Good grief…
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama on Saturday said the United States will not be successful in Iraq unless the political landscape better represents the country's minorities.
Obama, the nation's only black senator, met with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on Saturday. . . .
Talabani predicted Saturday that a new government could be formed within weeks and said the country's main political groups had agreed in principle on a national unity coalition that would include the country's majority Shiites and minority Kurds and Sunni Arabs.
Obama said he was confident a new government could be formed but was skeptical of Talabani's time frame.
"My suspicion is it's going to take a little longer than that," he said. "Creating not just a majority government but a government that actually incorporates in a meaningful way Sunni interests may take a little longer."
I'm not exactly sure what Senator Obama is trying to tell the Iraqis here. The people have voted. The leaders they have chosen will rule. For better or worse, that's how democracy works. Is Obama suggesting some sort of racial quotas for elected officials? Because that seems a little silly. As Vinnie as The Jawa Report put it: "…the last thing a fledgling democracy needs is exported American liberal stupidity like affirmative action."
What is more interesting, though, is Obama's skepticism at the timeframe for forming a government suggested by Talabani. He thinks that "weeks" isn't enough time, but six months is far too long:
"What I'm fully convinced of is if we don't see signs of political progress … over a relatively short time frame - let's say six months or so - we can pour money and troops in here till the cows come home, but we won't be successful," said Obama, D-Ill., who said he opposed the war before it began.
What a thing to say in a country where American troops are fighting alongside local citizens to push back the oppression of extremism and establish a free and democratic society. How do you think the Iraqis feel when they hear that? Heck, how do you think the terrorists felt? When visiting American dignataries say that the mission for freedom and democracy in Iraq will be a lost cause if it isn't accomplished in six months you can bet that terror leaders are turning around and telling their followers that "six more months is all we need."
Obama's defeatism is going to fire the terrorists up. It'll get them motivated to cause more trouble, and that's probably going to cost some American and Iraqi lives.
All so a Democrat can get a dig in at President Bush.
But don't you dare question Obama's patriotism:
The senator, who was elected last year, has criticized the Bush administration for questioning the patriotism of people who speak out against the war.
Right. Because real patriots don't express concern over foreign policy in the halls of Congress. Nope. Real patriots walk onto the battlefield and tell the people we're fighting with that if things don't shape up soon we're going to leave them twisting in the wind.
You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
Only yes men are patriotic.
Everybody knows that.
I have no problem with criticism but may I suggest that all too many people who claim to love their country use a tone that they would never use while criticizing their spouses.
When we love something we are critical of it, but we are also tolerant, forgiving and practice patience and understanding.
We rarely scream obscenities at that which we purport to love and we certainly do not appear to the casual eye to loathe the things we love.
Meanwhile, Rob Port accuses Sen. Obama of aiding terrorists and takes a gratuitous shot at a completely unrelated issue (affirmative action).
Nobody?
Gee Jade, that is setting the bar pretty high. Want to lower it just a tad and admit that just one progressive has tossed an obscenity or maybe even two?
:)
when dealing with people who absolutely refuse to recognize reality when it's biting them in the asses - well, it gets goddam frustrating after three years.
Will we allow the Iraqis, now with this glorious freedom to vote, to change their constitution and allow the principals of the Koran and Isalm a governing voice? They wanted to in the writing phase of the constitution but we said no. So how does this "democracy" work? You can have your nation, your right to vote as long as America approves of your scheme of representation, your moral ideals and open access to your oil and American bases on your soil? If Iraq resists? Then what? Will we give them the freedom of choice at the end of bayonett? Where is their freedom?
Look at the history of the West's involvement in the Middle East. The Crusades were led by those who wished to exploit the Oriental trade routes. Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc., are constructs of British cartographers at the end of WW1. The borders and nations were divided along the lines of oil resources and not ethnic divisons as we can clearly see today. Divide up the oil between competing sheikdoms and control the supply and price. We've supported only those regimes, regardless of their tainted activities, with sole intent of exploiting resources. Now Bush invades Iraq, appoints a puppet government, a dictated constitution and ruthlessly seeks out and destroys any who oppose our "liberation."
