Before The Next Cold War Starts…

We should be spreading this video around:

Ignore Fox’s attempts to turn this into just another personal interest story, and listen to the message the girl and her mother are trying to spread. This Georgian family was attacked by Georgians and helped by Russians.

Maybe its time we all took a minute to think about whether or not the war in Georgia was really 100% Russia’s fault.

 

The Surge Is Working™

Well, Senator McCain sure wants us to think the surge is working. And so, it seems, does the rest of the media. Thanks to McCain’s stubborn repetition, the phrase, “the surge is working” has nearly become accepted fact (I’m looking at you, Joe Klein).

But hey, let’s not forget that McCain and the traditional media are pretty unreliable when it comes to facts (although, in their defense, they are excellent at forming narratives), and I think its time to take a look at “the facts on the ground”.

Believe it or not, the goal of the surge was not simply to decrease the casualty rate among American forces and civilians. It was supposed to allow the Iraqi government to achieve a political solution that would allow Iraq to unify as a nation and move itself forward. Such a solution has never been achieved.

Instead, some interesting events took place.

• Baghdad fell victim to an ethnic cleansing, and a city that was once predominantly Sunni is now mostly Shiite.
• 100,000 refugees fled the city.
• City violence decreased as insurgents simply moved to rural areas to fight.
• 80,000 Iraqi militiamen who were once our allies decided to switch sides and get on our payroll.

Doesn’t seem like much of a political solution, does it.

However, to surge supporters, that just doesn’t seem to matter anymore as long as the violence is down and less Americans are being killed. This is foolish. Yes, it is good that less shots are being fired, but how can one assume that the streets of Iraqi cities will remain less violent if a political solution is never achieved? Sunnis and Shiites still hate each other, Kurds still want independence, and we Americans are still dealing with a time bomb. It is still ticking, but we cannot hear it at the moment and have chosen to forget about it.

Senator Obama continues to say that the surge did not meet its goals, and that he would still not support it if he knew back then what he knew today. He may be taking a lot of flak for those positions, but he is absolutely right.

 

Obama’s Travels

As Obama continues his fact-finding tour overseas, the trip is receiving mixed opinions. Supporters say the trip will allow Obama to prove to Americans and the rest of the world that he knows how to handle foreign affairs. Critics (especially those angry little people at FOX), dismiss it as a worldwide photo-op.

But no round of opinions is complete without two cents from Rudy Giuliani, who had something to say about the trip while watching a New York Yankees game with John McCain.

I think the fact that Barack Obama is kind of making his first tour, in essence, of the world, gives you an indication that John McCain is the man with the experience. John doesn’t have to go for the first or second time to these places. He’s been going for 20, 30 years. He knows the world.

Well, McCain has certainly been around the world and back; we can’t really deny that. But is it true that Obama is making his first tour of the world?

Nope. Not even close. In fact, Obama has been described as the “most traveled freshman Senator”, having gone to countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, the Palestinian Territories, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiophia, Kenya, and South Africa. This list, of course, does not include countries from Obama’s current trip, which focuses on Europe and the Middle East.

Who would have thought that such an “inexperienced” young man could have seen so many places?

 

Don’t Be Fooled

I have two articles for you to compare, gentle reader. Both are short, but they are very revealing as to the current situation in Zimbabwe. The first details the progression of the power sharing negotiations in Zimbabwe. It is not a very in depth look, because it deals with events that occurred just an hour earlier. It says the same thing that thousands of other articles said just a few hours ago: Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai have agreed to being power-sharing negotiations. It is easy to consider this hopeful news. Maybe if Mugabe is willing to negotiate this whole thing can be resolved peacefully.

Unfortunately, Mugabe’s actions tell a different story altogether. This BBC article, published shortly before the agreement on negotiations was made, tells a story of continuing dread and violence for the MDC opposition party. Even as Mugabe enters power-sharing negotiations, he continues to persecute the opposition, and his Zanu-PF militias have been targeting members of Parliament in particular. It would be a mistake to think that Mugabe is moving to do anything but cement his own power. The only question that remains is his strategy. Will he delay the negotiating process until he feels the country is under his control? Will he attempt to isolate Tsvangirai in a figurehead position? Unless Mugabe has just now started to care about international condemnation, he will do anything he can to keep himself in dictatorial power.

