the war drags on ...

... and we don't even have a common understanding of what we hope to accomplish.

This fact, as much as anything, is the cause of a lot of the gridlock we are seeing in D.C., as well as the resulting social friction that it causes, (the blogsphere is a pretty good example).

Lots of folks hold varied opinions on the conflict in Iraq, (for some reason, I do not believe that as many really think much about Afghanistan), and these seem to be molding damn near every facet of our collective lives. I ask you, (yeah, either of you), why are we fighting in Iraq? I write this as I have just bid good luck to a couple of guys who are Baghdad bound, and as the Congress prepares for another epic match of wits with the White House over the funding of the conflict. The President is all but certain to veto the spending bill that puts certain restrictions on the conduct of the war as well as mandating the beginning of a troop withdrawal. The Congress will, in all likelihood, not override the veto, which promises more pain and suffering on the domestic front, as well as within the environs of the government as the administration scrambles to continue to pay for the conflict. Nothing will have been accomplished. One article I read puts forth the notion that the President should go along with the bill, to get the funding, and then ignore the proviso's regarding troop withdrawal. I don't agree with the writers position, but I have to say that this would be a bold statement of leadership, from an administration that, to date, hasn't been able to spell the word, let alone exercise it. The idea might work if the President had a bit more credibility with the Congress, the public and the world community, but as things stand, I think it would be seen as another sign of weakness and disconnect from reality.

The war will most likely end in early 2009, following the innauguration of the new President, (who could be from either party...). It may end with a sort-of "peace with honor", (retired Gen William Odom actually stated, for the record, that beginning to withdraw troops could mark the beginning of a more effective strategy in the region), or it may end with somebody recognizing the forest in all those trees. In any event, at that time Iraq will become what it wants to become. If it turns into a hotbed for Islamo-fascism, as many claim it will, or becomes a satellite ally of Iran, (likely), it will not be because the Democrats pulled out "before the job is done", but because the Iraqi people see that particular course as best for them. I am no expert, just a voter with an opinion and a blog, but I think it possible that the turn towards radical Islam (a western term) in the mideast is a lot like the turn in the west towards the right, (fundamentalism in our religious and political communities). It is a response to a percieved situation. Just as many in the US are ready to build walls and throw all the Mexicans out, it is possible that many in the mideast are ready to flex thier economic muscle and take what they see as thier rightful place on the world stage. In the near and middle term, it is about the same us vs. them issues that we are dealing with here, (albeit in a more localized context).


John McCain formally entered the presidential race this past week, and in his first speech as a candidate, he offered what I considered to be some non-criticisms pointed at the White House, noting that America should never undertake a military action without the clear backing of the American people, a clear notion of the threat to our own country, and a comprehensive plan to prosecute and win the war, things that have been missing in this particular conflict. I can't say that I back the senator right now, but it was nice to hear something besides the same old crap.

And while I am talking candidacies, Rudi Giulliani mentioned the 'T' word in a manner similar to Mr McCains references to war. Rudi was talking about taxes, and gave some vague but non-commital praise to the idea of a flat tax. I am pretty sure that I don't back that idea, (at least in the form floated by Steve Forbes a few years back...), but it was something different from the "let's cut our taxes" mania that seems to incite excitement inside the various political camps.

These two things may be non-events, just politicians sprouting bullshit, but they may amount to a sea change of sorts, even among the so-called Conservative camps, (note the capitalization...). Right now, the party on the left is doing not too much besides marvelling at how popular they are, as measured by fundraising accumen. They may have won an almost invisible, but significant victory with the emergence of something new from the other side. It's time for them to take stock of what they promised, what they have delivered, and what comes next.

you knew it was coming...

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has introduced a bill of impeachment aimed at Vice President Dick Cheney. According to ABC News, the bill cites manipulation and fabrication of intelligence as a pre-cursor to the war in Iraq.

Well, duh!

