure to follow before you plunge into a "war". Oh well, should of could of would of. Now the fear is if we precipitously remove the troops, there would be total chaos (98% there already). But we know we should not be there. What to do? Before we withdraw the troops, we need to take ownership of our mess.
We need to own up to the fact that because a gross error was made by entering into Iraq in the first place, we have now destabilized an already fragile region We would not have to discuss this issue of an exit strategy if it had been the right thing to do. Once that ownership part takes place we are on our way. We must recognize that we have to at least attempt to clean up the mess in Iraq that we have made. I here our leaders making statements like "we need to send a signal to the Iraqi government that they cannot depend on our troops. They need to step up and take the reigns and control the fighting in their country". That sounds as if they asked us to come into their country when they did not. Our government took it upon themselves to go into Iraq. How would you feel if you were made to feel like oh this is your fault and the person blaming you is 100% guilty and they want to make you clean up their mess?
Our government should take ownership of the fact that our presence is a contributor to the destabilization in the region and once we can make that acknowledgement then we can move on to part deux: a sit down a.k.a. truce. After we take ownership of the situation, we need to find trustworthy friends in both the Muslim world (probably few and far between these days) and elsewhere to help organize this sit down, someone who has the power and influence to "reach between the two worlds" (The Godfather part Trois). That someone should be able to help them understand that nothing can be accomplished by the fighting and the bloodshed. They must understand that both sides, Shiite and Sunni are in a lose lose situation as long as they continue on their current path. All must be willing to come to the table and be participators, and we must make it worth their while to come to the table. They would have to have some type of incentive to participate.
Once all have gathered around the table we can give the dust a chance to settle and under international oversight let the discussions begin. Sure there will be disagreements here and there but it is at the table that the disputes can be aired out, at the table not in the streets. From here the Iraqis can begin to move in the direction of getting some kind of order in the region From here the Iraqis can decide how they want to establish a government that governs in the fashion that is comfortable to their lifestyle. A government should be established in the fashion that is functional to their culture and a government that will be recognized by and accepted to sit at the table of the world community. From here the United States can start the removal of our troops from the region.
This would be a grand opportunity for our country if we take ownership of the situation in Iraq and take diplomatic steps towards this end. Because of our presence in the region, there is more instability. We should make an effort to help Iraq become a unified country by getting those who are better able to represent the Shiite interest and those who are better able to represent the Sunni interest to come together under a truce and work on a peaceful resolution or at least an understanding that will work toward a peaceful co-existence. It is not something that would happen overnight. It will take a lot of hard work as our president often speaks of. But it will be worth it for our troops for the Iraqis and for our country.
We need to own up to the fact that because a gross error was made by entering into Iraq in the first place, we have now destabilized an already fragile region We would not have to discuss this issue of an exit strategy if it had been the right thing to do. Once that ownership part takes place we are on our way. We must recognize that we have to at least attempt to clean up the mess in Iraq that we have made. I here our leaders making statements like "we need to send a signal to the Iraqi government that they cannot depend on our troops. They need to step up and take the reigns and control the fighting in their country". That sounds as if they asked us to come into their country when they did not. Our government took it upon themselves to go into Iraq. How would you feel if you were made to feel like oh this is your fault and the person blaming you is 100% guilty and they want to make you clean up their mess?
Our government should take ownership of the fact that our presence is a contributor to the destabilization in the region and once we can make that acknowledgement then we can move on to part deux: a sit down a.k.a. truce. After we take ownership of the situation, we need to find trustworthy friends in both the Muslim world (probably few and far between these days) and elsewhere to help organize this sit down, someone who has the power and influence to "reach between the two worlds" (The Godfather part Trois). That someone should be able to help them understand that nothing can be accomplished by the fighting and the bloodshed. They must understand that both sides, Shiite and Sunni are in a lose lose situation as long as they continue on their current path. All must be willing to come to the table and be participators, and we must make it worth their while to come to the table. They would have to have some type of incentive to participate.
Once all have gathered around the table we can give the dust a chance to settle and under international oversight let the discussions begin. Sure there will be disagreements here and there but it is at the table that the disputes can be aired out, at the table not in the streets. From here the Iraqis can begin to move in the direction of getting some kind of order in the region From here the Iraqis can decide how they want to establish a government that governs in the fashion that is comfortable to their lifestyle. A government should be established in the fashion that is functional to their culture and a government that will be recognized by and accepted to sit at the table of the world community. From here the United States can start the removal of our troops from the region.
