The Blame Game

Talk from the White House and from Congress this week illustrated the true problems in the American government …”the blame game”.  Starting on Tuesday, the accusations were shot across party lines.  The President attacked the Democratic-lead Congress for “not getting its work done”, while Democratic leaders blamed President Bush and the GOP for low approval ratings and lack of progress.  But what is the truth?  Who is to blame for the sorry state of our elected government?  And even more important, who really cares?  The American public should be more concerned with the fact that their elected officials have failed to pass even one major bill; than who is responsible for that failure.  The finger-pointing exhibited by both the President and by leaders in Congress is more reminiscent of a high school clique than a functioning government.  President Bush started the imputations, during a press conference Tuesday morning.  Surrounded by House Republican leaders, Bush began his speech stating that he had just finished a constructive meeting with House Republicans, and he concluded “the leadership that’s on the Hill now cannot get the job done.”  Bush continued to draw focus on the appropriations bills that have not been passed by Congress.  These bills, funding the different sections of the government, were due in the middle of August.  Congress’ failure to pass any of the required funding caused Bush to refer to Congress as having “the worst record…in 20 years.”  House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, obviously not in attendance at the Presidents press conference, fired back voicing that most of Congress’ measures were “blocked far too often by a do-nothing president and his Republican accomplices.”  Hoyer also charged the President with having the “most fiscally irresponsible policies in American history.”  So what does all this talk mean for the American public?  Not much!  Congress and the President have failed to come to terms on any of the important issues facing our country today, and with the comments being slung last week America will be hard-pressed to see any changes.  Congress’ approval rating as a whole sits a meek 22%, while approval for Congressional Democrats is at 43%.  Democratic members were quick to point out this difference, but the problem is Democrats alone do not make up Congress.  For the American government to function, Congress has to compromise across party lines.  As far as Americans are concerned Congress’ approval stands at 22%, no matter what people think of the Democrats or Republicans.  As for the President, the last USA Today/Gallup poll showed him with a 32% approval rating, not much better than his counterparts in Congress.  Bush continues to attack Congress for failing to pass the appropriations bills, but the track record for the previous years of his presidency do not show a difference.  During Bush’s first six years, while the Republicans were in control of Congress, 36 of 74 appropriations bills failed to pass.  In those same six years Bush signed only seven bills before the start of the fiscal year.  In 2006, as well as 2004, the Republican Congress failed to pass a budget.  President Bush has also attacked Congress for allocating more than he has requested for each bill, even though for the past five years the President has signed legislation that exceeded his requests.  In 2006 alone, Bush signed legislation that exceeded his request by $53 billion, and never attacked his Republican leadership.  Finally, during the six years of Republican congressional control Bush did not veto a single spending bill, even though the federal debt was increased by about $3 trillion.  The reality is that both the President and Congress have failed the American people.  As they continue to bicker, Americans are left to shoulder the burden. Rising energy costs, extended tours for military members, lack of immigration reform, soaring health care costs, massive trade deficits, tainted imports, a slumping housing market, an economy on the brink of recession, and the collapse of the American dollar are constant reminders that changed is needed.  With major elections a year away the time is now to force elected officials to work with the citizens best interests in mind, instead of trying to use the opposing political party as a scapegoat.             

Read Full Post »

