Lame Duck President No Longer Cares
Reading the New York Times I learned President Bush has conceded the fact that the Iraq War is "eroding his political capital." True. However, he misses the point as usual: The war is eroding the greatness of our country.
I'm not a military expert and I will never claim to be. The limited knowledge I do have is simple: Everything in the military is based on objectives. Objectives are established in every activity from the simplest exercises in boot camp to the most complex and secretive mission. Run a mile in X amount of minutes. Do 50 pushes in a minute. Whatever it may be, the objectives and ultimate goals are clear.
Every time I listen to a debate about the war we are subject to the same rhetoric on each side. Us anti-war folk will tell everyone that will listen that the President and his administration lied to the American people and we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. Bush supporters and Republicans will tell you we are there and we must stay the course until democracy reigns supreme for the Iraqi people.
Where the pro-Bush people lose me is when they try to define what victory will look like. Originally I was under the impression that we were there to eliminate an evil dictator with nuclear weapons. Check. Like running the mile in boot camp, the objective was clear. As we all know, for some reason the United States presence lingered in the area and new objectives were created. These new objectives are not as clear as 'remove a dictator' or 'eliminate a weapons program.' These goals are lofty and abstract. So much so that some have come out and said we will have to be there for ten years or more.
So, what will victory look like in Iraq? How do we even know when we have achieved the perfect democratic system in the middle east? Most importantly, with our fraud and recent history of stolen elections, should we be trying to show others how to run such a system?
How do we find the truth about Iraq? Pro-war people will say that Iraqis are welcoming American soldiers while anti-war people will quote statistics about Iraqis wanting Americans to leave their country alone. It seems evident that the truth is flexible at best and the absolute truth will continue to allude anyone who seeks it.
We can find pieces of truth if we look for them though. One small piece of truth is the near $250 Billion that the American tax payer has spent on a war that was unjust from the beginning. Go to costofwar.com and get some perspective on how much money that really is. A few examples of what that money could have been used for:
Over 12 million college scholarships
Health insurance for 150 million children
Over 2 million housing units for the needy
10 full years of completely fighting world hunger
There is a lot the government could do with the money that has been spent on a war the country doesn't even believe in. A war that started with a lie and is set to continue indefinitely at the cost of so much good and so many promising lives.
President Bush is slowly admitting the war that he created is indeed a complete disaster that he has lost control of. He has admitted that it is hurting his political capital, and as a result we know it will hurt the capital of the Republican Party. Will the Democrats be able to capitalize?
Sherrod Brown, who I have supported, has little to say about the war on his campaign website. His official stance from his campaign website:
We need a winning exit strategy for Iraq that will bring significant troop withdrawals starting this October.
A true statement, but not strong enough. As a country we can not afford the cost in dollars, lives, or morale that we will have to pay if we stay in Iraq. For all his faults, Paul Hackett seemed to understand the country was ready for a strong, anti-war message. Sherrod Brown hopefully will take advantage of the president's dwindling clout and deliver an anti-war message that can help knock out the already wobbling Republican party.
Even further in the future it doesn't seem as if either party will present the country with an anti-war candidate. Perhaps by 2008 the country will be ready for the "radical" message of Ralph Nader, a candidate who recognizes that the Iraqi people are intelligent and capable of building their own democracy-- even without our 'friendly' presence.
I'm not a military expert and I will never claim to be. The limited knowledge I do have is simple: Everything in the military is based on objectives. Objectives are established in every activity from the simplest exercises in boot camp to the most complex and secretive mission. Run a mile in X amount of minutes. Do 50 pushes in a minute. Whatever it may be, the objectives and ultimate goals are clear.
Every time I listen to a debate about the war we are subject to the same rhetoric on each side. Us anti-war folk will tell everyone that will listen that the President and his administration lied to the American people and we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. Bush supporters and Republicans will tell you we are there and we must stay the course until democracy reigns supreme for the Iraqi people.
Where the pro-Bush people lose me is when they try to define what victory will look like. Originally I was under the impression that we were there to eliminate an evil dictator with nuclear weapons. Check. Like running the mile in boot camp, the objective was clear. As we all know, for some reason the United States presence lingered in the area and new objectives were created. These new objectives are not as clear as 'remove a dictator' or 'eliminate a weapons program.' These goals are lofty and abstract. So much so that some have come out and said we will have to be there for ten years or more.
So, what will victory look like in Iraq? How do we even know when we have achieved the perfect democratic system in the middle east? Most importantly, with our fraud and recent history of stolen elections, should we be trying to show others how to run such a system?
How do we find the truth about Iraq? Pro-war people will say that Iraqis are welcoming American soldiers while anti-war people will quote statistics about Iraqis wanting Americans to leave their country alone. It seems evident that the truth is flexible at best and the absolute truth will continue to allude anyone who seeks it.
We can find pieces of truth if we look for them though. One small piece of truth is the near $250 Billion that the American tax payer has spent on a war that was unjust from the beginning. Go to costofwar.com and get some perspective on how much money that really is. A few examples of what that money could have been used for:
Health insurance for 150 million children
Over 2 million housing units for the needy
10 full years of completely fighting world hunger
There is a lot the government could do with the money that has been spent on a war the country doesn't even believe in. A war that started with a lie and is set to continue indefinitely at the cost of so much good and so many promising lives.
President Bush is slowly admitting the war that he created is indeed a complete disaster that he has lost control of. He has admitted that it is hurting his political capital, and as a result we know it will hurt the capital of the Republican Party. Will the Democrats be able to capitalize?
Sherrod Brown, who I have supported, has little to say about the war on his campaign website. His official stance from his campaign website:
A true statement, but not strong enough. As a country we can not afford the cost in dollars, lives, or morale that we will have to pay if we stay in Iraq. For all his faults, Paul Hackett seemed to understand the country was ready for a strong, anti-war message. Sherrod Brown hopefully will take advantage of the president's dwindling clout and deliver an anti-war message that can help knock out the already wobbling Republican party.
Even further in the future it doesn't seem as if either party will present the country with an anti-war candidate. Perhaps by 2008 the country will be ready for the "radical" message of Ralph Nader, a candidate who recognizes that the Iraqi people are intelligent and capable of building their own democracy-- even without our 'friendly' presence.
Hm, I don't think Nader's gonna be in play in '08. Feingold's probably your man, though.
Posted by Solomon Grundy | 11:22 PM
Yep, looks like Feingold is going to be this years Kucinich. "The most liberal Democrat" probably won't get through their primary though. Though, if the censure process picks up some steam he might get some supporters.
I think Nader might step up again if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.
Posted by Andrew Warner | 12:43 PM