The Arab world, and I fear many others, do not see us as liberators, regardless of our fantasies of "spreading democracy." We are just continuing the same old pattern of dictating, through force of arms, resource exploitation and cutural corruption.
we're spreading capitalism. that $200 billion spent on this war - went into the pockets of the people that funded bush's campaign. you think they were gonna let him lose to al gore? hell, no.
to respond to your post, sam - they got the same democracy in iraq that we have here. controlled.
i believe what mr obama is suggesting is that we begin setting a timetable for getting-the-hell-out-of-there. the british have already begun doing so.
funny thing, rob-ot: as soon as your republican leaders start doing the same, i just know we'll hear from you about what a great idea it is.
We do not scream at that which we love: this country, as it was envisioned by Jefferson, Madison, and the other framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; we scream at those who would destroy and pervert that Constitution, at those who would shred that Bill of Rights, at those who dare to commit atrocities in our name.
If you cannot love a country that passes The Patriot Act or listens to cell phone conversations to detect the terrorists who would blow up civilians how are we to expect that you would love a country that enslaved black people, ethnically cleansed Native Americans, or interned the entire Japanese population of the west coast?
So if you did not love our nation's past or love its present, how are we to expect that you would love its future?
You seem to be professing love for something that does not exist.
I love my spouse despite her flaws. I love my children despite their flaws. I love my country despite its flaws.
I do not speak ill of my wife. I do not swear at her, berate her or put her down. The same goes for my children.
I do not go out on Gather and other websites day after day after day and rant about the flaws of my family or my country.
I will criticize things that I see as wrong with my wife, or family or country, but I do so with patience and respect.
I do not treat the ones I love worse than someone who I do not love.
you don't go out on gather and rant about the flaws of your country; quite the opposite - you go out of your way to defend the flaws of your country. why is that?
In Minot?
I remain hopeful that my country will see the folly and danger of the Patriot Act as it was hastily passed, and will revise it, as my country now recognizes the folly and the shame of our treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, and Japanese Americans.
Regarding listening to phone conversations, it is not the listening, per se, to which I object, it is, rather, the idea that the president is above the law, and, therefore, does not need to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for warrants, not even retroactively, as the law allows.When the president is above the law, this is no longer a democracy, it is a dictatorship; the framers of the Constitution would weep if they could see what this administration is doing to their carefully constructed balance of powers and restraints on the executive.
Someone posted in another thread that the war was "illegal". I asked them to produce a single court filing that ruled on its legality. One would think that with the literally tens of thousands of Anti-Bush Lawyers that one of them would make a name for themselves by tacking up Bush's hide in the courts.
No one has.
That is the difference between an opinion that an action is illegal, or above the law, and the actual interpretation of the courts.
Which is exactly why Bush's confirmed violations of FISA must be investigated and acted upon - not by the AG, who is appointed by Bush and answers to him (and acts as his enabler), but, by an independent investigator. Bush violated his oath of office when he placed himself above the law, an impeachable offense.
"Someone posted in another thread that the war was "illegal". I asked them to produce a single court filing that ruled on its legality. One would think that with the literally tens of thousands of Anti-Bush Lawyers that one of them would make a name for themselves by tacking up Bush's hide in the courts."
That would require impeachment procedings - not very likely, no matter how egregious the violation, with Republicans in control of both houses.
Yes, that is true at the moment. I wonder if the Bushies are just a little bit nervous about the elections this fall. If Congress should fall back into the hands of the Dems...which is not unlikely, given the current mess with the War and DeLay et al...I wonder if impeachment might become a whole lot more likely.
seems almost as if they had them ready and waiting, hey?
*derp*
greg - do you find that police arrest themselves often?
just curious.
Now, this does not mean that I don't support my countrymen. And, of course, I have an allegiance to the US (though, I keep in mind that this is a result of indoctrination) having been raised inside of its borders. But professions of "love" for a country, and worse comparing that love to a child or spouse, is completely foreign to me.
