Category: US in Iraq.archive.ii
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
This reader comment attached to the previous post comes from one of our most thoughtful cyber neighbors and merits a spotlight.
Evrviglnt wrote:
"8. To do nothing different is to fail. To send more troops with a plan to hold ground and effect some semblance of peace is an attempt to show Iraqis that it can be done, life need not be simply one bombing after another. We need momentum in the right direction; there are few options now, including surrender. This is the right choice by the commander in chief.
"That is not to say I am not terribly disappointed in my president, I am. For years now I have defended his decision to invade Iraq because I understood his long term plans, recognized the advantage of having a foreign battlefield with which to engage fanaticism, and I agreed with his optimism that freedom is a natural yearning of the oppressed. I am less idealistic now, and find myself on that cusp where one side demands total and overwhelming military domination, the other - bringing our soldiers home. I am not a violent man, but if we will not change the rules of engagement so our soldiers can do their jobs with withering ferocity and efficiency, then bring them home..."
Evrviglnt wrote:
"8. To do nothing different is to fail. To send more troops with a plan to hold ground and effect some semblance of peace is an attempt to show Iraqis that it can be done, life need not be simply one bombing after another. We need momentum in the right direction; there are few options now, including surrender. This is the right choice by the commander in chief.
"That is not to say I am not terribly disappointed in my president, I am. For years now I have defended his decision to invade Iraq because I understood his long term plans, recognized the advantage of having a foreign battlefield with which to engage fanaticism, and I agreed with his optimism that freedom is a natural yearning of the oppressed. I am less idealistic now, and find myself on that cusp where one side demands total and overwhelming military domination, the other - bringing our soldiers home. I am not a violent man, but if we will not change the rules of engagement so our soldiers can do their jobs with withering ferocity and efficiency, then bring them home..."
11/01: The President's Address
Quick Thoughts:
1. The President admitted errors in judgment--but he remains unrepentant. He is staying the course, with adjustments.
2. The President did not change one mind in America last night.
3. The President is isolated. Congress cannot stop him, but they can make his life difficult via resolutions and hearings. The Democratic leadership strategy now is to foment debate and discontent in hopes of bending the will of the President.
4. As Democratic Party strategists admit, there is no political advantage to be gained through investing in this policy.
5. The "bi-partisan working group" to which the President referred consists of Joe Lieberman, a Senator from Connecticut and a former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee--just to name a few.
6. The Democrats have no alternative other than "redeployment" and striking a deal with Iran and Syria.
7. This "new plan" is a long shot. In fact, it is mostly a way to buy time. But what are the other options?
Transcript and video here.
1. The President admitted errors in judgment--but he remains unrepentant. He is staying the course, with adjustments.
2. The President did not change one mind in America last night.
3. The President is isolated. Congress cannot stop him, but they can make his life difficult via resolutions and hearings. The Democratic leadership strategy now is to foment debate and discontent in hopes of bending the will of the President.
4. As Democratic Party strategists admit, there is no political advantage to be gained through investing in this policy.
5. The "bi-partisan working group" to which the President referred consists of Joe Lieberman, a Senator from Connecticut and a former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee--just to name a few.
6. The Democrats have no alternative other than "redeployment" and striking a deal with Iran and Syria.
7. This "new plan" is a long shot. In fact, it is mostly a way to buy time. But what are the other options?
Transcript and video here.
Category: Environment
Posted by: an okie gardener
Continuing the discussion from this post, photognome sends these links on ethanol and the rural economy.
Ethanol Boom Divides Farmers and Ranchers from WashPost
Rise in Ethanol Raises Concerns about Corn as a Food from NYTimes
Animal Fats Touted as Future Fuel Source from WashPost
Ethanol Boom Divides Farmers and Ranchers from WashPost
Rise in Ethanol Raises Concerns about Corn as a Food from NYTimes
Animal Fats Touted as Future Fuel Source from WashPost
10/01: Denver Survives on Its Own
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
From GayPatriot, this "report" from Denver. Bravo community self-sufficiency.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Powerline guys have done good coverage on Keith Ellison since before election day. Their reaction to his appointment on the House Judiciary Committee is a must read.
The President addresses the nation tonight. What does it all mean?
The Bad News:
1. Our army is in terrible shape. There is reasonable doubt as to whether our armed forces can even mount a sustained surge in Iraq.
2. The President's credibility is in terrible shape, and it is his own fault. The President is responsible for the state of the military. He is responsible for squandering the greatest surge of patriotism since Pearl Harbor and frittering away public support for the war. He is responsible for squandering three years, more than 3,000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve very little.
3. A majority of of the people of the United States and the United States Congress are no longer unified in support of the war (this too is the President's fault; see above).