This would be a grand opportunity for our country if we take ownership of the situation in Iraq and take diplomatic steps towards this end. Because of our presence in the region, there is more instability. We should make an effort to help Iraq become a unified country by getting those who are better able to represent the Shiite interest and those who are better able to represent the Sunni interest to come together under a truce and work on a peaceful resolution or at least an understanding that will work toward a peaceful co-existence. It is not something that would happen overnight. It will take a lot of hard work as our president often speaks of. But it will be worth it for our troops for the Iraqis and for our country.
13 November 2006
It looks like our president will be little more tame now that there has been a changing of the guard in Washington. I was listening today at the press gathering after his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and he just was not his usual "I'm going to do what I want to do" self. I hope they can work things out in Washington. We will see!!
News Bulletin: Rudy Guilliani to form an exploritory committee to determine if he should run for president. In my opinion he should wait before making that decision. Its is a long time until 2oo8. Who knows what might come out of wood work about him. Can you say police commissioner?
During these blogs of mine I am going to try and start a daily routine called the daily word or word of the day and of course its all about politics. So I look forward to those. Its going to be fun. Its kind of a knock off of the Colberts Report. And I may go off topic and talk about some other things but mainly this is going to be about the politics de jour.
News Bulletin: Rudy Guilliani to form an exploritory committee to determine if he should run for president. In my opinion he should wait before making that decision. Its is a long time until 2oo8. Who knows what might come out of wood work about him. Can you say police commissioner?
During these blogs of mine I am going to try and start a daily routine called the daily word or word of the day and of course its all about politics. So I look forward to those. Its going to be fun. Its kind of a knock off of the Colberts Report. And I may go off topic and talk about some other things but mainly this is going to be about the politics de jour.
12 November 2006
How Long?
Well now that the Democrats have finally arrived I hope they are able to provide the necessary checks and balance the way that this nation's architects designed the government to operate. It will be a nice change indeed now that they have regained the congress. I have to say though I wish they could have won in landslide mode so it would be clear they were the party of choice but you have to take what you can get for now. It is going to be very important that the Democrats develop a smart platform to launch from for 2008 that is unique and different from what they are offering now. I hope they are thinking landslide when it comes to their strategy for taking back the white house as well and the congress. I think what they need is someone who can shape/voice the party's platform in a way that does not alienate the masses. If they can package it so irresistibly who knows what might happen.
And I keep hearing it being said that this democratic congress will not seek to be sidetracked by being investigatory but I don't know if they will be able to keep that stance. I understand their not wanting to appear like they are taking revenge, misusing power, and wanting to be all bipartisan and such so that matters important to the party and the people can get done . Ahh how sweet. What a noble and self restraint stand. But will those that voted them into office tolerate that? I have seen some movements pop up on the internet that intends to push this congress for investigations and accountability. What the founders of this nation intended when they set up this system of checks and balances. So it will be interesting to see how long the Democrats' hands off posture will last. If there were laws that deliberately were broken on the run up to 9/11/2001 until now, will they be able to keep that stance? I would hope that they would follow the rule of law above anything. I think those of the Republican Party would love to hold back the investigations via "the people want like that" or "we need an Iraq solution instead of investigations". If laws were broken there needs to be a check and a balance. I think the people will understand that. I don't think they would be displeased not one bit. It may even put the democrats on that path to a landslide.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/11/9/145428/748
And I keep hearing it being said that this democratic congress will not seek to be sidetracked by being investigatory but I don't know if they will be able to keep that stance. I understand their not wanting to appear like they are taking revenge, misusing power, and wanting to be all bipartisan and such so that matters important to the party and the people can get done . Ahh how sweet. What a noble and self restraint stand. But will those that voted them into office tolerate that? I have seen some movements pop up on the internet that intends to push this congress for investigations and accountability. What the founders of this nation intended when they set up this system of checks and balances. So it will be interesting to see how long the Democrats' hands off posture will last. If there were laws that deliberately were broken on the run up to 9/11/2001 until now, will they be able to keep that stance? I would hope that they would follow the rule of law above anything. I think those of the Republican Party would love to hold back the investigations via "the people want like that" or "we need an Iraq solution instead of investigations". If laws were broken there needs to be a check and a balance. I think the people will understand that. I don't think they would be displeased not one bit. It may even put the democrats on that path to a landslide.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/11/9/145428/748
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