Please tell me what I am missing.
Well, it is obvious what you are missing; you said it, love of country. We are born into culture and country just as we are born into family. We (should) come to love and perpetuate our family, our culture and our country from developing an understanding of it that goes deeper than an outsider can experience.
We build family, culture and country by appreciating them and desiring them to prosper.
"I f*(king hate patriotism. It's a round world last time I checked."
Nationalism is tribalism grown up.
So what are we?
Primitive tribal creatures.
When we are all citizens of the Earth, there will be a lot less conflict, and a lot less destruction of our one-and-only home.
You are creating some false inference there, Bert.
Humans are social creatures whose fidelity diminishes with distance. We bond with our spouses, our children, our immediate family, extended family, neighborhood, city, county, state, country, We also bond with those are most like us, yes, with our race, our ethnicity, our culture.
We also bond with those who think like us and value the same things we value.
This bonding has the potential for great good and great destruction...but it is culturally and biologically necessary.
From both a cultural and biological standpoint, this fidelity builds uniquness and diversity. One of the lessions of biology is that mono-cultures fall quickly to stress and disease.
The challenge of culture and biology is to understand it. To better understand our predispositions and the reasons we are like we are.
trust him on that, bert. he's an expert on the subject.
i'd say love of family is instinctual, love of country taught. in school. programmed, actually. made to recite the pledge everyday.
they obviously did a number on you, greg.
hmmmm, civil servant....... teacher, perhaps?
mr back-to-basics? talk to phyllis schlafly lately?
I think they are defending, not attacking.
Culturally Bush is defending American traditions far more than his opponents and Bush is doing a fine job of standing up to terrorism rather than contiuing the 30 year old tradition of appeasement and cowardice.
funny you would say that. under whose administration did you think 9/11 occurred?
so, a preemptive invasion is a defensive move, not an attack. we went to war with the army we had, hey greg?
last resort 'n all that.
And just how, exactly, is violating the checks and balances mandated by the Constitution "defending American traditions"? How is putting the president above the law "defending American traditions"? How is violating the fourth amendment "defending American traditions"?
How how is invading and occupying a country that was no threat to us, further destabllizing the Middle East, probably causing a civil war, and creating a recruitment drive for terrorists, "standing up to terrorism"?
How is abandoning the search for the perpetrators of 9/11 (Osama bin Forgotten) in order to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 "standing up to terrorism"?
How is refusing to secure chemical and nuclear plants against terrorist attacks, because their owners are Republican donors, "standing up to terrorism"?
How is appointing incompetent cronies to sensitive positions involving national security "standing up to terrorists"?
Bush's ignoring of the unconstitutional infringement upon the Administrations power to gather intelligence (NSA flap) IS defending the check and balances. If Congress had no constitutional authority to pen the FISA law then Bush is dending the constitution.....now isn't he?
The question is whether Congress placed itself above the constitution.
That is your opinion. Not the opinion of a long list of people such as Sen John Kerry, former president Clinton and former security advisor Richard Clarke.
Tell that to the marines in Afghanistan.
Of course you are speaking of Clinton here.
I don't think so. The notion that family loyalty and nationalism are part of one continuous facet of human nature.is an "interesting" theory.
What I am suggesting is not that we shouldn't have loyalties. I am just saying that we need to enlarge our "tribe" to include everyone on the planet if we are to survive in the long term.
None of whom thought it necessary to invade and occupy Iraq - containment was working just fine.
On that, we agree.
"Clarke has been criticized by conservatives for suggesting the possibility of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and after investigation concluding that no link had been established. Regarding Saddam's offer of safehaven in Iraq, Clarke wrote in a memo to Sandy Berger that he was concerned that "old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." (p. 134)[8] Clarke also made statements to the press linking Saddam and al-Qaeda and a joint chemical weapons development effort.[9]"
it was bush's watch when 9/11 happened, but you say it's clinton's fault. however, when clinton took office, you don't argue that bush, sr's policies are what kept this country safe for eight years. how come?
~~