1980's All Over Again

So, let's see Russia has invaded Georgia, told the world to pack sand and forget about any restoration of Georgia's territorial integrity. Then yesterday told Poland if they accept a US anti-missile base, they are eligible for the special Russian "Nuke You For Free offer".

This of course, leads us to the statements by Barack Obama, who'll probably rue this YouTube video of him in the coming months. He wants to basically disarm America, and quit updating the military. No doubt there is a social program that needs a few hundred billion dollars a year.




This all reminds me of 1985, with superpower sabre rattling, sphere's of influence, and misguided threats. Speaking of 1985, here's the Bowling for Soup video.



Have a great Saturday

Read The Full Post!

Still No Unity

My title doesn't refer to Iraq, where our Congress would have us believe that not having complete unity of the country after 5 years makes any efforts there a complete failure. Instead, it refers to this article in today's Washington Post, about the lack of full unity in Bosnia.

It seems that 12 years after ending their civil war, they still have no national security force, instead it's divided between the two ethnic enclaves in the country. Yet that country is the example of how to "do it right" by some on the left. Funny, but they are fractured into two major "sectors", each lead by it's own leader, reporting to a PM, each supplying it's own security forces, even in different uniforms. That's not exactly a "unified" country.

I bring it up because I'm surprised the Post published the story. It gives credence to the idea that maybe our Congress is pushing for too much to fast in Iraq, and setting unrealistic benchmarks. Hell, it will probably become fodder for the legion of right wing talk radio hosts and bloggers to point out that progress is slow in new democracies.

And rightfully so; it took 3 years for the fledgling US to come up with the Articles of Confederation, our first shot at a national unity government. It failed after just a few years, and we started from scratch with the Constitution we now have. It was five and a half years after the end of the Revolutionary war before we had a President under the Constitution; that was 13 years after we declared our independence. Iraq, though, should have everything done in under six, with no infighting or problems, right?

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Bosnia, United States, Government, Unity

Read The Full Post!

More Reindeer Games

Congress is getting ready, after their short hiatus, to start playing more reindeer games with Iraq.

Since they know that an actual vote to defund Iraq won't pass, guys like John Murtha are now looking instead towards ideas like setting training bars so high for military units that they can't be deployed anytime in the next couple of years.

Granted, the Constitution does give Congress the power to provide for the training of the military. However, when unqualified congresscritters not qualified military minds start micromanaging everything about running the military, you end up with a military that is incapable of doing it's job.

Were the leadership of Congress to have the actual cajones to propose a vote to defund the war I'd disagree with them, but I'd have some respect for them. The end runs and side steps show a Congress that is even more weak willed when it comes to polls than it does when it comes to the war itself.

Since appropriates bills aren't subject to Senate cloture vote rules (60 to get to the floor), I would suggest that the Congress put into the 2008 Defense budget a proviso to deny all military funding for any excursions outside the US until such time that US troops have left Iraq. Then bring it to a vote. That would give the President until October 1st to get the troops home.

I won't be holding my breath waiting for Congress to put such legislation into writing. Democrats are too worried about "not supporting the troops" to actually vote on what they believe is right. Instead we'll the type of junk Murtha and Pelosi are talking about, lest they tick off the pollsters.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, War, Bush, Congress, Pelosi, Murtha, Troops, funding

Read The Full Post!

Broder on Bush

David S. Broder, syndicated columnist, has an interesting piece on a possible "Bush Bounce" because of some tactic changes by him over the last month or so.

I'm not convinced Broder is totally right that Bush can make anything of a substantial comeback; he's beyond being damaged goods and closer to being a total wreck. However, Bush has done some things that are going to help him, and hamstring the Democrats in Congress, specifically on Iraq, and in a broader sense, moving into 2008's election season.

I agree with Broder that by softening his rhetoric on the non-binding resolutions in Congress, and calling them meaningful debate, it dulls that sword being aimed at him. He's actually allowing them to pay out enough rope to hang themselves later on with the Iraq issue, in fact.

If we all remember back to August through November of 2006, one of the centerpieces of the Democratic campaign was that the new congress was going to be inclusive; unlike it's predecessor, which didn't allow opposing debate on many issues. Yet the Iraq resolutions have proven that promise to be a falsehood, as no GOP members have been allowed in introduce any resolutions of their own.

Secondly, and this is where the left is getting it wrong, the debate over funding for Iraq will not be pretty, but they don't get which direction they need to go on it. The folks over at Talk Left and Atrios seem to think that by allowing funding the Democrats are going to hurt themselves, as usual not looking at the bigger picture of Iraq and the area as a whole.

The region as a whole is going on a weapons buying binge, good for your stocks if you hold the right ones, but not great for stability in the area. It's easy to deduce why, too, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and other relatively stable countries in the region are seriously worried about what happens to them if we abandon Iraq. As long as the whack jobs of the region are busy dealing with us in Iraq, they are relatively safe.

If, as the left would like, Congress votes to cut off money, and we pull our forces out of the region, they end up with a vacuum that will have to be filled. Unfortunately for our interests and those of most of the western world, the country in the region best equipped to fill that vacuum is Iran, and everyone else knows it. Hence the buying binge on new weapons by others.

The problem here is that the left, in their standard narrow vision of everything, don't see that as an issue, yet. They will if it hit's them upside the head with $100/bbl oil prices as suppliers start worrying about the safety of shipments from the region.

This, not funding the war, is what would cause the left the most grief. You see, that would be the problem they'd have to take ownership of, not continuing to try and provide security to Iraq. If they vote for funding, and their resolution, they can point to the fact they've opposed the president, and supported the troops with what they need. If they vote to cut off funding, they have to stand behind that, and whatever occurs in the region as being of their own doing.

Bush, and the folks in the GOP with the guts to stand with him would be able to (correctly) point to the fact that wider regional conflict wasn't due to us being in Iraq, but occurred when we left, and they'd be able to point a finger at exactly who the architects of that plan were.

And that is where he'll get the biggest bounce, not from being nice to the media, or playing well with Pelosi and Co. over a few domestic issues.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Iran, War, Democrats, Bush, Congress, Funding, Broder

Read The Full Post!