Tom Delay is still blabbering on about how activist judges have a broken moral compass when it came to the Schiavo case, going on and on about how the judges will have to answer to God when it comes to aiding in America's conspiracy against conservatives.

If republicans consider themselves conservatives, they'd be hard-pressed to find a hostile American attack on their ideals given the fact that America voted for their majority in the first place.
Flocks of evangelical Christians would love to support Delay in his "plight" against the "liberal majority."

Tom Delay is a liability for Republicans in 2006, and moderate republicans (typically more authentically conservative) have been calling for his resignation. Bush still defends him though. Not surprising, he needs Delay to aid in the "great struggle" to "save social security," to assist with the new Bankruptcy bill, and rally many Christian fundamentalists.

Bill Frist is also getting psycho, portraying democrats as "against people of faith (NYTIMES)" because they object to Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats have criticized nominees because of stances on abortion and public religious expressions, but its more of an issue of church-state separation and sticking with traditional democrat stances on the right to choose. It's a wild generalization that doesn't aid the debate.

There are many Democrats of faith, and I don't believe democrats ever took issue with people of faith, let alone faith itself. His comments are akin to labeling an entire political group as anti-american. It's as bad as saying republicans hate poor people. Throwing labels blatantly disregards an accurate description of either perspective.

That said, his words, however misguided, will rally support from fundamentalist groups. Though we will likely see that psycho accusations will distance himself from voters who are conscientious.

Cotecna and Halliburton

An independent panel investigating the U.N. Oil for Food Program corruption has exonerated Kofi Annan of corruption in regards to awarding Cotecna program contracts. The report only criticized Annan for not investigating his son, Kojo’s, ties to Cotecna in 1999, when suspicion arose that the Swiss company was allowing Hussein skim funds off of the U.N. program for personal benefit.

Meanwhile, the panel found Kojo Annan guilty in conspiring with Cotecna in the Oil for Food scandal and being uncooperative with independent investigators. Mr. Annan had also been hiding further connection with the firm after his resignation in 1998; the panel found that he had been collecting benefits from the company until February 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/international/middleeast/30oil.html

As a result, Republican ideologues have criticized the U.N. and Kofi Annan of blatant corruption and conflict of interest by awarding contracts to corporations that exploit dire situations. Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota (R) has called on Mr. Annan to resign, citing Annan’s “lack of leadership” and “lack of responsibility and accountability.”

Touché Mr. Coleman. There seems to be a conflict of interest story right here in the United States Republican leadership. There seems a striking similarity between Bush/Cheney and Kofi/Kojo, between Halliburton and Cotecna.

Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton until running for vice president in 2000. After becoming vice president, he received nearly 400,000 dollars in deferred payment from the company.
http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html
Halliburton was founded to overbill more that 6 million dollars on a no-bid contract with the U.S. Government to supply and service U.S. troops in Iraq. http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20040123a.asp

Both Cotecna and Halliburton are guilty of corruption in regards to situations in Iraq, whether stealing from humanitarian aid before the war, or from the U.S. military after the war. Both Cheney and Kojo have invested personal interest to award firms with valuable government contracts. Both Cheney and Kojo have been unclear about their compensation after leaving their respective companies.

Those in the Bush Administration and its constituents should examine their own charges of corruption, “lack of responsibility and accountability” before throwing stones. Should Kofi Annan resign over the Oil for Food Scandal? “Hell no.” Should the administration be so quick to judge him? “Hell no.”

In response to my earlier entry, "Iraqi Security Forces," I am pleased to see that so many Iraqis are rising up for the sake of national democracy. I agreed with many foreign policy experts, Friedman, Brooks, Powell, that true success in Iraq would be mainly won by its citizens, grace a the aid of many in the U.S. armed forces. The New York Times today reports how Iraqi citizens are taking it upon themselves to fight the insurgency. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/international/worldspecial/23iraq.html

The story begins with how a carpenter named Dhia fired upon Mujahedeen gunmen, keeping them in check before they could attack his shop. His defiantly stated, "I am waiting for the rest of them to come, and we will show them." Also, the article reported how hundreds of protesters demonstrated in front of the city hall in Hilla to denounce a suicide bombing that happened last month, killing 136 people. Additionally, Newsweek reported last week how women were organizing in Iraq to promote legal and professional equality in the face of being kidnapped.

This is the message of hope for democracy in Iraq, the will of people to fight for their own country and law in the face of hostility. Iraqi people feel that it is in their best long-term interest to move toward progress, away from augmenting the power of leaders and movements who incite violence. This coupled with the heavy voter turnout makes the possibility of democracy to be that much more viable, and eventually a more free and moderate Iraqi voice.