4. The United States cannot win a war that the people and their elected representatives do not support.
5. For of all the reasons enumerated above, the President is now forced to throw a "Hail Mary" pass (low percentage option) to save our mission in Iraq. The temptation is to skimp on force level, which will leave no room for error. The surge probably cannot survive the first catastrophe.
6. A humiliating retreat out of Iraq is the beginning of the end of the American hegemony. The next world order may be far less to our liking.
The dim light in the darkness that must pass today as Good News:
1. The President has one more chance to make his case before the American people and sway statesmen in Congress.
2. The American military wants to win, and they are so talented and determined that they have the capability of overcoming the odds.
3. Necessity is the mother of invention; dire necessity (survival) is the most powerful motivation within the human psyche.
May God bless the United States of America.
The Bad News:
1. Our army is in terrible shape. There is reasonable doubt as to whether our armed forces can even mount a sustained surge in Iraq.
2. The President's credibility is in terrible shape, and it is his own fault. The President is responsible for the state of the military. He is responsible for squandering the greatest surge of patriotism since Pearl Harbor and frittering away public support for the war. He is responsible for squandering three years, more than 3,000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve very little.
3. A majority of of the people of the United States and the United States Congress are no longer unified in support of the war (this too is the President's fault; see above).
4. The United States cannot win a war that the people and their elected representatives do not support.
5. For of all the reasons enumerated above, the President is now forced to throw a "Hail Mary" pass (low percentage option) to save our mission in Iraq. The temptation is to skimp on force level, which will leave no room for error. The surge probably cannot survive the first catastrophe.
6. A humiliating retreat out of Iraq is the beginning of the end of the American hegemony. The next world order may be far less to our liking.
The dim light in the darkness that must pass today as Good News:
1. The President has one more chance to make his case before the American people and sway statesmen in Congress.
2. The American military wants to win, and they are so talented and determined that they have the capability of overcoming the odds.
3. Necessity is the mother of invention; dire necessity (survival) is the most powerful motivation within the human psyche.
May God bless the United States of America.
On this day in history, January 8, 1815, an Andrew Jackson-led force routed the mighty British Army on the outskirts of New Orleans-- winning arguably the most important military victory in all of the American past.
It seems an appropriate moment to recycle these musings on Democracy and Providence:
Sometimes history turns on a dime. During the administration of James Madison, the American experiment faced a crisis of its own making: a disastrous Second War for Independence against Great Britain. Decrying an ill-conceived and fecklessly prosecuted war against the world's greatest military power, the nation's minority political party (the Federalists) attempted to set itself apart from the hated opposition (the Republicans). Locked out of power for four presidential cycles, sensing the public disgust, frustration and dejection over the course of the war, the Federalists met at Hartford, Connecticut. They composed and presented a list of demands to the increasingly unpopular President; unless met, they would no longer support his government or the failing war effort.
Although the Hartford Convention seemed wise politically (and to the Federalists actually quite the moderate approach), they were on the wrong side of history. What did they not know? Events were about to cast their demands in a completely different and unflattering light. At approximately the same time the nation would learn of the events in Hartford, they would also hear of a negotiated peace with Great Britain and a remarkable victory in New Orleans.
The product of America's most brilliant statesman, John Quincy Adams, and perhaps America's most daring poker player, Henry Clay, who bluffed his way to a draw with the British lion, the Treaty of Ghent saved face for the new nation. Securing an agreement to suspend hostilities and restore the American and British relationship to "status quo ante bellum," the American delegation cobbled a great victory out of a series of military defeats and humiliations.
Even more dramatic and incredible, American forces, under the generalship of Andrew Jackson, miraculously crushed the British at the Battle of New Orleans, which effectively ended the British threat to the American West forever. Although the two armies actually fought the battle after the war was officially over, news of the Peace arrived after the great American triumph in New Orleans.
In fact, as Americans learned of these seemingly preternatural events in Europe and in Louisiana almost simultaneously, they often conflated the two and credited the victory on the Mississippi River for bringing the British to heel. Along with the great joy of victory and peace, the news of the Hartford Convention also arrived and sank in. Instead of taking advantage of the ill wind of public opinion blowing against a failed war, the Federalist now appeared traitorous complainers, plotting against the government on the eve of our greatest national jubilation.
The Federalists bet against Providence and lost. And they were never heard from again.
But then there are other times when God does not deliver. For Southern Christians during the Civil War, convinced that God was on their side, the lost cause proved they were not chosen for God's purpose and uniquely blessed and protected. They waited on God--but God gave the victory to their persecutors. Lincoln argued that both sides of the war had claimed the blessings of God--but, in the end, God was on neither side; He had his own side. One should not assume God is on your side. We should not confuse Providence with deliverance.
I am convinced that George Bush believes in Providence. I am convinced that he thinks he is on the right side of Providence.
We can only wait and see where Providence comes down.
The piece in its entirety here.
