Cheney v. Congress, Round II

Finally pushed over the edge, Charlie Rangel lost it in today's New York Post and called a spade a spade. In this case, calling Dick Cheney a "real son of a bitch". It was the latest, and most personal, Democratic response to Cheney's traveling circus, a.k.a. the smear and fear campaign of '06. A couple excerpts from Congressman Rangel:

"He's such a real son of a bitch, he just enjoys a confrontation," Rangel fumed, describing himself as "warm and personable." Rangel said Cheney may need to go to "rehab" for "whatever personality deficit he may have suffered."

...Asked whether he was resurrecting over-the-top charges he made last year that he believes Cheney is mentally ill, Rangel cracked, "I don't think he's shot anyone in the face lately, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt."

But don't feel too bad for Mr. Cheney because he's fired his fair share of personal potshots. And after all, at least Rangel wasn't defaming an elected official in the halls of Congress when he unleashed his tirade.

Perspective

On ABC’s This Week, Michael J. Fox discussed the effects of his Parkinson’s, advocated for embryonic stem cell research, and addressed criticisms from Rush Limbaugh and other partisan hacks. Despite the tremors which dramatically affect his physical behavior and the ability for him to communicate as effectively as he’d like, it’s a powerful interview that puts the entire issue into perspective.

E.J. Dionne, who followed Fox on the show’s next segment, summarized it well: "If you put Michael J. Fox up against Rush Limbaugh in a public debate, which is in effect what you did today, what's happening all over the country, we know that except for Rush Limbaugh's conservative base, the vast majority will shift to the Michael J. Fox side. And I think that what Fox did is made the most compelling case for embryonic stem cell research, which is if you're against it, you also have to be against in vitro fertilization. And no one who is against it really wants to say that, because you're going to create these embryos that will be destroyed."

A few excerpts:

Stephanopoulos: Rush apologized — I guess he apologized for saying you were acting. He didn't call you, did he?

Fox: He would've had more qualifications at an AA meeting. No, you know, that's beside the point. It really isn't germane to the issue. It's funny because, what I'm talking about is about hope. It's about promise. It's about moving forward. It's a forward-looking attitude about what this country is capable of and what we can accomplish for our citizens.

And so if we get sidetracked into a dialogue about whether sick people have a right to display their symptoms in public, you know, that reaction. I think it was more disappointing, from the point of view of— The campaigns, like the [Republican Senate candidate Michael] Steele campaign, their spokesman said, "It was in poor taste," which really— I mean, I'm out here and I expect that. Being in the lead, I'll take some hits. And that's fine. I'm a big boy. Well, not height-wise.

I'm experienced enough and mature enough to take my licks. But I know the community was really hurt by it. And it really brings up the specter of, "Go away. Shut the windows. Shut the doors. Close the curtains, and suffer, and don't let us know," because it's a fearful response.

And what the irony is, is that those people that are being pitied or being asked to suffer in silence don't want to suffer, don't see themselves as pitiable, don't see themselves as victims — see themselves as citizens, participants in the process, and people with aspirations and hopes and dreams for the future. They are way more positive as a whole than what I've seen from the community that opposes them.

[Later]

Stephanopoulos: You mentioned the Steele campaign. Both the Steele campaign and the Talent campaign have said you're not being fair to them, because they want to expand stem cell research, too, they say, but it's adult stem cell research.

Fox: Right, and I agree with them on adult stem cell research. I mean, let's talk about what we agree on. I agree that stem cell research is fantastic; we should pursue it. I agree that we should have no human cloning. We're against that. We're against egg farming, that notion. We agree on all of that.

The only thing is, we would like to include embryonic stem cell research, which our scientists say has the best hope for cures and breakthroughs. See, we're in agreement. I think that when they say talk about not being fair, there has been, again, not as much focus on the content of the ad. It's really the appearance of the ad. But really, because all the statements are verifiable and to direct comparison, it is, in effect, an ad for their position. If you see the ad and you agree with their position, and there are people that do, then it should incentive you to vote for them.

[Later]

Stephanopoulos: Do you think there's any way to finally find common ground with people who do believe in the end that this is tampering with tiny lives?