It has not, and may never be proven beyond the shadow of doubt that this was the case, or that Dick Cheney was behind it. It is commonly accepted that pre-war intelligence was "faulty", (read that as "falsified"),and many believe that it was the result of a fabrication on the part of the administration to justify a scenario that was intended to be short and quite sweet in terms of electoral dividends. That it was a gross miscalculation is apparent, even to the most partisan right-wing observer, that its intention was, like so many other things, to secure the Congress and White House for the party in power is accepted by many and suspected by even more. Cheney is seen by a lot of folks on either side of aisle as the brains of the outfit, Edgar Bergen to Georgie's Charlie McCarthy, so he is a logical target. But what exactly would one charge the VP with in this bill?

I am hungry for more information on this indictment. I suspect that the effort will not succeed, and that it is offered, (ostensibly by a presidential candidate), in the hopes of hamstringing the party of the right during the upcoming election cycle. I hope that it is more than that, and that the VP is cited for specific acts, rather than just the label of being a green meanie. A solid indictment, as well as a hearing of at least some of the facts in the case, even if the VP were exonerated, would go a long way towards cleaning up the image of our government domestically, (and possibly internationally).

I hope to see that, but I am not holding my breath...

back to the keyboard

Rest easy friends, I am back. Last week was one of those that I sometimes refer to as "boogers", and, while my mind churned incessantly, I just didn't take time to post anything.

I'm sorry about that, but in all honesty, it could happen again.

On the news front, lots of things, among them an ethics scandal at the World Bank, ( gasp!! -- no, say it isn't so!!!!), the continuation of the race for the presidency, (I am reminded here of Chevy Chase, reporting on Generalissimo Francisco Franco, still dead), a deadly shooting at a Virginia university, and a Supreme Court ruling that regulates certain abortion procedures.

As significant as these things are, it seems to be just another week in the neighborhood.

Last week, I went around a bit with a commenter, who sometimes takes issue with certain opinions that I put forth, on the issue of global warming. Not to rehash the whole thing, (scroll down and read it yourself if you care), but three terms stuck in mt mind, and I propose to discuss them here.

The words in question are liberal, conservative, and agenda.

You may recall that I have tread this ground before, but it seems appropriate to do so, at least in passing, again. The terms liberal and conservative are generally considered to be adjectives, but in these times, they are most often used as nouns, and, as often as not, as epithets of one sort or another. The original meanings of the words are usually lost in the tone or emotion that is (or is intened to be), garnered by its use. For the most part, I will try to stay away from these words, except in quotations, and when I do use them, I will capitalize them when they are used as a nouns.

Then we have the term agenda. In my last post, a commenter used the term to describe the underpinnings of certain facts and arguments that were brought forth, as though the presence of an individual, corporate or political agenda is a bad thing. Truth is, we all have an agenda, be it narrowly or broadly interpreted or applied. Even doing absolutely nothing has its underpinnings in an agenda of some sort. Be wary of this term, as well as the two mentioned earlier, as they can appear to have significant meaning, when truth is, they are simply modifiers and nouns.

I mentioned this as I read an article last week regarding the possibility of former Sen Fred Thompson entering the race for the GOP nomination for the presidency. The article I read postulated that he would appeal to the 'Conservative base' of the party who are somewhat disenchanted with John McCain and altogether unimpressed with Mitt Romney or Rudy Gulliani. The article went on to cite the very basic issues facing the nation today, (and I speak with a liberal dose of sarcasm here),gun control, abortion, and the issue of gay marriage.

So, now I come to the point of this post. I ask you, the reader, to help me define "what is a Conservative?" and "what is a Liberal?".

I think that this is a timely topic, given two of the news events of the week: the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and a ruling by the Supreme Court that upholds regulation of a procedure that is commonly called "partial birth abortion". I find it interesting that the court split along a well marked ideological line in this decision. It disturbs me that it is so predictable.

I have opinions on both of these issues, those who are regulars here will be able to make a good guess where my sentiments are. But are these really the most important that we face? Should they dominate the national scene the way that they do? As important as they are, I think not. As I listen to candidates of all stripes in the coming eighteen months, I am probably going to award or take away points on the basis of how much weight that these issues get, as opposed to other ideas that they may (or may not) have.

Stay focused.