8:09 PM -- So, I'm going to try to live-blog the SOTU address. I'm watching it on HDNet rather than any of the standard networks. Is that Dan Rather I hear commenting? I'm not sure. Whoever it is, he's at least smart enough to keep his mouth shut most of the time. I flipped through the networks and heard a lot of worthless commentary. As usual. All times are CST.
8:10 PM -- There he is. I love the irony of everybody shaking hands with the president. No doubt within the next 24 hours at least 95% of them will be slandering him (or each other) for all they're worth.
8:13 PM -- ah... the president and the speaker are so cute together. Totally sincere, the both of them.
8:17 PM -- State of the economy--wonderful. Yes, it is. But that's not really what anybody cares about. He's talking about the budget and earmarks. Why preach on this issue now? We had six years of control to do something about earmarks. Way to go, all of you fiscal "conservatives" in the minority. Good luck doing something about the problem now.
8:22 PM -- Hearing a president claim credit for improvements in education is hilarious. I know this sells well with certain segments of the public, but it is *not* an issue for the president to waste time on.
8:24 PM -- Who needs a balanced budget when we can buy votes with health insurance tax loopholes? Our tax code is way to complicated. Simplify George, simplify. No more tweaking.
8:26 PM -- Interesting. He just got a unanimous standing ovation by saying that individuals are better at making health decisions than governments and insurance companies. They all like to give that idea lip service, but our health industry keeps getting more regulation, not less.
8:30 PM -- Immigration policy. George is right on this one, and everybody is sitting on their hands. Lovely. We've got an incredibly low unemployment rate, Republicans were giving him a standing ovation when he talked about the strength of the economy, but he suggests that we should have a more rational policy towards allowing immigration and they go stone quiet.
8:32 PM -- Energy policy. This is stupid--more regulations, more subsidies for alternative fuel. No pigovian taxes. Listen to your econ advisers, not your special interest group supporters on this one, George.
8:34 PM -- Doubling the size of the strategic oil reserve? Interesting. More stockpiled oil means more of a cushion if we end up taking action with regard to Iran. Good idea.
8:37 PM -- Foreign policy. Everybody agrees: we must cheer incessantly for his rhetoric. But when it comes time to take a stand and figure out the path forward, who wants to actually fight? Who's willing to do something more than criticize the current strategy? If you don't like Bush's plan, propose your own.
8:38 PM -- Ok, Iran is funding terror. You know it Bush, but what are you doing about it? I want to believe that Bush is willing to do more than lecture Iran, but I'm not certain. I am certain that the legislative branch is more than happy to bury their heads in the sand on this one.
8:41 PM -- Good point. Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan are all making steps towards democracy and have become the focal point of terrorism as a result. Terrorists lose if democracy survives in the Middle East. If we want to win the war on terror, that's where we win it. That's how we win it. If we retreat to our shores and hope the terrorists leave us alone, we've lost this war. Stop with all the clapping when he speaks in generalities about fighting terror--we need support for real action, not polite applause at politically appropriate rhetoric.
8:47 PM -- I don't know if this plan can succeed, but what's the alternative? Allowing Iraq to devolve into true civil war? Sure, they've already got vigilantes and militias murdering each other, but that's nothing to what we'll see if we abandon Iraq. We are going to have to be there for years. It's time to accept that, or acknowledge that we're OK with a bloody division of Iraq, complete with open interference by Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria.
8:52 PM -- What in the world is he talking about with this civilian reserve corps? That was about the most obtuse and vague proposal I've ever heard. I don't know if he's talking about an institution for formally providing mercenaries or truck drivers or teachers.
8:54 PM -- I'm sick of the lip service given towards dealing with the Darfur problem. DO SOMETHING. Hire mercenaries, if we don't have enough regular troops to do it. There are companies ready to do this thing: let's kick this program into high gear and give it some official support.
8:58 PM -- Yippee. Way to go, Baby Einstein. Now we're into the *real* meat of the address.
