Kudos to the Obama administration! The president has cobbled together a coalition of the “less than enthused” to enter the fight in Iraq.
The French have agreed to stop selling weapons to the Russians and arm the Kurds. The Brits have provided humanitarian aid; concerns over a cameo as Obama’s Tony Blair at least temporarily assuaged. Turkey and Jordan have stepped up as well. And two unlikely partners, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have called on Iraq’s embattled prime minister to step down.
Meanwhile America’s 500+ “military advisors” in the region have determined that the numbers of Yazidi refugees stranded on Mt. Sinjar are less than previously believed. American bombing runs have made it possible for many refugees to escape lessening the likelihood of an US protected Moses like exodus.
ISIS is still out there seeking to sterilize the region of anyone who does not share in their radial religious beliefs. While the situation on Mt. Sinjar may be drawing to a close the number of Iraqis seeking aid and comfort from the ISIS onslaught is growing.
Senators McCain and Graham have been vocal in their criticism of the president’s policies. They see the president as being week on foreign policy. They blame his indecisiveness for the rise of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq and the humanitarian disaster that ensued. Domestically they like to lay the plight of millions of illegal immigrants at his feet. They see the lack of comprehensive immigration reform and the resulting mess on our borders as a prime example of his failed domestic agenda.
“The president has failed to lead!” is their mantra…“Leading from behind” their slogan.
I see the unrest in Iraq and the situation along our southern borders as opportunities for the good senators to step up and demonstrate firsthand the type of leadership they see lacking in our president.
It has been widely reported the Senator McCain and his wife own several homes…though they can’t seem to remember the exact number. Perhaps Senator McCain could open their homes to some of the displaced Iraqis; providing them the aid and comfort that he has accused the president of denying.
Senator Graham has been slurping at the federal government trough since 1995. Perhaps he could demonstrate the “American leadership” that he is always going on about and give something back to the country. Maybe tent cities in his backyard to provide shelter to some of the unattended children that have been dragged illegally across our border through no fault of their own.
American leadership!
What say you, senator?
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Silence!...A Sad State of Affairs
Over the past several weeks we have listened to the president’s political adversaries criticize his foreign policy. Chief among their complaints was his unwillingness to use military force against ISIS; the Islamic terrorist group that is gobbling up large swaths of Iraqi territory at an alarming pace. Critics like McCain and Graham demanded that the president arm our Kurdish allies to the north. They demanded that he provide humanitarian aid to the 40,000 Christian refugees who fled into the mountains to avoid being slaughtered by ISIS Islamist militants. And they demanded that he bring US military forces to bear to halt any further ISIS’ advances.
As he is want to do…the president took his time to assess the situation; mindful of the country’s unwillingness to engage in another protracted war.
The president eventually decided that he had to act. In recent days he has authorized the delivery of arms to the Kurdish fighters in the north; dropped plane loads of water and MRE’s to the displaced refugees and authorized the US Navy fighter squadrons to target ISIS positions.
And what has the response been from the president’s critics; now that he has essentially given them everything they wanted?
Silence!
Not one Republican has had the political courage to publically back his actions.
Democrats are equally guilty. Fearful of the political fallout certain to arise from any military engagement in Iraq, the president’s party has sat on their hands. All except Hillary Clinton who decided that this was the politically opportune time to say that all of this upheaval in Iraq could have been prevented had the president been willing to arm the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. (Yes, it’s complicated.)
And then there are America’s allies in Europe and the Middle East. France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan…all silent. Even the Brits…fearful of a reenactment of Tony Blair blindly following George Bush down the rabbit hole…have tucked their heads and turned their backs.
Why?
Because they know that the president’s limited response is but a political band aid on a cancerous tumor. They know that more will be required…much more…if terrorism is to be eradicated from the face of the earth. It will require both a military and diplomatic solution. It will be a long, heavy slog.
Our allies want nothing to do with it. They want the US to do the heavy lifting.
America is the world’s indispensible nation. The world sits and waits for us to act. We have fostered that dependency since end of WWII. Our internal politics breeds international distrust. Our politics no longer stops at the water’s edge. Our allies wonder if we can’t stand behind our own president what guarantee is there that we will stand behind them. Yet they prefer us to do the lifting rather than take on the burden.
