A few observations about recent dealings involving the U.S. Government. The Out of Iraq Caucus, a small group of Democrats in House of Representatives, decided to support a spending bill for the continuing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that would appropriate $124 billion more dollars. The bill also included the restriction that a timetable be set for the withdrawal of all American combat troops by Aug. 13 2008. The Out of Iraq Caucus had initially been opposed the bill saying the funds were to much and that withdrawal date to far in the future. The bill had enjoyed the support of Democrats in general but they did not have a majority of the votes need to get the bill passed. Opposed by the republicans because of the timetable restriction, the bill now has enough votes to pass through the House to the Senate where it will likely end up on the President’s desk. Bush has already said he will veto the bill if it reaches him saying that congress should pass a spending bill with no ‘restrictions’ on it.
` First of all, a bill with no restrictions on it of any kind? How do Bush or his Republican supporters justify this? I am sorry Bush, but this is a war that an ever-growing majority of citizens disagree with, one that you do not get a free hand to wage and expand without ‘restrictions.’ You are not an autonomous King answerable to no one, you are answer to the Legislative and Judicial branches and most importantly to all of us. Most people around the world have understood that the two wars that are being waged for the various reasons of fighting terrorism, spreading liberty, and establishing democracy have always stood on shaky ground. It is ironic that as a majority of people in the U.S. are finally coming to the same opinion that they find themselves in the vary condition that they were supposedly fighting to prevent, the circumvention of democracy but authoritative governments.
Secondly, what are the Democrats in Congress doing? $124 Billion dollars more to continue destroying the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, to continue to the fill lives of their citizens with daily suffering? The voice of the people is clear, put an end to this war, not in two years, right now! There is only one way that Congress has an ability to affect foreign policy, withhold the funds needed by the Executive branch to carry out a war. Stop giving Bush money to kill people and the war will have to stop. If they really feel the need the pass a spending bill of some sort I can personally think of numerous better ways to spend $ 124 billion dollars so I can only assume that they can as well.
Meanwhile the U.S. troop level is to reach it’s highest to date at 173,00 by July, as reported by Newsweek.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize subpoenas for Karl Rove and other White House officials to testify about the Bush administrations dismissal of 8 U.S. Attorneys. All the attorneys were dismissed at the same time and under highly suspect conditions. The administration has been reluctant to give reasons and has released records of email logs that are miss the entire two-week period preceding the dismissals. It remains unclear why these sections of the email logs have continued to be withheld if everything that transpired with the dismissals did so in proper manner, unless of course people in the administration have something to hide. Bush has vowed to fight the subpoenas. The position of the administration is that it will only allow talks behind closed doors with no public record or oaths of any kind.
Once again, what is happening here? How can this kind of behavior be justified or even attempted? To hold closed door meetings and not be accountable to the people for anything is not democracy. The simple act of being accountable and open about your actions, taken on behalf of us, in the relatively mundane area of U.S. Attorneys should be a no brainer, I men if you can’t give us open info about this what are we to think about more important areas with much larger implication, are we suppose to trust you then?
Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has urged the President to close down Guantanamo Bay military prison and move the detainees to the U.S. where they will fall under U. S. law. He was supported in his call by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice among others. Bush has thus far rejected the idea, sharing the support of Vice President Cheney and the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
John Bolton, the Bush appointed former ambassador to the U.N. and hence the top diplomat in the U.S., admitted in an interview with the BBC that the U.S. resisted calls for a ceasefire during the war in Lebanon this past summer. The reasoning behind this was the desire to give Israel more time to conduct their campaign against the Lebanese, something that was widely believed at the time but continually denied by the U.S. Bolton went on to say he was “damned proud” about the policy and it was only abandoned when it became clear that the Israeli campaign was not having the desired effect. During the war over 1,000 Lebanese civilians, 43 Israeli citizens, 116 Israeli soldiers, and an unknown number of Lebanese fighters were killed.
Some things to contemplate here are the general circumvention of the democratic process by officials elected to represent us and the savage wars of pillage and destruction that they are waging in our name. The must be held accountable for there actions and we must stand up and demand that they change now!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Theo-
Intriguing initial foray into the blogosphere. I can't diagree with the landscape you paint regarding the rationale and state of the war in Iraq however, I question the call to action being the immediate removal of all troops. While it seems that US policy has created an incredible mess in the region, I wonder what the regional and global consequences of an immediate pullout would be. Without at least the best efforts of the US military, would violent anarchy be the first, immediate domino followed by active Iranian engagement in support of the Shia...closely followed by Saudi engagement to protect the Sunni...not to mention the potential Turkish interest in claiming the Kurds as an ethnic component that is rightly theirs. When these three powers are fighting, either opportunistically or aultristically, what happens to the Iraqi civilians? Will neighboring states be put in the position to choose sides? How big does this chaos get? It seems to me that the current democratically elected government of Iraq is not mature enough to mediate this potential conflgration, so what should the US government do? Say "sorry we screwed up. Have a nice life, we're leaving"? If one views the US engagement with radical violence in Iraq as a tactic to buy time for the elected Iraqi govenment to strengthen it's security infrastructure, deal seriously with it's sectarian divides and reduce corruption, then one could rationally say that the US owes this to Iraq, the region and the world for creating this mess in the firat place.
