Andrew Warner

I've never been a big fan of peace advocate Cindy Sheehan. I agree with most of what she says so it must be a personality issue... But she is "resigning" as the "face of the peace movement" to spend time with family and get away from politics.

Who can blame her?

But her farewell letter is poignant and targeted at the Democrats who abandoned the peace cause. She has this to say:

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

Labels: Iraq, National Politics, peace

Posted by Andrew Warner at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Comments

As is being widely reported everywhere, the Senate voted not to cut off funding to the Iraq War.

From the NY Times:

Democrats who are highly critical of President Bush’s Iraq war strategy suffered a stinging defeat today when the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a measure to cut off money for the military campaign by March 31, 2008.

The measure, in the form of an amendment to an unrelated water-projects bill, was effectively rejected, 67 to 29, with 19 Democrats voting against it in a procedural vote. Sixty “yes” votes were required for the measure to advance, so it fell short by 31 votes.

Only 28 Democrats and Bernie Sanders voted for the amendment. Votes like this make me wonder how people still support such an unpredictable and un-unified party. If cutting off funding to Bush and the Republicans isn't their plan, what is?

You don't know. Nobody does...

On a side note, presidential hopefuls Obama and Clinton both voted FOR the amendment. I guess they’re the only Democrats who have to pretend to have principles (people are watching).

Labels: Iraq, National Politics, war

Posted by Andrew Warner at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Comments

The New York Times is reporting that President Bush is rejecting Democratic efforts to create a timetable for withdrawal.

The provision passed the Senate by a narrow 50-48 margin and appeared to put President Bush in an unusual position – he looked as if he might actually have to compromise with the legislative branch.

Bush, sadly but expectedly, has dug his heels in and is ready to fight for his failed war. That leads us right back to the worn-out blame game that defines American politics.

From the NY Times:

That puts Mr. Bush in the difficult position of fighting the new Democratic majority on two fronts, both the war spending and the prosecutors. On Wednesday, he seemed in no mood to back down from the war spending fight. As he quoted a newspaper editorial — from The Los Angeles Times, though he did not mention it by name — accusing Democrats of “the worst kind of Congressional meddling in military strategy,” Mr. Bush appeared almost eager for a battle. And Democrats seemed eager to give it to him.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, said Mr. Bush should “calm down with the threats,” and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said his impression was that Mr. Bush “doesn’t want anything other than a confrontation.”

Better that we have a fighting congress than a congress that blindly enables the will of a reckless president.

Labels: Iraq, National Politics, war

Posted by Andrew Warner at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Comments

Yesterday marked the four-year anniversary of the Iraq War and, appropriately, war critics gathered to protest at Fountain Square.

The Enquirer, as expected, was there to cover the event. At least that's what you'd expect from a major newspaper like the Enquirer. But some how, Quan Truong and Howard Wilkinson ended up writing a story about Iraq War supporters instead of simply covering the event that they should have been assigned to cover.

Interesting.

Truong and Wilkinson should be familiar with the industry-standard "inverted pyramid" style of writing. For those who don't know, the "inverted pyramid" is a style of writing based on the assumption that people are only going to read the first couple of paragraphs (if not only the first paragraph) of a news story. Therefore, editors and teachers make you cram all of the key information into the lead and the next couple of paragraphs.

So why does the beginning of a local war protest story look like this?

The fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq was marked Monday with protest and prayer, and thoughts for local families of soldiers killed.

John Prazynski of Hamilton is one. In May, it will have been two years since his 20-year-old son, Lance Cpl. Taylor Prazynski, died.

As painful as that loss was, he supports the war that took the young Marine he was proud to call his son.

"When somebody comes up to me and wants to give me all the reasons why we shouldn't be there and why we should get out now, the first question I ask them is if they are getting all their information from the newspapers and the TV," said Prazynski. "If they say yes, I tell them to go talk to somebody who has been there, in uniform. They'll tell you why they believe in the cause."