Extending a Deceptive Hand to Cuba

Wednesday, President Bush gathered reporters in the State Department Building.  Behind him were wives and children of Cubans being held by the communist government.  The President made his case for the necessity of regime change, in the sovereign state of Cuba. Bush explained that Fidel Castro and the communist government “denied their citizens basic rights that the free world takes for granted.”  He continued to list the troubles of Cuban people and attempted to tout how America has played a positive role in liberating the small island nation.  “I also urge our congress to show our support and solidarity for fundamental change in Cuba by maintaining our embargo on the dictatorship until it changes,” Bush stated after discussing a bill approved by Congress to allocate funds to support Cuban democracy efforts.  The speech came on the heels of a week long push to show how nothing short of regime change would empower the Cuban people.  President Bush acknowledged Fidel Castro’s failing health and stated a power shift to his younger brother, Raul, would continue totalitarian rule.  But did President Bush offer any real suggestions on how to foster democracy so close to the Untied States’ shores?  Bush announced his initiative, the Freedom Fund.  The fund would be a multi-billion dollar account, donated by the international community, to rebuild Cuba’s economy and “make the transition to democracy”.  This money would be awarded as soon as the Cuban government implements what bush calls “fundamental freedoms”.  The money would then be turned over to Cubans, especially entrepreneurs.  The major problem is the fund is still left in the hands of American politicians loyal to the Bush administration.  As Cubans attempt to change their political landscape, what will stop the leaders of the Fund from changing the criteria or dissolving the fund all together?  Outside of the fund, Bush offered no real assistance to regime change, a note that he must have learned from the first President Bush when he told the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam Hussein.  With the Cuban military loyal to the Castro family any type of revolutionary force would be met with utter annihilation.  President Bush did not stop there; he also offered other types of support.  “Here’s an interesting idea to help the Cuban people…provide computers and Internet access to the Cuban people,” Bush explained.  Internet access? Cuban citizens lack some of the most basic necessities, and President Bush seriously offered them computers.  Reaction from Cubans illustrated frustration.  A Cuban man, asked about Bush’s support of the Cuban embargo, was quoted in the NY Times saying, “The embargo has only proven damaging to the Cuban people.  Because of it we lack medicine, clothes, and food.  It is unfair.”  Though Bush supports the embargo, He allowed the export of 500 million dollars worth of goods to Cuba last year.  The UN general Assembly has called for the end of the embargo for 15 consecutive years.  Many people in America and abroad are angered by the isolation of one communist state and the acceptance of another.  While Cuba has been held under an iron fist, China has been left to flourish.  China, a country guilty of every human rights and government violation that Bush has aimed at Cuba, enjoys the positive side of a nearly $200 billion American trade deficit.  Amnesty International lists both China and Cuba as basically equal in their treatment of citizens.  Both countries are guilty of economic control of workers, arbitrary detention, unfair trials, religious control, freedom of speech limitations, and the restriction of newspapers and Internet access.  All this information and the Bush administration has never talked of regime change in China.  In fact, President Bush has failed to act as tainted goods pour into the US.  So why then is there this difference in treatment?  The answer is power, China has it Cuba does not.  This fact allows Bush to pick Cuba as his next country to bully.  Bush’s quest to spread democracy is reminiscent of the Cold War, although less successful.  His record stands for itself; in Lebanon free elections allowed Hezbollah to gain seats in the government, in Palestine democracy chose Hamas to run the country, in Iraq democracy has created a safe haven for terrorist activity, and Cuba is next.  Once again American foreign policy pushes democracy on countries that are not suited to accept the responsibilities of freedom.  The Cuban government is guilty of numerous human rights violations, many the result of Americas policy towards the neighboring country.  Instead of creating well named funds, America should foster friendship and attempt to actually help the Cuban people.           

Read Full Post »

On the Border of War

Today, Iraq was invaded…again!  Turkish war planes and attack helicopters bombed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, targets inside the Kurdish region of Iraq.  US supplied F-16s and Cobra helicopters were reported attacking the northern Iraqi village of Derishkit, approximately four miles inside Iraq.  Were these attacks condemned by the international community?  No, actually the only talk of the attacks was by Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, who stated, “I don’t know of any Turkish air-strikes in that area today.”  Tensions along the Turkey-Iraq border have been high since attacks left 12 Turkish soldiers dead, one week ago.  The PKK have launched numerous attacks into Turkey over the last few months, intensifying Turkey’s response.  Turkey has called upon the US and the US backed Iraqi government to extinguish the PKK.  Listed as a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union, the PKK operates in the mountainous region along the northern Iraqi border.  The al-Maliki government has been unable, and frankly unwilling before recent Turkish threats, to stop the PKK from using Iraqi Kurdistan as a launching pad for attacks into Turkey.  The US, stretched thin securing the more populated and dis-functional regions of Iraq, have had a long standing relationship with the Kurds.  The Kurds generally welcome the US occupation and aided the 173rd Airborne at the start of the Iraq War.  On the other side of the border, Turkey has become a crucial logistic point in the supply route for the American military.  Due to America’s reliance on Turkey, the Bush administration has called on the Kurdish regional government to deal with the PKK.  But as seen today, Turkey’s patience is running thin.  Just to the east, on Iraq’s northern border another organization, the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan or PJAK, is launching their own attacks.  The PJAK originated in southern Iran, and was based on the idea of civil disobedience.  As Iran cracked down on the Kurdish group, they found sanctuary in the mountains controlled by the PKK.  While living under the umbrella of the PKK, the PJAK adopted some of the military based ideology of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.  It is currently thought that both organizations are run by the same man, Abdullah Ocalan.  Though these two groups share the same general ideas, the PJAK do not appear on the list of terrorist organizations.  The reason for their absence hinges on their enemy.  While the PKK fight Turkey, an American ally, the PJAK fight the Islamic Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Government.  Though it is unconfirmed, it is well accepted that the PJAK operate with the support of the United States.  Leaders of the PJAK were allowed to travel to Washington, in 2007, to garner support from American politicians.  So why is one group attacking a sovereign nation considered terrorists and the same group attacking another sovereign nation called allies?  The answer is hypocrisy.  The Bush administration continues to drive international negotiations into a downward spiral, because of double standards and political bias.  Now, using our own weapons, Turkey is attacking “terrorists”.  Can the United States stop them?  Well that is not an easy question.  George Bush can not get on the phone and tell the Turkish government it is wrong to attack another country, considering he has done that twice since 9-11.  As long as the PKK is labeled as a terrorist organization, Turkey can use the same excuses as America to invade northern Iraq.  Then what?  Will the Kurdish leadership launch a counterattack on Turkey?  Will America continue to support Turkey, to maintain its all important hub?  And when will it become taboo for one nation to invade another? 

