U.S. withdraws from Iraq

After almost 9 years in Iraq, the United States military has finally withdrawn from the country. Even after nine years, I'm still trying to figure out why were there in the first place. The only concrete thing I can put my finger on is its cost: 4,500 American lives and $800+ billion.

Thanks, George!

Roman Empire

As politicians in Washington use the debt ceiling as political leverage, I am reminded of the end days of the Western Roman Empire.

Rome, at its height, was the greatest civilization to ever exist. It was truly the beacon, sitting on seven hills along the Tiber River, for the whole world to gape in awe. Many of its citizens lived unparalleled lives of posh and hedonism, while few of them had any care or knowledge of the pain and suffering of the other world that existed beyond their vast borders.

Years of the good life had taken a toll on the Roman Empire's ability to function as it once did. Years of war, political greed and corruption, out of control spending, and utter neglect, had brought what some called "The Great Whore" to her knees, and eventually to a mouthful of dust as she collapsed, losing life--finally to die at the hands of the very barbarians she had easily slaughtered by the thousands before her less than stellar demise.

The beacon on the hill was no more. It's people left to fend for themselves as the light fell dim--the Dark Ages.

I have heard, in the past, the United States compared to Rome. I never thought that the United States would actually come to the brink of decay it is now. Perhaps, I didn't want to believe it possible in my lifetime. Like those in Rome, I simply was unable to fathom the very destruction of my nation from within, through my very way of life.

That's a very bleak look at the state of things in this country. We have Republicans and Democrats bargaining away our future in dark rooms and corridors, far away from the light of observation of the people they so eagerly attest to serve. The United States may default on trillions of dollars of debt. The Treasury Department says we have until August 2, but I feel as if that was a rather optimistic view of things. An increase in rhetoric from the White House and Congress has led me to believe that zero hour is now upon us. The world's stock markets are taking notice of Damocles' sword hanging over the largest economic powerhouse in the world. Truly, what will happen to the world economy if the United States is unable to pay its debt? I do not think anyone really knows what will happen; it is without precedent.

America's economy is bloated. The unemployed are in the millions; however, money to the wars is free flowing and only serving to further bankrupt us, those who we once had no fear of are watching closely, as the modern-day whore swells. Their wagons are circling.

America the great, the light is dimming and your ungrateful children continue to need more.

Healthcare

See if you've heard this joke.

A man walks into a bank and hands the teller a note demanding $1 and healthcare. He waits patiently for the police to respond to the robbery and take him into custody. As a ward of the state, he is now receiving the healthcare he couldn't afford on his own.

The only thing is that this really happened. It isn't a joke. It was a reality, recently, for a 59-year-old North Carolina man. As Republicans and Democrats wage a war on the cost of national healthcare--whether you want to call it "Obamacare" or "Obamneycare"--there are people who cannot afford to receive life saving health care. They can't afford medications, medical procedures, or long-term life extending care, whether in public or private facilities.

Our country has the money and medical resources to guarantee each American top-notch medical care for those who cannot afford it through no fault of their own, whether or not they are homeless, laid off from work, injured, and the list can continue.

As American taxpayers foot the bill for two wars, which cost ten-of-billions of dollars annually, we allow our own citizens to suffer and die needlessly. Besides these two wars, we are set to fight another one in Libya. It's time for President Obama to live up to his promise of ending the Bush wars. Thus, bringing home those billions of dollars dumped into a bottomless blackhole located on the other side of the globe. There is no hope that these wars will ever end satisfactorily. My suggestion is to stop Libya before it begins in earnestness. It's not our fight. We weren't there when it began in 1969, why do we insist on being there at the end in 2011? Yes, innocent people are dying there, but the same is true about the United States. In the final analysis, who deserves our money most?

Libya No Fly Zone

The United States is pushing for a No Fly Zone over Libya. Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, such as China, France, and Russia, are not as keen on this idea.

I think that the United States is moving much too quickly on this No Fly Zone idea. We are too invested in Afghanistan and Iraq (yes) to move unilaterally on a Libya No Fly Zone. The United States needs the backing of the Security Council to make any No Fly Zone successful.

