Monday, June 26, 2006
Trouble In The Heartland
Okie from Muskogee Against Bush’s War
“I’m not for the war in Iraq because I don’t believe they’ve explained why they’re doing it.” so said Merle Haggard in a Newsweek Interview. For so many reasons this portends serious trouble for the GOP and the Radical Right. Haggard is representative of the red state ‘Everyman’ that has been the electoral base of the Republican Party for some time. Without that support the GOP faces hard times this November. Democrats should not think that the heartland is turning into shaggy long haired, draft card burnin’, dope smokin’ San Francisco peace freak hippies. No, they still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse in Muskogee, Oklahoma. However they are getting fed up with their sons and daughters getting the killed and maimed for reasons that were as contrived as a Karl Rove prayer meeting. They dislike losing at anything, especially a war. Their alienation will only grow stronger as the repetitious cycle of death and desolation continues.
There is a ray of hope for Bush and his gang. All they have to do is start ‘winning’ the war. That would bring the faithful back into the fold. However, after more than three years it is apparent that that is easier said than done. And of course this begs the question of what does ‘winning’ entail? (1A) Does it mean a cessation of all hostilities? (1B) Does it mean bringing all U.S. troops home, and if so, when? (2) Does it mean a free, united, and democratic Iraq? (3) Does it mean stopping Iraq from being a haven for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? (4) Or perhaps it just means U.S. access and control of the Iraqi oil fields. The only ones of these that stand a scintilla of a chance is bringing all the troops home, or securing the oil fields and this will require the opposite tack of committing at least 500,000 troops till Hell freezes over. Let’s look at each of these in turn.
The Sunnis, Shi’ites, and the Kurds have been fighting for centuries and they will continue no matter when the U.S. leaves. The attacks on Americans will continue until all the troops have been withdrawn. The only option open to the U.S. is to declare victory and come home. Obviously this negates definitions 2, 3, and 4.
Iraq was formed by the British after World War I in order to consolidate their oil interests. They drew political lines with no regard what so ever to centuries old cultural, religious, and ethnic realities. It was all about the oil as it has been ever since. There is no precedent or history of democracy in any area of Iraq. In the late fifties after a coup the military did attempt to form a quasi-republic. However the government initiated several anti-corporate programs like nationalizing the oil industry and recognizing the Iraqi Communist Party. This led to another coup, this time backed by the CIA. This coup brought the Ba’ath Party and Saddam Hussein to power in the early sixties. They were soon overthrown themselves but regained power for good in 1968. Despite all the declarations to the contrary America has never been interested in having democracies established in the oil rich countries of the Middle East.
If we were we would never had the CIA engineer a coup to topple the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. You see they were preparing to nationalize their oil industry too. Say what you will, but we have been nothing but consistent in our Middle East policy.
The Bush War has accomplished one thing, it has allowed Bush to become the ‘uniter’ he claimed to be in 2000. He has succeeded in uniting the entire Islamic world against America. And as such he has created the most serious threat to the nation’s security since Adolph Hitler. Instead of going after the terrorists that attacked America he went after the oil fields of Saddam Hussein. Rather than protecting America he has endangered us for decades to come. Instead of destroying the terrorists of 9/11 he has created and enabled new ones. There was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, now there is. Saddam did allow non al Qaeda terrorists to live or operate in Iraq while he was in power but he did not allow them to initiate or conduct attacks against the U.S. Granted he did this out of fear not altruism, but he kept a lid on it none the less. Now Iraq is a primordial soup for terrorists and will remain so after we have gone. Just how does this make the Republicans the party of national defense?
Thankfully today there is no hope for definition number 4 to come into play. However if people like Bush continue to be placed into positions of authority there may come a day when they will start another war and through more lies and deceptions may decide that committing 500,000 or more is not too much of a sacrifice for others to bear.
The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.
Okie from Muskogee Against Bush’s War
“I’m not for the war in Iraq because I don’t believe they’ve explained why they’re doing it.” so said Merle Haggard in a Newsweek Interview. For so many reasons this portends serious trouble for the GOP and the Radical Right. Haggard is representative of the red state ‘Everyman’ that has been the electoral base of the Republican Party for some time. Without that support the GOP faces hard times this November. Democrats should not think that the heartland is turning into shaggy long haired, draft card burnin’, dope smokin’ San Francisco peace freak hippies. No, they still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse in Muskogee, Oklahoma. However they are getting fed up with their sons and daughters getting the killed and maimed for reasons that were as contrived as a Karl Rove prayer meeting. They dislike losing at anything, especially a war. Their alienation will only grow stronger as the repetitious cycle of death and desolation continues.
