Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
The level of bloviation from the mainstream media over trivia is approaching hysterical levels it seems, but if you look carefully there is actually some news from the campaign trail that won't insult your intelligence. All three candidates have made interesting remarks in the past day or so which (if people hear them) might [...]
Both of them looked and sounded rather "presidential" during the hearings, and both deserve some credit for asking thoughtful and pointed questions. Some media sources said Obama's questions were better, some Clinton, but overall I'd have to say that both showed they can easily pass the "Commander-in-Chief test."
But the biggest thing to watch for in this agreement is -- written or unwritten -- "security guarantees" for the Maliki government itself. To put it another way, is Bush (and the U.S. military) going to use a variation of the "Musharraf policy" with Maliki? [This name comes from the fact that Bush hasn't really had a "Pakistan policy," instead -- since 9/11 -- he's had a "Musharraf policy."] Will we give similar unquestioning support to Maliki's government, no matter what it decides to do?
Last Wednesday I wrote an article called "Questions For Petraeus," which I thought would be adequate to begin discussion of how to approach the upcoming congressional testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker -- in particular, what Democrats on the committees should be asking them. But events in Iraq have been moving quickly, so I offer this column as an addendum to the earlier one. Because after what happened in the past few days, more questions need to be asked.
Since the campaigns of both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama have seemingly taken my advice earlier this week, and are both concentrating on attacking Senator John McCain rather than each other, we have the luxury of getting away from the campaign trail this week and focusing on a few other things -- the biggest of which is the upcoming testimony before Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on the situation in Iraq. More on that in a moment.
Of course, Petraeus and Crocker will be attempting to put a big smiley face on Iraq once again, and they must be kicking themselves for being blindsided by Maliki's recent Basra fiasco. If only Maliki had waited two or three weeks, they could have testified that everything was hunky-dory in Iraq, and then gotten out of Washington unscathed.
Maliki, on the surface, seems to be trying to do the right thing. Over and over again Americans have been asking "when will the Iraq Army be able to provide security on their own?" so Maliki's move can be seen as trying to do just that. The British are apparently not coming out of their base, and are leaving the situation almost entirely within Iraqi hands (the Brits are providing intelligence and surveillance from the air, but that's it for now). So this is the first real and honest test of the theory: "When the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down."
Like the hapless characters in Waiting For Godot, America sits and watches in fascination as the Democratic nomination race grinds into yet another calendar season. At this point, it is looking like it may well go unresolved all the way to the Democratic National Convention in late August.
But it doesn't have to be this way. Nancy Pelosi and all the other undeclared superdelegates have it within their power to call "Palomino!" on this whole process. Because there are enough of them left to swing the contest to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They should do so now.
As Robert Anton Wilson pointed out (or William S. Burroughs, if you prefer), hexagram 23 of the I Ching is "breaking apart." Anyone who subscribes to his "23 enigma" theory will note that this is the twenty-third installment of this column. If you throw hexagram 23, the I Ching cautions: "the roof is shattered, the house collapses." I leave you, dear reader, to draw your own conclusions as to how this relates to Democratic politics for this particular week.
POLLSTER: We take these polls to "take the pulse" of the people voting, so the news media can report on what the electorate is feeling. I know some of the answers are inadequate, but there are just so many opinions that the media can pay attention to in any one election.