A significant addendum: January 8 is also the birthday of Elvis Presley, born in 1935 in Tupelo, Mississippi.
It seems an appropriate moment to recycle these musings on Democracy and Providence:
Sometimes history turns on a dime. During the administration of James Madison, the American experiment faced a crisis of its own making: a disastrous Second War for Independence against Great Britain. Decrying an ill-conceived and fecklessly prosecuted war against the world's greatest military power, the nation's minority political party (the Federalists) attempted to set itself apart from the hated opposition (the Republicans). Locked out of power for four presidential cycles, sensing the public disgust, frustration and dejection over the course of the war, the Federalists met at Hartford, Connecticut. They composed and presented a list of demands to the increasingly unpopular President; unless met, they would no longer support his government or the failing war effort.
Although the Hartford Convention seemed wise politically (and to the Federalists actually quite the moderate approach), they were on the wrong side of history. What did they not know? Events were about to cast their demands in a completely different and unflattering light. At approximately the same time the nation would learn of the events in Hartford, they would also hear of a negotiated peace with Great Britain and a remarkable victory in New Orleans.
The product of America's most brilliant statesman, John Quincy Adams, and perhaps America's most daring poker player, Henry Clay, who bluffed his way to a draw with the British lion, the Treaty of Ghent saved face for the new nation. Securing an agreement to suspend hostilities and restore the American and British relationship to "status quo ante bellum," the American delegation cobbled a great victory out of a series of military defeats and humiliations.
Even more dramatic and incredible, American forces, under the generalship of Andrew Jackson, miraculously crushed the British at the Battle of New Orleans, which effectively ended the British threat to the American West forever. Although the two armies actually fought the battle after the war was officially over, news of the Peace arrived after the great American triumph in New Orleans.
In fact, as Americans learned of these seemingly preternatural events in Europe and in Louisiana almost simultaneously, they often conflated the two and credited the victory on the Mississippi River for bringing the British to heel. Along with the great joy of victory and peace, the news of the Hartford Convention also arrived and sank in. Instead of taking advantage of the ill wind of public opinion blowing against a failed war, the Federalist now appeared traitorous complainers, plotting against the government on the eve of our greatest national jubilation.
The Federalists bet against Providence and lost. And they were never heard from again.
But then there are other times when God does not deliver. For Southern Christians during the Civil War, convinced that God was on their side, the lost cause proved they were not chosen for God's purpose and uniquely blessed and protected. They waited on God--but God gave the victory to their persecutors. Lincoln argued that both sides of the war had claimed the blessings of God--but, in the end, God was on neither side; He had his own side. One should not assume God is on your side. We should not confuse Providence with deliverance.
I am convinced that George Bush believes in Providence. I am convinced that he thinks he is on the right side of Providence.
We can only wait and see where Providence comes down.
The piece in its entirety here.
A significant addendum: January 8 is also the birthday of Elvis Presley, born in 1935 in Tupelo, Mississippi.
07/01: John Edwards Disassembled
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Gaypatriot shows Edwards for a hypocrite simply and devastatingly. Here.
A few months ago I threw out a few quickly composed thoughts about Republican "common sense." Thinking Out Loud through the question of why college-educated, white, religiously oriented Americans, in general, more often than not, vote Republican, I suggested:
"[T]he rhetoric of the Republican Party acknowledges the God that the majority worships and honors expressions of love for the nation, which a majority still believe to be the "last best hope for mankind." During the generation following the Civil War, the Republican Party chastised the Democrats: "Not every Democrat was a traitor, but every traitor was a Democrat." Today, it seems as if not all Democrats are America-haters, but all America-haters are Democrats. It is easy to make the case in the heartland that the Republican Party is for God and country (and the other guys are not so sure)."
You may review the full post here.
Important Disclaimer: Let the record show that I believe wholeheartedly that the party of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Paul Tsongas, Paul Wellstone, Joe Lieberman and Russ Feingold does not hate America. The Democratic Party has played a vital and positive role in shaping American history and political culture. I sincerely hope that tradition continues in perpetuity.
Having said that, the Democratic Party has some exigent problems in terms of public perception and, more importantly, policy making, which are rooted in real structural and systemic weaknesses in basic Democratic Party DNA.
What is wrong with the Democratic Party?
A related sub-question: Why do so many regular Americans see the Democrats as oddly out of step with their values?
Mostly, it is the result of the complicated make-up of the Democratic Party coalition.
Take Michael Moore (please). Moore is a radical thinker (talker) on the outskirts of the Democratic Party mainstream. As you may remember, Moore supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000. He felt guilty for contributing to the Bush presidency, so he came back into the fold in 2004. Democrats were very happy to have him (intent on making him feel at home), famously seating him next to former-President Jimmy Carter in a privileged box for dignitaries at the Democratic National Convention.