There is a ray of hope for Bush and his gang. All they have to do is start ‘winning’ the war. That would bring the faithful back into the fold. However, after more than three years it is apparent that that is easier said than done. And of course this begs the question of what does ‘winning’ entail? (1A) Does it mean a cessation of all hostilities? (1B) Does it mean bringing all U.S. troops home, and if so, when? (2) Does it mean a free, united, and democratic Iraq? (3) Does it mean stopping Iraq from being a haven for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? (4) Or perhaps it just means U.S. access and control of the Iraqi oil fields. The only ones of these that stand a scintilla of a chance is bringing all the troops home, or securing the oil fields and this will require the opposite tack of committing at least 500,000 troops till Hell freezes over. Let’s look at each of these in turn.
The Sunnis, Shi’ites, and the Kurds have been fighting for centuries and they will continue no matter when the U.S. leaves. The attacks on Americans will continue until all the troops have been withdrawn. The only option open to the U.S. is to declare victory and come home. Obviously this negates definitions 2, 3, and 4.
Iraq was formed by the British after World War I in order to consolidate their oil interests. They drew political lines with no regard what so ever to centuries old cultural, religious, and ethnic realities. It was all about the oil as it has been ever since. There is no precedent or history of democracy in any area of Iraq. In the late fifties after a coup the military did attempt to form a quasi-republic. However the government initiated several anti-corporate programs like nationalizing the oil industry and recognizing the Iraqi Communist Party. This led to another coup, this time backed by the CIA. This coup brought the Ba’ath Party and Saddam Hussein to power in the early sixties. They were soon overthrown themselves but regained power for good in 1968. Despite all the declarations to the contrary America has never been interested in having democracies established in the oil rich countries of the Middle East.
If we were we would never had the CIA engineer a coup to topple the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. You see they were preparing to nationalize their oil industry too. Say what you will, but we have been nothing but consistent in our Middle East policy.
The Bush War has accomplished one thing, it has allowed Bush to become the ‘uniter’ he claimed to be in 2000. He has succeeded in uniting the entire Islamic world against America. And as such he has created the most serious threat to the nation’s security since Adolph Hitler. Instead of going after the terrorists that attacked America he went after the oil fields of Saddam Hussein. Rather than protecting America he has endangered us for decades to come. Instead of destroying the terrorists of 9/11 he has created and enabled new ones. There was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, now there is. Saddam did allow non al Qaeda terrorists to live or operate in Iraq while he was in power but he did not allow them to initiate or conduct attacks against the U.S. Granted he did this out of fear not altruism, but he kept a lid on it none the less. Now Iraq is a primordial soup for terrorists and will remain so after we have gone. Just how does this make the Republicans the party of national defense?
Thankfully today there is no hope for definition number 4 to come into play. However if people like Bush continue to be placed into positions of authority there may come a day when they will start another war and through more lies and deceptions may decide that committing 500,000 or more is not too much of a sacrifice for others to bear.
The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.
Friday, June 02, 2006
To Impeach or Not
The Art and Science of Politics and Mercy
I like Dave Lindorff, he is a very good journalist. He is quite intelligent and he almost always is on the correct side of an issue, after all he most often agrees with me. In a recent article on Counterpunch he plugged his new book, "The Case for Impeachment," which he co-authored with Barbara Olshansky. In the book they lay out convincing proof of George Bush’s sins, high crimes, and misdemeanors. And if ever there were a President deserving to be impeached it is Bush. His legal and moral conduct while President has been abysmal and traitorous. Let’s face it his whole life has been that way, but the statute of limitations has run out on most of those offenses committed before he was appointed President.
Lindorff points out that a majority of Americans want Impeachment if Bush okayed NSA spying. Of course that is only one of the many instances along Dubya’s trail of deceit and treachery. And I know that a recent poll said George was the worst President in 60 years, but we need to take a closer look at that poll. First what is this 60 year crap; they only missed it by 157 years. The first President was elected in 1789. Next the poll rated Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton the BEST Presidents over those 60 years.