Silence!
The president stands alone.
A truly sad state of affairs.
As he is want to do…the president took his time to assess the situation; mindful of the country’s unwillingness to engage in another protracted war.
The president eventually decided that he had to act. In recent days he has authorized the delivery of arms to the Kurdish fighters in the north; dropped plane loads of water and MRE’s to the displaced refugees and authorized the US Navy fighter squadrons to target ISIS positions.
And what has the response been from the president’s critics; now that he has essentially given them everything they wanted?
Silence!
Not one Republican has had the political courage to publically back his actions.
Democrats are equally guilty. Fearful of the political fallout certain to arise from any military engagement in Iraq, the president’s party has sat on their hands. All except Hillary Clinton who decided that this was the politically opportune time to say that all of this upheaval in Iraq could have been prevented had the president been willing to arm the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow Assad in Syria. (Yes, it’s complicated.)
And then there are America’s allies in Europe and the Middle East. France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan…all silent. Even the Brits…fearful of a reenactment of Tony Blair blindly following George Bush down the rabbit hole…have tucked their heads and turned their backs.
Why?
Because they know that the president’s limited response is but a political band aid on a cancerous tumor. They know that more will be required…much more…if terrorism is to be eradicated from the face of the earth. It will require both a military and diplomatic solution. It will be a long, heavy slog.
Our allies want nothing to do with it. They want the US to do the heavy lifting.
America is the world’s indispensible nation. The world sits and waits for us to act. We have fostered that dependency since end of WWII. Our internal politics breeds international distrust. Our politics no longer stops at the water’s edge. Our allies wonder if we can’t stand behind our own president what guarantee is there that we will stand behind them. Yet they prefer us to do the lifting rather than take on the burden.
Silence!
The president stands alone.
A truly sad state of affairs.
Monday, August 11, 2014
...then what?
“There is a vacuum of American leadership in the Middle East…the consequences of our failure to leave a residual force and our announcement that we are leaving the area in a vacuum of leadership, especially in that part of the world, we are paying a price for it…I predicted what was going to happen Iraq. And I’m predicting now that if we pull everybody out of Afghanistan, not based on conditions, you will see the same movie again in Afghanistan…I would be rushing equipment to Irbil. I would be launching air strikes, not only in Iraq but in Syria against ISIS.”
Senator John McCain
“He (Obama ) trying to avoid bad news on his watch…the homeland is threatened by the presence of ISIL in Iraq and Syria. To change that threat we need have to have a sustained air campaign in Syria and Iraq. We need to go on the offensive…If he does not go on the offensive against ISIS, ISIL—whatever you want to call these guys, they are coming here.”
Senator Lindsey Graham
“I lost hundreds of constituents on 9/11. I never want to do that again. For the president to say we’re doing air strikes, we’re not doing anything else. What kind of leadership is that?”
Congressman Peter King
Two things strike me when I hear our elected leaders engage in this type of rhetoric. First of all it amazes me how casually our leaders in congress embrace the idea of engaging in military operations in foreign countries. Second, I always wait for the answer to the next obvious question…the follow-up question that never comes… “After those military operations are completed…then what?”
In the aftermath of 9/11, the CIA along with a rag tag bunch of handsomely compensated Afghani war lords drove the Taliban and al Qaeda militants out of Afghanistan. George W. Bush redirected the country’s focus onto Iraq. As soon as America’s back was turned the Taliban returned to Afghanistan and American forces were called in to drive them out again. Now with the withdrawal of American combat troops by years’ end there are signs that the Taliban will return once more.
Under “W’s” direction, US military forces routed Saddam. A democratically elected government was installed…a new Iraqi constitution written…$25 billion American tax dollars spent to train and arm the Iraqi military and police. Mission accomplished…the historic seeds of democracy sewn in the Middle East. US military forces withdrew.
The democratically elected Iraqi government ruled at the pleasure of the minority at the expense of the majority. Unrest ensued and a centuries old Shia/Sunni civil war reared its ugly head once more. Islamist extremists entered the chaos. ISIS was born.
