Take stock of what your elected leader has done. What the other guys have or have not done will still be there while you do this; just take a moment to look at what your side has accomplished.
Afghanistan was invaded, putting bin Laden on the run — and then what happened?
Saddam Hussein was captured and his regime toppled — and then what happened?
The Democrats took the majority — and then what happened?
The only answer can answer all three questions: lives were lost and are being lost while countless mouths keep right on eking hot air. Wars have been better fought - and won - with less gum flapping between groups of kids on the playground.
The wars will be won when there is peace and stability in the areas. We will have to settle for relative peace because our definition is much different from those who actually live in Iraq and Afghanistan (per women's rights, the safety of children, freedom of religion, etc). There may be things going on we don't think are peaceful, but that figure in to the Iraqi or Afghanistan definition.
It would also be nice if bin Laden were quite literally hanging around. Can we get an update - anybody?
How to get to a state of relative peace seems clear to me. I don't see the problem. I do see a problem. Those in the position to decide and do something are so focused on the other guy (Democrats and Republicans), they've all but forgotten about the enemy, our allies, and our troops.
The American system is set up to facilitate action with checks and balances in place to keep any one person/party from sneaking anything by without notice (assuming both sides thoroughly read the paperwork involved). Using this system of checks and balances as a reason for things moving slowly or not at all (as both sides have done — for and against each other and themselves) is an abuse of the system.
If the Democrats really meant business, our troops would be on their way home. If the Republicans really meant business, we would already be engaged in talks with the Iraqi leadership. Right now, the latter is come-and-go whenever dueling date books line up just right with the phases of the moon.
There is an ulterior motive on both sides. Be it overt (stay there till we strike it rich or some such crap) or covert (passive-aggressively harassing the opposing party until they cave), those involved are not representing their constituents (to include the troops on the ground) one damned bit.
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