That said, President Bush seems to take much undeserved credit for the "March of Democracy" in Iraq, among other reforms happening in the Middle East. While Iraqi regime change may have been a catalyst for such progressive events to unfold, the causes lied within the Kurdish and Shiite dissatisfaction with Baathist rule. Sistani and Allawi are two figures that weathered the storm of the insurgency to rally both a religious and secular motions respectfully toward democracy. Sistani called for rejection of the insurgency and urgency of the vote to defy opponents of citizen autonomy. Allawi is the strongman who ordered training of security forces and collaboration of intelligence against terrorists.

On the other hand, Bush's reasons for going to war have been disproved (WMDs, Al Queda ties). Though he justifies invasion of Iraq as a means to combat terrorism, protect American securiy. The notion that the spread of Democracy will decrease Islamic fundamentalism is susceptible to Iraqi opinion of the United States. It will rely upon how we support them, our past dealings with them, and American Administrations' past and current support of autocratic leaders to keep oil fields going. Already, Middle Eastern Democracy does not necessarily equal greater American national security. Lebanese waving anti-Syrian flags next to anti-American banners does not mean that America will be less despised when Syria pulls out. Iraqis fighting for the rule of Shariah law or more secular law instead of Baathist autocracy does not mean that Shiites and Sunnis will be more kind to the West.

To put it bluntly, Bush is operating in Damage-Control mode when speaking of the Democracy-Spreading goal. He uses it to give new meaning to U.S. operations in Iraq, portraying himself as a hero of peace after being a "war president." The progressive movements taking place are due to long yearning for moderate and democratic voices, given aid by altruistic efforts of many U.S. Military personnel. The neoconservative ideology, pushing for the beginning of the Iraq war, was merely a catalyst, like the death of Arafat, and the Harriri assassination.

New Beginning, or Same old Clog?

So Dr. Rice took over for Colin Powell, being praised on one hand for her clairvoyance and intelligence, being lambasted on the other for being a clog in Bush's political machine. Whatever one's point of view is, she is undeniably supportive when it comes to the Bush administration's foriegn policy. On Bush's diplomacy, she said, "That is the mission that President Bush has set for America in the world, and it's the great mission of American diplomacy today," (Washington Times 1/19/05).

Really? Recent evidence would go against the great hand of Bush's diplomacy. Especially in regards to Iraq.

The Bush's case for war in Iraq has been disproven time and time again. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, in fact the search ended with no results. Links between Iraq and 9/11 have been deemed untrustworthy by the 9/11 commision. The question is, would America have given Bush authority to go to war on such grounds? Highly doubtful. The war has cost over one hundred billion dollars and many soldiers' lives. American's shouldn't rationally bear such burdens with such a case, or lack thereof.

Now all the administration talks about is the need to promote democracy in Iraq. Though it is a noble goal, the latest CIA report notes how Iraq is a new training ground for Islamic militants. This is hardly a success-story when it comes to nation-building.

Only two Senators voted against Rice's nomination as secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry and Ms. Barbara Boxer. Ms. Boxer makes a good point, "I find it so troubling that the Bush administration used the fear of terror to make the war against Iraq appear to be part of the response to 9/11," Ms. Boxer said. "You were involved in that effort." It's good that some senators are being critical.

With all these problems surrounding the "diplomacy" and "foriegn policy" of the Iraq situation, I find the administration's competency, including that of Dr. Rice, to be suspect. She already is engaged in some of the blunders of the past term, unapologetically cover for her hus-, her boss. She talks of six outposts of tyranny, sounding like Bush's axis of evil.

Still, she has a way of invoking some hope in her talking points. She states, "More than ever, America's diplomats will need to be active in spreading democracy, fighting terror, reducing poverty, and doing our part to protect the American homeland." To be sure, we need to mend ties with many European allies to be secure and ameliorate international situations.

"Americans should make a serious effort to understand other cultures and learn foreign languages," she states. "Our interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a monologue." Again, the words bring me hope that America will strive to be multilateral and more empathetic.

However, given the Bush administration's track record in Iraq, let's hope that her words more about how America will change it's foriegn policy. Let's hope that it is not nearly hot air, covering for the administration, and effectively acting as a clog in the political machine.

Blind to the Brave

Those who do the dirty work, aren't often appreciated. Where it's needed, the Bush administration pays only lip service.

Soldiers are there in Iraq fighting the battles for this administration. Believing that they are protecting the freedom of their country by extending said freedom to Iraq makes them persevere in the greatest adversity.
What thanks do they get?

Poor body armor, lack of supplies...
Soldiers at Camp Beuhring, Kuwait took Rumsfeld to task on Wednesday, talking about situations where they had to look through garbage to find scraps of metal to protect their Humvees. Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, stated that many vehicles would head north from Kuwait without the bulletproof windshields or the Kevlar flooring that protect against bombs exploding underneath Humvees or trucks (NYTIMES - http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/international/middleeast/08cnd-rumsfeld.html?hp).