Throughout all of this Middle East turmoil American interests at home and abroad were in danger of attack. The insertion of America’s military might, not to mention its western morals and beliefs, added more fuel to a centuries old conflagration. The resulting threats to our homeland have been real and plentiful. It is a testament to our national security services that another 9/11 has not already occurred.
Now comes ISIS; by all accounts a terrorist organization more dangerous than either the Taliban or al Qaeda. They have promised to strike us here at home. The president’s detractors would have him ignore history once more, and execute the same military strategy that failed so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John McCain is right in this regard. The events that are occurring in Iraq were predictable. The future of Afghanistan is equally clear. When US forces exit Afghanistan the Taliban will most certainly return. So do we learn from history or do we go blindly forward and repeat the same mistakes? IF we drive ISIS from Iraq through the use of military force is it not likely they will return. If we follow ISIS into Syria, destroy its command and control, eliminate them as a player on the chessboard, are we certain that another bad actor fueled by the death and destruction that we have wrought will not rise from the ashes? Does our mere presence in the region only serve to fan an already burning flame?
So let us ask the question that nobody ever asks… After the American military has eliminated ISIS…then what?
Occupation!
There is only one military solution in the Middle East…occupation. The only way to keep the death of one bad actor from spawning the birth of another is to turn the Middle East into an American territory. It is a horrible, unreasonable solution. It is the solution that neo-cons like McCain and Graham dream about.
The unrest in the Middle East is not America’s problem. It is a world problem. America’s long term interests will not be served through unilateral military intervention. Recent history has made that clear. The only real long term solution is a diplomatic one led by someone other than the US. The sooner learn from our own history in the region the better off we will be.
The next time McCain or Graham or some other hawk beats the war drum someone might want to ask the question that nobody ever asks…then what?
Senator John McCain
“He (Obama ) trying to avoid bad news on his watch…the homeland is threatened by the presence of ISIL in Iraq and Syria. To change that threat we need have to have a sustained air campaign in Syria and Iraq. We need to go on the offensive…If he does not go on the offensive against ISIS, ISIL—whatever you want to call these guys, they are coming here.”
Senator Lindsey Graham
“I lost hundreds of constituents on 9/11. I never want to do that again. For the president to say we’re doing air strikes, we’re not doing anything else. What kind of leadership is that?”
Congressman Peter King
Two things strike me when I hear our elected leaders engage in this type of rhetoric. First of all it amazes me how casually our leaders in congress embrace the idea of engaging in military operations in foreign countries. Second, I always wait for the answer to the next obvious question…the follow-up question that never comes… “After those military operations are completed…then what?”
In the aftermath of 9/11, the CIA along with a rag tag bunch of handsomely compensated Afghani war lords drove the Taliban and al Qaeda militants out of Afghanistan. George W. Bush redirected the country’s focus onto Iraq. As soon as America’s back was turned the Taliban returned to Afghanistan and American forces were called in to drive them out again. Now with the withdrawal of American combat troops by years’ end there are signs that the Taliban will return once more.
Under “W’s” direction, US military forces routed Saddam. A democratically elected government was installed…a new Iraqi constitution written…$25 billion American tax dollars spent to train and arm the Iraqi military and police. Mission accomplished…the historic seeds of democracy sewn in the Middle East. US military forces withdrew.
The democratically elected Iraqi government ruled at the pleasure of the minority at the expense of the majority. Unrest ensued and a centuries old Shia/Sunni civil war reared its ugly head once more. Islamist extremists entered the chaos. ISIS was born.
Throughout all of this Middle East turmoil American interests at home and abroad were in danger of attack. The insertion of America’s military might, not to mention its western morals and beliefs, added more fuel to a centuries old conflagration. The resulting threats to our homeland have been real and plentiful. It is a testament to our national security services that another 9/11 has not already occurred.
Now comes ISIS; by all accounts a terrorist organization more dangerous than either the Taliban or al Qaeda. They have promised to strike us here at home. The president’s detractors would have him ignore history once more, and execute the same military strategy that failed so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan.