Read Full Post »

Don’t Poke Me!

America has discovered a new slogan for their foreign policy, a slogan that is echoed across party lines.  We don’t poke sticks in the eyes of other countries!  Doesn’t make much sense, but yesterday two separate officials chose these words to describe two separate and tense issues.  “Turkey obviously feels they are getting poked in the eye over something that happened a century ago and maybe this isn’t a good time to be doing that,”  responded Representative Allen Boyd (D-Florida) when asked why he is no longer sponsoring a non-binding resolution naming the killings of over one million Armenians as genocide.  At almost the same time, a White House spokesperson was coining the same phrase, when confronted with Chinese anger over awarding the Dalai Lama with a Congressional medal.  “We in no way want to stir the pot and make China feel that we are poking a stick in their eye for a country that we have a lot of relationship with on a variety of issues,” stated White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.  Now most people would see the use of the same phrase as merely coincidental, but the reality is that this phrase has become symbolic of America’s standing in the international community.  The headlines have been splashed with talks of genocide resolutions and Turkey’s response.  Was the killing of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, beginning in 1915, genocide?  Webster’s Medical Dictionary defines genocide as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.  Sounds like genocide…but does that matter?  Is the truth worth the consequences of pointing the finger?  Considering that 70% of all air cargo moving into Iraq flows through Turkey, and the fact that Turkey has stated the resolution would cause a rethink of US-Turkey relations, most military analysts would say no.  This quagmire illustrates America’s difficult world position.  The war in Iraq has stretched America’s international strength to the limit.  Armenian-Americans have fought for this resolution for years, but Turkey’s importance to success in Iraq, greatly outweighs doing “the right thing”.  Sad but true.  Possibly even sadder, is the fact that here in Washington there are former Congressional leaders lobbying for Turkish interests.  Former Representative Robert Livingston, now of the Livingston Group, as been employed by Turkey, since the turn of the century.  In that time his company has received an estimated $12 million to lobby on behalf of Turkey’s interests.  The Livingston group contributed $200,000 in campaign money during the last election cycle.  Scared yet?  Livingston has recently met with Dick Cheney and Carl Rove (while he was still the top White House political advisor) to stop the appearance of an Armenian Genocide resolution.  This conflict of interest is not only legal but is the norm inside the Capitol Beltway.  Instead of America acting towards the moral high ground, she is being bought by the wills of other countries.  Representative Brad Sherman (D-California) said it best when he was asked why so many have dropped their support of the resolution, “This is what happens when you are up against a very sophisticated multi-million-dollar campaign.”  So remember we should not poke Turkey in the eye, and put this resolution to bed (even if it is genocide).  The other example of America’s new foreign policy is China’s anger over the Dalai Lama meeting with President Bush to receive a congressional award.  “US Leaders meeting the Dalai seriously violates the basic principles of international relations,” said Chinese Foreign Minister Spokesman Liu Jianchao.  The Chinese Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi, went as far as to demand that the meeting never take place, “We solemnly demand that the US cancel the extremely wrong arrangements.”  Thisis the reaction, all for Congress honoring the recipient of the 1989 Nobel Prize for Peace.  China’s reaction has strained already shaky US-Chinese relations.  Tony Fratto, White House spokesman, responded quickly saying “this is a meeting with a spiritual leader…not a head of state.”  China was able to make American officials revert immediately to defense, even though China has failed to answer many of their own indiscretions; including toy and food imports, relations with the Sudanese government, and lack of cooperation in diffusing nuclear conflict with North Korea and Iran.  All of these items seem much more important than a meeting with a Buddhist leader living in exile since 1951.  But, unfortunatley in this tense world atmosphere America is forced to play down its actions.  China’s relationship is too fragile to damage, especially considering they control enough of America’s economy to cripple our nation.  President Bush went through with the ceremony, and is now left waiting for China’s backlash.  The final question is whether or not our elected officials are willing to change the US’s position, and return this country to the status of world leader?  Will the upcoming presidential election force a change in America’s failing foreign policy?   

