Placing Politics Above National Security
This article highlights the difference in approach between the American politicians who actually care about the nation's security and those who care about nothing more than gaining and maintaining political power.
Contrast the statements of President Bush and Senator Clinton about the leadership of Prime Minister al-Maliki. Clinton has called for his ouster, but while President Bush has admitted to frustration with the pace of political change in Iraq, he has pointed out that, as a democracy, Iraqis have the right to choose their own leaders.
Think about what all this means. Clinton is willing to play to the hometown crowd for political advantage, even though any thinking person would recognize that loud and widespread denunciation of Maliki is hardly likely to bring about welcome political change in Iraq -- given the reluctance of many Iraqi politicians to seem as though they are America's lapdogs. Surely she knows that; it seems that she simply doesn't care.
President Bush has hardly defended Maliki on all fronts, understandably, because the pace of progress has been agonizingly slow. But in any case, at least he recognizes that the best way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi politicians is through persuasion rather than showboating rhetoric. Clinton's kind of oratory may play well at home among the left, but is almost guaranteed to raise hackles among the very people who need to start making headway in the process of political reconciliation.
Contrast the statements of President Bush and Senator Clinton about the leadership of Prime Minister al-Maliki. Clinton has called for his ouster, but while President Bush has admitted to frustration with the pace of political change in Iraq, he has pointed out that, as a democracy, Iraqis have the right to choose their own leaders.
Think about what all this means. Clinton is willing to play to the hometown crowd for political advantage, even though any thinking person would recognize that loud and widespread denunciation of Maliki is hardly likely to bring about welcome political change in Iraq -- given the reluctance of many Iraqi politicians to seem as though they are America's lapdogs. Surely she knows that; it seems that she simply doesn't care.
President Bush has hardly defended Maliki on all fronts, understandably, because the pace of progress has been agonizingly slow. But in any case, at least he recognizes that the best way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi politicians is through persuasion rather than showboating rhetoric. Clinton's kind of oratory may play well at home among the left, but is almost guaranteed to raise hackles among the very people who need to start making headway in the process of political reconciliation.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:50 AM
4 Comments:
You sure do have a thing about Ms. Clinton, don't you? You are assuming, of course, that supporting Mr. al-Maliki is the best policy. That assumption is highly debatable. I have not made up my mind about it yet, but I'm not prepared to condemn anybody for advocating one side or the other until the issue is clarified.
I'll also point out a tiny "semi-Freudian" slip of the typing fingers. You refer to Mr. Bush as "President Bush" three times. You refer to "Senator Clinton" only once; three other times you refer to her only as "Clinton". No sin in this, just a tiny revelation of your thought processes.
Winning hearts & minds through persuasion? Well, if that isn't the understatement of the past 100 or so years. Bush invaded and destroyed their country. He set up secret prisons of torture. Downing Street figures over one million have been killed. One third of the population is in need of immediate emergency assistance.
The bench mark that concern both Republicans and Democrats in DC, is the passing of the hydrocarbon law that basically steals the Iraqis' oil for the benefit of US petro industry.
No one is taking the high road, of winning hearts & minds by calling for a temporary cease fire such that aid can be airlifted to the starving and those in need of immediate health care. No one is calling for opening our doors to the three million innocent refuges.
What the AWOL President and five deferment Cheney don't understand is that Iraq and the Middle East will never hand over their oil or their future to Bush & Cheney petro cronies.
If Bush had any respect for democracy, he would have counted the votes in Florida, not run to his father's appointed cronies in the SCOTUS.
Why would Iraqis ever want to accept America's form of democracy where every aspect of American life is for sale in DC by politicians and lobbyists. Two thirds of Americans don't even bother to vote. One third do not have health insurance or are under insured. One fifth of American children are raised in poverty. Mean while Bush funnels hundreds of billions to war profiteers and petro industry.
And when Bush gets a bad scientific study his political appointees kill the report. So Americans are left in the dark and can't make an educated decision about how, we the people should run our country.
Bush must have absolute contempt for America's history and the vision of our great founders.
Coyote here.
The harshness of Earth's language conveys anger well but makes it harder to credit anything being said.
Is the purpose to persuade or merely to vent?
Just venting. I was reading about Bush's ties to Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, the most powerful GOP lobbying firm, two blocks from the White House, who also have ties to the Carlye group and how the bin Laden family had paid off papa Bush and GW Bush in that BCCC bank scandal of the early 90's.
Currently, BGR is lobbying to overthrow al-Maliki.
Washington is so corrupt with $ 2.6 billion of lobbyist money flowing through the streets, I don't see how this is a partisan issue for any American. All Americans should want the corruption stopped.
I do appreciate the opportunity to vent. Thanks Coyote.
Post a Comment
<< Home