John McCain is right in this regard. The events that are occurring in Iraq were predictable. The future of Afghanistan is equally clear. When US forces exit Afghanistan the Taliban will most certainly return. So do we learn from history or do we go blindly forward and repeat the same mistakes? IF we drive ISIS from Iraq through the use of military force is it not likely they will return. If we follow ISIS into Syria, destroy its command and control, eliminate them as a player on the chessboard, are we certain that another bad actor fueled by the death and destruction that we have wrought will not rise from the ashes? Does our mere presence in the region only serve to fan an already burning flame?
So let us ask the question that nobody ever asks… After the American military has eliminated ISIS…then what?
Occupation!
There is only one military solution in the Middle East…occupation. The only way to keep the death of one bad actor from spawning the birth of another is to turn the Middle East into an American territory. It is a horrible, unreasonable solution. It is the solution that neo-cons like McCain and Graham dream about.
The unrest in the Middle East is not America’s problem. It is a world problem. America’s long term interests will not be served through unilateral military intervention. Recent history has made that clear. The only real long term solution is a diplomatic one led by someone other than the US. The sooner learn from our own history in the region the better off we will be.
The next time McCain or Graham or some other hawk beats the war drum someone might want to ask the question that nobody ever asks…then what?
Thursday, August 7, 2014
What does The GOP Stand For?
“What do I stand for? What do I stand for? Most nights I don’t know anymore…”
FUN – From the album “Some Nights”
I don’t know about you but when I go to the polls I vote for the candidates that I feel best represent my beliefs in how government should work. With the primary season in full swing and the mid-terms fast approaching voters are beginning to ask candidates to explain where they stand on the issues. When it comes to members of the Republican Party, the answer to that question is oft times elusive.
What exactly does the Republican Party stand for? This is the question that is being asked not only by independents and outsiders like me but by moderates within the party as well. Republicans have made it quite clear that they are against anything proposed by what they see as an “illegitimate” “imperialist” president. But what exactly do Republicans stand for?
Republicans say they are for creating jobs. But they have yet to pass one jobs bill and have rejected several infrastructure bills offered by the president.
Republicans say they are for raising up the middle class. Yet they have opposed raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work while working tirelessly to eliminate unions and cut social safety net programs on which the middle class depends.
Republicans say they oppose government handouts like unemployment and food stamp programs “and the nanny state theses programs create.” Yet they support tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires and billion dollar subsidies for big oil and agriculture.
Republicans say they are for freedom and individual liberty. Yet they oppose same sex marriage and women’s access to legally provided health services.
Republicans say they are for reducing our long term debt and deficit and leaving a “better world for our children.” But the CBO says that the few economic programs that Republicans have proposed will add $1 trillion dollars to our national debt over the next decade.
So I ask again…what do Republicans stand for?
Acclaimed Republican strategist Mike Murphy says that since Barak Obama took office the GOP strategy has been to engaged in a “grievance campaign” while holding investigative hearings on Benghazi, the IRS, NSA wiretaps etc. Murphy fears that this limited strategy may hold the party in good stead in the upcoming mid-terms but fears that it will prove to be the party’s “kryptonite” in the 2016 general.
Translation...you can’t win the White House by just saying “NO.”
What do Republicans stand for? Most nights they don’t seem to know.
FUN – From the album “Some Nights”
I don’t know about you but when I go to the polls I vote for the candidates that I feel best represent my beliefs in how government should work. With the primary season in full swing and the mid-terms fast approaching voters are beginning to ask candidates to explain where they stand on the issues. When it comes to members of the Republican Party, the answer to that question is oft times elusive.
What exactly does the Republican Party stand for? This is the question that is being asked not only by independents and outsiders like me but by moderates within the party as well. Republicans have made it quite clear that they are against anything proposed by what they see as an “illegitimate” “imperialist” president. But what exactly do Republicans stand for?
Republicans say they are for creating jobs. But they have yet to pass one jobs bill and have rejected several infrastructure bills offered by the president.
Republicans say they are for raising up the middle class. Yet they have opposed raising the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work while working tirelessly to eliminate unions and cut social safety net programs on which the middle class depends.
