Dying to Go on Vacation
Whether you are for the war or against it, if this piece of news doesn't piss you off you must not have a pulse.
Let me set this up before I give you the punchline.
The Bush administration's stated reason for the surge is to create the kind of order and relative peace in Baghdad so that the Iraqi Parliament can get about the business of addressing the sectarian issues that divide the country.
And, according to the Bush administration the surge will be in full force by this summer – as in July and August.
Already American deaths are way up as the surge, surges in search of that goal.
Okay, so are you sitting down? Guess what.
While this outrage has gone largely unnoticed and almost completely unreported in the US, it has not been lost on Iraqis or the Iraqi press:Let me set this up before I give you the punchline.
The Bush administration's stated reason for the surge is to create the kind of order and relative peace in Baghdad so that the Iraqi Parliament can get about the business of addressing the sectarian issues that divide the country.
And, according to the Bush administration the surge will be in full force by this summer – as in July and August.
Already American deaths are way up as the surge, surges in search of that goal.
U.S. death toll in March twice that of Iraq forces
April 1: BAGHDAD - The U.S. military death toll in March, the first full month of the security crackdown, was nearly twice that of the Iraqi army, which American and Iraqi officials say is taking the leading role in the latest attempt to curb violence in the capital, surrounding cities and Anbar province, according to figures compiled on Saturday. (Full story)Okay, so are you sitting down? Guess what.
The Iraqi parliament refuses to cancel it's two-month long annual summer recess (vacation.)
When? July and August.
When? July and August.
Iraqi Papers: A Parliament on Vacation
Paper Critiques the Perks of Iraq's Deputies
By AMER MOHSEN
Baghdad, Iraq: A parliament of vacations and privileges” was Az-Zaman’s headline on Monday. The Iraqi newspaper published a critical review of the perks granted to Iraqi deputies and reiterated criticisms concerning the performance of the People’s representatives. The Iraqi deputies are currently enjoying a week-long vacation, in celebration of the Norouz (the Persian New Year, celebrated by Kurds and Zaraostrian minorities in Iraq.) The Norouz vacation follows a month-long halt in the activity of the Iraqi parliament, due to a succession of religious holidays. In addition to that, Az-Zaman said that sources had leaked that a “secret” session of the parliament last Saturday was in fact devoted to discussing the compensations and retirement packages of M.P.s .....What exacerbates the situation further, Az-Zaman reported, is the fact that many Iraqi deputies do not reside in Iraq, preferring the safety and comfort of neighboring capitals, “while the people toil in crises,” said a citizen interviewed by the paper. Other interviewees were outraged that the parliament can hardly achieve the quorum when it comes to discussing urgent and critical matters, but “when it came to (their) salaries and privileges,” the session was held with haste and efficacy. (More)
Paper Critiques the Perks of Iraq's Deputies
By AMER MOHSEN
Baghdad, Iraq: A parliament of vacations and privileges” was Az-Zaman’s headline on Monday. The Iraqi newspaper published a critical review of the perks granted to Iraqi deputies and reiterated criticisms concerning the performance of the People’s representatives. The Iraqi deputies are currently enjoying a week-long vacation, in celebration of the Norouz (the Persian New Year, celebrated by Kurds and Zaraostrian minorities in Iraq.) The Norouz vacation follows a month-long halt in the activity of the Iraqi parliament, due to a succession of religious holidays. In addition to that, Az-Zaman said that sources had leaked that a “secret” session of the parliament last Saturday was in fact devoted to discussing the compensations and retirement packages of M.P.s .....What exacerbates the situation further, Az-Zaman reported, is the fact that many Iraqi deputies do not reside in Iraq, preferring the safety and comfort of neighboring capitals, “while the people toil in crises,” said a citizen interviewed by the paper. Other interviewees were outraged that the parliament can hardly achieve the quorum when it comes to discussing urgent and critical matters, but “when it came to (their) salaries and privileges,” the session was held with haste and efficacy. (More)
That's right. It gets hot in Baghdad in July and August, hot as hell itself. So the Iraqi legislators like to get out of Dodge and head for cooler – and safer – locales. Surely they hope that, by the time they get done with their two-month R&R, American troops will have improved conditions for them in Baghdad.
