Friday, August 24, 2007

The War over the War

As we await the big report that is probably already written, MSNBC has posted a story about the declassified part of the latest National Intelligence Estimate which suggests conditions will get "more precarious" in Iraq for the next 12 months. MSNBC states: The report represents the collaborative judgments of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the intelligence organization of each military service.

Terrific.

As we slog along through the muck bleeding our military and financial resources, frustration has now escalated to where groups on each side are starting to produce advertisements and buy air time targeting specific members of Congress. ABC has a good story about a pro-war group, Freedomswatch and provides a link to watch the ad.

If ABC is correct, we head towards a "barrage" of ads targeting specific members of Congress.

A barriage?

Members of Congress represent their constituents, and their constituents elect them. Pushing officials into positions inconsistent with the views of their voters can cost elections. If a GOP Congressman’s district has turned vehemently against the war, and he remains a staunch supporter, an astute opponent WILL destroy him with war material in every mailing, every ad, every debate. Game over.

The tactic reeks of the Bush Administration. If the GOP wants to crucify itself by forcing its members in Congress into positions that will cost them their seats, fine with me. Let them promote the blue wave. Perhaps, in December of 2008, instead of "No Child Left Behind" we can thank Bush for "No Republican Left in Congress."

I hope the groups opposed to the war realize that trying to push officials past the sentiments of those they represent commit the same mistake. If you wish to voice your views to your elected officials, write them. Call them. Every day. Drive their offices crazy. Don't put hostile ads on television.

In today’s context, I assert that 2006 was a skirmish.

I speak in political metaphor, so I am not suggesting 1860 where our military splits in two and fights itself. That said, the technology that puts us a couple clicks away from each other will escalate the volume and volatility of the discourse to unprecedented levels. The upcoming conversation will be intense.

The War over the War is heating up. The reader already knows (or will soon) that Senator John Warner, R- Virginia, has defected from the Bush Administration by calling for the reduction of troops beginning soon. Warner has served as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action.

Senator John Warner, former chairman and 2nd ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Warner mentioned the NIE report as corroborating his position. Of course, such words from a lightweight, weak-minded know nothing GOP Senator who chaired a lightweight non-influential committee doesn’t really mean anything.

2008 IS WAR.

7 Comments:

Blogger Sirocco said...

Of course, the real question is whether or not Warner will align his votes with his words.

8/24/2007 7:16 AM  
Anonymous dustin said...

I may be mistaken, but isn't his suggested drawdown only 5000 troops? Like sirocco, I think we'll see the true colors after a vote or two.

8/24/2007 7:34 AM  
Blogger x4mr said...

The NIE report appears to making bigger headlines than Warner, though both are front and center.

Guys, the statement (read carefully) is NOT about the number of troops in Iraq.

The infantile King thinking Bush Administration thinks a person is on its side only if given blind loyalty feet kissing allegiance.

Warner just told the Bush Administration to F itself in the context of its bullying the GOP Congress to stand by its positions.

Is Warner the one Framer said Hillary would pick as VP?

If Warner became her VP, the ticket would be unstoppable.

8/24/2007 9:09 AM  
Anonymous dustin said...

I see your point, but my reservations stem from more than just warner, and what he has to say. I think bush doesn't really give a hoot what they say so long as they vote as he wishes. I don't want to break out the champagne until a lot more of these guys put their money where their mouth is. Talk is cheap.

8/24/2007 10:18 AM  
Blogger Liza said...

Things have gotten to a point where I cannot envision the 2008 elections. The Iraq debacle will just get worse, even though that is unimaginable. And what about Iran? The Democrats certainly are not going to try to stop military strikes on Iran.

Both political parties are extremely bad, and the neoconservative Republicans are evil. If the 2008 election is a bloodfest, then maybe that is what needs to happen. Maybe both parties are like drunks who need to hit rock bottom before they can get up and start over.

There isn't much in the Democratic party to be opimistic about. A few dozen decent people, perhaps, and certainly more potential for reform than the other party. But the Democratic frontrunners for the presidential nomination, especially Hillary Clinton, are not reformers.

We're in a lot of trouble.

8/24/2007 1:20 PM  
Blogger x4mr said...

Well, I talked dumb. It was Mark Warner, not John Warner, that Framer suggested Hillary had a deal with for VP. Mark Warner is the former Virginia Governor, not the Virginia Senator.

I'm getting old.

Liza, I could not agree more. Remember that terrific TDP thread (well, except for that wacko blogger than vilified you and got kicked off Stacy's blog) about Islamofascism?

The Perfect Storm.

8/24/2007 7:22 PM  
Blogger Liza said...

Yes, x4mr, I remember that thread, but I didn't know that the guy got kicked off Stacy's blog. He doesn't seem to be around anymore. I saw where he had posted on Kos but that's been quite awhile back.

If you haven't looked at TomDispatch recently, check out the new article by Dilip Hiro, "The Sole Superpower in Decline - The Rise of a Multipolar World." Absolutely nothing new or radical here, but it's well written and hopeful in a way, because the world needs to re-establish some kind of balance of power as a prerequisite to peace. Economic power can be just as persuasive as military power and that is how it's going to happen, at least initially.

8/24/2007 8:56 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home



SOMETHING ELSE