Republicans say they oppose government handouts like unemployment and food stamp programs “and the nanny state theses programs create.” Yet they support tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires and billion dollar subsidies for big oil and agriculture.
Republicans say they are for freedom and individual liberty. Yet they oppose same sex marriage and women’s access to legally provided health services.
Republicans say they are for reducing our long term debt and deficit and leaving a “better world for our children.” But the CBO says that the few economic programs that Republicans have proposed will add $1 trillion dollars to our national debt over the next decade.
So I ask again…what do Republicans stand for?
Acclaimed Republican strategist Mike Murphy says that since Barak Obama took office the GOP strategy has been to engaged in a “grievance campaign” while holding investigative hearings on Benghazi, the IRS, NSA wiretaps etc. Murphy fears that this limited strategy may hold the party in good stead in the upcoming mid-terms but fears that it will prove to be the party’s “kryptonite” in the 2016 general.
Translation...you can’t win the White House by just saying “NO.”
What do Republicans stand for? Most nights they don’t seem to know.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
It's That Simple
As the death toll mounts top White House officials are seething over Israel’s carpet bombing of Gaza.
They claim to be “appalled” by the “disgraceful” shelling of a United Nation’s school where 3,000 Palestinians were sheltered. “Unacceptable…indefensible” they said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flipped the White House the bird and told them to “Never second guess me again.”
President Obama responded by signing into law $225 million dollars in emergency aid to fund Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.
???
Let us review…
Israel bombs UN school killing innocent civilians.
White House criticizes Israel’s actions.
Israeli leader tells White House to go to hell.
White House hands Israel $225 million.
WTF!
You might say it’s not that simple.
Yes it is!
Without US support Israel ceases to exist.
It’s that simple.
Netanyahu might want to consider that simple fact next time he decides to scold us while reaching for another handout.
They claim to be “appalled” by the “disgraceful” shelling of a United Nation’s school where 3,000 Palestinians were sheltered. “Unacceptable…indefensible” they said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flipped the White House the bird and told them to “Never second guess me again.”
President Obama responded by signing into law $225 million dollars in emergency aid to fund Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.
???
Let us review…
Israel bombs UN school killing innocent civilians.
White House criticizes Israel’s actions.
Israeli leader tells White House to go to hell.
White House hands Israel $225 million.
WTF!
You might say it’s not that simple.
Yes it is!
Without US support Israel ceases to exist.
It’s that simple.
Netanyahu might want to consider that simple fact next time he decides to scold us while reaching for another handout.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Hypocrisy Reins!
IMMIGRATION/IMPEACHMENT – Congress is off on a five week vacation leaving unresolved the toxic quagmire that is immigration reform. Before leaving the REPUBLICAN Speaker of the House encouraged the president to address the matter using the executive powers at his disposal. This was after he sued the president for using the executive powers at his disposal. The president promised that he would act alone. The White House has stated that the president is planning to announce a number of immigration reforms by the end of August. REPUBLICANS like Ted Cruz, Steve King and Louie Ghomert responded that if the president were to act alone they would give serious consideration to his impeachment. Going into the campaign season Democrats had pretty much handed Republicans control of the House and Senate on a silver platter. But the dysfunctional hypocrisy exhibited by Republicans like Boehner, Cruz, King and Ghomert keeps knocking that platter to the floor.
SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES – Republicans champion states’ rights over federal government overreach. That is until reality hits. Texas Governor Rick Perry is a small government conservative. He has been critical in what he describes as the federal government’s inadequate response to the crisis on Texas ‘southern border. An angry and frustrated Perry finally sent 1,000 Texas National Guard Troops to help secure the Texas southern border. “If the president won’t act, I will” said Perry. This is what happens when ideology runs head on into reality. Perry wants the federal government to stay out of his states’ affairs. But when tens of thousands of illegal immigrants flood Perry’s borders he whines to the president for help. Perry ha s often floated the idea of Texas seceding from the union. Good luck! Texas keeps its’ doors open by taking more funding from the federal government than any state save California.
DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE – The war between the Israelis and Palestinians is complicated. It is an ongoing conflict that has been raging for decades. The number one perpetrator of violence against Israel is the terrorist organization known as Hamas. In recent weeks Hamas has fired 3,200 rockets into Israel killing hundreds of innocent women and children. The rockets were fired from behind the cover of Palestinian schools, hospitals, mosques and residential neighborhoods. Hamas had also constructed a series of tunnels into Israeli territory from which they launched attacks on Israeli citizens. Israel has responded with a devastating ground and rocket assault designed to take out the rocket launchers and tunnels …wherever they may be. The result has been the death of 1,800 innocent civilians and tens of thousands of Palestinian homes. Yesterday the Israelis blew up a UN run school killing ten children. This is the third UN run school to be hit by the Israeli military. The gory details played out on video for the entire world to see, generated an outpouring of global criticism for Israel’s “disproportionate” response. Yesterday, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said: “The United States is appalled by the disgraceful shelling of a United Nations school. The US called the attack “totally unacceptable…totally indefensible.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the White House: “Don’t ever second guess me again.” The US gives Israel $4 billion tax payer dollars a year to defend itself. Since WWII the US has handed Israel $121 billion to help ward off its enemies. When you give a country $121 billion you ought to be able to give them your opinion as well. It is however interesting to listen to the politicians and talking heads in this country criticize Israel’s “disproportionate” response to 3,200 missile attacks against their people. What would happen if some foreign power rained 3,200 missiles on our civilian population? I think we know. In response to the 9/11 attacks the United States of America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in what became our country's longest wars. According to numerous sources at least 174,000 civilians died violently as a direct result of these wars. Add to that the number of civilian deaths resulting from the shattered infrastructure and poor health conditions and experts say the number grows to over 1,000,000. Was our response proportionate? In our self absorbed quest to be the world’s most exceptional nation…we sometimes act like its biggest hypocrite.
SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES – Republicans champion states’ rights over federal government overreach. That is until reality hits. Texas Governor Rick Perry is a small government conservative. He has been critical in what he describes as the federal government’s inadequate response to the crisis on Texas ‘southern border. An angry and frustrated Perry finally sent 1,000 Texas National Guard Troops to help secure the Texas southern border. “If the president won’t act, I will” said Perry. This is what happens when ideology runs head on into reality. Perry wants the federal government to stay out of his states’ affairs. But when tens of thousands of illegal immigrants flood Perry’s borders he whines to the president for help. Perry ha s often floated the idea of Texas seceding from the union. Good luck! Texas keeps its’ doors open by taking more funding from the federal government than any state save California.
DISPROPORTIONATE RESPONSE – The war between the Israelis and Palestinians is complicated. It is an ongoing conflict that has been raging for decades. The number one perpetrator of violence against Israel is the terrorist organization known as Hamas. In recent weeks Hamas has fired 3,200 rockets into Israel killing hundreds of innocent women and children. The rockets were fired from behind the cover of Palestinian schools, hospitals, mosques and residential neighborhoods. Hamas had also constructed a series of tunnels into Israeli territory from which they launched attacks on Israeli citizens. Israel has responded with a devastating ground and rocket assault designed to take out the rocket launchers and tunnels …wherever they may be. The result has been the death of 1,800 innocent civilians and tens of thousands of Palestinian homes. Yesterday the Israelis blew up a UN run school killing ten children. This is the third UN run school to be hit by the Israeli military. The gory details played out on video for the entire world to see, generated an outpouring of global criticism for Israel’s “disproportionate” response. Yesterday, US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said: “The United States is appalled by the disgraceful shelling of a United Nations school. The US called the attack “totally unacceptable…totally indefensible.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the White House: “Don’t ever second guess me again.” The US gives Israel $4 billion tax payer dollars a year to defend itself. Since WWII the US has handed Israel $121 billion to help ward off its enemies. When you give a country $121 billion you ought to be able to give them your opinion as well. It is however interesting to listen to the politicians and talking heads in this country criticize Israel’s “disproportionate” response to 3,200 missile attacks against their people. What would happen if some foreign power rained 3,200 missiles on our civilian population? I think we know. In response to the 9/11 attacks the United States of America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in what became our country's longest wars. According to numerous sources at least 174,000 civilians died violently as a direct result of these wars. Add to that the number of civilian deaths resulting from the shattered infrastructure and poor health conditions and experts say the number grows to over 1,000,000. Was our response proportionate? In our self absorbed quest to be the world’s most exceptional nation…we sometimes act like its biggest hypocrite.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Incompetent!