Read Full Post »

HMO SCHIP PPO WTF?

Last night in Washington members of the House of Representatives passed a bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  The new legislation would cover an additional 4 million children, over the 6.6 million currently enrolled.  A majority of these children are classified belonging to low income families, so what is the problem?  President Bush sees the expansion of this program as “an incremental step towards the goal of government-run health care for every American.”  Bush also voiced his concern that the program would now cover the children of a four member family making $80,000, a number four times the poverty level.  The SCHIP debate is in actuality a springboard to the real problem, health care as a whole in America.  Unfortunately, the bill that brought health care back to the frontlines of political discussion involves the well being of children.  President Bush is correct; states will be able to cover children living in families with incomes up to 400% of the poverty level.  What Bush failed to leave out of his campaign, over the past two weeks, is the fact that states could only raise the income level to $80,000 with approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  New York is the only state that has asked for such permission, a request the Bush Administration denied on September the seventh.  This type of income increase makes sense where the cost of living is drastically higher.  For example, in an area like Manhattan an income of $70,000 is comparable to a $30,000 income in some Midwest towns.  Should the children of these homes be denied coverage because of geography?  Last nights debate focused less on the topic at hand than issues surrounding health insurance.  Republicans focused on a movement towards “socialized medicine”, and the possibility that illegal immigrants may try to abuse the program.  The constant referral to illegal immigration is a prime example of the political turmoil existing in America today.  If politicians are so worried about illegal immigrants accessing health coverage through government sponsored programs, why have they failed to effectively address immigration as a whole?  The real problem is the state of health insurance in United States.  Millions of Americans are without insurance, and those that are covered suffer from inadequate service and mounting medical costs.  Sometimes the illusion of medical insurance only masks the problems below the surface.  Many uninsured Americans cannot obtain insurance due to pre-existing conditions; such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.  One out of six working age Americans carry medical debt, 70% of those citizens had insurance when they incurred said debt.  Politicians turn a blind eye to the fact that 51% of insured Americans spend 10% of their annual income on medical expenses.  Bush complains that the new SCHIP bill raises the maximum family income that qualifies children for coverage, disregarding the fact that 50% of Americans with medical debt have private insurance and make over $40,000.  The numbers only continue to baffle the mind; 50% of US bankruptcies are due to medical debt, 68% of those who filed bankruptcy for medical reasons had insurance, and 700,000 children live in families filing for bankruptcy due to medical debt.  Dr. Himmelstein, a Harvard Medical Professor, stated that “nobody is safe in our country…if you are sick enough long enough, you’re likely to be financially ruined.”  He added, “We are all one serious illness away from bankruptcy.”  These daunting ideas should press Washington to deal with the state of health care in America, but instead they squabble over insuring children.  Who cares if insuring more kids moves us closer to government run health care!  Would you like to tell a mother or father their child is going to die because we don’t want government run health care in America?  Granted there is still much needed debate to effectively deal with this growing problem, but if Defense Secretary Gates can ask for over $100 billion more for the war in Iraq and Bush doesn’t even question the request, I think it only fair we spend a fraction of that to expand child health insurance.        