9:02 PM -- Now I feel like a heel. Those last two feel good stories deserve more than applause. They risked their lives when they didn't have to. Thank you random man who saved a man from getting hit by a train. Thank you soldier (or marine? I didn't notice) who sacrificed your body for your country and your comrades.
9:05 PM -- ok, lets get on with the scripted "response".
9:06 PM -- Time for a diet coke, I think...
9:12 PM -- It is Dan Rather. He hasn't done a bad job. I still think he's a buffoon for his hatchet job with the fake documents, though.
9:15 PM -- Jim Webb is doing the response. I know virtually nothing about him.
9:16 PM -- He can talk on camera. That's an improvement over previous responders.
9:17 PM -- Wow. I'm impressed. I totally disagree, but he's good. Well structured speech so far. Start with a reasonable statement of agreement about energy policy. Move on to a clear statement of where the Dems disagree with Bush: 1) state of the economy and 2) Iraq.
9:19 PM -- Nice try, attempting to prove that the economy is falling apart. College tuitions are high. The rich are getting richer. I think that was the sum total of his proof.
9:21 PM -- Iraq. Fine, there were some people that didn't want us to go into Iraq. I get that. Granted, Congress was heavily supportive at the time, but I'll let it slide. But we don't have a time machine. We are in Iraq. We have to decide how we're going to proceed. Whining that we never should have gone in is *not* an alternative plan. If you don't like Bush's plan, then propose something. Don't tell me what you stand against, tell me what you stand for. Please.
9:38 PM -- The focus group discussion is unbearable. Republicans, Democrats, independents--they all come across as ignorant buffoons. OK, maybe not completely. But I can't watch this. Time to turn off the TV.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
the worm has turned
Iran's protests are hilarious:
You have to feel just a little bit of pity for the Iranians here--they've been the (apparent) victims of an illegal act of war, a raid on their diplomatic facilities under the pretext of searching for spies. And the more they protest this provocation, the more it will become evident that this is exactly what Iranian radicals did to the U.S. embassy in Tehran back in 1979. Of course, there is one key differences: our diplomats were (by and large) not engaged in espionage, while their "diplomats" are almost certainly guilty of inciting violent insurrection and terrorist attacks inside Iraq.
Iran can scream to our diplomats, complain to the press, protest to the U.N. and do pretty much anything they want to do. I certainly don't care and it seems evident that Bush doesn't care either. The regime in Iran has been playing a game of chicken against America for the last quarter century and the rules have always been the same: Iran can do anything it wants while America will consistently back down before hostilities commence. If Bush is changing the rules, it's past time.
Iran has probably been counting on two things to keep America passive: 1) we're occupied in Iraq, and 2) we care about keeping the oil flowing. What they fail to realize is that we have *not* over-committed our Army in Iraq. Yes, our soldiers and marines have been much busier than we would like them to be, but if we need to surge a few brigades to the region we can do it. More importantly, we don't have to send the Army or Marines deep into Iran if we don't want to. Our naval and air forces should be sufficient to keep the oil flowing from the rest of the Gulf countries, and Iran's oil fields are in easy striking distance from southern Iraq and the Gulf. We can win a strategic victory against Iran just by turning off their oil production. They need their oil revenues to prop up their economy more then we need their oil to fuel ours. If we choose to attack, we could wreck their economy, destroy their nuclear program and make it very difficult for them to continue supporting terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon.
