Midwest Monday News 11.21.05
Posted by Steven Bellah on 11.21.2005
As I watch the Houston Texans play perhaps the worst first half of football in NFL history, it's time for the Midwest Monday News.
It seems that the political world has been on autopilot as of late, with the usual happening:
---Democrats want a withdrawal from Iraq. Republicans, naturally, do not. The usual bickering ensues.
---Cindy Sheehan went to court over her arrest for protesting the Iraq war at the White House. Convicted and ordered to pay a fine, she plans to; you guessed it--protest the fine. Ugh. Some things never go away.
---Once again, the hot topic is whom Hillary Clinton will face in the 2008 Presidential Election. Now Rudy is the front-runner. John McCain wept quietly.
---Dubya got pissed at reporters and tried to walk out of a press conference, and got LOCKED OUT when he was horrified to learn his exit doors were locked. Add that to the "Bushisims" file.
---The new Harry Potter movie made 493 billion dollars at the box office this weekend. Or so some kid said on a message board.
---Donald Rumsfeld would not set a timetable for exiting Iraq, further convincing me no one has any fucking clue how to fix the whole thing. More on that later.
---And this week is Thanksgiving. What do I, the Monday news reporter have to be thankful for? Many things. My health, my job, and my family. My beautiful girlfriend and my beautiful one year old daughter. And I'm thankful I haven't been fired from this post yet, since I rarely have anything interesting to say.
Jooooooohnnnnn Kerrrrrrryyyyy
From ABC News:
Sen. John Kerry believes U.S. troops do not necessarily need to be pulled out of Iraq right away, as a senior Democrat suggested this week, but they need more leadership from the Bush administration.
"What we need is a little more commander-in-chief, and a little less campaigner-in-chief," Kerry said in an exclusive interview on "Good Morning America Weekend Edition."
The question of whether or not troops should be withdrawn from Iraq moved to the front burner Thursday when Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for all the troops to be withdrawn immediately — a call that drew charges of recklessness from the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney called Murtha's press conference "reprehensible."
Members of the House of Representatives debated late into Friday night and voted down a resolution to pull the troops out of Iraq by 403-3. Although most Democrats did not support Murtha's call, Kerry, who lost the 2004 presidential election to Bush, said Murtha did not deserve to be called names like "coward" by allies of the administration.
"It's just the attack politics: The people are sick and tired of it," Kerry said. "You don't call John Murtha a coward. … I mean, Dick Cheney had five deferments in a row in Vietnam, when John Murtha went to serve."
Murtha, Kerry said, has simply added to the debate. Kerry said the Bush administration needs to outline a clear plan about what benchmarks must be reached in order to bring the troops home.
"You can differ on the policies, and we should talk about the policy," Kerry said. "The administration has continuously misled Americans about our presence. We need to have the debate and figure out how we bring our troops home in a responsible way. John Murtha is really just adding to the debate in a very personal way. This man's statements have to be taken seriously even if you don't agree with his policy."
Kerry said the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, sent a plan to the Pentagon that outlined a timetable for withdrawal. The president of Iraq also said he had a plan to bring home 50,000 troops by Christmas. Kerry said that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also had originally said some troops would be brought home.
Kerry added that the Bush administration was wrong to suggest that calling for a plan to bring the troops home will endanger the troops.
"Let me tell you what is endangering our troops: Sending our troops to war without adequate armor endangers our troops," Kerry said, "not guarding the ammo dumps, so that our troops are now being hurt because of ammo that wasn't properly secured when we took Baghdad. What endangers our troops is sending them to war without adequate numbers of troops to do the job."
Kerry said he has a plan to bring 20,000 troops home by Christmas. He said that if the election and referendum in Iraq are successful, troops should be brought home because the election would act as a benchmark of the troops' success.
"They deserve leadership that is equal to their sacrifice," he said. "The president doesn't have a real plan."
Although he may have sounded as if he were campaigning, Kerry said he's leaving the door open when it comes to running for president in 2008.
He said the more immediate question is how the troops will be protected. It's time, he said, to hand over some responsibility.
"Let Iraqis stand up for Iraq," Kerry said.
---Man, the talking points never change, do they?
I like John Kerry, and it's looking more and more likely that he will be getting my vote in 2008 with Hillary all but putting her name on the ballot. I think he makes some good points, and if he hadn't run in 2004, I think he would have a shot. But he DID lose, and so has no shot at EVER becoming President. I like how he says he's leaving the door open for 2008, when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that he's going to run.
Oh, and John Murtha is not a coward. He's a fine American who was speaking his mind. Just because it disagreed with the Bush Administration doesn't mean he's weak. Hey Dick, would you say the same thing about him if he supported the war?
Feedback
In reference to Bush's Veterans Day speech, and my complaint that his administration doesn't have a plan for Iraq and doesn't set a timeline:
Steven, the system is set up to reward close-to-the-vest, stick-to-the-story, broken-record rhetoric. If Bush introduced any timeline after repeatedly (and rightly) saying we shouldn't make one, all the Democrats would focus on is criticizing the timeline however they could, throwing the flip-flopper label back in Bush's face, and gaining whatever political advantage they could from it.