This problem will be solved through diplomacy not strong-armed, George W. Bush tactics.

Iraq War Over

A war that should never have been has finally ended after seven bloody years! President Obama declared the war in Iraq essentially ending today at 5pm EST.

This war cost us the lives of Americans, our integrity and respect among the international community. Now it is time to end the disgraceful war in Afghanistan. Both wars have come at a high price. The greatest casualty of all is our dignity as a nation.

Dear President Obama

If I had been elected president of the United States in 2008, I would have done things a lot differently. As presidents go, Barack Obama had a staggering cult following and phenomenal ratings in the polls. How else could he have defeated Hillary Clinton? But, now, I digress.

January 20, 2009, is a day that will go into the history books. American voters threw off the yoke of racial divides and set forth a political revolution, of sorts, in national government. We elected a man that wasn't quite as pale as the ones who came before him. Obama will be remembered for that, surely. 

But I want to remember the promises that got him elected in the first place. Democrats put all of their eggs into a very limited basket. They were going up against a Republican machine that was limping and running out of steam. Democrats had the upper-hand and they won the United States Congress and the presidency. It was truly a remarkable election that opened the doors to true social progress.

The war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan were, and are, unpopular. George W. Bush left an enormous mess for the Obama administration to clean up. But has Obama done that? In a word: no. As a result. Democrats are starting to suffer in the polls. The 2010 election is less than a year away and Democrats in the House and Senate are feeling the effects of promises unfilled. It's not just the wars, though. Obama promised to work with the Congress to get Americans a healthcare system that they deserved. Healthcare is a civil right, after all. It is now January 2010 and Congress is meandering toward a watered down version of the promised reform, even though they hold a stark majority in Congress.

Weird.

January 20, 2009, would have been a much different day had I  been president, for sure. After being sworn in and delivering my inauguration speech to the world, I would have high-tailed it from the steps of the Capitol to the Rotunda where I would have signed two Executive Orders. 

The first order would have required all American military involvement in Iraq to cease on July 20, 2010. The order would have further stipulated that American forces currently in the country would be withdrawn in equal three six month phases. The second order would have required all American military involvement in Afghanistan to cease by January 20, 2011. As in Iraq, American forces would be withdrawn in an equal four six month phases. With my plan, the war in Iraq would be over and the war in Afghanistan would be three-fourths over before the 2010 mid-term election, which would ease the minds of American voters and demonstrate to them that, yes, wars can be ended in an orderly and responsible way. People say, "That can't be done." Yes, it can. I just made it happen. 

Also, in the afternoon of January 20, 2009, my administration would have presented to Congress a healthcare bill providing each and every American with access to appropriate healthcare. Would I have expected it to pass on the same day? Of course, not! But the whole idea needed to be in the minds of Americans from day one. In my administration, there would have been no time for late night parties. Parties are for when the job is done.  

I would have been on Capitol Hill frequently to see how progress was going on my healthcare bill. There would be no need for phone calls, I'd be there. Strong-arm tactics often work and are necessary when you believe in something deeply. As a teacher, I have a fool-proof method of getting something done. When all other options of compromise and cajoling have failed I reach deep into myself and let loose a psychopath. Between a yell and a hushed voice, and two inches from their face, I start saying over-and-over, "Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it!," while looking in their startled eyes and pounding my index finger onto the table. I love the look on the person's face as I do it. It is complete and utter fear and confusion. In their mind they are thinking, "This guy is completely nuts, I better do what he says or who knows what terrible things are going to happen!" I have a 100% success rate using that method. I would be happy to use that same method in the office of a senator or congressman/woman. There is no shame in winning.

I realize there are many, many other issues that cannot be solved in a single term as president, including the economic meltdown. But the whole point of being president is consistently running for office. After all, the next general election is less than four years away when you take the oath of office as president.

Whine, Whine, Whine

The United States Senate is dragging its feet deep into the ground as it entrenches itself for what will shape up to be a real let down for the American people. 