Fox: Well, again, the point has been made that these lives are going to be thrown away, anyway. They are marked for destruction — thousands of frozen embryos that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. We have routinely, before this conversation started on stem-cell research, we have for years thrown them away.
And that's the other thing, you know, this idea of snowflake babies: We're in favor of that. The truth of the matter is that it is only going to account for a tiny fraction—

Stephanopoulos: Those are the embryos that are adopted and then brought—

Fox: Absolutely. Who would have a problem with that? That's fantastic. But it will, in the end, account for only a tiny fraction of those eggs. And so our point is that the pro-life position is to use that — what up to this point is waste, of literal waste that is going to be thrown away — use it to save lives and to ensure lives for the future. I
mean, they talk about unborn. Unborn kids are going to be born with diabetes.

People are going to be dealing with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's or to Parkinson's or kids that are going to be injured, have spinal cord injury. That those kids may be born into a world that has the answers for that. That's our position.

[Later]

Stephanopoulos: One of the things he says is that when you're talking about all these cures, you're giving people false hope and that it's cruel.

Fox: It's so funny. What is crueler, to not have hope or to have hope? And it's not false hope. It's a very informed hope. I mean, it's hope that's informed by the opinion of our leading scientists, almost to the point of unanimity that embryonic stem cells, because they're pluripotent, because they have the capacity to be anything, and, are truly— Will [it] be a straight path to victory? Probably not. Probably you'll have stutter steps along the way.

In fact, they just did some work where they found that it actually relieved the symptoms of Parkinson's in one test, but there some residue, some tissue residue that built up, which is not ideal. But two steps forward, one step forward, one step back, you know, it's a process, it's how this country was built. It's what we do, you know. It seems to me that in the last few years, eight, 10 years, we've just stopped, we've become incurious and un-ambitious.

And hope, I mean, hope is— I don't want to get too corny about it, but isn't that what the person in the harbor with the thing—? It's about hope. And so to characterize hope as some sort of malady or some kind of flaw of character or national weakness is, to me, really counter to what this country is about.

Stephanopoulos: You're supporting it through your foundation. A lot of states are supporting it. What do you say to those who say, "You know, we don't need the federal government to get in the middle of this right now, and it's too divisive an issue?"

Fox: Well, the federal government has to be involved, because on one level, you talk about limitations; it's not just a matter of the stem cells being limited, but the restriction on federal funding. If you have an institution, a facility that can do this kind of work and it receives any federal funding at all, you lose that if you do, if you take a cell out of a Petri dish on government property. So you have to have duplication of facilities.

So now our resources are going into scientists having to duplicate federal facilities at enormous expense in order to do the most rudimentary work with stem cells, with embryonic stem cells. You have researchers that can't get funding. And so you have young researchers that are not going into the field. It's the iterations of limitation are endless. So you say: Why can't the private sector get involved? Because they have to duplicate the entire resources of the federal government in order to do it. It's just not practical.

[Later]

Fox: ...You know, that's the other notion that was put out there, was that I somehow was recruited by the Democratic Party.

Stephanopoulos: Democratic shill, I think was the word.

Fox: Democratic shill, yes. I have to look up shill in the dictionary. I think it has something to do with supporting someone whose beliefs you don't believe in for ulterior reason or something.

But, yeah, no, I'm not a shill for the Democratic Party. I approached them. I sat down to find out what candidates are pro-stem cell in races where they're opposed by anti-stem cell candidates. And I had no predisposition toward Democrats or Republicans. It'd be fine with me either way.

In fact, a Republican candidate who's pro-stem cell would be someone I'd really like to talk to. And in fact in the past I've supported, I've done commercials for Arlen Specter, who is a very aggressive pro-stem cell champion. And I know that there are others, you know. There are people like Orrin Hatch and Danforth and others who've thought about it, weighed it really carefully and found that its pro-life possibilities aren't counter to their previous positions. This is a pro-life position, and this is the responsibility of our leadership to take it down this path. It will help Americans.

Politics Over Promise

The issue of embryonic stem cell research has reemerged in the 2006 elections and it’s been interesting to see how both sides have articulated their views. Those who oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research have mostly tried to skirt the issue but their statements have generally boiled down to something like this: “I have consistently been a proponent of stem cell research because of the promise it brings to millions of Americans. However, I am against the federal funding of embryonic stem cells because I believe it is immoral to utilize or destroy human embryos in the name of science.”