The Democrats wouldn't mind attacking the new timeline with all of Bush's former reasons for not having it: emboldening the terrorists, artificially forcing the democratic conversion too quickly, allowing the terrorists to simply wait until we're gone and start a civil war, etc. Also it is likely that any realistic timeline calculated for leaving Iraq as a viable state (which I define has having a better than 50/50 chance of surviving as one nation for the foreseeable future after we leave) would not be soon enough to please any Democrat.
The most Bush could say on this would be that the troops are not coming home during his presidency, that an honest assessment of the security of Iraq makes it obvious they won't be ready until sometime after he is out of office. If he said that today, tomorrow there would be nothing but vilifying headlines about how he's "passing the buck to the next administration" or whatever.
The time for an exit plan was before we got into it. Bush didn't do that, and that's his fault. But he still believes in what he's doing, and the only chance he has of seeing it through is to continue the tactics he's been using. It'd be great if those tactics weren't necessary, but they are. History might judge that he's disastrously wrong to be using them, but then again it might judge he was doing the only thing that gave the soldiers enough time to finish their job. There is no way to know for sure right now.
And as for the Veteran's Day speech, I believe it pleased many more veterans than it displeased and they should be the judges of what constitutes disgracing the holiday.
----You make some very good points. Yes, Democrats will disagree with any agenda the Bush administration has, because that is the unfortunate nature of politics. It has made me so angry over the years to hear one side introduce legislation, then have the other side immediately disagree with it because, well, their side didn't think of it. It's all about control, and all about obtaining power, and that is the most unfortunate thing of all. I mean, does ANYONE think that Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000 because she wanted to make a difference for New York? No, she wanted to start the process for her to become President--all about power.
Bush could announce tomorrow that he was pulling all troops out of Iraq, and he would be hung out to dry not only by his own party, but by all liberals as well, even though he would be doing exactly what they've been whining about. Cindy Sheehan would still call him a murderer, Ted Kennedy would keep harping about how he misled us, and John Kerry would send an e-mail. So, in that regard, you are exactly right.
What I would like, for me personally, is a timeline. If Bush gave a press conference outlining how we could win the peace and have all troops out of Iraq by March of say, 2008, I personally would like that. But Howard Dean would bitch about how it will take 2 1/2 years to do it.
I'm reminded of MonicaGate in 1998. That was something that should have NEVER lasted as long as it did. Trent Lott, Henry Hyde and whoever else talked about the law, upholding it, and really, was it about that? Of course not. It was about the hatred of Bill Clinton and removing him from office no matter what. Sorry, I'm babbling, but that is a perfect example of political power control.
All I have heard George Bush say for the last year or so is how we are staying the course, and how we are not leaving Iraq until the terrorists are defeated. Fine. That sounds good. However, what exactly are we doing to win this war? From how it's sounding, not a lot of progress is being made. Now, I can hear all you Righties now--"But there is a constitution! Free elections! Progress!" Um, is it really a "free" election when people are getting blown up on the way to the polls? If pipe bombs were exploding in Des Moines, Iowa last November, I'm sure every American would have a problem with that. But in Iraq, that's progress. We're winning.
Are we?
Well, we already won 3 years ago. "Mission Accomplished", anyone? Nah, that's nitpicking. It's not like Clinton went out the day of the Oklahoma City bombing and announced that we had caught the culprit while Timothy McVeigh drove away, right?
In a nutshell, what I was trying to say (and seem to have a problem conveying today, since this response is about 5 paragraphs too long)--I think the American people would like to see a different reaction to this war from the Bush administration. No, I don't think going and pulling all the troops out while talking about it being a mistake like all the Democrats want is correct. That makes us look weak, and I can understand not doing THAT--but acting like the Iraqi information minister and babbling on and on about staying the course and how we are winning, well, it doesn't sit well with me, or the majority of the rest of America.
Why not talk every day about what STEPS we will take in Iraq, instead of bitching about the critics of the war? You want to talk about "staying the course"? Fine. But explain what we will be doing while we are staying the course. Listen to your critics--the ones who don't want an immediate withdrawal. People are concerned about armor, the number of troops, and securing the borders. FIX THOSE ISSUES. Talking about how everything is right is why you have a 34% approval rating, George.
You are correct that setting a timetable would just open up a new can of worms for the Liberals to attack with. That is the sad side of politics. But I truly believe Bush isn't saying much because he wants to protect himself--DON'T. At this point, admit that some things and decisions you have done and made have not been exactly correct. People will respond with a negative, but in the long run it would help because it would show character. I'd rather have a leader who realizes his mistakes and corrects them than constantly admits he is always right and never changes anything when in trouble. Apparently to George Bush (and Karl Rove), sticking to your guns is the safer option. We'll see who wins in the end.
STAY CURRENT