Splintered Iraq?

Iraq WILL NOT unify behind a resistance movement. That will keep America from facing the fate they met in Vietnam. But what if "Iraq" ceased to be. What if, the guerillas were supported regionally by the populace (say, throughout the so-called Sunni triangle). What if the insurgents decided to cut their losses and just tried to unify the Sunni areas of Iraq? This theory of course depends upon the assumption that Iraqi insurgents are largely Baathist and pro-Saddam and not foreign fighters. Right now I can't identify a coherent strategy behind the attacks, but if the attackers unified behind the aforementioned goal - to take the Sunni Triangle - then I foresee a bloody battle for the US in the future.

Update, 4:00PM - Here is the article that made me think about these issues: US loses traction in Sunni Triangle

Media coverage despicable

Iraqi insurgents shot down a Blackhawk today in Iraq, killing 6. They also killed 2 in a grenade attack in Northern Iraq. I read this on the internet and turned on the TV to find out more details and was shocked to see wall to wall Rosie O'Donnell coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News. Once again, celebrity gossip trumps the conflict in Iraq.

I upgraded my Blogger account yesterday, and as a result, I now can add pictures to the blog. The ads have also been removed.

The first picture I'm featuring is of our very own President of the United States making a speech earlier today and enthusiastically saluting the audience.

Additionally, I also have a hit counter on the blog now (a private one).

Clarification on Dean

My analysis of the Dean-Confederate flag controversy has been sort of muddled. Here are two articles that pretty much sum up my position.

Paul Krugman's column

Joan Walsh's column
note: Joan Walsh is a rabid Dean supporter, so keep that in mind

Remember Lynyrd Skynyrd's support of Jimmy Carter in the 1970s? They raised money for him, played concerts at his events and helped him quite a bit. These are the same guys who wear confederate flags around their backs nearly every show they play. That's my point. Democrats need to win back the Lynyrd Skynyrd voters and the elitist comments by Kerry and Gephardt will not help them.

Yet another blow for the ban on icky procedures

A federal judge in New York put another block on the partial birth abortion ban. I would expect the Supreme Court to visit this case in the next year, and to come down on the side of abortion supporters. The ban, besides being vague (doctors don't know when they are violating it and when they aren't) doesn't protect the health of the mother, as I've said time and again.

This partial birth abortion ban is political feasible because the disgusting nature of the procedure, but, and I hate to get graphic, should we ban the removal of cancerous testicles, blistery foot corns, or colon blockage? These are equally disgusting, but does that mean they should be banned? I find the logic similar. This is no different from any other abortion procedure, except that it is more gruesome. Does the fetus "suffer" more? Certainly not. Does the mother suffer less? This law leaves abortions that are performed during the same time period legal, just as long as they are performed by dismembering the fetus inside of the womb and forcing the mother to miscarry the broken apart pieces of the baby. These pieces, which can include bones, harm the health of the mother's uterus (needless to say).

And yet Bush and Republicans lie about this bill day after day. They frame it as a law that protects infants the day of delivery from having their brains sucked out by wishy washy mothers who suddenly decide to abort.

Unfortunately the electorate is not intelligent enough to understand this issue. I barely understand the vague worded law and what it entails. It took me weeks of reading to really understand what partial birth abortion actually is. We must rely on cues from elites. That's what this democracy is about. We can't all be policy wonks. Unfortunately, the elites are blatantly distorting this issue in order to further the anti-abortion agenda.

Do I blame the Democrats for voting for this procedure? Not really. They can count on the Supreme Court to overturn it, just as the counted on Clinton's veto in the 90s.

Goodbye Sharpton, Kucinich, Braun

Please get out of the race, all of you. You are an embarrassment to the party and really to the nation.

Kucinich - when I hear your name I imagine you commanding an army of walking talking vegetables to victory over a legion of dairy farmers with pitch forks. That sounds ridiculous - but that's what I think of. This guy is a joke.

Sharpton - you're hilarious, but seriously, get lost. You've made your point. You're a credible black leader now, not just a sideshow. You can lead get out the vote efforts and speak for black America, etc.

Mosely-Braun - you are a corrupt FORMER Senator who is running just to restore your good name. That's nice. But should you be allowed to come to the debates? No - probably not. And while I'm on this subject - can a credible female candidate PLEASE run for President on the Democratic side? Dianne Feinstein, I'm staring directly at you.