I am a bit puzzled when the Democrats hold a majority and they cannot get anything accomplished. I remember that the Republicans did whatever they wanted when they had a majority. They certainly never built any bridges of consensus with the Democratic minority. Now, Democrats are having to water down the healthcare overhaul plan, which really will end up being a screwed up version of what we have always had, which is essentially the middle class and upper class being able to afford healthcare, while the lower class has to do without healthcare or depend on public assistance, such as Medicaid. 

As we all know, Barack Obama was never fully behind universal healthcare. His words before the 2008 presidential election were merely face time with those who wanted equity in our health system. Hillary Clinton was adamant that every single American be insured, either privately or publicly. Another disturbing piece to this ugly puzzle is the fact President Obama is unwilling to fight for his own bill. He went to Congress once. If I were him, and it was truly important to me, I'd be on Capitol Hill every single day until the members of Congress did what was right for the American people. 

Now let's move on to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama promised that these wars would be ended within 18 months of him becoming president. Instead, we see escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan by sending an additional 30,000 American troops into that lost country. What is the point, really? Will these additional troops benefit the people of Afghanistan? I do not believe they will. It is merely a way to appease those people who say Obama is too weak to be Commander-in-Chief. It takes more courage to do what is right, such as withdrawing our troops, rather than giving into to the policies of George W. Bush's two terms as president. 

In the end, isn't that who Barack Obama is? He is merely a newer, more eloquent, dolled up version of George W. Bush. I hate to say it, but it is true. He didn't really accomplish anything that he set out to do. Healthcare reform is a joke, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan press on, and the economy is still reeling. It may have only been 11 months, but I really believe that more could have been accomplished. He should have hit the floor running on January 20, 2009 at 12:01pm, but instead he dilly-dallied around and let the special interests dig in a bit deeper, so they can do what they do best: run the country from the inside.

I may sound bitter. That's because I am. In our greatest time of need, we needed a doer rather than a dreamer. We needed someone who can get the job done, without having to learn on the fly.

Baghdad Massacre

With 95+ people dead in a series of bombings across Baghdad, the Iraqi government is facing one of its largest tests since American forces scaled down troops and missions in key regions and cities over two months ago.

In all honesty, I believe this sort of attack will be the mainstay of Iraqi life for the foreseeable future. This is what the George W. Bush "democracy" model looks like in Iraq. It is based on intimidation, carnage, mayhem and death.

What do the days, weeks and months ahead hold for the innocent people of Iraq?

Iraq setting the deadline for troop withdrawal

Iraq's cabinet decided it would be okay to allow US forces to stay in their country until 2011.

That's convenient. It doesn't cost them a dime, but they are happy to spend my tax money on their civil war.

If Barack Obama does not keep his promise to begin pulling out American troops in the first 100 days of his presidency then it will be a fatal mistake for his career as president. American voters based large parts of their votes on Obama's promises of bringing our troops out of Iraq and rebuilding the economy.

Don't let us down!

Democratic Congress

One year ago the voters of the United States decided to change course in our country by sending a Democratic majority to the Congress.

As one of the voters, I am disappointed at the direction this majority has taken--or not taken--our country. Many Americans wanted to end the war in Iraq, or at least curb it, but it continues to rage today as healthily as it did one year ago.

Congress will more than likely approve a $70 billion appropriation bill for the war before the holiday recess. Why did we need a Democratic majority, when the Republicans were doing so well? Is there some pull the president has over the Congress?

On December 6, Congress said it could not support a bill that made crimes against homosexuals hate crimes because it contained an appropriation for the war in Iraq. I hypothesized that it would be only a matter of time before they passed the bill. Ironically, it has only been a smidge over a week and they are ready to cave in to the demands of George W. Bush.

My question is now, why would they not support the December 6th bill, however, they now support passing the funding so readily? Is it because the Department of Defense is going to lay-off some of its civilian workforce? Did the president cast a spell over them?

So what?

The White House is determined to wage this war beyond all human contention. If the secretary of defense has to give some people pink slips, then they can blame the one person who is directly related to their misfortune: the president of the United States.