I would be interested to understand your perspective on the consequences of an immediate pull out of the US troops.
Man, there to respond to here, I will try to keep it brief... "How big does the chaos get?" Indeed, how big? My view of the situation is one that has been getting steadily worse for the last 3 years in terms of violence, in terms of any sort of economic or social stability, indeed in almost any sphere of Iraqi life. The chaos that is raging there shows no signs of abating anytime soon, regardless of what our executive leaders keep saying and regardless of how many troops we throw into the area. There is a reason why so many people are willing to wage a resistence against the U.S., and I don't think it is because they hate freedom or something along those lines. It comes down to not wanting a foreign army controlling their country. And they are controlling it. The U.S. forces have the ultimate power within the country and are not subject to demands of a supposedly independent and democratic government of Iraq. Case in point, the U.S. military abducted 5 Iranian officials in Erbil 2 months ago and are still holding them without charge at an unknown location, despite repeated pleas from the Iraqi government to release them. So, what happens when the U.S. pulls out? Well saying 'sorry we screwed up' would be a good place to start. Most of the people in Iraq and a majority of people in the U.S. favor a removal of U.S. troops, so with all the big talk of democracy it might be interesting to see it put into action. Democracy is not simply going to vote for some people to then govern however they want, it is governance by the people.... You seem to believe Iraq would be carved up into three areas dominated by regional neighbors, which to some extent I can agree with. But what makes you think that after putting up a resistence for years against the dominant military power in the world, the Iraqis would substitute one foreign ruler for another? From what I have seen this doesn't look to be a likely senerio. Nor does it look benefital to the neighboring countries to get themselves involved in the mess, but then again it didn't look very promising for the U.S. before the invasion either, so I can't put too much faith in the common sense of states. The Turkish aspect is interesting, for they do have an interest in the Kurdish north in their quest to smash Kurdish resistence within Turkey. A lot of the resistence is centered around the PKK or Kurdish Workers Party. In fact Turkey has already launched raids into northern Iraq to 'protect its own security' and is currently threatening to launch a large scale invasion. The U.S. is trying to prevent this, but at the same time aiding factions of the PKK in and near the border with Iran in a bid to distablize that country, despite the listing of the PKK as a terrorist group on the State Departments list. Of course this is not official public policy, but it is clear enough and Turkey has easily seen through it. As far as claiming the Kurds as an ethnic part of Turkey, there are still very sizeable populations of Kurds in Iran and Syria, which I think Turkey would have a hard time getting their hands on. So basically I see the U.S. as a negative factor at this point in many ways, not only within Iraq itself, but within the entire region. By intentionally acting against the will of the Iraqi people and the interest of the Iraqi people, by trying to destablize surrounding countries, by blatently looking after its own military and economic interest at the expense of fulfilling any of its stated goals before the invasion, the U.S. is causing more harm than good. This will only continue to get worse, for the resistance fighters in Iraq, alongside with the legitamite terrorist and any one else, can not be won over or defeated. One only has to look back on Vietnam, something you where alive for and I wasn't, to see that an outnumbered group of determined fighters will continue to give resistance endlessly. There used to be, and still is, a way to break such resistance and we can find its use throughout history. Usually it entailed the enslavement of entire populations, or simply indiscimient killing or use of superior force to brutally crush opposition. Fortunatly this mode of repression is no longer open to the U.S. The result will be a waging a war that cannot be won. The U.S. government is almost universilly despised by the populations of the greater Middle East, exception Israel. I don't think the situation is quite as dire with regards to the U.S. population but it soon could be.
wow, I didn't even get to the refugee crisis in Iraq. Millions, yes thats right MILLIONS, of Iraqis have been forced to flee to neighboring countries as life as they knew it became unlivable in their home country. The refugees have gone to Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, among other countries. A refugee crisis has not occured on this scale in the region since the Palestinian crisis of 1948. The U.S. certainly owes a lot to Iraq and the region. It should begin by removing its troops , all of its troops accompanied with a declaration that no U.S. military bases will be established in the region. The U.S. should then pay reperations to the Iraqi people for the horrible devistation it has brought to them. The U.S. should aspire to be a positive influence in the region and not a negative one, by that I mean stop using threats of force against those it disagrees with and actually work towards a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian conflict, not simply backing Israel blindly. Yes, there certainly may be painful consequences to a pullout of U.S. troops and it is not a very good idea, but compared with alternatives it is the best one on the table.
Post a Comment