Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
It seems to be Constitution Week for this column.
Today I'd like to examine two constitutional questions -- whether Congress can give immunity to a crime already committed, and whether Congress can force states into a primary schedule of their own devising.
In the "good news" department -- South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson is now back in action. That gives Democrats another solid vote on Iraq. Which means they only need pick up three more, in order to put something on Bush's desk. OK, it still will need seven more votes after that to overturn a veto -- but hey, one step at a time.
There are four names being floated as candidates for further GOP aisle-crossing on Iraq. These are (to date): Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, George Voinovich from Ohio, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, and (a surprise to me) Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina.
I strongly urge anyone who lives in these four states (who also wants to end the Iraq war) to contact your senator today and let them know they have constituents who will support their actions if they vote with the Democrats.
So Petraeus and Crocker have reported, President Bush has spoken to the nation, and the congressional war debate is slated to begin in earnest next week. Since the Democrats seem to be incapable of staying "on message" the way Republicans effortlessly manage to do, I'd like to steal a page from the Republican playbook. It's an idea whose time has come: Democratic talking points.
Democrats in Congress have to quickly decide what to do about this state of affairs. Because if they do nothing, the Republicans are going to run next year on the following slogan: "Trust us to take care of national security -- we are bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq, but we're doing it in a sober, reasonable, and adult way; by listening to the counsel of generals and taking their advice seriously. Democrats have obviously proven they do not have what it takes to put America's interests before politics, and we do."
Whether this political strategy will work or not is an open question, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be the campaign spin from the Republicans. And it might prove to be more effective than it now sounds. If Democrats aren't careful, Republicans could wind up owning the "withdrawal" as a political issue.
This upcoming week is going to be perhaps the most important week of the 110th Congress. General Petraeus will give his report, Ambassador Crocker will likewise report; and the debate on what to do next in Iraq will begin in earnest.
So why are Democrats seemingly admitting defeat -- before the argument has even begun? Why are you essentially taking what should be a position of strength, and (by buying into the White House's spin) turning it into a position of weakness? Do you really think this is the best way to end the Iraq war, or (for that matter) the best way to convince voters to vote for Democrats in 2008?
If Basra goes up in flames, look for Republicans in Congress to bludgeon Democrats with the following: "See?... SEE?!?... We TOLD you this would happen if the coalition pulls out too early! This is what's going to happen to the WHOLE COUNTRY if we withdraw now, right when we're on the verge of success in Iraq."
If Basra remains calm and the Iraqi forces contain things well enough to keep chaos off American network news television screens for a few weeks, look for congressional Democrats to use the opposite argument: "See?... SEE?!?... We TOLD you that all your fears of utter chaos are unfounded because OUR PRESENCE in Iraq is the main cause of all the violence. Once you remove the coalition from the field, things will improve in Iraq. Our success depends on us getting out as fast as possible."
Once again, there was a flood of excellent entries, making it extremely difficult to pick winners out of the field.
As always, winners receive absolutely nothing, other than bragging rights. A big thanks to everyone who entered, and without further ado, here are the top three winners in each of the following categories: Best Chant, Best Anti-Bush Slogan, Best Slogan To Influence Middle America, Best Slogan To Influence Congress, Funniest Slogan, Most Subtle Slogan, and Best Obscure Reference.
At the end, five awards for Most Profane / Tasteless (because of overwhelming interest in the category), and my five picks for Best Overall Slogan.
I heartily salute both organizations in their efforts. I have been saying since the beginning of this year that the anti-war forces need to keep the pressure on the politicians in Washington with a show of numbers in order to convince weak-willed congressmen from both sides of the aisle that the anti-war stance is actually wildly popular among their constituents. Even in red states.
We continue today looking at the Democratic candidates for President, and what they would do about Iraq. Part 1 of this article ran yesterday, and covered Richardson, Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel. Continuing in reverse alphabetical order, today we examine Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden.
Iraq is someday going to truly be both sovereign and independent of the United States military. When that happens, they not only have to deal with security within their country (which they haven't even been able to handle yet, obviously), but they will also have to deal with their country's regional security. Iraq is next door to some neighboring countries which already have some sophisticated military equipment, so they're going to have to have some level of parity -- or else they're likely going to get wiped out when we leave. Instead of Iraq taking over Kuwait, maybe Kuwait will take over Iraq (for instance).