From the Kool-Aide Corner
By David Sanders
As things have kicked in gear, legislatively speaking, in both Washington and here at home, it’s time to check in with all the players and see where they stand. As things have kicked in gear, legislatively speaking, in both Washington and here at home, it’s time to check in with all the players and see where they stand. President Bush: It appears that he might have his first wedge issue of the year. At this writing, it seems almost certain that he will announce a specific surge in troop levels in and around Baghdad. This new strategy will be aimed at quelling the steadily increasing violence between the Sunni and Shia. While increasing troop levels in the region may sound counterintuitive to those who want a quick end to the war, there are those who believe any exit must be preceded by sort of calm around the Iraqi capital city.Â
Here is a reality check; no, it is a civil war and nowhere in history has an interfering third party ever won a civil war. And adding more troops does not constitute an intervention. We might as well put bull’s eye targets on the backs of our soldiers, because all the Decider is doing is adding more targets on the ground in Baghdad. It will be bloody and costly and for what? Stability, we had more stability in Iraq when Saddam was in power.
On the domestic front, both Chicago Sun Times columnist Bob Novak and Grover Norquist, chairman of Americans for Tax Reform, writing for Human Events, speculated on a subject touched on here in December. The question: Would Bush back a tax increase in his final two years. Both men suggested that a tax increase packaged in with Social Security “reforms” or a reduction in the alternative minimum tax could be a possibility. Norquist correctly predicted that if Bush signed a tax increase into law the negative fallout would kill chances for congressional Republicans to increase their numbers, and would spell doom for the GOP presidential nominee in 2008.
As always, what is good for the Republican Party supercedes what is good for America. There should be a war tax. If Bush is so determined to have his war, then pay for it. Right now, this war has been offline. That means, you write checks, in this case 100’s of billions of dollars and you do not record them in your check register. Off the books so that this Administration could keep the “tax cuts” on the books for the top 1%, Bush’s base. Brilliant economic strategy, if you’re not the one that has to answer the door when the bill collectors come knocking.
Nancy Pelosi: The new speaker of the House seems poised to force the war as an issue with President Bush. She has suggested that Congress may use its power of the purse strings to block increased troop levels. If Bush fails to convince the American people that increasing troops is the best prescription for winning the war and leaving Iraq, Pelosi’s position may take hold.
“force the war as an issue”…ah where was Sanders on November 5th 2006? The American public made the war THE issue and the mandate shouted by America was get out. America threw out the Republicans for lack of leadership and ovesight and Pelosi is doing what she’s expected to do. Will Bush convince America? Not likely, he didn’t do it in November and with his approval rating on the war at a stunning 27%, he’ll not do it tonight.
Harry Reid: Who said the Senate was more deliberative or reflective? The Senate majority leader is backtracking and taking a hard-line. Initially Reid supported an increase in troop levels, but he switched his position and now stands against any troop increase. Reid said Monday that he would do everything in his power to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home.
See November 5th and Pelosi above.
Reality: It is taking a vacation in the Democratic quarters. To leave Iraq in the accelerated manner Pelosi and Reid prefer ignores the reality that Iran would fill the vacuum if the U.S. abandoned its mission.
Please, first it was WMD’s, then “bringing Democracy to Iraq, then “better to fight them there than here” and now we fight because of Iran? Reality: Wiser men would bring all the parties to the table, including Iran and Syria, and until we do, the Middle East will continue to be a powder keg, like it has for decades and when it explodes the United States of America will be the one responsible for throwing the match.
Mark Pryor: He is reality’s best friend in the Senate. Pryor is one of the only Democrats becoming increasingly vocal, serving as a counterbalance to Reid’s arguments. Pryor, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, understands the risk the regions face should U.S. troops leave before the job is done. He is sounding the alarm bells on Iran and will stand against policies that will strengthen its rogue leadership. Pryor has always fancied himself an independent thinker. He may have the chance to prove himself as an independent mover and shaker before all is said and done.
Hmm, not the same Senator Mark Pryor I’ve been talking too. In addition, what mission? Define the mission. As well, the “rogue” leader of Iran was democratically elected, and that rogue leadership took it on the chin in the last round of Iranian elections, where they found democracy cuts both ways. If Pryor wants to help, convince the Decider to get these folks to the table, find out what’s under their skin and what they want and start from there. Planes, guns, and bombs don’t scare these folks, they’ve been living with that for decades.
Closer to home
Benny Petrus: Arkansas speaker of the House’s decision to appoint three Republicans to chair committees surprised me, and left many legislators, both Democrat and Republican, scratching their heads on Monday night. A few GOP lawmakers were dumbfounded that he would keep his commitment made so long ago, especially in an environment where Republicans have become marginalized due to their dwindling numbers.
I imagine it was a shock, so un-Republican. If the Republicans controlled the House, it would be a cold day in hell before any Democrat would have been given the chairmanship of any committee. You can take that to the bank.
Jack Critcher: I’m not sure why he is suggesting raising taxes on gasoline, especially in an environment where he is staring a massive budget surplus in the face.
Gov. Mike Beebe: Give him the benefit of the doubt; he is standing next to his commitment to reduce the sales tax on food. I’ll keep an open mind as he begins his eight years in office.
We agree, eight years!
Posted on January 10th, 2007 by George Sand
Posted in National Politics. | EMail This Post
Comments
Comment from Anonymous
Time: January 11, 2007, 7:06 pm
Nice smack down. I love it when blogger answer shit like this line by line. First Sanders and then that bow tied rummy Roebuck. Keep it up.
Write a comment