Compromise?!?!

I, for one, am disappointed with the outcome of the vote for the Iraq War Funding Bill. Our 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates as well as Democratic members in the House and Senate need to reevaluate who they represent, the party or their constituents. While these Democratic members of Congress issued a vote that clearly demonstrated their party alliances, they are still out of touch with American citizens who, might not want to completely cut off funding the troops, but at least want a timeline for withdrawal in the form of benchmarks. Compromising with the GOP for fear of scrutiny during the Memorial Day break is one of the most ridiculous reasons I have heard in a while. What they need to worry about are those constituents in their district that they are going home to socialize with during the recess, and that put them into office on the basis that they would end the war.

The 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates disappointed me a great deal, by not voting on the matter when it mattered. While Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton did vote “no” on the bill, they did so after the majority had already decided on the outcome. Both of which declined to take a direct stance on the bill before the voting had taken place, playing the political game in hopes not to upset their supporters [covering all their bases]. I’m glad to see that Speaker Pelosi was able to have the fervor to get on television and say she would not vote for the bill. Joe Biden voted in support of this bill, because he does not agree with cutting off funding and said that we needed to protect and support the troops. True, but what better way to protect them than to have them at home safe, and with the violence escalating in Lebanon and the Navy’s show of force outside of Iranian territory it is my fear that some of these servicemen/women will not see home for a long time [if ever].

While Dodd and Kunich were strongly against the bill, and did say they would not vote for it before the vote was called for – I, for one, wasn’t too concerned because they are not the front runners for the Democratic Nomination. My biggest problem is that the president vetoed legislation that had more than sufficient funding and a timeline for withdrawal, and Congress walked away in defeat. If they really wanted some closure on the issue before the Memorial Day weekend they should have kept shoving the May 1^st Bill into the Presidents face until he signed it, placing the burden on his shoulders and not theirs. The fact that Harry Reid and the Democrats in Congress compromised so willingly with the Republicans on this issue makes me weary about how strong our Democratic representatives in Congress really are. What I want to see are the earmarks attached to this bill that enticed the democrats to compromise considerably on their stance.

With Love,

The Ivory Poacher…

Quick War. Long Conflict

I wrote this paper as a Sophomore, and I read it the other day thinking, "wow I had this kind of foresight on the War in Iraq/Global War on Terror?!" I know it seems like I'm posting blogs that are outdated - but it gives you a better sense of how I view our culture and administration. Also, to know where you're going you have to know where you've been...

Written Feb. 1st, 2006:

The War against Iraq was a relatively quick conflict, but the war on terror is going to be a long and drawn out process with no clear end in sight. With no logical way of judging whether or not the United States is winning the war on terror, President George W. Bush will continue to use the war to advance his personal agenda. It is my opinion that President Bush is using the War on Terror to create a stronger centralized government around the executive branch, at the expense of the civil rights and liberties.

The first freedom that will be taken away is every person’s right to privacy. The new surveillance methods now in use to track suspected terrorist or criminal activities are an infringement on every citizen’s constitutional right to privacy. How much of your own privacy are you prepared to sacrifice in the name of fighting terrorism? President Bush argues that this effort is vital to ensuring a safe nation, but is scanning my internet searches via Google, which the government has requested to do, also essential to guarantee my safety at home? How much more authority should the President and his agencies be given to be allowed to continue their domestic spying?

Vice President Dick Cheney called the program “vital” to the country’s defense against terrorists. He went on to say in a speech at the Manhattan Institute, “Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or not.[i]” Vice President Cheney’s reasoning for staying in the conflict has been apparent ever since his oil company, Haliburton, contracted with the United States. The exploitation of US soldiers/citizens for personal gain should not be a reason to continue conflict. Perhaps the surveillance program wouldn’t meet with such a strong resistance if it was shown that gains against terrorism were being made. Things such as individuals obtained by the organization or details about the program were released to the public, but information of that sort including size and budget are considered classified and if released would be a detriment to the entire process. What is known is that the unit is not allowed to keep information about U.S. citizens for more than 90 days, unless they are convincingly believed to have some connection to terrorism, criminal wrongdoing, or foreign intelligence. Under the criteria of the last two characteristics a person could spy/gather intelligence on just about anybody.

The fact that budgeting for the program is kept secret doesn’t allow U.S. Why should Americans that don’t agree with the war have to pay for these services? Budgeting, whether it be for war or education, is a reflection of the values of its people. Also by observing federal spending it brings to light the priorities of the Administration. Basically bringing up the question; is it worth it? Will the end justify the means? Will the goal of bringing Democracy to a relatively archaic country help our relations with Muslims nations in the long run? What is the value of Democracy over human life and is it cost effective? It is indeed a vulgar way to look at the figures of the war, but even if those variables could be calculated there still is too much uncertainty to continue to fight this global war on terror. citizens to see where their money is being distributed.