Read Full Post »

War Behind the Words

Thursday, President Bush addressed the nation for his eighth prime time television appearance since the start of the Iraq War.  The media exposure prior to the President’s long awaited statement left little to the imagination.  The mainstream media talked at length about the announcement of troop level reductions, something Democrats have called for since before the start of the troop surge.  Bush’s speech was a mirror image of the addresses given in January, to justify an increase in military presence in Iraq.  The difficult problem facing Americans is whether or not to buy into the President’s overall strategy, a sustained US presence in Iraq well after the completion of his presidency.  “Their success will require US political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency,” was the statement that stuck in many Americans minds after the Bush speech.  Repeatedly, President Bush has told the American public that it is time for the Iraq government to “lead its people.”  The major problem is that the Iraqi government has no real identity.  Similarly, the so called “Multinational Force In Iraq” has lost its identity, and many of its members.  When on Thursday President Bush thanked “…36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq,” he perpetuated the idea the United States military was not alone in their fight.  Unfortunately, like many of Bush’s observation, this statement is quite misleading.  Besides the US, there are 19 other countries performing military combat operations in Iraq.  Bush inflated these numbers by counting United Nations Assistance Mission In Iraq (UNAMI) members and countries participating in the NATO Sponsored Training of Iraq Police Force (NTM-1), neither of which perform combat duties.  President Bush also failed to tell the American people how many troops each of these coalition countries have committed to Iraq.  Americans represent 92% of the force in Iraq, currently with 168,000 troops assigned; Britain is the second largest military presence with an astounding 5,500, down from 45,000 at the start of the war.  The numbers drop off considerable after that, with 16 of the 19 countries deploying less than 1,000 troops (8 of those countries assign less than 100 military members).  If this information was not startling enough, private military contractors have over 9 times the personnel in Iraq than the countries in the multi-national force.  Since the invasion of Iraq 21 countries have withdrawn their troops and that number is climbing.  Many of the countries willing to stay in Iraq were bought by the Bush Administration.  Turkey received $8.5 billion in loans for sending troops to Iraq.  Eleven nations have been given membership, or are awaiting membership, in NATO.  Singapore and Australia received fast-tracked free-trade agreements with the US.  It is also argued that Georgia sent troops to Iraq in repayment of training, given to their troops by America to quell civil unrest in two of its outlying regions.  With all this information, George Bush still attempts to paint a picture of a true coalition, an idea that died in World War II.  These types of statements serve only in dishonoring the US military, by sharing their accomplishments with nations barely participating in this War. The United States remains the only nation whose troop level is higher now than it was at the start of the war.  President Bush has made it clear he wishes to stay in Iraq, if so maybe he should volunteer to relieve a troop who has already served his/her country, thus bringing the US one troop closer to the numbers posted by the multi-national force.   

Read Full Post »

