American Premonition in Argentina

There's something strangely familiar about the upcoming Argentine Presidential Election. Let's look at the leading candidate:

In Argentina, Senator Cristina Fernandez de Kircher, who represents the province that includes Argentina's largest city (Buenos Aires) and has also served as First Lady of Argentina is leading in polls.

In the United States, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who represents the state that includes the United States' largest city (New York) and has also served as First Lady of the United States, is leading in polls.

and you thought we were pioneering the way for wives of former presidents becoming presidents themselves.

Supporting Abbas

Suddenly when you're faced with the realization of a Hamas dictatorship in the land bordering Israel, the guy who took over for Arafat doesn't seem so bad anymore, does he?

Oh, and it's good to know that cutting off that aid to the Palestinian Government worked so well, I mean look how democracy flourished, electing terrorists who then go and stage a coup....fabulous.

Three snaps to the George W. Bush State Department

Sarkozy Elected President of France

The vote is somewhere in the neighborhood of 53%-47%. Royal conceded defeat pretty early after the polls closed.

The conservative Sarkozy's victory may be good for relations with the US. Sarkozy even said this in his victory speech;

"I want to tell our American friends that they can rely on our friendship ... France will always be next to them when they need us."

Still thought he reminded the US that "friends can think differently" and then criticized the American view of global warming.

France's future should be pretty interesting with the conservative Sarkozy at the helm. His tough immigration stance may become the toughest in Europe. The EU will probably not get a constitution anytime soon, and Franco-American relations should improve.

Besides, a Conservative in France is like a Democrat in Louisiana...which is to say, in name only.

Iraq: An Easter Reflection

As we celebrated our Easter (or Passover for some,) here in the states, another deadly weekend unfolded in Iraq. A truck bomb south of Baghdad killed 18, and at least 47 Iraqis were killed or found dead…today. 10 US soldiers died this weekend and to top it all off, a dire announcement from Muqtada-al-Sadr;

"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy,"

I ask you now, how, pray, can a democracy form, function and stabilize in a country where this man is listened to more than the Prime Minister? Imagine a situation where people take orders from Fred Phelps and not the President, Congress or Governors. That is what we have in Iraq; a population who wishes for a theocracy, not a democracy.

I am reminded of when this war started. I was a college student, working as Assistant News Director of my college radio station. I was in charge of producing the then 15 minute afternoon news show. We gathered most of our news using the Associated Press. We had an AP computer on site. Each news story on the AP is named by a slug, or a short one or two word label. For example, a story having to do with President Bush responded to Hurricane Katrina might be labeled BUSH-KATRINA, or one about Britney Spears in rehab may be SPEARS-REHAB. From the day we invaded Iraq in 2003 until the my last day at WRHU in May, 2006, straight until I went back to be a special on-air guest on Election Night last year, the AP computer had about 15 stories a day with the slug IRAQ. (IRAQ-BOMBING, IRAQ-PROTESTS, IRAQ-ISRAEL, etc.) I told everyone around me in 2003 that we would be seeing Iraq plastered all over this computer until our kids are pulling copy from it. Sadly, I'm beginning to think that may be true. What else is there to accomplish there? We got rid of Saddam and the country never had weapons of mass destruction, so essentially we've accomplished what we went there to achieve.

Now, the argument is, we have to fight terrorism there; terrorists who showed up in the country to TAKE ADVANTAGE of the power vacuum that was created by overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Terrorism exists there because of the failed bungled war policy of this administration, despite what Dick Cheney may say. All I really want to see first is for President Bush to ADMIT he made the situation worse than it was before.

Iraq is never going to be a Jeffersonian Democracy, not when people like al-Sadr are calling the shots. It is time for us to let the Iraqi people decide what government works for them. If they want to kill each other, let them kill each other. Let Iran waste their time intervening in a civil war. Maybe they'll spend so much of their resources funding the Shiite militias; they won't have time or money to build a nuke.

The Iraqis may not create a government we hoped for them, but I think it was naïve for us to believe that a secular democracy like ours would ever form in a country that sits in a region where piety trumps freedom and human rights. We are paying for our naivety and lack of knowledge of the outside world.

In the meantime, while you read this, IRAQ popped up at the AP computer at WRHU in Hempstead, New York about four times.

The Republicans In Syria

The White House has spend the better part of the week blasting Speaker Nancy Pelosi for going to Syria and meeting President Assad. Whether or not Pelosi was right for going, the White House HAS been strangely quiet on three other members of Congress who were in Syria this week...all Republicans.

Congressmen Frank Wolf (R-Virginia), Robert Aderholt (R-Alabama) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) were in Syria a few days before Pelosi. All three have been critical of the President's response to Pelosi's trip;

"I don't care what the administration says on this. You've got to do what you think is in the best interest of your country, I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah." -Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Virginia

"This is an area where we would disagree with the administration, None of us in the Congress work for the president. We have to cast our own votes and ultimately answer to our own constituents. ... I think there's room that we can try to work with them as long as they know where we draw the line." -Rep Rob Aderholt (R-Alabama)

The White House, which likes to blast Pelosi by name, went easy on their fellow Republicans;

"We discourage all visits to Syria because it's a state sponsor of terror. A lot of officials have gone, and it hasn't changed the Syrians' behavior." -WH Spokesman Alex Conant

Yeah, neither had isolating them.