So, let’s break down that statement into its two suppositions.

#1: “Even though I oppose embryonic stem cell research, I am a proponent of research on alternative stem cell lines that yield just as much promise.”

To claim that you fully support stem cell research because you support research on adult stem cells and cord blood is disingenuous because there is no serious opposition to those efforts. On the contrary, it would be more accurate to label them as impediments to stem cell research because nearly all experts agree that research on embryonic stem cells offers advantages that adult stem cells simply do not. That is despite the fact that adult stem cell research has a 40 year head start on embryonic stem cell research and has enjoyed a sustained funding commitment from the National Institutes of Health.

A group of 80 Nobel laureates addressed this point in a letter to President Bush on February 22, 2001:

“It is premature to conclude that adult stem cells have the same potential as embryonic stem cells -- and that potential will almost certainly vary from disease to disease. Current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential. Therefore, for disorders that prove not to be treatable with adult stem cells, impeding human pluripotent stem cell research risks unnecessary delay for millions of patients who may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult stem cells is evaluated.”

A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences substantiates that claim:

“Adult stem cells are rare, difficult to identify and purify, and when grown in culture, are difficult to maintain in the undifferientiated state. It is because of those limitations that even stem cells from bone marrow, the type most studied, are not available in sufficient numbers to support many potential applications of regenerative medicine.”

#2: “Utilizing embryonic stem cells for research is immoral.”

The claim that utilizing embryonic stem cells for research is destroying human life is disingenuous. It’s disingenuous because the legislation that passed Congress would have allowed federal funding for this research only on stem cell lines derived under strict ethical requirements from excess in vitro fertilization embryos. Therefore, it simply would have used those excess embryos formed in fertility clinics that were slated for destruction. If you oppose the destruction of those embryos, that’s one thing. If you condone that practice while opposing embryonic stem cell research, then you’re either deeply confused or you’re shamelessly appealing to your evangelical base.

Senator Orrin Hatch, an ultra conservative and pro-lifer, is a staunch supporter of this legislation because he believes it’s possible to be both anti-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research. “A critical part of being pro-life is to support measures that help the living. And this research enhances, not diminishes human life. If encouraged, it can improve the lives of millions of Americans and could lead to new scientific frontiers not now in sight.” He further explains;

“As part of the fertility treatment process, it is inevitable that there will be some test tube embryos that will not be needed and will never be implanted in a mother’s womb. And let me be clear here, I believe that the highest and best use of a human embryo is to be used by loving parents to add to their family. I wholeheartedly support adoption of spare embryos and would give adoption precedence over use for research. I think most would agree with me on this.

But the fact of the matter today is that there may exist at any point in time more than 400,000 such unused embryos in the United States and each year tens of thousands of such spare embryos are routinely and unceremoniously discarded and destroyed. It is from these embryos that scientists have derived stem cell lines.

A stem cell in a petri dish or frozen in a refrigerator will never, even in 100 years, become more than stem cells. They lack the breath of life. I believe that life begins in the mother’s womb, not in a scientist’s laboratory.”

In 2001, President Bush permitted federal funding for embryonic stem cell lines created prior to August 2001. For a President who sees the world in black and white, it was an interesting decision because it placed a totally arbitrary date and time on such a “moral issue.” It was moral to conduct research on stem cells created prior to that date and time, but immoral to do so on those created after that date and time. Further, recent developments have cast doubt on the usefulness of the stem cells authorized for use by the President. It makes utilization of additional lines that much more critical. Senator Tom Harkin, the champion of stem cell research in the Senate, explains:

“The Administration originally said 78 stem cell lines were eligible for federally funded research, meaning they had to be derived before the totally arbitrary date and time of August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. Today, only 22 of those 78 lines are available for research – not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity that scientists need. But more importantly, a recent study showed that all 22 lines are contaminated with mouse cells, making them dangerous to use in humans.”

The legislation that passed Congress overwhelmingly and was ceremoniously vetoed by the President would have lifted the eligibility date of August 9, 2001, as long as strict ethical requirements were met.