Does Moore hate America? He is definitely cynical about our history and our system. Granted, he is more anti-Bush, anti-Republican and anti-wealth than "anti-American." On the other hand, if you follow his line of reasoning, you find it pretty difficult to see the United States as anything less than a malevolent power, insensitive to its own citizens and a danger to the world (too many evil Republicans in power for too long). Is this an America-hating position? Reasonable people will disagree, but we can safely say that his views are certainly not an America-loving perspective. Many Americans find that fine distinction difficult to maintain.
Am I picking on an extremist who is unrepresentative of his party? I don't think so. I know literally scores of rational Democrats who went to Fahrenheit 911, laughing and applauding and praising Moore for his high art and insightful contemporary history. I have friends who quote Moore (often unknowingly) and build points on his interpretation of history (once again, often unknowingly). My point: Moore is not an isolated case.
Why do Democrats put themselves in such a vulnerable position? As I say above, many agree with him in principle. More importantly, politics makes for strange bedfellows; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Bush and the Republicans are the enemy. The Democratic Party cannot afford to lose Michael Moore (and his ilk) to radical third parties; that is, the Democrats cannot win national elections without the Michael Moore fringe in America. Therefore, they are stuck with Michael Moore as a valued ally and celebrated spokesman.
The Democratic Party has several other problem constituencies within its coalition, including but not limited to American academia, old guard feminists and the so-called civil rights organizations. I intend to discuss these other factors in the days to come.
"[T]he rhetoric of the Republican Party acknowledges the God that the majority worships and honors expressions of love for the nation, which a majority still believe to be the "last best hope for mankind." During the generation following the Civil War, the Republican Party chastised the Democrats: "Not every Democrat was a traitor, but every traitor was a Democrat." Today, it seems as if not all Democrats are America-haters, but all America-haters are Democrats. It is easy to make the case in the heartland that the Republican Party is for God and country (and the other guys are not so sure)."
You may review the full post here.
Important Disclaimer: Let the record show that I believe wholeheartedly that the party of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Paul Tsongas, Paul Wellstone, Joe Lieberman and Russ Feingold does not hate America. The Democratic Party has played a vital and positive role in shaping American history and political culture. I sincerely hope that tradition continues in perpetuity.
Having said that, the Democratic Party has some exigent problems in terms of public perception and, more importantly, policy making, which are rooted in real structural and systemic weaknesses in basic Democratic Party DNA.
What is wrong with the Democratic Party?
A related sub-question: Why do so many regular Americans see the Democrats as oddly out of step with their values?
Mostly, it is the result of the complicated make-up of the Democratic Party coalition.
Take Michael Moore (please). Moore is a radical thinker (talker) on the outskirts of the Democratic Party mainstream. As you may remember, Moore supported Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000. He felt guilty for contributing to the Bush presidency, so he came back into the fold in 2004. Democrats were very happy to have him (intent on making him feel at home), famously seating him next to former-President Jimmy Carter in a privileged box for dignitaries at the Democratic National Convention.
Does Moore hate America? He is definitely cynical about our history and our system. Granted, he is more anti-Bush, anti-Republican and anti-wealth than "anti-American." On the other hand, if you follow his line of reasoning, you find it pretty difficult to see the United States as anything less than a malevolent power, insensitive to its own citizens and a danger to the world (too many evil Republicans in power for too long). Is this an America-hating position? Reasonable people will disagree, but we can safely say that his views are certainly not an America-loving perspective. Many Americans find that fine distinction difficult to maintain.
Am I picking on an extremist who is unrepresentative of his party? I don't think so. I know literally scores of rational Democrats who went to Fahrenheit 911, laughing and applauding and praising Moore for his high art and insightful contemporary history. I have friends who quote Moore (often unknowingly) and build points on his interpretation of history (once again, often unknowingly). My point: Moore is not an isolated case.
Why do Democrats put themselves in such a vulnerable position? As I say above, many agree with him in principle. More importantly, politics makes for strange bedfellows; the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Bush and the Republicans are the enemy. The Democratic Party cannot afford to lose Michael Moore (and his ilk) to radical third parties; that is, the Democrats cannot win national elections without the Michael Moore fringe in America. Therefore, they are stuck with Michael Moore as a valued ally and celebrated spokesman.
The Democratic Party has several other problem constituencies within its coalition, including but not limited to American academia, old guard feminists and the so-called civil rights organizations. I intend to discuss these other factors in the days to come.
06/01: Treasures Too Seldom Opened
Category: General
Posted by: an okie gardener
The WSJ, as part of its continuing series of "Five Best," has this piece by Clive James on the best volumes of poetry. God bless him for extoling the Masters: Yeats, Frost, Auden, Wilbur, Larkin. I now have a New Year's Resolution to gain weight to complement my resolution to lose pounds.
