newcity
Regarding the construction contracts that the US is paying for in Iraq, and excluding opponents of Iraqi liberation....
There is a lot of screaming going on. Some Europeans are shouting that it's UNFAIR that they don't have access to contracts paid for by American taxpayers. After all, they scream, they opposed us, but now that we're talking MONEY, that's a different situation.
The solution was given to me by the Russians. Their Foreign Minister said it was unfair to exclude any country from participating in rebuilding Iraq. My answer to that is: We're not. The Russians are free to bring their money, and their construction firms. If they want to PAY to rebuild, by all means, let them help.
But what they're REALLY saying is that they, those who opposed us at every turn, and would have enslaved the Iraqi people, now have a RIGHT to American money, even though they're not sharing American RISK. And that is plainly wrong. If they though Iraq was a bad deal, they should put their money, so to speak, where their mouth is. Let them pass on these contracts. They DON'T want to get their pure, pacifist hands sullied by 'blood money' paid by US imperialists.
But, just as it was BEFORE liberation, the Russians and French are willing to put aside their deep moral convictions where the almighty dollar is concerned. When Iraq was a gulag under Hussein, the Russians and French were all OVER Iraq, signing contracts. That's a shame...for them.
The "loyal opposition". A rather elegant phrase that doesn't get much use nowadays. Politics has degenerated into a 'my shark can eat your shark' mentality that crushes all voices of moderation. And so it is with Presidential politics.
Reading the far left, one gets visions of the US collapsing under the jackboot. Everyone who dares utter a phrase not approved by the VRWC (vast right wing conspiracy) is immediately tossed, without due process, into one of the thousands of (invisible) prison camps Bush has established throughout the country. And law itself has been replaced, according to the left, by a rapacious globalization effort, led by Halliburton and Bechtel, solely to enrich Dick Cheney. Wow. Life sure is simple when you've got it figured out.
The right, on the other hand, doesn't need to do anything. They've won. America is fairly right wing, there's no doubt about it. Conservatives control both houses of Congress, the Presidency and most governorships. Democrats are reduced to having their machine crank out clones of drab, grey politicians who argue over drug benefits while the US goes to war. So the right doesn't have to do a damn thing right, they just have to avoid doing anything wrong.
And that's where the 'loyal opposition' comes in. I'm a liberal. Other than the war, Bush and I agree on nothing. Religion, science, feminism....he and I are opposites.
The day after Reagan was elected, I put an 'impeach Reagan' bumpersticker on my car. Reagan was (and is), in my mind, more of a demagogue than either Bush was. The Bushes wanted to be President. Reagan wanted to be Pope.
But there is more. We are at war. This is a dangerous time for the US, and for the west in general. Bush may not be the best man for the job (at this point I will not vote for him next year). But, when the country is in peril, as it is at this moment, it is honorable to commit oneself to the spirit of the country, and not create vindictive dissension. Saying that Bush is wrong on abortion is fine, but saying that he wants to enslave women as part of the VRWC is another.
We in the loyal opposition have a duty to make ourselves heard and to continue striving to make the country a better place. We have the right to try and defeat far right politicians like PA's own Senator Santorum. But it only gives aid and comfort to the enemy to deny the nature of the US itself; to imply that the US is corrupt or for sale to the highest bidder.
And that's a lesson those on the far left have yet to learn.
Well the Bush administration has decided to stick it to the French, Russians and Germans by excluding them from Iraqi re-construction projects financed by American taxpayers. This is the latest in a memo from Paul Wolfowitz to the Pentagon. Gee. What a surprise.
The French were especially egregious in their efforts to block liberation of Iraq. They refused to countenance the use of force, or to threaten its use, under any circumstances. They refused to set deadlines for compliance. In short, if the French had their way, US troops would still be on the border in Saudi Arabia, and Hussein would be thumbing his nose at the international community...all the while French oil companies were raking in the cash from Iraq. Some gambit.
But, they lost. They gambled like the shady poker players they are, and they lost. So now it's time to ask "what's in it for us?". If the French, inter alia, want to be players, what are they offering? Reconstruction aid? Troops? What's in it for the American taxpayer to allow the French govt. to play both sides of the fence?
There's a good argument for allowing these countries to play. We do, at some point, have to start mending fences, and rebuilding the alliance. But no one said it had to be FREE. It's got to cost them something; something substantial. Otherwise the French and their dachshunds, the Germans, will always find it easier to play the spoiler.