In arguing for passage of the bill, Senator Harkin concluded, “We don’t require our astronomers to explore the heavens with 19th century telescopes, and we don’t require our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our biomedical researchers need access to the best stem cell lines available.”

On the day the legislation passed the Senate, Senator Hatch issued the following statement; “Today, the Senate made a commitment to the millions of patients who are waiting for cures. Together, Republicans and Democrats, we said: We hear you. We won’t stand idly by and allow Federal policy to hamstring one of the most promising fields of research.”

For the millions who are hopeful and awaiting much-needed cures, it’s truly a shame that the President feels differently.

Rush to Judgment

In today's Washington Post, Slate's William Saletan writes an entertaining and sobering indictment of Rush Limbaugh, whose recent accusations of Michael J. Fox served as yet another reminder to us of how deeply disturbed this guy is. Here's an exerpt:

In Limbaugh's world, "there never was a surplus" under President Bill Clinton. AIDS "hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual community," and cutting food stamps is fine because recipients "aren't using them." Two years ago, he said the minimum wage was $6 or $7 an hour. Last year, he said gas was $1.29 a gallon.

Limbaugh has particular trouble distinguishing reality from entertainment. The abuse at Abu Ghraib "looks just like anything you'd see Madonna or Britney Spears do on stage," he told his listeners. Last month, he defended ABC's Sept. 11 movie against the document on which it purportedly relied: "The 9/11 commission report, for example, says, well, some of these things didn't happen the way they were portrayed in the movie. How do they know that?"

Last year, Limbaugh, who used a tailbone defect to get out of the Vietnam War draft, accused a Democratic candidate of having served in Iraq "to pad the resume." He charged veterans -- including former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.), who lost his legs and an arm in Vietnam -- with trying "to hide their liberalism behind a military uniform . . . pretending to be something that they are not." When war is just a television show, a uniform is just a costume. Liberalism is real; losing your limbs is a pretense.

Which brings us back to stem cells. Limbaugh says Fox's ads dangle a prospect of imminent cures "that is not reality." He's right. But the ads convey another reality: a man dying of a disease that might be cured more quickly if the government dropped its restrictions on research funding. Limbaugh dismisses this as a "script" being followed by Fox's "PR people" and "the entertainment media." Script? Entertainment? This is life and death.

If he didn't average 13.5 million listeners every week, he would be a joke. The fact that he does makes him dangerous in that he'll simply continue his campaign of character assassination and misinformation. By continuing to demonize those he disagrees with, he'll further divide his listeners from people of tolerance, and further drive them from reality. By continuing to spout unsubstantiated and often completely fabricated information as justification for his politics, he'll just add further to the growing number of duped Americans who would rather turn to others for direction rather than conduct their own independent thinking.

A Question of Life

Instead of manipulating people of faith by politicizing questions of when life begins and when it ends, what if we all focused on the quality of the time in between? Wouldn’t it be revolutionary to come together and actually work toward improving the quality of the lives we all lead? What could possibly be more pro-life?

The debate over embryonic stem cell research is a perfect case in point. Scientists, medical professionals, and the American public strongly support federal funding of this research because of the immense hope and promise it brings. Opponents characterize the utilization of these cells for medical advancement as immoral. To appeal to evangelicals, some claim it mirrors abortion or murder despite the fact that the cells in question are set to be discarded regardless. Nevertheless, they claim it’s a slippery slope that will undoubtedly lead to a complete disregard for the dignity of life and an inevitable rush to clone as many human beings as possible.

When confronted by those inflicted with disease and searching for hope, these lawmakers apologize and speak of questions of morality that take precedent over the potential to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans who may someday benefit from this research. No, they claim it’s an issue they’d rather punt to the private sector. After all, to whom else should America turn to pave the way and provide leadership and focus on an issue of this importance?

Congress recently approved the federal funding of embryonic stem cells overwhelmingly, 65-37 in the Senate and 238-194 in the House. Instead of quickly signing the legislation into law, President Bush chose to issue his very first presidential veto. To date, it remains the only veto in his six years in office. Not exactly what I would call presidential leadership.

To those lawmakers who voted to uphold the president's veto, it’s time to pay the piper. And to those who respond to proponents of stem cell research with ignorance and hostility, keep it up. It only provides yet another opportunity for the world to see your true colors.