The Republican clown show continues.
If there was ever any doubt that the Republican Party is incapable of governing those doubts were put to rest last night as the party demonstrated a level of incompetence that left even their own members shaking their heads in disbelief.
Allow me to go back a few weeks to set the stage.
Three weeks ago Republicans were characterizing the situation on our southern border as the biggest moral and humanitarian crisis since 9/11. Republicans were crucifying the president for failing to find a solution to the problem; calling into question once again his leadership capabilities. The president’s decision to NOT visit the border only added fuel to the fire.
The president responded by proffering a $3.7 billion dollar bill to secure the border and streamline the deportation of those who had crossed illegally. Speaker Boehner rejected it out of hand and refused to bring it up in the House for a vote. The Senate had passed a similar $2.9 billion dollar solution months earlier which Boehner had also rejected. Fearful of returning to their districts for summer recess without addressing the problem, Boehner and Republican House leadership cobbled together a $1.5 billion solution. But the bill was quickly withdrawn when Boehner could not rally Tea Party members to support the measure.
Keep in mind that these are not comprehensive immigration reform bills that Republicans are rejecting. These are funding measures to enable the government to deport more people faster; something that the Republicans had been screaming for and a majority of the American people support.
As the August recess approached, the heat on Republicans to pass “something” before returning home had reached the boiling point. Boehner and the leadership drafted a watered down $659 million dollar measure. In an effort to woo the Tea Party bunch they even added a clause prohibiting the president from using his executive powers to amend or delay any immigration legislation. You may recall that the House had recently passed a resolution authorizing the Speaker to sue the president over his use of executive powers. The suit contends that the president uses his executive powers excessively in an effort to circumvent congress.
Confident that he had the votes to pass the bill; Boehner addressed the media. Once again he criticized the president for failing to secure the border and boldly stated that: “If the president won’t act congress will.” A few short hours later a blindsided Boehner was forced to pull his own bill when it became clear that he didn’t have the votes. It seems that while leadership was crafting the bill the Tea Party House members were meeting with Tea Party Senators Cruz and Sessions. Cruz and Sessions convinced them that it was better politically to do nothing and let the president shoulder the blame. The Tea Party caucus agreed and left Boehner hanging.
In a stunning scene…when Boehner announced that he was pulling the bill he and newly elected Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy were mobbed on the House floor by a furious moderate majority. They demanded that Boehner reconvene and find some way to craft and pass something; noting that going home to their constituents without something in hand would be disastrous. Boehner agreed and called his members back to renew the debate…some of whom had already left for the airport. They hope to pass someting...anything...this morning.
As if all of this weren’t ridiculous enough; Boehner issued a statement in the aftermath that only served to highlight the party’s incompetence. In his statement the Speaker said that the president had the power to act alone in addressing the border crisis and he encouraged the president to use the executive powers at his disposal to do so??? Remember, Boehner is currently suing this “imperialist” president for what Republicans believe is the president’s excessive use of executive powers. Now here the Speaker is encouraging the president invoke those very same powers?????
This entire comedy of errors was over a merely symbolic vote. Nothing the House passed was ever going to get by Harry Reid and the senate. Yet they still couldn’t find a way to get it done. Better to do nothing than pass something the people want.
So what have we learned?
We’ve learned that Republicans would rather do nothing than secure the border. They would rather do nothing than pass legislation that is generally popular with the American people.
We’ve learned that the Republicans can’t even come together to pass something they all agree on...a watered down bill that helps the government deport more people faster. If Republicans even can’t come to a legislative consensus on issues upon which they agree, then how can anyone expect them to govern if they secure both houses of congress this November?
We learned that Speaker Boehner is very bad at his job and that Ted Cruz has more influence over the Republican House Caucus than does Boehner.
We have also learned that the Republican Party is incapable of governing.
