February 27, 2007
The No Escalation Vote is a Euphemism
.
A just released Washington Post ABC Poll (here) shows that by a two thirds, one third margin American voters are against deploying increasing numbers of troops to Iraq.
I don't believe that Americans are truly voting against this military option. I believe they are, in numbers approaching shock and awe proportions, voting for new leadership.
Ask me if I am against the surge and increasing troop numbers in Iraq and I will vociferously say yes.
Ask me to sign a petition, demonstrate or take a poll and I will gladly lend my name that no escalation should be forthcoming.
Do I believe that I have sufficient information to intelligently second guess anyone on military tactics in Iraq?
No, no and emphatically no.
Then, you might ask, why are you willing to go to the length of demonstrating miles from home if you don’t feel qualified to second guess the decision to surge in Iraq.
Answer: I oppose the surge because I am vehemently opposed to a continuation of George Bush et al as the military and policy leadership of my country and my military.
My ‘No-surge’ vote is a vote of no confidence in our present leaders.I believe most Senate and House votes against escalation are in essence a no confidence vote for the President; a political statement first, a military tactics’ statement only by default.
I suggest a polling question that would illuminate my proposition that the no surge vote is a political no confidence vote rather than a strong feeling on how to proceed in Baghdad would useful.
To wit:
Part A: Do you support or oppose the President’s plan to send 40,000 additional troops to Iraq, the surge plan?
Part B: If the Iraq war military decision making leadership was turned over to a new commander in chief who had strong military and foreign policy credentials would you then support or oppose a similar surge plan if backed by this new leadership?
(Yes? No? Undecided?)
Voting against surging in Iraq reflects a deep desire for competent and accountable leadership. Or did you know that already?
A just released Washington Post ABC Poll (here) shows that by a two thirds, one third margin American voters are against deploying increasing numbers of troops to Iraq.
I don't believe that Americans are truly voting against this military option. I believe they are, in numbers approaching shock and awe proportions, voting for new leadership.
Ask me if I am against the surge and increasing troop numbers in Iraq and I will vociferously say yes.
Ask me to sign a petition, demonstrate or take a poll and I will gladly lend my name that no escalation should be forthcoming.
Do I believe that I have sufficient information to intelligently second guess anyone on military tactics in Iraq?
No, no and emphatically no.
Then, you might ask, why are you willing to go to the length of demonstrating miles from home if you don’t feel qualified to second guess the decision to surge in Iraq.
Answer: I oppose the surge because I am vehemently opposed to a continuation of George Bush et al as the military and policy leadership of my country and my military.
My ‘No-surge’ vote is a vote of no confidence in our present leaders.I believe most Senate and House votes against escalation are in essence a no confidence vote for the President; a political statement first, a military tactics’ statement only by default.
I suggest a polling question that would illuminate my proposition that the no surge vote is a political no confidence vote rather than a strong feeling on how to proceed in Baghdad would useful.
To wit:
Part A: Do you support or oppose the President’s plan to send 40,000 additional troops to Iraq, the surge plan?
Part B: If the Iraq war military decision making leadership was turned over to a new commander in chief who had strong military and foreign policy credentials would you then support or oppose a similar surge plan if backed by this new leadership?
(Yes? No? Undecided?)
Voting against surging in Iraq reflects a deep desire for competent and accountable leadership. Or did you know that already?
Labels: escalation, Iraq, surge, vote of no confidence
February 07, 2007
Gulliverb in Salon Letters: Incompetence is a Disaster
Gulliverb's post concerning Bush's incompetent status as an international negotiator is so on the money.
I personally closed commercial banking deals exceeding a billion dollars in Europe, Eastern Europe (thru interpreters) and in the "oil patch" of SouthWest USA. To think that my knowledge of or relationship to any client or borrower went beyond their commercial interest would embody dangerous naivety. Bush is not stupid, he is simply a rank beginner in dealing with foreign nationals. To think that a "babe in the woods" such as Bush could penetrate to any level the machinations of a man who rose to the top of a nation through its secret police apparatus is incomprehensibly unthinkable.
When GW proffered Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, which was a seldom in a lifetime chance to affect the course of American jurisprudence for decades, he again displayed his dense narcissistic naivety. This too was pornographically incompetent as has been perhaps all of his foreign policy decisions.
Eschewing an attempt to impeach this clearly incompetent commander in chief(CIC), the legislature should construct a bill that defunds all mideast military engagement by a time certain unless the CIC position is placed in the hands of new executive body.
Given the damage to US interests world wide already extant and the unthinkable possibilities of what this CIC might unleash upon us and the world in his remaining 2 years, how could a hiatus to his reign not be the superior choice?
I personally closed commercial banking deals exceeding a billion dollars in Europe, Eastern Europe (thru interpreters) and in the "oil patch" of SouthWest USA. To think that my knowledge of or relationship to any client or borrower went beyond their commercial interest would embody dangerous naivety. Bush is not stupid, he is simply a rank beginner in dealing with foreign nationals. To think that a "babe in the woods" such as Bush could penetrate to any level the machinations of a man who rose to the top of a nation through its secret police apparatus is incomprehensibly unthinkable.
When GW proffered Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, which was a seldom in a lifetime chance to affect the course of American jurisprudence for decades, he again displayed his dense narcissistic naivety. This too was pornographically incompetent as has been perhaps all of his foreign policy decisions.
Eschewing an attempt to impeach this clearly incompetent commander in chief(CIC), the legislature should construct a bill that defunds all mideast military engagement by a time certain unless the CIC position is placed in the hands of new executive body.
Given the damage to US interests world wide already extant and the unthinkable possibilities of what this CIC might unleash upon us and the world in his remaining 2 years, how could a hiatus to his reign not be the superior choice?
Labels: Bush Admin, impeachment, vote of no confidence, White House