"To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past."

A couple weeks ago, Keith Olbermann reacted to the fallout after the Chris Wallace interview with President Clinton. The belligerence of Wallace, the Clinton reaction, the subsequent White House counter-reaction, and the American efforts to kill or capture bin Laden provide the pretext to Olbermann’s commentary.

It’s a commentary that gets to the heart of the question we’ve repeatedly asked over the past several years; whatever happened to personal responsibility, Presidential leadership and the “Buck Stops Here”? Far from those virtues, we have been left with an absolutist Administration who sees the world in black and white and firmly believes that the acknowledgment of anything that could remotely be construed as a mistake is nothing more than a sign of weakness.

When President Kennedy publicly shouldered the blame for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, his approval ratings shot through the roof. Although it was a military disaster, the American people stood by their President because they respected him for maturely stepping up and accepting responsibility. He told the American people that he was the President and because of it, he was ultimately responsible for the government’s decisions, both good and bad. People looked to him for results and he realized it came with the territory.

In the Wallace interview, Clinton admits that he did not do enough to capture or kill bin Laden. It was quite an admission from a man who has long been criticized for politically sidestepping personal responsibility; a man who was relentlessly and incredulously lambasted by the Right for “Monica distractions” and for focusing more on the defense of his personal shortcomings and less on conducting an effective national security strategy.

In the aftermath of Clintonism, along comes a cowboy from Texas to save the day. He was a leader who vowed to unite an increasingly polarized nation. He was also a straight-shooter who told it like it was, talked about personal responsibility, and vowed to bring integrity back to the Oval Office. And here we are today…

What’s disgusting is that this Orwellian Administration not only fails to admit past shortcomings but has led an unabashed effort to rewrite history to cover its tracks and cast it in a better light. Instead of identifying where they went wrong and reflecting on the lessons it should teach us, they have skirted responsibility, claimed those mistakes never occurred, and have spun them against their political enemies by claiming that questioning the President is unpatriotic and un-American. In fact, it reflects quite the opposite. As a result, one of the most unifying issues in our nation's history has been twisted by our elected “leadership” into one of the most divisive.

The claim that this is the worst presidential leadership since Buchanan? Maybe Olbermann’s not so off-base.

Hypocrisy Reigns

Lest I be accused of hypocrisy, let me begin by saying that I am not generally a big fan of the fourth estate a.k.a "the press". It is rather appropriate that this blog was in part inspired by the greatest president of the 20th century, because this post concerns modern-day muckraking. I have attached an article I read this evening on Slate discussing how the New York Times failed to admit its own mistakes in covering the story of the Duke lacrosse players charged with raping a stripper at an off-campus party. This paper, along with every other media form, purport to be the only honest, objective purveyors of truth keeping all of us safe from our lying and corrupt elected officials and the sleazy corporations that support them. However, when their own mistakes, shaky facts, and outright lies are exposed they do not provide the hubris they claim to be trying to get from politicians and business leaders. Oh no, instead they try to hide it, cover it up, wish it away, or bury a small retraction somewhere deep inside their publications.

Let's imagine that the muckraker who covered this story for The Times standing in front of a microphone answering questions from a group of reporters. A snapshot of it would probably look something like this:

Reporter1: "Ms. Lady, how do you respond to the allegations that you rushed this story to the front page, along with the accused’s pictures, even though you had strong evidence suggesting that the accusations might be false?"

Grey Lady: "I don't. We were operating on the best information we had at the time, and felt that we had to get this story out immediately for the good of this nation. What was to stop these suspects from running right out, hiring another stripper for another party, and then possibly raping her? Sometimes one doesn't have all the information one would like in these matters. Next question."

Reporter2: "Excuse me, Ms. Lady but are you now willing to admit that you made a mistake in reporting this story?"

Grey Lady: "Absolutely not. Do I wish we had more and better information at the time? Sure. However, our reporters and editors acted on the best information they had at the time and we are professionals who throughout this entire story have maintained our objectivity. We cannot be held accountable for everything that is said in our paper."