What? Ronald Reagan committed impeachable offenses himself while in office. And it was he who started and led the attack by the country’s economic elite against Middle America. There most likely wouldn’t even be a Dubya if not for Reagan. As for Clinton, he was nothing more than a Corporate Republican dressed in Democratic clothing. He took Reagan’s war against the Middle Class even farther. He deregulated everything in sight and kissed Corporate butt at every opportunity. Let’s face it if one could forgive and forget Richard Nixon’s minor indiscretion of trying to subvert the Constitution, even he was a much better President than Reagan or Clinton. Certainly his economic policies were much more directed toward the average American.
I know that Bush is the worst President in American history and I understand that that is universally accepted throughout the world. I know the world will be a much better place once Dubya is out of office. But the 2006 elections should not be run on the impeachment issue. It definitely should be run as a referendum on Bush and the radical right. Their agenda needs to be recognized for its hateful and anti-democratic policies. It needs to be soundly renounced and defeated at the polls. It is imperative that Democrats regain control of at least one House of Congress.
This election is about stopping Bush now. If the Democrats regain control of one of the Houses they should then begin an extensive investigation into all of the illegalities committed by the Bush Administration. It should be thorough and complete. Bringing the whole truth to light is much more important than some hasty punishment of someone like Bush. Do not forget the horrible mess that Dubya has placed the nation in. Working our way out will be no easy task. It will require much hard work. Bring out the whole truth but do not do it at the expense of starting to correct all of Bush’s mistakes. If continuing the investigations goes past 2008 so be it. Correcting the downward trend of the past 26 years cannot be done in two.
The Democrats need to get focused and stay focused. History will condemn Bush for the liar and tyrant that he is. The best punishment the Democrats can impose on him is to make sure the unjust and autocratic world he has worked so hard for is buried for ever.
The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.
The Art and Science of Politics and Mercy
I like Dave Lindorff, he is a very good journalist. He is quite intelligent and he almost always is on the correct side of an issue, after all he most often agrees with me. In a recent article on Counterpunch he plugged his new book, "The Case for Impeachment," which he co-authored with Barbara Olshansky. In the book they lay out convincing proof of George Bush’s sins, high crimes, and misdemeanors. And if ever there were a President deserving to be impeached it is Bush. His legal and moral conduct while President has been abysmal and traitorous. Let’s face it his whole life has been that way, but the statute of limitations has run out on most of those offenses committed before he was appointed President.
Lindorff points out that a majority of Americans want Impeachment if Bush okayed NSA spying. Of course that is only one of the many instances along Dubya’s trail of deceit and treachery. And I know that a recent poll said George was the worst President in 60 years, but we need to take a closer look at that poll. First what is this 60 year crap; they only missed it by 157 years. The first President was elected in 1789. Next the poll rated Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton the BEST Presidents over those 60 years.
What? Ronald Reagan committed impeachable offenses himself while in office. And it was he who started and led the attack by the country’s economic elite against Middle America. There most likely wouldn’t even be a Dubya if not for Reagan. As for Clinton, he was nothing more than a Corporate Republican dressed in Democratic clothing. He took Reagan’s war against the Middle Class even farther. He deregulated everything in sight and kissed Corporate butt at every opportunity. Let’s face it if one could forgive and forget Richard Nixon’s minor indiscretion of trying to subvert the Constitution, even he was a much better President than Reagan or Clinton. Certainly his economic policies were much more directed toward the average American.
I know that Bush is the worst President in American history and I understand that that is universally accepted throughout the world. I know the world will be a much better place once Dubya is out of office. But the 2006 elections should not be run on the impeachment issue. It definitely should be run as a referendum on Bush and the radical right. Their agenda needs to be recognized for its hateful and anti-democratic policies. It needs to be soundly renounced and defeated at the polls. It is imperative that Democrats regain control of at least one House of Congress.
This election is about stopping Bush now. If the Democrats regain control of one of the Houses they should then begin an extensive investigation into all of the illegalities committed by the Bush Administration. It should be thorough and complete. Bringing the whole truth to light is much more important than some hasty punishment of someone like Bush. Do not forget the horrible mess that Dubya has placed the nation in. Working our way out will be no easy task. It will require much hard work. Bring out the whole truth but do not do it at the expense of starting to correct all of Bush’s mistakes. If continuing the investigations goes past 2008 so be it. Correcting the downward trend of the past 26 years cannot be done in two.
The Democrats need to get focused and stay focused. History will condemn Bush for the liar and tyrant that he is. The best punishment the Democrats can impose on him is to make sure the unjust and autocratic world he has worked so hard for is buried for ever.
The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
GOP 2006 Agenda
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