And I Thought We Wanted Them To Stay Out

Somebody is losing their political clout at the White House...cause this is not how Bush normally is.

Wasn't only a few months ago when President Bush wanted Iran and Syria to stay out of Iraq...completely...now they can get involved, but under certain conditions.

Still, if Iran sinks it's teeth into Iraq, which is likely since half of Iraq is Shiite and the only real Shiite power is Iran, expect to see some sort of Islamic state form in Baghdad...one that will make us yearn for the days of Saddam.

No better way to defeat Islamic fundamentalist than essentially giving them a state...and we handed them Baghdad on March 20, 2003.

We Heart North Korea

Talking to North Korea? Looking to normalize relations with the Stalinist dictatorship that starves his people, while threatening world peace? Well, that's only something a cowardly liberal President's administration would do!...Oh wait!

So much for "Cowboy diplomacy"

Obama Blames America First

Paging Jeane Kirkpatrick

Senator Obama says what everyone is thinking but too scared to say;

"A consequence of the Administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril,"

What a refreshing sound, hearing an elected official take responsibility for his leader's mistakes. For so long we've lived by the Kirkpatrick doctrine (from her famed 1984 RNC Speech,) where whatever went wrong was always someone else's fault, look at where it's got us. We, as Americans, need to start taking responsibility for the mistakes our leaders are have made in foreign affairs.

Despite what the narcissistic nationalist neocons say, liberals are NOT blaming America for EVERYTHING, but many of the world's problems today can be traced to mistakes we've made and refused to admit we've made, therefore we were never allowed to remedy them.

Iran's renowed strength is one of them. I have long said the fact we tore to shreds the one counterbalancing force against Iran (Saddam Hussein) would inevitably make Iran stronger. They have no natural enemies in the Muslim world anymore, they are without a natural predator. They are the Northern Snakehead fish in waterways of Maryland.

We did that, not the terrorists, not the Shiites in Iraq, not the insurgents, not the Iranian Government...we did that. We killed their predator, we've left them without a counterforce. Obama is correct and since he has admitted to a mistake made by our government, now we can focus on fixing it.

Obama gets extra points for being brave.

IRAQ- What my floor speech would look like.

As the House of Representatives debates what to do next in Iraq. I can't help but sit here, being the analytical politician wannabe that I am, without putting my take on it.

So take it as it is, my floor speech, if I were the Gentleman from New York;

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution.

I am not supporting it because I don't like the President. I'm not supporting it because the majority of the populace are, nor am I supporting it because I believe war is bad and we must choose peace.

I am supporting this resolution because the President's plan is not a plan, it's stay the course with a twist. The President has chosen, against the better judgement of General Abizaid, former Secretary of State and American soldier Colin Powell and the Iraq Study Group led by Jim Baker, an experience diplomat and solider and Lee Hamilton, a foreign policy expert right out of the House of Representatives.

Those who support the President say you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission. I say I would support the mission, if there was a mission. This isn't a mission, this is a pipe dream. Democracy does not come at the barrel of a gun, especially in a place that doesn't know democracy.

We wanted Iraq to choose their own destiny. They choose civil war. They may later choose to have an Islamic government...it would be hypocritical of us to turn out and not accept the destiny the Iraqis have chosen for themselves. We cannot say we support the future chosen by the Iraqis, but then we stand in the way of what they want. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish for an Islamic dictatorship to take power in Baghdad. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see Iraqis on both sides being slaughtered in a civil war...but this is what they have chosen. We are nothing more than sitting ducks propped in no man's land in the crossfires of a 1400 year old religious war. If this is what the Iraqis have chosen for themselves, so be it I say.

Those will say I am a defeatist. That I am ready to wave the white flag. That if we left Iraq, it would send a message to our allies that we cannot stand the fight and we cannot be trusted. I say to them, our allies already don't trust us. Our allies don't think we're weak for leaving, they think we're stupid for staying. The message we are telling our allies is not that we can be counted on to defend them. It's that we cannot be counted on to fight FOR them. If the message we send to them is that we will not fight your fights, then I'm willing to send that message.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is also time for us to start being concern about what is going on here at home while the administration is off playing Risk in the Arabian Desert. New Orleans drowns while we concern ourselves with Baghdad. Gang wars erupt in Los Angeles while we try to referee a skirmish in Fallujah. Millions are without health care while we patch up wounded terrorist-to-Be's. We do a better job securing the Iraqi border with Syria than our own border with Mexico. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we need to shift attention back to the people who should be our real concern...our constituents. The American people voted for us, not the Iraqi people. They should be our first concern.

Those on the other side say if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will see it as a victory. Do they not think just having the Americans referee a civil war and taking our eye off of Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan is a victory as well?

