Say, What?
Just shoot me now. I mean it. After reading two articles in major metropolitan newspapers yesterday I even had nightmares. Both have to do with the two-ton white elephant in the room that both sides of the political spectrum have decided to ignore, even though the elephant dung is beginning to reach epic proportions.
The illegal, misbegotten war in Iraq is costing us about $170 million dollars a day with no end in sight. Keep that figure in mind.
The first article comes from yesterday's NY Times. Here's the lede:
Congressional leaders are assembling a $500 billion package to try to resolve an impasse by providing President Bush with unfettered money for the Iraq war in exchange for new spending on popular domestic programs. ...
...The decision to free some money for the war without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy.
"A major concession?" Why on earth is a Democratic-controlled Congress willing to make any kind of concession when it holds the power of the purse, especially to the current yahoo-in-chief who has proven time after time that he cannot be trusted with anything? I thought it was pretty clear a year ago that the electorate gave the keys to Congress to the Dems to end the war, not appease its chief proponent. Apparently the Democrats weren't paying attention, or consciously chose to ignore their mandate, neither of which is particularly wise with another election coming up.
Furthermore, just how is Congress going to pay for those "popular domestic programs" when such a sizable chunk of our treasury is hemorrhaging out to pay for Bush's folly? The national debt has exploded under Mr. Bush's leadership, our economy is sufficiently shaky that at least one oil producing nation has decided not to accept payment in US dollars (Iran has just set the tone for the rest of OPEC), and those nations holding our debt paper are reconsidering their investments. Is the answer really more debt?
Equally as maddening, however, is the news contained in the second article, also published yesterday, this time in The Boston Globe. Here's some of the pertinent parts of that article:
Once expected to be a stark referendum on the Iraq war and national security, the presidential campaign in both parties has been turning more toward domestic concerns, from illegal immigration and taxes among Republicans, to healthcare and Social Security among Democrats.
The shift, analysts say, has brought traditional issues and constituencies back into play and helped candidates with perceived weaknesses in national security - such as Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee - to rise in many polls.
"Right now, the candidates might not need to talk about [national security] because concerns about the economy are starting to grow," said Dartmouth College professor Linda L. Fowler, a political scientist who studies elections.
Fowler and other analysts attribute the shift in part to the slowdown in troop deaths in Iraq, which has diminished some of the urgency surrounding the war among voters of both parties, analysts said. In addition, this week's release of new intelligence suggesting that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 could diminish what had been an intensive focus on Iran in both parties.
A more accurate description, in my opinion, is that once again the Democrats have allowed their opponents to frame the debate. The Republicans can't possibly win by embracing the Iraq War, so they don't want to talk about it and anything connected to it (the morality, the deaths, the over-stretched military, the dollar costs now and in the future), so instead they'll talk about those sneaky illegals. And the Democrats are letting them.
Yes, we need a better health care system (although Social Security is not a problem, a little tweaking on funding it and locking it away from Congressional raiding would keep the program sound for decades if not forever), but we are never going to be able to pay for it until we stop that sucking sound over in the Middle East. What is so fricking hard about saying that?
To be fair, some candidates have spoken to that issue: Ron Paul among the GOP candidates and Christopher Dodd and Dennis Kucinich among the Democrats. None of those gentlemen, however, have much of a chance in winning their party's nomination for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that they are pretty much ignored by the media except when it wants to amuse itself with a perceived clown act.
So, the country is once again stuck. And there doesn't be much we can do about it. I just wish I hadn't given away my pitchfork when I moved.
The illegal, misbegotten war in Iraq is costing us about $170 million dollars a day with no end in sight. Keep that figure in mind.
The first article comes from yesterday's NY Times. Here's the lede:
Congressional leaders are assembling a $500 billion package to try to resolve an impasse by providing President Bush with unfettered money for the Iraq war in exchange for new spending on popular domestic programs. ...
...The decision to free some money for the war without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy.
"A major concession?" Why on earth is a Democratic-controlled Congress willing to make any kind of concession when it holds the power of the purse, especially to the current yahoo-in-chief who has proven time after time that he cannot be trusted with anything? I thought it was pretty clear a year ago that the electorate gave the keys to Congress to the Dems to end the war, not appease its chief proponent. Apparently the Democrats weren't paying attention, or consciously chose to ignore their mandate, neither of which is particularly wise with another election coming up.
Furthermore, just how is Congress going to pay for those "popular domestic programs" when such a sizable chunk of our treasury is hemorrhaging out to pay for Bush's folly? The national debt has exploded under Mr. Bush's leadership, our economy is sufficiently shaky that at least one oil producing nation has decided not to accept payment in US dollars (Iran has just set the tone for the rest of OPEC), and those nations holding our debt paper are reconsidering their investments. Is the answer really more debt?
Equally as maddening, however, is the news contained in the second article, also published yesterday, this time in The Boston Globe. Here's some of the pertinent parts of that article:
Once expected to be a stark referendum on the Iraq war and national security, the presidential campaign in both parties has been turning more toward domestic concerns, from illegal immigration and taxes among Republicans, to healthcare and Social Security among Democrats.
The shift, analysts say, has brought traditional issues and constituencies back into play and helped candidates with perceived weaknesses in national security - such as Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee - to rise in many polls.
"Right now, the candidates might not need to talk about [national security] because concerns about the economy are starting to grow," said Dartmouth College professor Linda L. Fowler, a political scientist who studies elections.
Fowler and other analysts attribute the shift in part to the slowdown in troop deaths in Iraq, which has diminished some of the urgency surrounding the war among voters of both parties, analysts said. In addition, this week's release of new intelligence suggesting that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 could diminish what had been an intensive focus on Iran in both parties.
A more accurate description, in my opinion, is that once again the Democrats have allowed their opponents to frame the debate. The Republicans can't possibly win by embracing the Iraq War, so they don't want to talk about it and anything connected to it (the morality, the deaths, the over-stretched military, the dollar costs now and in the future), so instead they'll talk about those sneaky illegals. And the Democrats are letting them.
Yes, we need a better health care system (although Social Security is not a problem, a little tweaking on funding it and locking it away from Congressional raiding would keep the program sound for decades if not forever), but we are never going to be able to pay for it until we stop that sucking sound over in the Middle East. What is so fricking hard about saying that?
To be fair, some candidates have spoken to that issue: Ron Paul among the GOP candidates and Christopher Dodd and Dennis Kucinich among the Democrats. None of those gentlemen, however, have much of a chance in winning their party's nomination for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that they are pretty much ignored by the media except when it wants to amuse itself with a perceived clown act.
So, the country is once again stuck. And there doesn't be much we can do about it. I just wish I hadn't given away my pitchfork when I moved.
Labels: 110th Congress, Election 2008, Iraq War
posted by Diane at 1:34 PM
1 Comments:
Apparently the enemy of the democrats is the electorate who put them in charge.
Post a Comment
<< Home