On April 9, Keith and Carolyn Maupin of Union Township will mark the third anniversary of the capture of their son, Sgt. Matt Maupin, near Baghdad airport. Maupin remains the only U.S. soldier listed by the Pentagon as captured.

As you can see, the writers chose to skirt the actual event and dive right into parents who have sacrificed and want that sacrifice to mean something.

Might work for a companion feature (where you're supposed to buck the pyramid a little), but makes no sense as event coverage.

Eventually the writers did start talking about the actual protest, but long after most readers have flipped the page or clicked a new link.

Sloppy writing at best, clear bias at worst.

Labels: Cincinnati, Downtown, Fountain Square, Iraq, media

Posted by Andrew Warner at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Comments

Read my take on the Dems HERE.

Labels: Cincinnati, Iraq, National Politics

Posted by Andrew Warner at 8:32 AM | Permalink

What is it going to take for President Bush to realize he's getting the hook? Please exit stage right. The show must not go on.

Word has it though, probably not unlike his first date with Laura, President Bush isn't getting the signals – overt as they may be. In fact, he's doing everything he can to ignore the pleas, and, as of November, the votes, of the American people. The administration's response to the voters' clear demand for a solution in Iraq: Send thousands more of our soldiers to the desert to hop on a sinking ship.

Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President George W. Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 troops or more, The New York Times has reported.

Citing unnamed senior administration officials, the newspaper said the request indicates that the option of a major "surge" in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review.

Discussion of increasing the number of American troops has gone on in Washington for two months as a possible way to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad, the report said.

So in the two months that Americans were working hard to kick the Republican congress to the curb, President Bush was figuring out ways to piss off the voters that had already expressed a holiday-sized helping of buyer's remorse.

If adopted, such an increase would be a major departure from the current strategy advocated by General George Casey, which has stressed stepping up the training of Iraqi forces and handing off to them as soon as possible, The Times said.

General Casey's plan is far too rational – after all, why would he think Iraqis want to defend and control their own country when we have thousands of kids who are obviously thrilled to do the job for them. It's not like our soldiers want to hit up a few keg parties at college, push their kids on a playground swing, or sleep in the same beds as their spouses.

Those overrated activities should always take a back seat to fighting wars in foreign countries based on lies or half-truths.

It's a shame that Bush is treating our soldiers the same way he treats his cigarettes – smokin' 'em if he's got 'em.

(Cross-posted at Hines Sight)

Labels: international politics, Iraq, National Politics

Posted by Andrew Warner at 1:19 AM | Permalink | Comments

If someone were to tell me my life depended on writing a speech that showered soon-to-be former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with praise, my answer would be simple:

Shoot me now.

Luckily that's not the case. But there's some poor schmuck being forced to wrap Rumsfeld's six year tenure of garbage in a shimmery package to show off at the Pentagon today.

From USA Today:

With an eye on his legacy, Rumsfeld asked to be judged by the extraordinary nature of today's threat, like none that has come before.

Like Rumsfeld, I too realize the world is faced with a threat like none that has come before. With Rumsfeld's departure at least a small part of that threat has been erased. If Democrats would grow a spine and take advantage of Representative McKinney's final parting shot at the Bush administration (articles of impeachment), we could really wrestle this new threat to the ground.

As for Rumsfeld's legacy – maybe if that concern had popped into his head once or twice before he bungled the "War on Terror" by letting Osama slip through his fingers, ignored and fired generals who pointed out the errors in his bogus Iraq policy, and generally made the wrong decisions at every turn, he wouldn't have to worry about the nasty excerpts that are bound to be put in the history books next to his even nastier perma-scowl.

But the cold reality for Rumsfeld is that his legacy, no matter how much he begs, is stained beyond repair. And in a few more days he will quietly hobble out of the national spotlight and his only shot will be to pray that he is soon forgotten.

(Cross-posted at Hines Sight)

Labels: Impeachment, international politics, Iraq, National Politics

Posted by Andrew Warner at 1:48 PM | Permalink | Comments