Welcome to the War on Terror. It might be hard to make the mental leap to include Mugabe in this overarching conflict we have devoted ourselves to since the attacks of September 11, 2001. He bears no resemblance to the Al Qaeda operatives we are familiar with: he is no religious extremist, and he poses no threat to the United States. Yet he is every bit as much a terrorist as Osama Bin Laden. His countrymen who oppose him were legitimately elected by the people of Zimbabwe, and then he illegitimately intimidated his opponents into submission. What are we to do? Continue to condemn? Pass UN sanctions (if Russia and China cooperate)? Intervene? The last option is one that lawmakers are reluctant to pursue (read: haven’t even considered), considering the success of our last intervention, but the conditions of Zimbabwe are much different from those in Iraq. It would be relatively simple thing for a multinational force to subdue the militias and protect and oversee a fair election. The nations involved would agree not to dispute the results of that election, and they would stay until the new regime took power. It would be short, with hopefully very little bloodshed. But it has not even been suggested within the US government. Why? Because a. The specter of Iraq looms over us b. an intervention is not directly in our interests and c. We’re a bit low on troops. Nevertheless, the United States is a world leader and this is a popular issue. Would it hurt to try?

 

A Better Way To Counter The Pro-Drilling Argument

You’ve probably heard some arguments like these lately. It’s sad, but many, many Americans still believe that drilling offshore is the best solution to the gas crisis. Unfortunately, those of us who disagree are not doing ourselves justice with our arguments.

Our favorite argument has to be the “time argument”. We like to tell supporters of offshore drilling that the oil they are searching for will not hit gas pumps for years, maybe even a decade. Although this is probably true, it is fairly easy to see how this argument has holes in it. After all, all a pro-driller has to do is call the drilling plan a long-term solution, one that will still offer relief from high gas prices and an end to the dependence on foreign oil.

We would be much better off ignoring the time factor altogether and instead offering some simple math.

It has been estimated that if the banned areas of the coast of Florida and California were opened for drilling, it would eventually produce 250,000 barrels of oil per day. This may seem like a lot, but we must also take into account the fact that the US consumes over 20 million barrels in a day, meaning that drilling would only provide an extra 1.25%.

But we’re not finished. What far too many people assume is that all of the oil that we find offshore belongs to the US. This is not the case. Oil is traded on the world market, and since the US is nowhere near nationalizing its oil production, ending the ban on drilling would simply allow any oil company to drill offshore, American or not.

As of 2006, the world consumed 84.6 million barrels of oil per day. By 2015, this number is expected to rise to 96.1 million. So, it is difficult to fathom how 250,000 barrels will manage to put even the slightest dent in world oil prices.

There’s your argument, everybody. Money talks.

 

McCain And Iraq: A Changing Relationship

This is what McCain said in 2004:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it’s a hypothetical, but it’s at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

Four years later, the scenario described has, in fact, taken place. Here’s what the Iraqi Prime Minister has been saying:

U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

And here’s how the McCain campaign responded:

His domestic politics require him to be for us getting out… The military says ‘conditions based’ and Maliki said ‘conditions based’ yesterday in the joint statement with Bush. Regardless, voters care about [the] military, not about Iraqi leaders.

McCain seems to be alone on his little island all of a sudden. First Bush calls for a “time horizon”, and now the Iraqi Prime Minister comes very close to outright endorsing Obama’s position. Almost makes you want to feel sorry for the old guy.

I have to say, I would really like to shake the hand of the guy(s) who managed to come up with the “straight-talker” image. It must have taken geniuses to get people to ignore all these flip-flops. Evil geniuses, but geniuses none the less.

 

Party Rifts?

The attempt to impeach President Bush has received very little attention from the mainstream media, and is considered to be a nice, but pointless, gesture. But whether they like it or not, this attempt is happening, and recently, there was an interesting development.

Only a few days ago, the House of Representatives voted to send Dennis Kucinich’s Article of Impeachment to the Judiciary. There, Chairman John Coyers is supposed to hold hearings on the President’s abuses of power. But what was interesting about this vote was the fact that nine Republican Congressman broke the party line and voted “Yes”. They are:

Congressman Kevin Brady (TX)
Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC)
Representative Don Manzullo (IL)
U.S. Congressman Tim Murphy(PA)
Congressman Ron Paul (TX)
Congressman Dave Reichert (WA)
Congressman Christopher Shays (CT)
Representative Mike Turner (OH)

Now I am not saying this means Bush will be impeached. The last few times Kucinich introduced articles of that nature, they were also sent to the Judiciary, but that was it. But, this vote does illustrate something that the media hates to talk about, the fact that the Republican Party appears to be losing its unity. Whether it be the war, out of control spending, corruption, or general incompetence, something is driving a wedge between Republicans and pushing some of them as far away from Bush as possible.