Well, I digress. Please, be my guest and read the Slate article for yourself.

http://www.slate.com/id/2151507/?GT1=8702

Iraq Commentary

There were a number of interesting op-eds on Iraq in the papers today. While laying out his case for withdrawal, John Murtha takes the fight to the Republican attack-machine. John Kerry does a little Monday morning quarterbacking in an interview with Bob Woodward about how he, if he was President, would have conducted foreign policy between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraqi. Dennis Ross, a scholar and Middle East diplomat under Presidents Bush 41 and Clinton, lays out his plan for Iraq. And Phillip Carter, who recently returned from Iraq after serving with the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, talks about smarter ways to conduct counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. In doing so, he calls upon the words of T.E. Lawrence: “Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.”

Seek First to Defame...

Earlier this year, Senator Kerry made a rather poignant statement on the floor of the Senate. Although it was delivered a number of months ago, it raises some timely and legitimate points to consider as we get closer to the upcoming elections.

“Mr. President, yesterday, Jack Murtha, a respected congressman on military matters, and former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. He didn’t come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his heart out of love for his country and support for our troops. I am not going to stand for a swift boat attack strategy against Jack Murtha.

“It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a marine who served his country heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha’s character and conscience.

“Dennis Hastert - the Speaker of the House who never served - called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn’t a coward when he put himself in harm’s way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts - he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today. Jack Murtha didn’t cut and run when his courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut and run from the truth.

“Just a day after Dick Cheney, who had 5 deferments from Vietnam, accused Democrats of being unpatriotic -the White House accused Jack Murtha of surrendering. Jack Murtha served 37 years in the Marine Corps. He doesn’t know how to surrender - not to enemy combatants, and not to politicians in Washington who say speaking his conscience is unpatriotic.

“Robert Kennedy once said, ‘The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country.’ Chuck Hagel showed he hasn’t forgotten that when he said, ‘The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.’ But too many in the Republican Party forgot that long ago. They forgot that asking tough questions isn’t pessimism; it’s patriotism.

“We’ve seen the politics of fear and smear too many times. Whenever challenged, Republican leaders engage in the politics of personal destruction rather than debate the issues. It doesn’t matter who you are. When they did it to John McCain, we saw it doesn’t matter what political party you’re in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw it doesn’t matter if your service put you in a wheelchair. And when they did it to Jack Murtha yesterday, perhaps the most respected voice on military matters in all of Congress, we saw that this administration will go to any lengths to crush any
dissent.

“Once again, they’re engaged in the lowest form of smear and fear politics because they’re afraid of actually debating a senior congressman who has advised presidents of both parties on how to best defend our country. They’re afraid to debate a decorated veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. They’re terrified of actually leveling with the American people about the way they misled America into war, and admitting they have no clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home. Whether you agree with Jack Murtha’s policy or not is irrelevant.

“The truth is there is a better course for our troops and for America in Iraq and I am going to keep fighting until we take that course for the good of our country.

“American families who have lost, or who fear the loss, of their loved ones deserve to know the truth about what we have asked them to do, what we are doing to complete the mission, and what we are doing to prevent our forces from being trapped in an endless quagmire. Our military families understand that open debate about what’s going on in Iraq doesn’t put our troops at risk; it’s the only way to get it right in Iraq so we can get their sons and daughters home.

“I think all of us should be mindful, as the White House yet again engages in character assassination to prevent Americans from listening to the words of military experts, of the consequences we have already endured from the failure to listen.

“When the administration could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to.

“When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to.

“When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the ‘insurgency was in its last throes.’

“And now, after all these mistakes, who is the administration to accuse anyone of wanting to cut and run. We are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense. That is the debate they are afraid to have in our country. Shame on them.

“Instead of letting his cronies run their mouths, the President should finally find the courage to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It’s time for Americans to stand up, fight back, and make it clear it’s unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country.

“And I hope my colleagues will come down to this floor and debate the issue on its merits, instead of attacking the character of a man like Jack Murtha, because believe me - that’s a fight nobody’s going to win in our America.”

The Statesman - 11/12

"Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working - change. Stay the course also means, don't leave before the job is done. We're going to get the job done in Iraq." - President George W. Bush

Translation: "To articulate an Iraq policy that I have yet to develop, I've come up with this slogan because it's easy to remember, easy to pronounce, and I can alter its definition to whatever is politically convenient at the time."