The Congress was elected to do the work of the American people, not the bidding of the president. We had a rubber stamp Republican Congress before, and now we have simply traded that travesty for a rubber stamp Democratic Congress. I honestly believed that a year later the United States would be on a different road, which included Iraq troop reductions.

It is just a shame that we had the opportunity to set a new direction for this country, but it has been squandered for submission and conformity to the status quo.

Veterans Day

When I think of soldiers risking their lives on the battlefield for a failed international policy (i.e., George W. Bush), I seldom envision a soldier who is young.

Today, at my school, I hosted a soldier, from the National Guard, who spoke to various social studies classes about Veterans Day. What struck me most was that someone who is supposed to be tough has braces on his teeth. I couldn't help but laugh a little to myself about it, but he was cute anyhow.

I wonder if he spent a year in Iraq with braces? (That's the one question that I never asked him, but I really wanted to ask.)

What also struck me was how upbeat he was about the Bush policies relating to Iraq. He refused to accept that Iraq is a nation in chaos. Instead, he stated that the media sensationalizes the things that happen there. (Of that I have no doubt.) He said that he believed that many things, from his perspective, are going quite well with the war. (It's hard to debate someone without firsthand knowledge, but that didn't stop me).

Genocide: Why Now?

Why is the United States Congress suddenly concerned with alleged genocide that happened almost one hundred years ago?

The government, and citizens, of Turkey are up-in-arms over a House of Representatives resolution that would label the death of 1.5 million Armenians, during World War I, as genocide by the Ottoman Empire (which was centered in modern day Turkey).

One Turkish general says the measure amounts to "shooting [oneself] in the foot," considering that a vast majority of Iraqi logistics and cargo are routed through Turkey. It stands to reason that the Turkish government would become uncooperative with the United States if such a resolution were ratified.

Why is Congress so concerned about this event from the past?

Reason would dictate that such a resolution might be best served in the United Nations, or even leave it to the government of Armenia to determine whether or not genocide occurred in their nation. I have not heard from the Armenians on this issue. They seem more relaxed than the American government. (Maybe we should take a lesson from them.)

Some argue that the resolution comes on the heels of a possible Turkish military incursion into northern Iraq to root out Kurdish rebels. The United States could use its resolution as a bargaining chip to get the Turks to stand down from their military invasion of northern Iraq.

Of course, I believe the two are wholly and systematically unrelated.

Talabani: "Let my people go!"

The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, wants the United States to let his Iranian friend go.

The U.S.-led coalition maintains that Agay Mahmoody Farhadi is a member of an elite team that trains and equips terrorists in Iraq. Talabani sent a strongly opinionated letter to the United States ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and General David Petraeus, demanding that the individual be released.

In his letter, Talabani stated, "Therefore, I express to you our outrage for these American forces arresting this Iranian civil official visitor without informing or cooperating with the government of the Kurdistan region, which means insult and disregard for its rights."

The Iranians, also, have threatened to close their border with Iraq, along the Kurdistan region, if he is not released.

It would seem the government of Iraq has chosen its ally in this case, and it is not the United States. If the Iraqi government wants to continue its affiliation with terrorists organizations, such as those sponsored by Iran, then I say let's let them make their own decisions. But in the meantime we must work to withdraw our interests from Iraq, which includes our military.

Senator Hillary Clinton calls President Bush out on Iraq

After this week's testimony before Congress, by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, about the situation in Iraq, Senator Clinton has forwarded a letter to the president, in hopes that his national Thursday night address to the American people will be honest and open about the situation in Iraq.

Dear Mr. President:

As you prepare to address the nation tomorrow, I write to request that you seize the opportunity and offer the American people a candid assessment of the challenges that we continue to face in Iraq and offer a change in course to your failing strategy.

Over the past two days, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have testified before Congress about the current situation in Iraq. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker both have long and distinguished careers in service to our nation and in their testimony, they tried to put the best possible face on the difficult situation that we confront in Iraq.