I'm expressing anger similar to TNR's rant against the Democratic nominating process. Why are these candidates allowed to debate? I know we have an inclusive party, but isn't 6 candidates enough at this point? Are Sharpton, Kucinich, or Mosely-Braun likely to carry any precinct outside of Mars? If not, what's the point in including them? I mean, sure, I'd love to be on TV and debate with these guys. I'm a Democrat. Can anyone just walk up to Terry McAuliffe and participate in the debates?

Bush changes US policy in the Middle East

In a truly bold move, the US has changed their official policy towards the Middle East. We are now calling for Democracy in the region. This may not sound that revolutionary, but think about the implications. We are not implicitly calling for the overthrow of friendly regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan (plus some not so friendly regimes in Egypt, Iran, and Syria). It will be interesting to see the reaction from the Saudi royal family or King Abdul of Jordan to what amounts to a call for them to cede power to their people.

Some claim that people in the Middle East don't want democracy, but surely they want something more democratic than what they have today. I agree that we in the United States shouldn't see our way as the only way, but it is naive to believe that citizens of the Arab world do not want radical change within their countries. The Arab world, right now, is a miserable failure on most all accounts. Not counting oil, if you add up all exports from the Arab world, the number is actually less than the total exports of Finland. That's over 100 million people in the Middle East and less than 10 million in Finland.

More on Dean

I'm not that strong of a Dean supporter, but I'm continually amazed by the furor that is breaking out over his comments about wanting to be inclusive of "confederate flag pickup truck voters". I'm mostly surprised that anger is breaking out in the south over his comments. They are calling them, "condescending" or "elitist".

Dean was trying to be inclusive with his comments, and now he's being attacked from both flanks. I can't see how this will hurt him in the general election, should he get the nomination.

I was originally impressed by Edwards' statements to Dean during the debate, but now I'm unsure. Here are Edward's words:
"The last thing we need in the South is somebody like you coming down and telling us what we need to do." He told Dean the remarks were condescending. "The people I grew up with, the vast majority of them, they don't drive around with Confederate flags on pickup trucks," Edwards said.

A large number of people in the south DO have confederate flags on their pickups and a large number of these people actually vote for Democrats (at least in local races) because of economic concerns. Edwards' statement both 1. denies the existence of these people and 2. probably doesn't play well in the north. It's alright to attack Dean for mentioning the flag, but to claim that no one in the South waves the flag is dishonest.

I guess that this controversy might have the effect of deflating support for Dean, but, in the past, he has only been helped by attacks from his own party.

Dean's comments

I haven't really done much analysis on this except to say that Dean was making an interesting attempt at looking "electable". These comments were not aimed at the South, but rather, at Democratic primary voters who worry about Dean's electablity. Dean chose the wrong words, however. He should have replaced "confederate flag voters" with "gun owning voters", "nascar voters" or "beer drinking voters". Anything besides the confederate flag. This statement has enraged both liberals (who hate the confederate flag) and southern conservatives (who have a cultural inferiority complex). More on this later.

Could the war have been avoided?

This important New York Times article suggests that it could.

Worst job record since Hoover?

This attack on Bush's job record is shamefully dishonest. First of all, population growth mostly led to this. Secondly, the timing of the downturn was perfect to create these numbers. It began RIGHT after Bush came to office and is going to pretty much end by the time he gets out of office (2004, hopefully).

Secondly, this recession has been pretty mild compared to some other historic recessions (1991, 1983 come to mind).

Big surprise

Less than 30 minutes after the partial birth abortion ban was signed by President Bush, it was overturned by a federal court in Nebraska. That's ironic since it was Carhart v Stenberg (Carhart vs a Nebraska state law) that originally decided that a partial birth ban was illegal.

The problem, of course, is that this ban ignores the health of the mother. President Bush, who has a tendency to lie lately, described the ban as a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."

I'm not a pro-abortion extremist. I'm just someone who has looked at this law and extensively studied what partial birth abortion ACTUALLY IS. It's a procedure used rarely during the second trimester when the baby has been shown to be deformed or a threat to the mother's life exists. In these RARE cases, it is safer for to dilate the cervix, and then suck the baby's brains out. The head is quite big at this point, and to not do so (to basically do the same thing, only inside of the mother's womb) would put the mother's future fertility in danger, if not her life.

Is there a third way for Democrats?

