To assert that the Democrats alone are responsible for what is now perceived by many as wars that cannot be won would be to suggest we were winning before the Democrats took the majority. We weren't winning before the Democrats took the majority. By "wars" I mean both areas of combat — Iraq and the oft forgotten, still raging Afghanistan.
The Democrats having won the majority has had the net result of zero. Military leaders — their assessments and advice — have been summarily dismissed with alarming frequency throughout the wars. As it stands now, more servicemembers than not question the validity and viability of the war and the administration's handling of it. No one is listening to the servicemember or the servicemembers' leaders. This has not changed with the advent of the Democrats’ majority.
While we can go on and on about what might be or what might have been, it is far better for all involved to look at what has actually been and what is actually going on. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans appear to be doing this and both are suggesting band-aids for the large, gaping wounds they're just sure the other side caused.
Either they (politicians) don't believe a large, gaping wound can get much worse in short order or they don't care if it does (meaning the large, gaping wound is not, in fact, their concern). Either way, the loss is life — not their lives — and more is lost as they banter back and forth about non-issues.
The stability and future of American foreign policy rests solely on the Bush administration. Nothing is stopping Bush from taking the bulls by the horn, sitting down with Iraqi leaders (in Iraq) and sticking with it until a deal is hammered out once and for all. Why isn't he doing this?
As much as we'd all like to think those we voted for are acting in our best interests, it's worth noting the goings-on behind this foot-dragging blame game. Neither side has focused on the troops in a way that brings about any good for the troops. Those in combat are without a well-defined mission and are dying and being wounded for it. Those returning are wounded in a myriad of ways, and the system in place to take care of them is sorely lacking on every level.
The Republicans want the Democrats to say they support the troops. The Democrats want the Republicans to bring the troops home. Neither is doing anything about the welfare of the troops themselves – from listening to their leadership to providing for their life-long care and rehabilitation.
Article comments
1 - Joe
Yawn. Is it over yet? I fell asleep.
2 - Maurice
To quote P.J. O'Rourke:
"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us."
and:
"The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop."
and:
"War is steroids and free weights for government."
and:
"The Military kills people and breaks things. It should not be used for anything else."
Note: Diana used the term "Jeezy ceezy". That's just not right
3 - Nancy
Excellent post, Diana: you said it right that ALL parties all around are responsible for doing something, yet all they do is posture & pontificate.
I have a good, solid suggestion: let's all get together & lynch the entire lot of them, from the WH all the way up to The Hill, & hang their worthless carcasses from the trees on the mall as a warning to other wannabe congressmaggots & War Presidents. I'll bring the rope.
4 - Krutic
I'm surprised anyone is surprised at the fact that the government is great at dragging its feet. This is as old as the idea of democracy itself.
5 - BriMan
This is not an apology for anyone; but in the interest of fairness, I must question the following assumption:
"The Democrats took the majority " and then what happened?"
The Senate is a virtual tie on matters of war with Lieberman voting red. The 2008 election does have many Republicans thinking hard about carrying Shrub's water but not enough to actually debate the occupation even after 4 years of killing and maiming.
I agree with the premise of the article nonetheless. There is plenty of blame to be shared by our one-party-as-two-parties system.
Peter Ustinov said "Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich." The rich are the problem in America - they have saddled us all and are willing to put us away wet or dead.
6 - Clavos
The rich are the problem in America - they have saddled us all and are willing to put us away wet or dead.
So should we kill 'em?
7 - Dave Nalle
And after we kill them should we eat them? I hear they are richly marbled with fat and therefore most tasty.
Dave
8 - Johhny Figgs
Okay, you asked the following questions:
Question #1: Afghanistan was invaded, putting bin Laden on the run " and then what happened?
Answer #1 : Although Bin Laden himself has not yet been captured, we destroyed over 90% of his regime and pretty much anialated the Taliban. Thus making the US of A a safer place to live since the Taliban had much more planned for us aftr 9/11. 9/11 was just the beginning of their plan to destroy America and the people who live here.
Question #2: Saddam Hussein was captured and his regime toppled " and then what happened?
Answer #2: A country who lived in fear, poverty, no freedome whatsoever, and was ruled by a modern day hitler.......became free. A man who is responsible for millions of deaths, most of who were innocent women and children, is not ruling the country any longer. A regime who aided and helped fund terrorists and their plots to destroy the USA as well as other countries, is now, itself, destroyed and no longer. Innocent families with children/ babies can now live their lives without fear of being slaughtered for no reason. The Iraqi Olympics people can now participate in their sports that they love without being tortured if they lose or come second in place.
This is just a short little beginning to the answers to these questions.
Thanks,
JF