The Downside of American Politics

Warning, adult swim portion of blogging post in 3, 2 ,1...

Here is a Washington Post article about Christopher Shays (R-Conn): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401631.html

He is a Republican Congressman from Connecticut which is what R-Conn means. For the past three years he has been one of the party's most ardent supporters of the Iraq War effort. Now, as he faces re-election, he's getting his butt kicked by someone running on an almost exclusive 'anti-war' campaign. So, Shays has basically changed his tune 180 degrees and is now, literally all of a sudden after a recent trip to Iraq, calling for a withdrawal of troops and a strict timetable. I happen to agree with this conclusion (Iraq needs to see that we are not handing them a blank check and logistical support forever. There is no sense of urgency to get their act together. Is it easy? Of course not, but this is draining us and we have been their baby sitter for long enough. Besides, we are going to need all the troops we have available for when we are forced to invade Iran after they have finished wagging the dog in Lebanon with Hezbollah to take attention away from their nuclear efforts) but that is not the point. The point is two-fold

1) This dude has actively supported the exact opposite position since the outset. This position is no longer popular and Republicans (before what may be known as the Republican massacre of '06) are doing everything they can to distance themselves from W. So, right before re-election time, he switches he view and has 0 accountability for everything he has stood for over the last several years. Shays is totally within his rights to do so, and that is the downside about elected reps. Re-election is the most important element. This guy needs to get drubbed in the election because he is spineless. Go down with the ship man. Seriously. Flipping your viewpoint at the last minute to pander for votes is despicable. If you think you're right, fight for it otherwise, why did you run in the first place?

2) The other downside as I see it to elected representation is the ability of people like Shay's challenger to run on basically a single issue. Because the entire nation (at least the parts that are not physically holding a bible right now this second) are unhappy with W and specifically the war in Iraq. So, Dianne Farrell (the challenger) can capitalize on this sentiment and cruise into office. She may be totally qualified; she may also be grossly incompetent. I really have no idea. That's not the point. The point is that she can win without offering much other than 'Those guys are wrong and I'm the alternative'.

As to the actual Iraq situation, it's obviously not promising right now. I really believe it is a failed state and that the upside for a Democratic and peaceful nation becomes less realistic as time goes on. Shias and Sunnis are not going to get along and any type of elected government won't have much chance without the rule of law which is inherently secondary to the religious laws governing both groups. I think we have to punt on this and be happy that we got Saddam and his top guys out of power and withdraw. Not because I'm some flaky guy that just inherently kneejerks to the stance of 'war is wrong' or 'the president is an idiot', but because there are bigger fish to fry.

A member of the 'Muslim Brotherhood' told Robert Baer (again, I cannot stress enough how mint this dude is. Read his books and gain knowledge: Sleeping with the Devil and See No Evil) when the US invaded Iraq a few years ago: "We will not declare jihad on the US for invading Iraq...they will soon be attacking Hezbollah and jihad will take care of itself". Pretty prescient right there.

For those that do not know, The MB is the real underlying connecter between the various terror groups around the Middle-East. Many of the various sects 'dislike' each other (Hezbollah and al queda for example) but their MOs and justifications are the same. The first of the 'fundamentalist movement' began in Egypt in the late 20s with a group that used a 13th century interpretation of the Qu'ran to establish a religious manifest destiny for a fundamentalist Islamic state by whatever means necessary (see killing infidels). The various groups we are contending with now have developed organically in each country but are all feeding out of the same trough of philosophy. They were allowed to exist and grow because in the 70s and 80s, they were a great weapon against our larger enemy, the Russians. It is our funding of oil interests in the Mid East (with the highest % going to Saudi Arabia) that has allowed these groups to be self-sufficient. I have said so before, but the greatest issue facing our nation is withdrawing or money from the Middle-East. We literally made a deal with the devil when we won the rights to supply Saudi Arabia with arms (We beat out the British and others).

Here is the cycle: We spend billions for Saudi Crude with copious amounts going into the pockets of the hugely corrupt ruling family. They give us tons of $$ right back when they purchase our defense goods and let us house military bases there to give us points of entry into the Middle-East with again, copious amounts in commissions being paid for 'brokering deals'.

This part of the world is not salvageable with the current rules to the game. It is literally a sinking ship and every step of our involvement means more actions must be taken down the road. The leverage of oil must be taken away to level the playing field.

Sorry for the long non-humor rant. It is also noteworthy that France has moved to send 2000 troops as a peace keeping force in Lebanon. An unexpected move to be sure. More on that as I gather facts...

END ADULT SWIM PORTION

Fun show last night at Comedy Spot. Thanks to Dr. Fantastic, The Late Night Players, DC Comedyfest, the Comedy Spot, and everyone who came out.