So far I have only really talked about 2 choices that we have in Iraq:

1. Leave (a horrible choice)
2. Stay (a painful choice)

A third way has to be discussed. We may have to cede control over to the UN. But if we are going to take this course, we must do it soon. In time, NO ONE will be willing to step into this mess.

Reason for hope

I just outlined a bunch of weaknesses for Democratic candidates, but I forgot something that is very important.

In my political science classes, the instructors often quiz us on daily political occurances and try to relate the subject matter (whether it's political theory, policy issues, etc.) to current events. I'm often the ONLY person who raises his hand and answers these questions. Granted, I know a few other political science majors who follow politics to the same degree as me, but there aren't that many. So if political science majors at the University of Virginia aren't paying attention to this race, then is the general public? Of course not.

What we have is a low information electorate. That's inspiring for those of us who have enough information about the current Democratic field to feel uneasy.

Waffling on Dean

Well, I'm waffling on Dean again. Just when he attracted me back to his camp, I read some recent statements of his. A couple of months ago I had some hope that Dean would abandon his pledge to repeal ALL of Bush's tax cuts, but alas, he has not. This is political suicide. Why repeal middle class tax cuts? They don't even account for much in the budget. Their POLITICAL weight, however, is quite large. This is all of course ignoring the obvious fact that not even 20 Senators would vote for this tax increase on the middle class that Dean is proposing. So why is he proposing it? Why is he committing political suicide? There were hints that he would come up with his own middle class tax cut to counter balance the repeal of the Bush cuts, but where is that package? Until I see it, forget Dean.

This brings me to a point about Democratic economic policies. Why shouldn't we be for tax cuts for the middle class (or at least against repealing them)? It's a demand side policy - Keynsian. Give money to the consumers and they will spend it, thereby heating up the economy. Give it to the rich, and they will invest some, but they will mostly SAVE it, thereby doing very little for the economy.

So where does that leave me? Kerry is "aloof", Clark has NO campaign (except outright lies about being against the war), Edwards is too young, and Gephardt's fiscal plans are similar to Dean's, except much more irresponsible.

I guess that leaves me with John Kerry, Lt. Governor of Dukakus.

Tariq Aziz

Read this Washington Post article on the interrogation of Tariq Aziz.

Based on Aziz and other sources that I've read, I'm starting to think that Saddam did not purchase/possess and WMD, but he tried to subtly hint to his neighbors that he possessed them. This led intelligence agencies, particularly in the US, to believe that he had them. In reality, Saddam was probably grappling with the possibility of acquiring more rudimentary weapons like long range missiles.

Florida Democratic Party in disarray

The Florida Democratic Party, the best I can tell, is comatose. Bob Graham announced today that he was not running for reelection. This further complicates the Democrats' chances in Florida in 2004.

Support for the resistance

Here is the doomsday scenario for the US occupation in Iraq:

Arab opinion, which as of now is simply against the occupation, turns in favor of the resistance movement inside of Iraq. We're already seeing currents of this in Egypt and elsewhere. Many Arabs were shamed and embarrassed by the quick Iraqi collapse in the spring. It is therefore not THAT surprising that they would view a resistance positively. Historically, those who have stood up to the west have been lionized. When Nasser moved to nationalize the Suez Canal he became an Arab hero. A cohesive pan-Arab movement in support of the insurgents would dangerous because if this type of Arab-nationalism spread into Iraq itself, the citizens of Iraq might decide to support the insurgents.

Right now most Iraqis simply want order restored to their country. They want jobs and a government. Iraqis want the US to leave, but they are largely ambivalent towards the insurgents, if not negative. It's much easier for the US to root out the terrorists and attackers if the public does not support them. If Iraqi opinion shifts in favor of the terrorists, then we've got another Vietnam on our hands folks.

Dean, Confederate flags, pickup trucks

Here's a excerpt from a recent AP piece about Dean:

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," the former Vermont governor was quoted as saying in Saturday's Des Moines Register. "We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

This is a very interesting move by Dean. As much as I deplore pickup trucks and confederate flags, I can see how this sort of rhetoric could possibly appeal to Nascar dads. Combine this with Dean's pro-gun stance and that makes Dean quite possibly a culturally feasible candidate in the south, or at least not a complete disaster.

More "success"

Judging by yesterday's attacks the coalition must have had a successful week in Iraq. It is in fact our very success that prompts the attacks from insurgents, according to Bush.

Meanwhile, the Washington Monthly believes that military votes will shift into Democrats' hands in the next presidential election.