In their testimony, however, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker could not mask the fact that the ostensible goal for increasing U.S. troops in Iraq earlier this year - to create the "space" for Iraqi political reconciliation - has not been met. And indeed, serious concerns have been raised about many of the metrics cited by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in support of their assertion that progress is being made in Iraq.

General Petraeus testified that he has proposed a decrease of five combat brigades in Iraq by July/August 2008 and press reports have suggested that you plan to announce your acceptance of this recommendation when you address the nation tomorrow evening. However, if completed, these troop reductions would merely bring troop levels in Iraq back to the levels before you announced the "surge" in January of this year. Moreover, as was discussed during General Petraeus's testimony, troop levels in Iraq must decrease by this amount in order to avoid extending Army deployments beyond 15 months and straining our military even further.

What you are planning to tell the American people tomorrow night is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. Mr. President, that is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress, and to the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our troops home, and end this war.

As Commander-in-Chief you have the authority and ability to greatly accelerate the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and to bring so many more troops home so much faster. I strongly urge you to choose this course of action.

Mr. President, it has been nearly four and a half years since you landed on an aircraft carrier and stood before the American people under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." Do not repeat that mistake on Thursday night. Do not misrepresent the facts about the situation on the ground. And do not portray an unavoidable reduction in U.S. troops to pre-surge levels that would occur anyway as a marker of success. Be candid with the American people. They deserve it.

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

General Petraeus testifies before Congress

On the heels of the upcoming so-called Iraq report card, General David Petraeus has come to testify before Congress on the Iraq safety issue.

Many groups, such as moveon.org, have characterized the slant that Petraeus is portraying as being kind to the Bush administration. There are many groups, in Iraq, that find the information contained in the report is also biased and not wholly truthful.

I suspect that the reality lies somewhere in the realm of marking the report as carelessly untruthful. Is that a lie, on the part of General Petraeus, and the information the Iraq report card contains?

Yes.

Labor Day Business

On his third super duper secret trip, George W. Bush has traveled to Iraq again.

Of course, we know that he only went to the so-called "Green Zone," since the rest of Baghdad is much too brutal for him to be out-and-about. If Iraq were safe for democracy, then he could announce his trip beforehand.

Bush says that Iraq is moving steadily toward the principles of democracy, including those infamous benchmarks, that he has advocated since 2003, but his actions--such as traveling secretly and staying in a safety zone--speak much more than his words.

It's time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis. Almost five years is more than enough.

Bush attacks Hillary for the truth

After Hillary Clinton's first Iowa presidential campaign ad hit the air, showing the inconsistencies of the Bush administration for the past six years, George W. Bush was on the war path.

Bush's retort was that he helped to bring down the cost of healthcare for seniors. Okay, that sounds pretty good, but could he have done much better? By adding extra benefits, through Medicare, senior citizens can get their medicines at reduced prices, yes, but many times the reduced price is still too steep for someone on a fixed income.

Bush has stepped out on veterans returning from his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans' Affairs cannot completely administrate the capital's veterans' hospital, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Simply, where is the funding?

Hmmm...is Bush really mad because Senator Clinton highlighted only a few of his larger failures?

I think all avenues lead to a single, unifying answer: YES!

Hillary takes on the draft, Bush

After the Bush-styled war czar, Lt. General Douglas Lute, testified that the draft might be a viable alternative to the strains felt by the current all-volunteer armed forces, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration has leaked that it has always had that option on the table.

Senator Clinton has called on President Bush to clarify his position on the military draft.

Draft

The president's war advisor, Lt. General Douglas Lute, is a raving moron.

In order to maintain the morale of the military, he thinks that a draft would do more to make those currently serving in the military--on a volunteer basis--feel better about their service. It might cut down on the number of tours of duty they have to complete. In addition, it makes their families feel more at ease about their loved one's service.

Aw, how touching.

Perhaps, instead of panhandling to Bush's incessant belief that war in Iraq is good for America, he might want to tell the president that the war should be ended immediately.

But for the most part, Bush is happy with the current status quo, inasmuch as the military is concerned. He says that the all-volunteer armed forces is just peachy with him.

In Iowa, Hillary talks about the END of the war in Iraq