Iraq is a civil war. It is a civil war. On one side are the Sunnis, the Baathists, those who wish to bring Iraq back to Saddam Hussein's era. On the other side are the Shia, backed by Iran, who wish to form an Islamic Republic in Iraq, just as in Iran, that will be a big threat to Israel. One side will win, but which side will win? When the other side says we must achieve victory...which side's victory are we talking about? What is victory? If the Sunnis, backed by the Baathists win? Or is victory a win by the Iran-backed Shia majority? Which side do we think is going to support a democracy? The Baathists or the Islamic fundamentalists?

Sure, I believe there is a minority who may want a free democracy in Iraq, but as in any society, in the end, the majority will win out...the only way it cannot is if the majority is oppressed, just as they were under Saddam Hussein. So if you ask me, it would appear that either Iraq reverts back to the way it was before the war, or, it ends up being worse.

Do we stay there until democracy decides to form? Do we stay there until Islamic fundamentalists decide not to be Islamic fundamentalists anymore? Even if it takes five years, ten years, 100 years? Do we keep spending money and keep sending Americans there for as long as it takes? When does it end? When do we finally tell the Iraqis to take back your own country? When do we want to do that? I want to do that now. I want them to take back their country now!

Now the other side will argue that by supporting this resolution would be the NOT support the troops. Some say even the Civil War was unpopular, but we didn't give up. The Civil War meant the survival of our country. It was a war worth fighting out. It was a war worth the blood spilled, no matter how hopeless it got. This is not a war worth the sacrifice of our young men and women. Victory in Iraq means nothing more than the survival of Iraq. One way or another, Al-Qaeda will still be out there, trying to harm us. This administration is not fighting a war for OUR survival, they're fighting a war for THEIR survival. They are sending 21,500 more brave Americans on a suicide mission to Aladdin's kingdom. That's not supporting the troops, that's screwing the troops. Supporting the troops would be doing what's best for them...and what's best for them is to redeploy them out of a brutal religious civil war and in the pursuit of terrorists like Osama Bin Laden. I believe the best way to support the troops is to tell them they are brave Americans who deserve to be fighting to protect Americans, not to protect this President's giant castle in the sky.

I call on everyone in Congress to support the resolution and tell the President that it is time for Iraq to take responsibility for their own destiny, and with that, I yield back.

Ok, some of the language wouldn't be words I'd use on the House floor, but you get the point.

That's my position

Whatever, it's a deal

North Korea has stopped building nukes...for now.

Proving diplomacy works, six-party talks between China, Japan, Russia, US, South Korea and North Korea have ended with North Korea agreeing to suspend development of nuclear weapons. In return, it will get 50,000 tons of fuel oil or financial aid of an equal amount.

If this sounds familiar, this is in fact a similar deal negotiated by the Clinton Administration in 1994 to avert a war. It was successful under President Bush decided to name North Korea part of an "Axis of Evil" and then criticize Clinton's deal, cause you know, little wussy Clinton begged North Korea not to hurt him by giving the Communist nation financial aid to not build nukes.

At the end, he did exactly what Clinton did. Big man....BIG MAN George Bush. He tried being a brave cowboy warrior and in the end, he negotiated his way out of a crisis, just like, you know, every sane person would try to do first.

Now that keeps North Korea at bay for a while...on to Iran I guess.

Stay The Hell Out Of It...Mate

If we were to comment and endorse candidates in elections in France, England, Japan or any other country, they would criticize us and slam us for getting involved. They would simply tell us to shut the hell up.

So why would it be different the other way around?

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, only a day after he criticized Senator Barack Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq. Howard commented that Obama would be a horrible choice for President because it would embolden terrorists, given them courage, and be catastrophic for the west. He also commented that Al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism should “be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

Crikey.

Senator Obama responded in one of the best ways. He slammed the Prime Minister's hypocrisy by saying this;

“So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he
calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq, otherwise it’s just
a bunch of empty rhetoric.”

See, two years in the Senate doesn't mean this guy is young, inexperienced and naive. He knows how to respond.

And how! John Howard has NOT committed more Australian troops to the fight in Iraq. Nope, and if he did, he'd be left for dead in the Outback. It's an election year in Australia, with a national election coming up later in the year...and Howard doesn't seem to be doing well. The four-term leader from Down Under is heavily trailing in polls against the left-wing Labor Party and their designate for Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, largely on Howard's support for the Bush Administration's Iraq policies. Sending more troops to support a war not popular in Australia would only add salt to Howard's wounds.

Rudd criticized Howard, stating his comments could hurt Australia's relationship with the US in the future. (especially since the Democrats control the treaty-ratifying, foreign affairs appropriating Congress)

You know, it's great to have friends overseas...especially when we seem to lack them right now, but stay the hell out of our politics. We do not appreciate your meddling in our domestic politics as you don't appreciate the same from us.

And if you continue to join the right-wing bandwagon of comparing good patriotic Americans who disagree, then there will be hordes of American support, in any way possible, heading straight for Kevin Rudd.

and by the way...despite my criticism, I still love Australia...just stay out of our politics and we're stay out of yours.