The way the United States has dealt with Iraq is a lot like the results of a teenage grope fest and a broken prophylactic in the back seat of a car.
First we enter under false pretenses, get drunk on power, suddenly realize we don’t have nearly enough protection but still decide we’re already here so we might as well just pump and pray. The problem is that when we finally decide to pull out, a few thousand soldiers are always left behind.
In his first official statement about how he intends to end one of the longest and costliest wars in U.S. history, President Obama said he will bring the war in Iraq to an end but with a caveat. Not everyone will go home.
The Marines of Camp Lejeune, N.C. had a front-row seat as the president laid out his vision for Iraq over the coming months and years.
His plan is to have all combat troops out of the theatre and on their way home by the end of August 2010 with a contingent of 35,000 to 50,000 troops remaining behind to assist in non-combat roles.
Theoretically these non-combat personnel will aid in training Iraqi security forces, help carry out counterterrorism missions and protect U.S. military and civilian personnel. The distinction between combat and non-combat is somewhat of a misnomer. The threats U.S. forces face will be just as real a year from now as they are today. Remaining troops will be armed with more than just flower power and a peace pipe.
The liberal left decries that we aren’t leaving soon enough, the neo-con right wishes we could stay forever. Me? I’m just happy that we are finally going to allocate our military resources where they belong, like searching for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let’s go after those guys. It’s got to be safer than blowing our load on the Iraqis.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Palestinian Aid Summit
Here we go again...
With closed borders, a bombed out infrastructure and civilian casualties mounting everyday, the people of Gaza are crying out for aid.
The international community has come together in an attempt to help the Palestinian people who were left shattered in the wake of the Israeli offensive into Gaza that occurred in January.
World leaders are attending a conference in Egypt to discuss the future of Gaza and the Palestinians are hoping for a little more than $2 billion in reconstruction aid. The United States, European Commission and the Gulf Arab States have pledged more than $3 billion, but with carrots and sticks attached.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said the first goal is to open the border crossings so aid can be received by Palestinians, but said it was imperative that illegal weapons don't flow into Gaza.
As I am writing this, reports are coming in that Hamas has again begun lobbing rockets into the south of Israel essentially ending the cease-fire.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that reconstruction aid was part of a larger picture of pushing forth peace in the Middle East.
“Our response to today’s crisis in Gaza cannot be separated from our broader efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace…that brings us close to our shared goals,” Clinton said.
Israel and the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip were not invited to the summit against Egypt’s wishes, which was hosting the event.
While conventional wisdom may hold that you bring in the two pugnacious states to work out their differences, the international community has obviously decided that both countries are acting too childish and at least for now don't deserve a seat at the table.
While conventional wisdom may hold that you bring in the two pugnacious states to work out their differences, the international community has obviously decided that both countries are acting too childish and at least for now don't deserve a seat at the table.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Legalize Marijuana
Victor Hugo once famously wrote that “more powerful than the march of mighty armies is an idea whose time has finally come.”
With a $42 billion deficit looming over California it may be time for a paradigm shift. I’m talking about some serious outside-the-box thinking--so far outside the box that we will be practically back in it.
By that I mean this idea is really a no brainer. Legalize marijuana and tax the living snot out of it. It’s not as if the federal government even has the resources to effectively control the illegal sale and consumption of this prolific herb. So let’s join hands and let bygones be bygones.
With the idea of legalizing marijuana now more popular nationwide than republicans in Congress, according to the latest CNN/Time poll, California has demonstrated once again that it is light-years ahead of the rest of the country.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced legislation on Monday to legalize marijuana and earn perhaps $1 billion annually by taxing it. Quintin Mecke, Ammiano's press secretary said the proposed bill "would remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession, or use of marijuana, natural THC, or paraphernalia for persons over the age of 21." The bill would additionally prohibit state and local law officials from enforcing federal marijuana laws.
Ammiano's bill calls for "establishing a fee on the sale of marijuana at a rate of $50 per ounce." Mecke said that would bring in roughly $1 billion to the state coffers, according to estimates made by marijuana advocacy organizations. "The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390)" is a simple matter of fiscal common sense.
Now, what were we just talking about?
With a $42 billion deficit looming over California it may be time for a paradigm shift. I’m talking about some serious outside-the-box thinking--so far outside the box that we will be practically back in it.
By that I mean this idea is really a no brainer. Legalize marijuana and tax the living snot out of it. It’s not as if the federal government even has the resources to effectively control the illegal sale and consumption of this prolific herb. So let’s join hands and let bygones be bygones.
With the idea of legalizing marijuana now more popular nationwide than republicans in Congress, according to the latest CNN/Time poll, California has demonstrated once again that it is light-years ahead of the rest of the country.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced legislation on Monday to legalize marijuana and earn perhaps $1 billion annually by taxing it. Quintin Mecke, Ammiano's press secretary said the proposed bill "would remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession, or use of marijuana, natural THC, or paraphernalia for persons over the age of 21." The bill would additionally prohibit state and local law officials from enforcing federal marijuana laws.
Ammiano's bill calls for "establishing a fee on the sale of marijuana at a rate of $50 per ounce." Mecke said that would bring in roughly $1 billion to the state coffers, according to estimates made by marijuana advocacy organizations. "The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390)" is a simple matter of fiscal common sense.
Now, what were we just talking about?
Take the Money and Shut It
The sheer hypocrisy of the Republican Party can be seen in the story of "The Little Red Hen." The GOP did not want to help bake the bread, but that will not stop them from wanting to participate in eating the bread.
Members of Congress should have the courage of their convictions. If they voted against the stimulus package, then they should refuse any funding being directed toward their state or district. After all, if you think that all federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it.
The first idea that comes to mind is don't take federal money. It drives me crazy to hear republican pundits, governors, senators et al. espouse that their being against the stimulus money does not preclude them from taking federal dollars.
"This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the majority's favorite government programs," Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., said.
What about the wasteful deficit spending of the Bush years on the GOP's favorite programs like massive tax cuts for the top 1 percent of the population? Not to mention the bridge to nowhere and all the other GOP pork. States whose senators opposed the bill should get zero from it, not a penny.
"The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart is right on with this zinger.
“That’s like saying I don’t believe in gay rights but if that guy in the cowboy hat over there is giving out free b***jobs who am I to not get in line,” Stewart quipped.
Members of Congress should have the courage of their convictions. If they voted against the stimulus package, then they should refuse any funding being directed toward their state or district. After all, if you think that all federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it.
The first idea that comes to mind is don't take federal money. It drives me crazy to hear republican pundits, governors, senators et al. espouse that their being against the stimulus money does not preclude them from taking federal dollars.
"This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the majority's favorite government programs," Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., said.
What about the wasteful deficit spending of the Bush years on the GOP's favorite programs like massive tax cuts for the top 1 percent of the population? Not to mention the bridge to nowhere and all the other GOP pork. States whose senators opposed the bill should get zero from it, not a penny.
"The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart is right on with this zinger.
“That’s like saying I don’t believe in gay rights but if that guy in the cowboy hat over there is giving out free b***jobs who am I to not get in line,” Stewart quipped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)