This article by a fellow POW of McCain's on why he will not vote for McCain gives me conflicting feelings. On the one hand, it's good to know that you don't have to fall down and worship McCain because he was a POW. On the other, it's disappointing that no one seems to have come out of Vietnam with a good reputation. The war tends to destroy those who served in it whether they were a "hero" like McCain or a poor grunt just trying to survive long enough to get back home. At least part of this is because the American elite did not serve and in order to make themselves feel better about avoiding service, they belittle the service of those who went to Vietnam.
As a Vietnam veteran, I am disappointed at veterans denigrating other veterans, whether it's "Swift Boat Veterans" running down John Kerry, or another POW running down McCain. When I came back, all any civilian wanted to hear was whether you killed any babies or committed some other atrocity in Vietnam. One book I remember reading was called "No Victory Parades." One problem for John McCain is that he missed all that. He came back praised as a hero rather than reviled as a criminal for his service. His tour of duty was a lot tougher than most, but his reception was a lot better than most. That may be one reason he is so ready to go to war, whether against Iraq, Iran or Russia. I liked him in 2000, but that was before he became such a warmonger. I think his defeat by Bush changed him for the worse. This article at least raises questions about how much people should bow down to McCain's POW experience. He uses it for everything, most recently defending himself for not knowing how many houses he has. His spokesman said something like, "He lived in only one house for five and half years, in prison" Maybe he should cool it on the POW stuff for a while.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Are We Winning in Iraq?
John McCain is hyping the line that the surge was successful in Iraq because violence has gone down drastically. It's good that violence has gone down, but does that mean we are winning? Basically we have set up al-Maliki and a few others as successors to Saddam Hussein. Are they our friends, or Iran's? Or, are they just in it for the money, like Ahmed Chalabi? Maliki has opened up to the Sunnis who are fighting for us, but is that going to be a lasting alliance? The Iraqis and Iranians in general don't like each other, but some dislike each other more than others. Where does Maliki fall on this spectrum?
Some Americans who are well plugged in to the Iraqi scene probably know the answers to these questions or have educated guesses, but if so, they are not talking. Basically all we know is that violence is down. Much of that seems to be due to the decreasing threat from al-Sadr's militia. But again, is that due to his being defeated by forces friendly to the US and to the westernization of Iraq, or is simply a tactical move intended to get the Americans to expedite their withdrawal.
We misjudged Iraq so badly during the invasion, expecting to be welcomed with flowers and candy, that it's unlikely that even the best analysts know exactly what will happen when we leave, although hopefully they are better informed than they were before the war. Of course, one problem is that many of the "experts" sent to Iraq by the Bush administration were just Republican political hacks who didn't speak Arabic and who had no knowledge of Iraqi society. Their time was largely wasted, although they made good money paid by American taxpayers.
My bottom line is that despite the drop in violence, we don't really know whether we are winning, and we probably won't know until after we leave Iraq and it's too late to do anything about it. I have a gut feeling that Maliki and his cronies are a lot friendlier with Iran than Saddam Hussein was, and that we are likely to see Iraq pulled into the Iran/Shiite orbit when we leave.
Some Americans who are well plugged in to the Iraqi scene probably know the answers to these questions or have educated guesses, but if so, they are not talking. Basically all we know is that violence is down. Much of that seems to be due to the decreasing threat from al-Sadr's militia. But again, is that due to his being defeated by forces friendly to the US and to the westernization of Iraq, or is simply a tactical move intended to get the Americans to expedite their withdrawal.
We misjudged Iraq so badly during the invasion, expecting to be welcomed with flowers and candy, that it's unlikely that even the best analysts know exactly what will happen when we leave, although hopefully they are better informed than they were before the war. Of course, one problem is that many of the "experts" sent to Iraq by the Bush administration were just Republican political hacks who didn't speak Arabic and who had no knowledge of Iraqi society. Their time was largely wasted, although they made good money paid by American taxpayers.
My bottom line is that despite the drop in violence, we don't really know whether we are winning, and we probably won't know until after we leave Iraq and it's too late to do anything about it. I have a gut feeling that Maliki and his cronies are a lot friendlier with Iran than Saddam Hussein was, and that we are likely to see Iraq pulled into the Iran/Shiite orbit when we leave.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Supreme Court Problems
Rick Warren asked the two candidates which Supreme Court justices they would like to get rid of. Obama said he would get rid of Clarence Thomas, my choice exactly. The problem with Thomas is not his political philosophy, although I disagree with it. The problem is that he is a second rate lawyer. He's not smart enough, hard working enough, or something enough to be on the Supreme Court. The justices should at least come from the first rank of lawyers and judges. Clarence Thomas would be okay on a state appeals court or something, but not on the US Supreme Court. He's just not up to the job.
Thomas is an example of the fact that Republicans like stupid people in government. Exhibit 1 - George W. Bush. Exhibit 2 - John Bolton. Exhibit 3 - Ronald Reagan. Reagan? I think he was somewhat senile for the latter part of his time in office. He thought things were true that weren't, e.g., Cadillac driving welfare moms. It might have been true, but it wasn't. He couldn't name names. Republicans don't like law. They don't like treaties because treaties assume that nations have some respect for international law, and Republicans don't. They don't like to pay taxes. They don't like anything that hinders their options. This is not new. It's basically how the warlords in Afghanistan operate and how despots have operated for years. The West moved beyond this, but now we're going back to the Middle Ages, led by George W. Bush and Clarence Thomas.
When McCain was asked which justices he would get rid of, he just named all the liberal justices. He showed no real thought, and that's what Republicans like. They like McCain better in 2008 than in 2000 because he's more senile. He won't stand in the way of their unbounded greed and selfishness.
Thomas is an example of the fact that Republicans like stupid people in government. Exhibit 1 - George W. Bush. Exhibit 2 - John Bolton. Exhibit 3 - Ronald Reagan. Reagan? I think he was somewhat senile for the latter part of his time in office. He thought things were true that weren't, e.g., Cadillac driving welfare moms. It might have been true, but it wasn't. He couldn't name names. Republicans don't like law. They don't like treaties because treaties assume that nations have some respect for international law, and Republicans don't. They don't like to pay taxes. They don't like anything that hinders their options. This is not new. It's basically how the warlords in Afghanistan operate and how despots have operated for years. The West moved beyond this, but now we're going back to the Middle Ages, led by George W. Bush and Clarence Thomas.
When McCain was asked which justices he would get rid of, he just named all the liberal justices. He showed no real thought, and that's what Republicans like. They like McCain better in 2008 than in 2000 because he's more senile. He won't stand in the way of their unbounded greed and selfishness.
Did McCain Encourage War to Advance His Campaign
John McCain's main foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheuneman, was (and maybe is) a paid lobbyist for the nation of Georgia. Did McCain get paid for promoting Georgia? Did he get special access to the President Saakashvili because of the lobbyists on his campaign staff? During one of the many visits and phone calls that he has touted on the campaign trail, did he encourage Saakashvili to invade South Ossetia, resulting in many deaths, as described in today's NYT by Mikail Gorbachev.
McCain probably didn't do anything unethical regarding Georgia to promote his campaign, but having a lobbyist for Georgia on his staff certainly raises ethical questions. It certainly gave him better access to Saakashvili than Obama had, if only because of Scheuneman's rolodex.
McCain probably didn't do anything unethical regarding Georgia to promote his campaign, but having a lobbyist for Georgia on his staff certainly raises ethical questions. It certainly gave him better access to Saakashvili than Obama had, if only because of Scheuneman's rolodex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)