This is the kind of stuff that could have media pundits on TV for hours, if not days, endlessly debating a Republican collapse. Unfortunately, their too busy writing the epitaphs of the Democrats.

 

Ahh… The Media Narrative

First off, I apologize for the lack of posting, as I’ve just returned from a relaxing, Internet-free week in Maine. But now that I’m back, I’d like to talk about an issue that, honestly, I thought would have gone away by now.

It’s the Iraq thing. The idea the media keeps floating around, that Obama has somehow changed his position on Iraq and is “moving toward the center”. Or, if you’re MSNBC, he represents a “third Bush term”.

I’d like to share a quote from the Senator. Here it is:

I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.

Remember that quote as you read the rest of this post. Its something the mainstream media has conveniently forgotten.

Yes, it is true that at a recent campaign stop Obama told supporters that his upcoming trip to Iraq may cause him to “refine” his position. But this does not mean, as the media has assumed, that Obama is going to suddenly shift his position and decide to continue the war in a McCain-like fashion. The word used was “refine”.

When talking about Iraq, Obama has always made two things clear. He wants the war to end, but he does not want to put our soldiers or Iraqi civilians to be in danger. This is why he has never been in favor of Dennis Kucinich’s three-month withdrawal plan, but rather a more drawn out sixteen-month plan. Such a plan would allow US forces to leave Iraq in small groups, and would ease the transition between American assisted leadership and full Iraqi leadership

But this sixteen-month plan has never been set in stone. Obama’s trip to Iraq will serve as a way for him to determine if more or less time will be needed for the withdrawal. Interestingly enough, he is doing exactly what a lawmaker should be doing, namely, gathering as much information as possible before executing a plan. And unfortunately, he is being criticized for it.

Okay, Obama is not the most liberal Democrat out there, and he never has been. But he has been opposed to this war for a long time, and we can count on him to hold that position.  Just because the media is too stupid or lazy to give up on its “flip=flopping Democrat” narrative, doesn’t mean we have to listen to them.

 

Happy Fourth of July!

From all of us at Upon the Gears…

 

Swiftboating

I’ve already written about Wesley Clark’s controversial appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and I was glad to see that he has continued to appear on national television arguing against McCain’s “foreign policy experience”. However, I have to say that I’m a little shocked that some Republicans have had the gall to call Clark’s statements “swiftboating”. Okay, maybe I’m not that surprised.

“Swiftboating”, as you should already know, is a term that comes from the election of 2004. In the middle of the race between Senator Kerry and President Bush, a mysterious group appeared known as the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth”. The title was a reference to the swiftboat that Kerry served on during the Vietnam War. As the group began to spread their message, it became clear that they did not favor the Senator from Massachusetts.

Basically, they insulted a war hero’s service. They claimed that Kerry lied to get many of the medals that he received. They questioned his patriotism. And although this group was condemned by those who were smart enough to check the facts, the message spread.

Fast-forward to 2008. Recently, after General Clark made his comments regarding John McCain, several McCain supporters have, in their outrage, called his words “swiftboating”. It’s a story that the media has fallen in love with.

But Clark did not “swiftboat” McCain. Not once did Clark say anything to insult McCain’s service, nor did he call McCain a liar.  All he did was point out that McCain’s experiences in Vietnam, though admirable, do not prepare one to be President as McCain often claims.  This is Clark’s opinion, which he has the right to  share.

Want to see irony?  Compare Clark’s praise of McCain’s service to a statement issued by McCain surrogate Orson Swindle:

General Clark probably wouldn’t get that much praise from this group. I can’t speak for them, but we all know that General Clark, as high-ranking as he is, his record in his last command I think was somewhat less than stellar.

That’s an excellent way to call someone out on degridating your guy’s military service.

But my favorite piece of irony has to be the veteran that McCain chose to be part of his “truth squad” (a group that he really doesn’t need).  Yeah, he chose Bud Day, former member of the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth”, a group that McCain once denounced.

What a coincidence!