Just Lie To Me And Get It Over With

Two days before the 6th anniversary of 9/11, and the day before the much anticipated Petraeus report, Americans have to be wondering; Who do I believe?  Should America believe a combat General, who is credited with making the first real progress in Iraq?  Or maybe they should trust the President, who will boast security improvements across Anbar Province? Still maybe Americans should trust the Democratic lead Congress, who promises real change in Iraq and here at home?  Finally, it is possible that they should trust no one at all?  Seems like a very bleak option, but consider the choices.  America, as a whole, has been lied to since before the start of the Iraq War.  At every turn there has been deception, secrecy, and down right malingering.  Since 9/11, Americans have been told, by their President, that fighting terrorism is the number one goal of the government, often saying that the safety of every man, women and child hangs in the balance.  But, has the government acted in a way to secure our country from foreign attackers?  Just this week, Osama bin Laden released a new video, the same man that the Bush Administration says is the number one target.  Six years after 9/11 this man, an admitted enemy of the United States, is free and his where abouts are unknown.  Just eight months after the fall of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein was captured under a farm house, in a small village outside Tikrit.  In eight months, the Bush administration was able to orchestrate the capture of a man that while a horrible dictator, had never attacked American soil.  Now four years later the Bush administration attempts to justify our presence in Iraq with linking Saddam to terrorism, and bolstering his fall as making America safer.  Once again the American people are deceived.  The 9/11 commission found that Saddam Hussein had no links with Osama bin Laden, or the attacks of September 11th.  Even more startling, the National Security Estimate shows that al-Qaeda is on the rise and actually gaining support and strength.  This should not be a surprise.  The whole basis for invading Iraq was based on a lie.  WMD’s was the buzz word used by President Bush to horrify the American public, and gain support for a pre-emptive invasion.  Did we find these weapons of mass destruction, even after Donald Rumsfield told the American public they new exactly where the weapons were hidden?  No.  Bush’s whole Iraq policy was lie perpetrated by more lies.  Americans were told the mission was accomplished, Americans were told that major combat was over, and now Americans will be told the surge is working.  In a way the surge is working, the surge is working to pull America into a longer commitment in Iraq.  Without significant political action, this surge will have to be maintained indefinitely.  General Petraeus will no doubt ask that troop levels be maintained well into next year.  President Bush will in turn say the surge must be extended, citing the recent decrease in localized violence as miraculous progress.  The problem is the progress rest soley on the backs of the United States military.  The surge has seen moderate success because Baghdad is saturated with American troops.  Petraeus has shifted from outlying bases to imbedded units, all over the Iraqi capitol; which has allowed for some local security.  But will the security last without American fighting men and women?  Unfortunately, No.  Once again, without some type of political reconciliation the only thing holding Baghdad together is America’s presence.  President Bush has already made it clear that he has no intent on changing his strategy, even though he has said that he would be willing to compromise.  His tactics of changing his stance when the time is right is an insult to the American people.  When asked if Iraq was like Vietnam in 2004, his response was no and said the comparison undermined the troops.  But, just last week, Bush shifted his tone, directly comparing the two wars.  When asked in 1994 if we should overthrow the Iraqi government, then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney responded that removing Saddam Hussein from power would leave Iraq in chaos, a tone not echoed in his two terms as Vice-President.  Even recently the Bush administration flip flops when convenient; when asked about the Recent Osama bin Laden tape, Fran Townsend, Homeland Security Advisor, said that Osama is “virtually impotent”.  Meanwhile, President Bush used the tape to reterate how dangerous the world remains, and how we must “show resolve” in Iraq (again linking Osama bin Laden to Iraq).  Americans have grown so accustomed to being lied to, it is hard for the everyday citizen to zero in on the truth.  From both sides of the Congressional isle politicians continue to play with the lives of American service members.  The Democrats call for immediate withdrawal, not realizing the impossibility to maintain order and withdraw rapidly.  Republicans call for a continuation of the surge, leaving no end in sight.  The Bush administration continually rejects compromise and attempts to hide the facts from the public.  The real answer is not here in Washington, it is not in the Anbar Province, and it is not on the frontlines in Baghdad; it is at the negotiating table.  Until the Bush administration becomes active in finding a political solution in Iraq, death and destruction will continue. Until the Iraq government finds it more important to create political change, rather than take month long vacations, the Iraqi people will not taste true democracy.  And American service members will continue to bare the weight on the battlefield.     

Read Full Post »

Welcome Back Congress

After three weeks, Congress returned to Washington today.  They return to the harsh reality of unfinished business and staunch criticism on all fronts.  Most importantly, Congress returns to the much anticipated reports on the current situation in Iraq.  Yesterday, President Bush continued a more than month long campaign to bolster progress in Iraq; he did so this time from inside the foreign land.  Bush told military members that “military successes are paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress Iraqis need.” Bush’s surprise visit was an obvious attempt to prepare the country and its leaders for General Petraeus’ and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.  Many opponents of the war see the report as a bias attempt by President Bush to gain support for a increasingly unpopular agenda.  This report is exactly what the Bush administration has told the American people to wait for, before judging the surge.  What the Bush administration is trying to cover is the harsh reality; that there has been very limited advancement in Iraq (although the men and women of the American military have given the Iraqi government adquate time to do so).  Today, a report given by the United States Government Accountability Office (GOA) outlined that the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress.  The GOA reported that 3 benchmarks were met and four more were partially met.  The benchmarks that were fully met included; ensuring the rights of minority political parties, establishing joint security stations in Baghdad neighborhoods, and setting up a committee to support the Baghdad security plan.  Unfortunately, those three positive steps are severely undermined by the Iraqi governments numerous failures.   The report clearly shows that the Iraqi government has met only one of eight legislative benchmarks, and only two of nine security benchmarks (those two being of very little consequence without the success of the other benchmarks).  The GOA’s overall assessment is “key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds.”  Last week White House Press Secretary Tony Snow started the administration’s defense for the lack of progress.  On Thursday, Snow boldly stated that it was “no secret” that the Iraqis would not meet many of the benchmarks set by Congress.  He continued to say that what is more important is the progress seen towards many of those benchmarks.  It is likely that completing three of eighteen benchmarks is going to be seen as less than progress by the American taxpayer.  If it was “no secret” that many of the benchmarks would not be met, then why set them at all?  Maybe what the Bush Administration is looking for is complete control, with zero accountability and the license to wage war indefinitely.  Americans need to expect more from their government and more from the Iraqi government.  Now Congress is faced with the challenge of holding the White House accountable.  When the last war spending bill was passed many politicians huddled behind a report to be given in September.  This report given by military commanders was supposed to show the progress in Iraq, and change the minds of skeptics in Washington.  Six months later, now in the month of September, it is obvious that there has been little progress.  Are our elected officials ready to admit a need to control the White House, or will they hide behind some new future report?  Soon the White House will ask for another $147 billion to support the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Congress will be faced with the decision to stay the course or change the focus.  The reality is our government has lost sense of itself, with veto control President Bush is able to continue his agenda, and without commitment from both political parties there is little hope for the wish of the American public.