It would be a hugely risky move on our part and Bush would face withering criticism, both at home and abroad. But, I'm not sure that he really cares at this point. He's not running for re-election, after all. What do I think? Taking the gloves off is probably the lesser evil. Iraq will never settle down as long as Iran is funding both sides of the developing Sunni-Shia civil war. If we abandon Iraq now, we've lost the war on terror and it will come back to haunt us. If we try to sit steady and fight a war of half measures, we'll eventually wash our hands of the mess and lose the war just as effectively as if we bail out now. If we up the stakes and strike back at Iran? Things would certainly get messier in the short term. I'm optimistic that Iraq, at least, would return to normalcy in the long run. If Iran's mullahs lose power, that would be a good thing. But even I'm not optimistic enough to believe that airstrikes and economic disruption will be sufficient to drive the mullahs from power. I suppose we'll find out soon enough if Bush is serious about shutting down Iran's interference in Iraq.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Thursday summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors to protest a raid by U.S. troops on an Iranian consulate in Iraq.If the raid did in fact occur at an officially designated Iranian consulate, the Iranians are right to suggest that the raid violated established rules of international relations. Diplomats and diplomatic property are sacrosanct and should be virtually immune from outside interference. If U.S. troops encroached on an Iranian consulate during the raid, they effectively invaded Iran's sovereign territory--an act of war, by any normal reckoning.U.S. troops stormed the Iranian Consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil on January 11 and arrested six people. According to the U.S. military, one of the Iranians was freed on Friday.
“The U.S. troops’ action is a violation of international law since the arrested people were working there at the request and with the permission of the Iraqi government,” Foreign Ministry Director for Persian Gulf Affairs Jalal Firuznian told Iraqi Ambassador Mohammed Majid al-Sheikh.
“We expect the Iraqi government to act quickly to obtain the release of these people and to condemn the U.S. forces,” he stated, adding that the Iraqi government should not let the United States disrupt Iran-Iraq relations through its illegal actions.
You have to feel just a little bit of pity for the Iranians here--they've been the (apparent) victims of an illegal act of war, a raid on their diplomatic facilities under the pretext of searching for spies. And the more they protest this provocation, the more it will become evident that this is exactly what Iranian radicals did to the U.S. embassy in Tehran back in 1979. Of course, there is one key differences: our diplomats were (by and large) not engaged in espionage, while their "diplomats" are almost certainly guilty of inciting violent insurrection and terrorist attacks inside Iraq.
Iran can scream to our diplomats, complain to the press, protest to the U.N. and do pretty much anything they want to do. I certainly don't care and it seems evident that Bush doesn't care either. The regime in Iran has been playing a game of chicken against America for the last quarter century and the rules have always been the same: Iran can do anything it wants while America will consistently back down before hostilities commence. If Bush is changing the rules, it's past time.
Iran has probably been counting on two things to keep America passive: 1) we're occupied in Iraq, and 2) we care about keeping the oil flowing. What they fail to realize is that we have *not* over-committed our Army in Iraq. Yes, our soldiers and marines have been much busier than we would like them to be, but if we need to surge a few brigades to the region we can do it. More importantly, we don't have to send the Army or Marines deep into Iran if we don't want to. Our naval and air forces should be sufficient to keep the oil flowing from the rest of the Gulf countries, and Iran's oil fields are in easy striking distance from southern Iraq and the Gulf. We can win a strategic victory against Iran just by turning off their oil production. They need their oil revenues to prop up their economy more then we need their oil to fuel ours. If we choose to attack, we could wreck their economy, destroy their nuclear program and make it very difficult for them to continue supporting terrorism in Iraq and Lebanon.
It would be a hugely risky move on our part and Bush would face withering criticism, both at home and abroad. But, I'm not sure that he really cares at this point. He's not running for re-election, after all. What do I think? Taking the gloves off is probably the lesser evil. Iraq will never settle down as long as Iran is funding both sides of the developing Sunni-Shia civil war. If we abandon Iraq now, we've lost the war on terror and it will come back to haunt us. If we try to sit steady and fight a war of half measures, we'll eventually wash our hands of the mess and lose the war just as effectively as if we bail out now. If we up the stakes and strike back at Iran? Things would certainly get messier in the short term. I'm optimistic that Iraq, at least, would return to normalcy in the long run. If Iran's mullahs lose power, that would be a good thing. But even I'm not optimistic enough to believe that airstrikes and economic disruption will be sufficient to drive the mullahs from power. I suppose we'll find out soon enough if Bush is serious about shutting down Iran's interference in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)