Maybe the Iraqis are simply taking their cue from the guy responsible for their current conditions, George W. Bush, who takes his month-long vacation at his Crawford ranch come hell or high water.
It turns the stomach. All of it. All of them – an Iraqi “parliament” that feels perfectly free to take 2 months off even as the people who voted them into office die daily by the hundreds in the most horrible ways imaginable. And a US “president,” whose recklessly launched and incompetently managed war created this slaughter, insisting it continue just so he can get leave office without admitting failure.
A real president would, first of all, not gotten us into such a mess to begin with. But, if we had a real president/commander-in-chief in office now, he/she would pick up the phone, call the US ambassador in Iraq and ask him to deliver the following message to the Iraqi government:
If you guys go of vacation – any vacation – this summer, while our soldiers are fighting and dying for you, here's what's going happen:
Please let me know what you decide as soon as possible. You can call anytime as I'll be here, at my desk, in the Oval Office, all summer.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
President of the United States of America
The day the Iraqi Parliament recesses and leaves town I will order the US command to begin an immediate withdrawal of all US troops, beginning in Baghdad,with total withdrawal to be completed by end of August -- just in time for your return from vacation.
Please let me know what you decide as soon as possible. You can call anytime as I'll be here, at my desk, in the Oval Office, all summer.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
President of the United States of America
(P.S. Yes, you can call collect – as usual)
April 26, 2007
Mr. Whipple v. Dr. Evil
I'll be right up front. I shook my head in despair and disbelief when Democrats chose Harry Reid to serve as Senate Majority Leader. Here they were, after a dozen years wandering in the wilderness, back in charge, though by the slimmest of margins imaginable. But they picked Reid to lead them. Why? Because it was his turn. After all, he'd paid his dues.
Meanwhile Republicans were bruised by the 2006 election, but hardly down or out. Democrats would have to deal with a fierce GOP insurgency for at least the next two years. They'd have to watch their every flank, cover every base and be prepared for furious hand to hand combat at every turn in path ahead.
And who do they choose as their leader -- their party's clerk-in-chief - a guy who always appears on the verge of shouting, "Don't squeeze the Charmin."
House Democrats did a better job picking a leader. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has, so far, navigated these treacherous waters with skill, grace and yet with an unspoken, but convincing “don't mess with Momma,” undercurrent.
Meanwhile Reid has been about as inspiring a Senate leader an assistant middle school principal. What a shame. What a missed opportunity. Imagine if it were otherwise. Imagine if they had picked a skilled orator, a person with real gravitas, a person who could stand toe to toe with the White House in a stare down without sparking visions of an aging Barney Fife fumbling to load his single bullet.
Of course I understand that there are those in the Democratic Party who don't want to have this conversation. They will accuse me of falling for a GOP distraction ploy. Which is why I include in this post both views. The first is by Washington Post reporter/columnist, David Broder – a guy who has forgotten more about national politics than most of today's pundits (or politicians) think they know. The other is a retort posted at progressive site, thinkprogress.org.
You decide. I already have. These are the most treacherous of times. The Dems should pick a new Senate leader... and soon.
Meanwhile Republicans were bruised by the 2006 election, but hardly down or out. Democrats would have to deal with a fierce GOP insurgency for at least the next two years. They'd have to watch their every flank, cover every base and be prepared for furious hand to hand combat at every turn in path ahead.
And who do they choose as their leader -- their party's clerk-in-chief - a guy who always appears on the verge of shouting, "Don't squeeze the Charmin."
(Watch the part of this video in which Pelosi and Reid speak outside the Oval Office. See Nancy cringe.)
House Democrats did a better job picking a leader. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has, so far, navigated these treacherous waters with skill, grace and yet with an unspoken, but convincing “don't mess with Momma,” undercurrent.