Read Full Post »

Bedtime for Democracy

When the President addressed the Veterans of Foreign War National Convention yesterday he had already been briefed on the findings of the upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.  President Bush had also heard the statements of Brig. General John Bednarek and from the chairman of Iraq’s Defense and Security Committee; he heard from these people and groups but continued to press his agenda in Iraq.  Bush wasted no time explaining his reasoning for continued war.  “I stand before you as a wartime President.  I wish I didn’t have to say that, but an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th 2001, declared war on the United States of America.  And war is what we’re engaged in.”  The President’s statement was another attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq with the bombings of Sept. 11th.  The real facts are; not one of the bombers during the 9-11 attacks were from Iraq, Osama bin Laden who claims responsibility for the bombings is not in Iraq, numerous intelligence reports have proven that Saddam Hussein had no ties with bin Laden or al-Qaeda, and since the invasion no weapons of mass destruction have been found.  This continued ruse undertaken by the Bush Administration is a constant reminder of his inability to admit fault or to be truthful with the American people.  Bush continued to explain that “seeing the Iraqis through as they build their democracy is critical to keeping American people safe from the terrorists.”  The President pointed to “free and democratic elections” as proof that democracy is blooming in the region.  But is Democracy right for Iraq?  The so called democracy of al-Maliki’s Government has been unable to bring the different sects together, unable to quell the civil war raging inside its borders, and unable to provide even the simplest of needs to it’s citizens.  The “surge” was in theory aimed at subduing the violence so the al-Maliki would have time to build the political side to Iraq’s democracy.    During the past six months, the men and women of the United States military have fought heroically.  According to the National Intelligence Estimate (NEI), their efforts have reduced the overall attack levels across Iraq for seven of the last nine months.  But, without a strong central government to unify the nation, overall violence and civilian casualties remain high, and Iraq’s sectarian groups remain uncompromised.  The NEI advised that “Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security development.”  As well as Iraq’s lack of political progress, the Iraqi Security Forces have failed to show their ability to operate outside of American supervision.  These failures and the month long parliament recess have shown that democracy has failed to take root.  Even military commanders, the ones that Bush says should be running the war (not the politicians), have voiced opposition the implementation of a democracy.  General Bednarek, of Task Force Lightning operating in the Diyala Porvince, recently stated that “democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long term future.”  Even members of the Iraqi Parliament have questioned whether Iraq is a democratic government.  “We don’t have full sovereignty, we don’t have sovereignty over our troops, we don’t have sovereignty over our provinces, we admit it,” responded Hadi al Amri, chairmen of Iraq’s Defense and Security Committee, when asked about the state of his government.  President Bush, turning a blind eye to the facts, invoked the Vietnam War to show why America should not withdraw from Iraq.  He said that if we leave we will leave behind a blood bath, much like the one left behind after the Vietnam War.  Bush continued saying that we must learn from the mistakes of the past.  If this is true, why did he fail to learn that without political triumph war is un-winnable?  One of the main lessons of the Vietnam War was that there needs to be a political solution along side a military victory.  Bush must have forgotten that lesson when he said that the “Iraqi people…now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship.”  A democracy is not a democracy just because Bush wants to use talking points.  A democracy is a government run by the people for the people, where each man and woman is born with the right to live free, safe, and secure.  Iraq is far from a democracy, elections are no proof of democracy, and the sooner that lesson is learned the sooner Iraq will be a true democratic society.