Terrorist seek to establish a new caliphate in Muslim nations, and trying to force Democracy, capitalism and individualism on unwilling people is only fueling their fire[ii]. Also, even after our occupation of Iraq there is no way we can ensure the safety of its people. Dennis J.D. Sandole explains in his article that, no matter how we may frame the results of the US policy in Afghanistan, it is clear that the warlords are back in control of a large portion of the country[iii]. With Al-quaeda and the Taliban regrouped it almost seems as thought their presence in the Iraqi region is futile.

President George W. Bush realizes he cannot win the War on Terror and is in fact trying to devalue the legitimacy in these terrorist organizations. His model for winning is to take a similar stance that Great Britain has taken toward the IRA. By undermining the support for the legitimacy of terrorism, terrorist can be isolated and more susceptible to counter-measures[iv]. Which seems like a compelling idea, until you remember that Great Britain does not have some of the liberties we take for granted. For instance, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is strictly regulated there. It is against the law to interview or run an interview of an I.R.A member, and it is also against the law to publish government doctrines without Parliaments consent. These are two fundamental rights we hold sacred in the United States that President Bush wishes he could limit.

According to Sam Huntington, the idea of Warfare has changed since the Cold War[v]. It is no longer nation against nation as much as it is a Nation versus an idea. War between nation states for the most part has become obsolete. Sub themed wars, like those between civilizations (i.e. Osama bin Laden v. Western/Middle Eastern Muslims). This new definition of war at least gives a grounds for trying to combat it. One of variety of reasons Terrorism is defeated is, because factions deteriorate and have no cause/reason to continue their activities. The main thing that these Muslim insurgents have against the United States is its military presence on their religious homeland. There is an obvious solution to this dilemma, swallow your pride and remove the soldiers. Don’t enslave your own citizens with Doctrines and Acts that restrict civil liberty (patriot act).

With Love,

The Ivory Poacher

---

[i] Michael Isikoff, “The Other Big Brother,” Newsweek [US Edition], (January 30^th, 2006). Vol. 147, Iss. 4; pg. 32

[ii] Micheal Radu, “The futile search for the Root Causes of Terrorism”, American Diplomacy, (January 27^th, 2006)

[iii] Dennis J.D. Sandole, “”the New Terrorism: Causes, Conditions, and Conflict Resolution”, in class handout, pg. 10

[iv] Ministry of Defense, “International Terrorism: Causes and Counter-Strategies”, Strategic Defense Review, Section 2.

[v] Sam P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking the World Order, (New York: Touchstone Press, 1997.)

Saddam Hung. Bush Next?

This is my first unofficial blog that I wrote, the night that Saddam Hussein was executed. So I thought I was fitting to include it as my first official post on this site. (written Dec. 29th-ish)

First of all let me go on record as saying Saddam did awful things while in power. At the same token, I am also against Capital Punishment of ANY kind. And in this day and age I find it disgusting that we are still hanging people.

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki said "Our respect for human rights requires us to execute (Hussein), and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence."
-hmmm... "our respect for human rights requires us to execute" ....this country is doomed.

Saddam Hussein was executed for crimes against humanity. How many other current and past world leaders fit this profile, especially our own [Abu Graib]. Why haven't they been put on trial as well? And sentenced to death in the name of humanity?
... Hello kettle, I'm pot - your black.

Saddam was put on trial by a puppet tribunal known as the New Iraqi Government, yet he still remained in US custody until his death. The verdict of his trial came conveniently at our mid-term elections. And now US troops are caught in the middle of a possible civil war, and military casualties pass the toll of those who died on Sept. 11th. The US media isn't even covering the total number of Iraqi civilians killed during this conflict, which is well over 650,000 people [http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/]. Who should be held accountable for those deaths, or are they not as important?


AGAIN I say I do not sympathize with Saddam Hussein, but it is clear that the region was way more stable and less chaotic with him in power. The reason for my anger stems from why we invaded the country in the 1st place as well as the process by which he was found guilty. And as a leader of a nation why should he be put on trial for doing what he sees as being in the best interest of his country? And if he can be placed on trial, then President Bush is just a susceptible to a trial as any other world leader.

with love,
The Ivory Poacher

Liberal? Maybe... Open Minded? Very.

This blog is dedicated to those who believe that everyone should entitled to peace, equality, and religious freedom (including the freedom not to practice a religion and not to have your life affected by those who do). My experiences as well as my outlook on politics is what I use as the basis of my opinion when writing. Once you've read the articles you have the right to agree or disagree, I just ask that you understand my point of view.