Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
The American television news media is slipping out of Iraq, as quietly as they can. This story was reported by the New York Times over the holidays, and it may prove to be a consequential part of the way the war ends. Because it might actually make it easier for President Obama to wind the war down, and avoid a lot of squabbling over how he does so.
Is Rick Warren, pastor of a California mega-church and author of The Purpose Driven Life considered unacceptable in American society at large? Was Obama's invitation to Warren to speak at his inauguration akin to, in today's world, inviting a white supremacist, an anti-Semite, or a blatant misogynist to speak? To put it another way, is Rick Warren beyond the pale?
Welcome to our annual awards! For the past three years, this column has paid homage (translation: "ripped off their gimmick") to the McLaughlin Group television show by handing out our own year-end awards (while using the same categories). This will be a two-part column, with the second installment appearing one week from today. And feel free to watch the McLaughlin Group on your local PBS station this weekend, to compare my picks with theirs.
The Illinois Supreme Court has just, without comment, rejected what was in essence a coup attempt by the state Attorney General, which would have installed the Lieutenant Governor in Governor Blagojevich's place. Attorney General Lisa Madigan's legal reasoning was, to put it mildly, unique. She tried to make the case that the Governor was "unfit for duty" and therefore had to be replaced so the state could continue to function. The entire episode raises a bigger question: could this ever happen to the President of the United States? The answer turns out to be: "Yes, but... it'll probably never happen."
I know it's a lot more interesting to talk about two shoes getting thrown at President Bush in Iraq, but two more important stories are getting ignored as a result. These are two metaphorical "shoes" thrown at Bush, by the Senate and by Bush's own Inspector General in Iraq. And they're going to have a much more lasting impact on how history sees our Iraq adventure than one video clip of a guy hucking his footwear at President Bush. Because they deal with torture, and the failure of the Iraq reconstruction effort.
The history of profanity in American political discourse is an untold story out there just waiting for someone to research and write about -- although finding a willing publisher might be a bit of a problem. Because it seems we're back to the Nixonian days of "[expletive deleted]."
So while some have decried this timetable for withdrawal, I think it is going to wind up facilitating a much faster overall American withdrawal than would have happened without the six month deadline. Events may prove me wrong, but that's how I see it now.
There has been a lot of ink spilled over the ramifications of the agreement recently struck between the United States and Iraq on our presence there for the next three years. The Status Of Forces Agreement ("SOFA") was passed by the Iraqi Parliament and signed by all three members of the Iraqi Executive Council, meaning it will have the force of law come the first of January, 2009. President Bush has decided that his signature was enough for America to enter the agreement, so Congress never got their say on the document. But with such commentary flying left and right, I thought I would go to the document itself to see what it actually says (versus how people are interpreting it).
I am normally not much inclined to give California Senator Dianne Feinstein the benefit of the doubt, mostly because I have a good enough memory to recall the dozens of times she has earned the "DINO" (Democrat In Name Only) label for voting with Republicans. She's not my favorite senator, in other words. She's not even my favorite senator from California -- and likely never will be as long as Barbara Boxer is still serving. But I have to say, the recent kerfluffle over her comments on torture and the Army Field Manual seem to me to be a tempest in a teapot. I am willing to take her at her word that she was quoted out of context in the New York Times, and I am also willing to take her at her word in the clarification of her comments she has subsequently issued.
I mean, it is so fantastical I had to actually laugh at it. Because of course every single right-winger in America who has been using such language will immediately start using the same language about George Bush. All who have called the concept of an American "timetable for withdrawal" as being: downright dangerous, weak, a surrender, cowardly, losing a war to al Qaeda, giving up on the War On Terror, giving the terrorists what they want, a crazy Democratic idea, a dangerously naive idea by [insert name of Democratic politician here], proof that Democrats love to lose wars, proof that Democrats are un-American, anti-American, and blame-America-first -- all of the people who have ever uttered anything of that ilk will of course be intellectually honest and consistent, and will now denounce Bush in exactly the same fierce language as they have used previously. Because to do otherwise would just reveal their monstrous hypocrisy. And of course they will not shirk their duty to do so, since they've been provided with such a shining example of an American leader "caving in to terrorists" and surrendering in the face of the enemy. Of course they'll denounce Bush just as strongly as they have been denouncing others who have espoused such views.