Meanwhile Reid has been about as inspiring a Senate leader an assistant middle school principal. What a shame. What a missed opportunity. Imagine if it were otherwise. Imagine if they had picked a skilled orator, a person with real gravitas, a person who could stand toe to toe with the White House in a stare down without sparking visions of an aging Barney Fife fumbling to load his single bullet.
Of course I understand that there are those in the Democratic Party who don't want to have this conversation. They will accuse me of falling for a GOP distraction ploy. Which is why I include in this post both views. The first is by Washington Post reporter/columnist, David Broder – a guy who has forgotten more about national politics than most of today's pundits (or politicians) think they know. The other is a retort posted at progressive site, thinkprogress.org.
You decide. I already have. These are the most treacherous of times. The Dems should pick a new Senate leader... and soon.
The Democrats' Gonzales
By David S. Broder
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: "As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, ______ ______ is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance."
If you answered Harry Reid, give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to come to an end.
President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and also professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the President that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."
As if that were not mind-boggling enough, consider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."
On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. ... The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. ... So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."
Everyone got that clear? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader so confused things as Harry Reid managed to do with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.
Nor is this the first time that Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had reason to ponder the political fallout from Reid's tussles with the language.
Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."
He called President Bush "a loser," then apologized. He said Bill Frist, then the Senate majority leader, "has no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a personal term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.
Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the one-time amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.
Given the way the Constitution divides the war-making power between the president as commander in chief and Congress as the sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow from now until a new president takes office.
To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals of his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out what ground Reid is prepared to defend -- for more than 24 hours at a time.
Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group -- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.
The Democrats deserve better and the country needs more than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.
David S. Broder is a columnist with The Washington Post. His e-mail address is davidbroder@washpost.com.
Counterpoint:
David Broder’s Continuing Embarrassment
From: Think Progress
Following up on his comments from Tuesday, the Washington Post’s David Broder today publishes a factually inaccurate screed aimed at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
Titled “The Democrats’ Gonzales,” Broder begins the column tarring Reid as a “continuing embarrassment” whose “amateurish performance” is an “exhibition of ineptitude.”
Broder baselessly claims that a “long list of senators of both parties…are ready” for Reid’s tenure “to end.” Both parties? Here’s Broder’s own paper on Tuesday: “In a closed-door meeting, Reid acknowledged that he had a [White House] target on his back, and Democratic senators responded with a standing ovation.”
Broder criticizes Reid for making a series of supposed verbal “gaffes” — such as calling President Bush “a loser” — which Broder mocks as “displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer.” But despite his claim earlier this week that “every six weeks or so there’s another episode where [Reid] has to apologize,” Broder’s most recent example of a “gaffe” is 16 months old.
Broder then turns to Reid’s “consequential” gaffe, that the war in Iraq “is lost” (a view Reid happens to share with the majority of Americans). To highlight Harry Reid’s “inept discussion” of Iraq, Broder quotes…Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY):
On “Fox News Sunday,” Schumer offered this clarification of Reid’s off-the-cuff comment. “What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost — in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. … The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this — we Democrats believe it. … So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that’s been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can’t win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win.”
Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word “is” has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.
It’s unclear why Reid is attacked for someone else’s remarks. But more importantly, Schumer’s argument (however impromptu) is perfectly clear when one isn’t simply trying to make fun of it. There are multiple wars in Iraq. Echoing the latest National Intelligence Estimate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in February, “I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq.” The two most significant are Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence and al Qaeda terrorism. Reid and Schumer are saying that the U.S. military cannot possibly “win” Iraq’s sectarian civil war, but that we can still be victorious over the terrorists.
Broder concludes with his most aggressive attack, that Reid “has sent conflicting signals about his readiness” to lead the U.S. Senate in a time of war because of his views on Iraq:
Instead of reinforcing the important proposition — defined by the Iraq Study Group — that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.
In fact, the Iraq Study Group recommended a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces by March 2008, a goal the Senate has adopted in its Iraq legislation. The ISG also states that President Bush’s current strategy of “[s]ustained increases in U.S. troop levels [will] not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq.”
Broder’s column today truly backfires, showing himself — the “dean” of Washington journalism — not Harry Reid, to be an amateurish embarrassment.