Read Full Post »

A Few Steps Forward And A Few Steps Back

During President Bush’s weekly radio address, he bolstered new progress in Iraq.  Bush stated that the “surge” is aiding “the rise of an Iraqi government that can protect its people, deliver basic services for all its citizens, and serve as an ally in the war on terror.”  Optimistically, Bush continued, saying the “new strategy is delivering good results.”  From a military angle, our men and women of the armed services have pushed forward in ways that give great hope, but with every military push forward there is lack of political support.  The US military has continued operations to maintain peace in the Anbar province, an area once ravaged by sectarian violence.  In recent months attacks have decreased, but without the hand of a central government the US military will be unable to stop the resurgence of Shiite militias and Sunni fighters.  The real problem is the lack of compromise between the sects to benefit Iraq as a whole, and more importantly the failure, by the al-Maliki government, to show the Iraqi people any form of leadership.  It is that government that George Bush touts as making progress.  When Bush says that the surge allows the Iraqi government to protect its people, what are they really doing?  The attacks today in Northern Iraq show that there is no protection, even in remote areas of the country.  At about 8:00pm on Tuesday, four trucks, rigged with explosives, exploded killing approximately 200 civilians, injuring 300 more.  These attacks focused on an area in the northwest corner of Iraq, populated by a minority religion known as Yazidis.  The Iraqi Interior Minister was quick to push blame on al-Qaeda, a tactic he must have learned from the Bush administration.  The truth is there is no evidence to prove whether this despicable act was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, Shiite militias, or some random group materializing to show frustration with the state of their country.  This attack comes on the same day that 100 gunmen, dressed in Iraqi military uniforms, abducted the Deputy Oil Minister and three department managers.  The men were taken from a heavily fortified building, once again showing the lack of security put in place by the Iraqi government (How can Iraqis feel safe if the government can not protect its own officials?).  The abductions seem to be completely political, and not sectarian, due to the fact that two of the men abducted were Shiite.  Bush also emphasized how the Iraqi government will deliver basic services for all, contrary to every independent research group.  The situation in Iraq is nothing short of a human rights crisis.  Since the start of the Iraq war more than 2 million Iraqis have fled to other countries.  The Iraqi government has repeatedly been unable to supply citizens with basic needs such as electricity, food, water, and medical care.  In Baghdad electricity is still only available for 1 to 2 hours a day, and in July nationwide black outs were daily occurrences.  One in three Iraqis have access to clean drinking water, and more than 15% can not provide food for their families.  For children the scenario is much worse; 28% of children are malnourished, 11% of babies born in Iraq suffer from low birth weight, and an astounding 92% suffer from some type of educational impediment.  This list seems unimportant to the Iraqi government, whose month long vacation is costing American taxpayers $200,000 a minute to sustain operations during that time.  The Iraqi government has failed to even use what al-Maliki has called a “crisis summit” lunch to solve the nation’s problems.  An aide to President Talabani said that during the lunch, “We didn’t engage in any negotiations.”  The lunch, the aide informed reporters, was a mere icebreaker; at which time 200 Iraqis were killed, 300 hundred injured, and four high level government officials were abducted.  It is high time that the Iraqi government stop vacations, and icebreakers, and start to control the fate of their own country.  The last part of George Bush’s optimistic statement called Iraq an ally in the War on terror, a war in which the Bush administration has said that Iran is a focal enemy.  Meanwhile, Iraq has recently struck a deal with Iran to export crude oil, for payment and the import of refined oil, which they will in turn return payment.  With oil revenue at the heart of Iraq’s problems, why is the Government able to quickly produce an international deal to sell oil, but can not produce legislation to distribute the earnings.  These types of deal only increase sectarian divided, because Iran is a predominantly Shiite nation.  The Bush administration continues a policy of deceite, instead of informing the public of their shortcomings.  The surge has proven to quell some of the violence in Iraq, much to the credit of the American fighting men and women, but without political backup the violence is re-emerging in other areas. It is the job of the so called elected government of Iraq to secure their nation, provide the basic needs of their citizens, and to prove that their freedom is worth even one American life.   

Read Full Post »