Rumsfeld's response to inquiries about what he and the Army were doing to address shortages seemed blunt, arrogant and unsympathetic. He said to one soldier, "Now settle down, settle down, hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning and I'm gathering my thoughts here (NYTimes)." What thoughts did he need to gather? What adequate response did he have? "I'm an old man."

Rumsfeld continued, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time." I would like to ask Rumsfeld why doesn't America, with its wealth and focus on winning this war give not only the army that the soldiers want, but the army they need to get the mission accomplished.

Removing Donald Rumsfeld from his post would be one way to improve the way the war in Iraq is managed. He should have been removed after the Abu Ghraib atrocity. His noticeable apathy towards amending the problems of Abu Ghraib have allowed further abuses to take place. A Defense department memorandum, as reported by the NYTimes on Tuesday said that officials had seen prisoners being brought in to a detention center with burn marks on their backs and complaining about sore kidneys.

Rumsfeld has stated in regards to the Abu
Ghraib scandal that there is a difference between torture and abuse. A troubling statement indeed, especially from someone who must take responsibility for U.S. action in Iraq, and shape it into the best it can be.

The brave men and women serving in the Army deserve better. Leadership needs to be responsible and receptive to be effective. Those fighting for freedom need someone who can fill that role.

lost cause?

Bush has won the election, whether Dems like to admit it or not. Not only that, but republicans swept a majority of the congressional races. Many Democrats foresee a second Bush term that is more radical than the first. Now that Bush and the neocon administration has little opposition within the government except for the senate filibuster, consolidation of his ideological allies will give him newfound “capital” to push his agenda. Within days of winning the election, Bush is already emphasizing privatization of Social Security and a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Prospects look rather challenging for democrats in the second term. But with adversity comes a chance to reform and reenergize. Some of that has happened already.

There is a struggle between many social groups in addition to liberals and conservatives: neocons, minorities, urban voters, Christian fundamentalists, Middle America, etc. How the Democratic Party appeals to these groups will determine its future.

In the long term, the Democrats will have an opportunity with the next generation of voters. Most voters ages 18-29 voted overwhelmingly for Kerry (by a margin of ten percent according to the NYTimes), signaling that a lot of “new blood” is becoming politically active. Barak Obama gave a energizing speech at the DNC convention, providing more substance than most of the elder speakers, overshadowing an aging generation that is becoming less effective: Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Gephardt.

Although the majority of voters, including neocons, Christian Fundamentalists, and much of Middle America, who supported Bush touted traditional values as a deciding factor, making reference to questions of gay marriage and abortion laws, values tend to change. Many phenomena cause changes in values, and Democrats should take several major ones into account. Demographic changes in the United States can greatly benefit the Dems. An increasingly dense population will allow more contact between individuals, possibly creating a more cosmopolitan attitude that reflects urban centers like New York, where Kerry won by a landslide. Also, the minority population grows at a much higher rate than the Caucasian American population. Minorities have been traditionally a Democratic constituent; it is likely that leaders like Obama will increase the Democrats’ ability to reach out to these demographics.

It is the Democrats’ duty right now to reach out to the youth and minority voters; they give the greatest prospects for liberal government in the future. Meanwhile, the Dems must assertively compromise with the republican majority. America needs to heal some of the wounds created by partisan bickering and open up a conversation about sustainable policy. Some say that the Bush administration has already attempted at silencing any dissent; Democrats must take dissenting voices with a grain of salt and moderate their message. Moderation will allow liberals to compromise, cooperate, and move on, while still fighting for the causes they hold ideal.

RNCs

The Republican convention's use of 9/11 to promote president Bush is dishonorable. It is a disingenuous attempt to justify the President's decisions on the War on Terror.

Bush displayed a superficial image of leadership during the aftermath of 9/11. In reality he disregarded many known threats as "too ambiguous" before the attacks. An August memo with the title "Al Queda plans to hijack planes within the U.S." was obviously not clear enough to cut his vacation short, perhaps increase security at airports, or follow leads.

Shortly after the attack, he allowed several members of Bin Laden's family return to Afghanistan without FBI questioning. One would think that they would have some useful information about the man who actually orchestrated these horrible attacks.

Additionally, speakers use 9/11 to justify Bush's actions in Iraq, even though it has been proven that no ties exist between Saddam and the attacks on the World Trade Center.

With all these mistakes, the reality of Bush's leadership is severely shaken. 9/11 was a terrible event that affected all Americans of every political persuasion, not to be used as leverage for this administration.