How Soon is Too Soon?

If U.S. forces were to withdrawal from Iraq tomorrow, would Iraqi security forces be able to stand up on their own and defend their country? Certainly not. Would they have those capabilities a year or two down the road? It’s hard to tell. At best, “staying the course” is prolonging that desired outcome from becoming a reality. At worst, it is not only prolonging that desired outcome from becoming a reality, but it is also making that outcome less and less likely.

In Iraq, we now have just enough troops to perpetuate the perceived role of occupier, and just enough troops to stifle the sense of urgency the Iraqi government desperately needs to accelerate the training and deployment of their own security forces. At the same time, it is becoming clear that we may not have enough troops or resources in Iraq to effectively wage the type of war that the current situation requires. Although the President, with the steadfast support of Barney and Laura, believes we have sufficient troops levels, it’s clear to the rest of us that difficult decisions lie ahead and that they need to be made sooner than later.

Do we withdraw our troops and turn over security responsibilities to the Iraqis whether they’re ready or not? It would bring American men and women out of harm’s way and refocus our nation’s attention on the global war on terrorism. Meanwhile, it might also create a security vacuum in the region that would provide sanctuary for terrorists and engulf millions of innocent civilians in an increasingly violent civil war.

Do we “stay the course” and maintain an open-ended commitment until the Iraqis eventually decide they can stand on their own? It would show the world, particularly those who wish to do us harm, that America has the will for this fight and would reassure Iraqis that we stand beside them until they are strong enough to defend themselves. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground might also continue to deteriorate while Iraqi security forces slowly stand up, Iraqi politicians squabble in Baghdad, and Iraqi citizens endure the resulting violence, bloodshed, and lack of essential services. Of course this would all happen while the American military is stretched further beyond its breaking point.

Do we increase troop levels to bolster our security capabilities? It may provide American forces with much-needed flexibility and resources to expand our security and counterinsurgency operations. Meanwhile, it might also be a politically disastrous decision, both at home and abroad, that would dig us further into an open-ended quagmire and reinforce the notion that we are an occupying army with intentions of maintaining a substantial and permanent presence in the region. Undoubtedly, this course would also stretch the American military further beyond its breaking point with troop levels that could only be sustained by conscription.

Although it’s been deemed “cut and run” by a stubborn Commander in Chief whose gut instinct is to politicize differing viewpoints rather than take them into serious consideration, a recent plan was put forth in June by Senators Levin and Reed that deserved much more attention than it received. It seems like a subtle shift in policy, a hybrid of “cut and run” and “stay the course”, but it has potentially far-reaching implications.

It doesn’t address the speed or pace of troop redeployment, but urges that “phased redeployment begin this year as a way of moving from an open-ended commitment and Iraqi dependency”. In doing so, it would allow U.S. forces to begin standing down and moving toward a more limited role of training and logistic support for Iraqi security forces, protection of U.S. personnel and facilities, and counterterrorism activities.

Beyond 2006, it calls upon the Bush Administration to submit a plan for our continued redeployment as dictated by conditions on the ground; chiefly the progress made by Iraqis in forming a stable government that can provide basic services and security to its own people.

This war is not going to be won militarily and it’s not going to be won in the short-term. We’re in so deep and we’ve bungled the post-war planning so badly that we’re left looking for the most sustainable options, not the most effective, and the least counter-productive options, not the most productive.

So, at this crossroads, why not begin the process of bringing our troops home sooner than later? It would allow us to redeploy our troops where they’d be better positioned to combat terrorism and carry out our national security objectives. It would also force the Iraqis to stand up more quickly and more actively help shape the conditions that will ultimately allow us to bring ALL of our troops home.

Don't Build This Fence

With elections around the corner two things had to be done in the Republican lead Congress to appeal to the base that got them elected. One, a bill had to be passed that would make them look tough on defense and Democrats like they want to coddle terrorists. So they pass a detainee bill, which most Democrats supported out of expediency. Two, they push through an immigration "reform" bill, that flies in the face of the wishes of their unpopular president, by approving the construction of a 700 mile fence, that makes them look tough on security and immigrants trying to sneak into the country. The former will eventually be challenged in court and the Supreme Court will give us the final verdict on the legality of denying habeas corpus to people determined to be "unlawful combatants." The latter, however, will be built and become symbolic of the level of fear that has permeated this country since Republicans gained a majority in Congress and the Executive.