Republicans have given a weakened Democrat Party new life. If Democrats manage to renew their leadership in the Senate and/or win control of the House; Republicans can look at this as the day it all started slipping away.
If there was ever any doubt that the Republican Party is incapable of governing those doubts were put to rest last night as the party demonstrated a level of incompetence that left even their own members shaking their heads in disbelief.
Allow me to go back a few weeks to set the stage.
Three weeks ago Republicans were characterizing the situation on our southern border as the biggest moral and humanitarian crisis since 9/11. Republicans were crucifying the president for failing to find a solution to the problem; calling into question once again his leadership capabilities. The president’s decision to NOT visit the border only added fuel to the fire.
The president responded by proffering a $3.7 billion dollar bill to secure the border and streamline the deportation of those who had crossed illegally. Speaker Boehner rejected it out of hand and refused to bring it up in the House for a vote. The Senate had passed a similar $2.9 billion dollar solution months earlier which Boehner had also rejected. Fearful of returning to their districts for summer recess without addressing the problem, Boehner and Republican House leadership cobbled together a $1.5 billion solution. But the bill was quickly withdrawn when Boehner could not rally Tea Party members to support the measure.
Keep in mind that these are not comprehensive immigration reform bills that Republicans are rejecting. These are funding measures to enable the government to deport more people faster; something that the Republicans had been screaming for and a majority of the American people support.
As the August recess approached, the heat on Republicans to pass “something” before returning home had reached the boiling point. Boehner and the leadership drafted a watered down $659 million dollar measure. In an effort to woo the Tea Party bunch they even added a clause prohibiting the president from using his executive powers to amend or delay any immigration legislation. You may recall that the House had recently passed a resolution authorizing the Speaker to sue the president over his use of executive powers. The suit contends that the president uses his executive powers excessively in an effort to circumvent congress.
Confident that he had the votes to pass the bill; Boehner addressed the media. Once again he criticized the president for failing to secure the border and boldly stated that: “If the president won’t act congress will.” A few short hours later a blindsided Boehner was forced to pull his own bill when it became clear that he didn’t have the votes. It seems that while leadership was crafting the bill the Tea Party House members were meeting with Tea Party Senators Cruz and Sessions. Cruz and Sessions convinced them that it was better politically to do nothing and let the president shoulder the blame. The Tea Party caucus agreed and left Boehner hanging.
In a stunning scene…when Boehner announced that he was pulling the bill he and newly elected Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy were mobbed on the House floor by a furious moderate majority. They demanded that Boehner reconvene and find some way to craft and pass something; noting that going home to their constituents without something in hand would be disastrous. Boehner agreed and called his members back to renew the debate…some of whom had already left for the airport. They hope to pass someting...anything...this morning.
As if all of this weren’t ridiculous enough; Boehner issued a statement in the aftermath that only served to highlight the party’s incompetence. In his statement the Speaker said that the president had the power to act alone in addressing the border crisis and he encouraged the president to use the executive powers at his disposal to do so??? Remember, Boehner is currently suing this “imperialist” president for what Republicans believe is the president’s excessive use of executive powers. Now here the Speaker is encouraging the president invoke those very same powers?????
This entire comedy of errors was over a merely symbolic vote. Nothing the House passed was ever going to get by Harry Reid and the senate. Yet they still couldn’t find a way to get it done. Better to do nothing than pass something the people want.
So what have we learned?
We’ve learned that Republicans would rather do nothing than secure the border. They would rather do nothing than pass legislation that is generally popular with the American people.
We’ve learned that the Republicans can’t even come together to pass something they all agree on...a watered down bill that helps the government deport more people faster. If Republicans even can’t come to a legislative consensus on issues upon which they agree, then how can anyone expect them to govern if they secure both houses of congress this November?
We learned that Speaker Boehner is very bad at his job and that Ted Cruz has more influence over the Republican House Caucus than does Boehner.
We have also learned that the Republican Party is incapable of governing.
Republicans have given a weakened Democrat Party new life. If Democrats manage to renew their leadership in the Senate and/or win control of the House; Republicans can look at this as the day it all started slipping away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)