Every once in awhile....not very often, but occasionally and with great pain, conservatives discover a principle that liberals have known all along. The most recent example is the cost of being 'tough on crime'. Remember that? Dukakis lost the Presidency on that when Bush Sr. brought out the Willy Horton race baiting ad. A black guy rapes a white woman after being released on parole. Red meat because Bush rode that to the White House. And no politician ever lost a race by being 'tough' on crime. Death penalty? War on drugs...longer sentences, no treatment, etc etc.
Well, the chickens that have come home to roost are now presenting their bills, so to speak, and, MIRABILE DICTU, conservatives are discovering that! For example, the right wing goon, Cal Thomas, writes (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas111303.asp):
"After two decades of being "tough on crime" by "locking them up and throwing away the key" - to recall two of the effective political slogans of the past - the bill has come due. Many states have become incapable or unwilling to pay the cost of housing record numbers of inmates. Twenty-five states have already passed laws easing or eliminating the minimum sentencing requirements that were politically popular in the 1980s and '90s. They are also considering early parole for nonviolent, non-dangerous offenders to ease overcrowding and the cost of warehousing so many convicts....
If locking up everyone now committing crimes would eliminate crime, I'd be all for it, but new criminals are born, or made, every day. Something is wrong with the system.
If the objective of criminal laws is to reduce crime, the laws currently on the books are clearly not achieving it"
He recognizes an immutable fact conservatives ignore: it costs precisely nothing to create a criminal. But they're damn expensive to maintain.
Conservatives always like the most inefficient way of getting things done. Crime? Instead of drug treatment, conservatives love punishment. Health insurance? Well, the unemployed have no one to blame but themselves, so they get nothing. The unemployed, refusing to play the game, head for the most expensive health care imaginable: the hospital emergency room.
And, as Cal Thomas is recognizing, the conservative 'solution' neither works, nor is cost effective. The 'war on crime' has been going on for 20 years. Skyrocketing prison rates, prison after prison being built, while schools go lacking, that's the result of conservative politics and 'moral values'. But conservatives, generally, won't admit that they caused the problem, and forced the taxpayer to fund it.
I was actually up at 4 AM Sunday morning. I'm a ham radio operator, and I tuned into the Coast Guard air operations frequency to listen in. There was a rescue operation underway off the west coast, and a helicopter was en route.
I realized that I was safe and warm in my bedroom, with the heat on, and the world quiet. I was hearing, from 3000 miles, a small group of intrepid men and women in a tiny aircraft on their way to help people they'd never met. It made me realize how fortunate we are here in the west to have built the type of society where so many people consider it second nature to do this.
Pericles had it right when he wrote, in his 'Funeral Oration', how democracies instill in their citizens the values that make such sacrifices such a part of their being. A few weeks ago one of the news magazines had a story about a Special Operations Forces soldier who raided a Taliban base in Afghanistan. In the dark, he was involved in hand to hand combat, fighting for his life; he won.
So many of our citizens, and those of our coalition partners, have died in this struggle against fascist tyranny. And so many deluded people think we are the aggressors.
But, in this Holiday season, I give thanks to those men and women who fly in aircraft in remote regions of the world; who engage in combat in the dark of night; who, each day, leave their families to do jobs and face challenges that guard the safety and the values the west has enshrined in law and in freedom.
It's become all to easy to applaud these troops. But when you think about the sacrifices they're making, and how hard it was for human beings to achieve what the west has accomplished, it must, if you have any sensibilities, instill a sense of awe, and a profound, deep sense of thanks.
Hmmm....the deep freeze may be starting to thaw...and I don't mean the obscenely cold weather here in the northeast (in Allentown, PA it's 30 F). The NY Times today is reporting that the Administration, and Europe, are starting to see the wisdom of rebuilding a tattered relationship. (See the article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/international/europe/08NATO.html?pagewanted=2).
Never let it be said this is a time for romanticism. We have no illusions about the objectives of France, and its dachshund, Gerhard Schroeder. But the fact is, economically, socially and militarily, we have more in common than divides us. You don't have to LIKE all the members of your family to get along with them.
Part of the article dealt with European integrated defense plans apart from NATO. It looks like that idea has pretty well been scrapped. One observation I've always had is that Europeans are generally not willing to pay the kinds of taxes necessary to have a world class military.
Rummy says he's under orders to hold his tongue, so it's apparent there's a debate going on within the Administration about Europe's future, especially on defense, and the US response. But, again, according to the article, there seems to be a willingness to put together what the humpty-dumpty wall did to the trans-Atlantic relationship. Maybe all the king's horse and all the king's men CAN put him back together. And that will be healthy for us, the Europeans, and the world.