From the party that idolizes Ronald Reagan, the President that championed the tearing down of the wall between East and West Berlin, promoted free markets and described the United States as a shining city on a hill, the Republican party of today puts up walls, creates barriers between the U.S. and our biggest trading partner, and wastes government resources to appeal to the xenophobic base of their party. A characteristic none should be proud of.

Built under the auspices that such a fence will better protect Americans from further possible terrorist attacks and that it would be tough on illegal immigrants, only time will truly tell how effective a it will be at doing just that. Unless the demand for low-skill, low-wage workers dries up in the United States, this fence will only exacerbate the dangers of crossing the border for people desperate for a new life and opportunities that lie across the border. Without a legal means, that is not so unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic that it discourages people from following the law, immigrants will continue to bear the hardships and dangers of crossing the desert. This policy is as likely to stop the influx of illegal immigration as prohibition stopped the sale of alcohol. This immigration policy represents the antithesis to free market policies that calls for the free flow of information and capital, including human capital. More importantly, this fence is an antithesis to what has made America a beacon of hope, the greatest experiment in Democracy and, of course, a country of immigrants.

Many of my ancestors came to this country on boats, and more recently on my mothers side in a plane, like nearly everybody else who today call themselves Americans. For this generation of Americans born on American soil to say they have more of a right to the freedoms we cherish and the opportunities here than people born south of our border is hypocritical.

The solution to our security and immigration concerns to build a fence is a wholly inappropriate policy and is a another example of this Congress squandering valuable resources by caving in to people's most base fears. It is a blemish on our record of championing freedom and open markets and with time will prove to be a misplaced effort to provide security to our country.

Blind Ambition

In a recent interview, President Bush stated once again that “there’s an unbelievable will (for democracy) and resiliency by the Iraqi people.” While quick to heap praise on the small minority of Iraqis who have valiantly tried to make things better in Iraq, maybe the President should spend more time adapting his policy to better reflect the reality on the ground. He should also stop punishing United States troops by “staying the course” regardless of changing conditions, and unnecessarily putting them in harm’s way so he can hold on to the fantasy that his policy will ultimately be vindicated. What’s clear to nearly everyone except him is that it’s a fantasy that is becoming less and less likely with each passing day.

Maybe he should also start throwing some praise toward the American people and the strong will they’ve demonstrated throughout this war. To paraphrase Senator Durbin, America has spent nearly $400 billion ($2 billion per week) of its treasure in Iraq at the expense of providing security and valuable services to its own citizens. America has deposed of Iraq’s brutal dictator and established a governmental framework that has allowed it to hold democratic elections and ratify a constitution. America has sacrificed nearly 2,700 of its bravest young men and women so that Iraqis might experience freedom. The list goes on and on and at some point, we need to ask ourselves when enough is enough. When will the Iraqis stand up as the President has repeatedly promised, and when will we finally have the fortitude and common sense to step aside and force the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security?

A recent Iraqi poll tells us that over 60 percent of Iraqis approve of insurgent attacks on our troops. It also tells us that four out of five Iraqis believe the presence of our troops provokes more violence than it prevents. So, we have precariously placed ourselves in the position of being seen as occupiers by Iraqi citizens and as a security blanket by the Iraqi government. Even though they are divergent perspectives with conflicting opinions, neither bode well for American best interests.

The Iraqi people want us out of their country because they feel we are contributing to the instability and violence they endure every day. To make things worse, they also believe that we’re there for good (three-fourths of Iraqis think we plan to establish permanent military bases in Iraq). On the flip side, the Iraqi government wants us to stay in their country as long as possible. And why shouldn’t they? After all, we’re dumping billions into their country every week and I’m sure they’d much rather have young American men and women die in the name of their “freedom” than to sacrifice their own.

Regardless of how many times the President waves an American flag and yells “stay the course”, we’ve got to know better. To blindly follow his “policy” will only antagonize the Iraqi populace by continuing to perpetuate our perceived role as “occupiers”, and will only provide the Iraqi government with less incentives to stand up on their own. How is either in our best interests?