So you probably know what this post is going to be about from the title (it will be about politics for those just joining us). I'll wait a few seconds for those who don't venture into these topics to click onto another website.
Still reading? Then let us continue.
President Bush's approval ratings are abysmal, and they're steadily falling. Congress' approval ratings are comparatively high, and they're climbing. It's obvious that, on the surface, polled Americans are looking for change, and for now they're seeing it in the newly-elected Democratic congress. Unfortunately for us, this change is largely symbolic and the change in congress is going to do little to reverse our course. The President still retains veto power, and the margin of error for the Democrats is as small and fragile as the slim voting majority they currently enjoy. Voting on tenuous proposals to set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq isn't going to win them any Republican converts, and the Democratic fence-sitters are not going to be too keen to show a backbone and vote for a time line, even considering the current political climate and constituent's apathy towards the President's party.
It would thus appear that a vote to set a deadline for troop withdrawal will not pass congress, and even if it were to reach Bush's desk, he'd veto it. It would be a symbolic move, but a wasted effort. When this measure fails, a new bill will be introduced that will systematically attempt to limit specific areas of funding for training troops here in the U.S. and will result in currently deployed troops remaining abroad for much longer. This bill, while perhaps a logical follow-up, will have even less of a chance to succeed than the initial proposal to set a clear troop withdrawal deadline.
It would appear as though the current administration is dead set on "running out the clock" on the Iraq war. They haven't found bin laden, and won't. They got Saddam Hussein and killed him, but the U.S. (and global) community didn't react with the same elation as Bush & Co. We're still waiting for a solution, or even just an acknowledgment that yes, we did screw up, things are FUBAR, and there is no good solution. But we won't get any of that except from the Democratic presidential hopefuls.
This is why it is very important to be listening to the soapboxing and the minutia of the Democratic candidates' words. Now is the best time, before the inscrutable "tag lines" and slogans become commonplace, before the TV attack ads run rampant, and before the candidates and their staff have much of a chance to refine their canned answers on "the issues".
Who will replace the village idiot? It's too early to know who will win the primary and general elections, but it's not too early to listen to what they say and determine who should replace the idiot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I haven't been following all the IRAQ business basically because I find it extremely hard to find an unbiased & informed source. Most unbiased sources don't care too much, or can't weigh the pros and cons. Perhaps you could help educate me on the matter. It may be a large task, and certainly, you don't need to do it, but I'd appreciate it.
First off, what was bad about life in IRAQ before US occupation, and what was good? What's bad now and what's good? I'd like to know some pros and cons of the past and present. (both good and bad of both times)
Secondly, if the past balances in the positive direction and present in the negative direction, how about the future? Is there a way the future can be better than the past?
I'm assuming pulling troops out of IRAQ is supposed to be a move to make the future better than the present. However, why are troops there in the first place, and what happens if they're pulled? Does something need to be done before pulling troops, or could they just be taken out tomorrow and the country would improve overnight?
Lots of ignorance in this post, I know. I don't claim to have any answers, and I'm not a policy maker nor do I read fervently about the topic, but I'd like to be a little better informed.
I hear extreme rights yelling about one side not caring to listen to one word of the left, and people of the far left screaming without hearing one word from the right. Since I'm not well informed, I just trust the policy makers whose job it is to handle these rough situations to handle them well.
There are things we can influence, things we can't influence, things that are worth trying to influence, and things that aren't worth trying to influence. I stand in the sympathetic but apathetic corner thinking it's not worth my effort to try and change this, but moreso because I don't feel I can change it. I cast my vote to the best of my knowledge, and have to trust in my fellow man and government to make the right decision. It's great to have an opinion, but I see no sense in suffering for having one. I'd just like to know a bit more so perhaps I can perhaps agree with someone somewhat without neglecting reality.
The best unbiased sources are probably the newswires (Reuters & Associated Press). That will give you pretty much the bare facts, from which there you can expand and read major newspapers that you trust. Some that I trust are the Guardian UK, BBC online, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc.
I guess I don't really want to go into the whole Iraq debate right now since I was trying to illustrate why it's important to think about the next set of Prez. candidates now. Perhaps I'll write more later on the actual Iraq occupation, but for now I think I want to leave it sit.
I do want to emphasize that while it is difficult to be as informed as those whose supposed job it is to know all the answers, but as voting citizens, it is our duty to know the basic issues and take some interest in their outcomes. Otherwise, why vote?
Sounds good. Thanks for the list of sources you trust ^_^
You'll love this (pertinent link):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGHty_S0TU0
Post a Comment