SemDem: February 2007

Friday, February 23, 2007

How GOP Would Spin Britney Spears...

Britney Spears and George Bush have both made very bad decisions, but there is one big difference. Okay, yes, there is the one about countless deaths and billions wasted. But I'm talking about the other big difference -- the level of fanatic support. If those kinds of followers can still justify Bush's horrendous and deadly decisions concerning Iraq, just imagine how easy it would be to help out Mz. Spears.

Here is what you would be hearing on FAUXNEWS if only Britney had the same fanatic following:

The rant:

Neil, let me tell you something. I am sick to my stomach of the people and the liberal press jumping all over our beloved Britney Spears just because she made the bold move of taking drugs and cutting off her hair.

Was it popular to do? No. But leadership is not about following public opinion polls. I know her family, her fans, and all of the so-called psychology "experts" say that somehow, her head-shaving and hard-partying is symptomatic of bizarre behavior. Yet, Britney carefully weighed the options, and did it anyway. THAT, my liberal friends, is what leadership is all about. Britney is the DECIDER, so she has to do what she thinks is best—-despite what everyone else thinks, and despite what so-called "common sense" dictates. And as good Americans, we are obligated to support her no matter what.

How the hell can one think Britney’s enemies aren’t going to be EMBOLDENED by screaming headlines that read "Meltdown", or "Britney Needs Help"? And the kids? My God, the kids? You spineless cowards are essentially telling the kids of Britney that you have no faith in their DECIDER. I’ve said it a thousand times before, publicly smearing Britney is the same as publicly smearing the kids.

Those of us on the right (in the patriotic sense, that is) support Britney’s call to have 20 MORE kids sent to her. It’s escalation, sure, but do the Defeatocrats have a better solution? They do. It's called DEFEAT.

All I’ve heard from them is "It's really bad! Let’s pull the kids out of there!" Folks, taking the kids away from Britney is no different than just surrendering to the enemy. It tells the Federlines of the world that when the going gets a little rough, we like to "cut and run". Sure, that would be easy to do, and don't get me wrong: I WANT the kids back in a safe environment. But Dammit, not before the job is done and NOT before Britney says so.

I will concede that things aren’t going as well as we had all hoped. I will even concede that reckless behavior and child endangerment will probably increase in the short term. But folks, we made a commitment to Britney and to her kids when this started. We owe it to the kids and we owe it to ourselves not to lose the stomach for this until things eventually get better.

To do otherwise would be insanity.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Four Myths of Iraq

I could respect the fact that Bush doesn't listen to polls--but you have to admit, he doesn't listen to experts either. He also doesn't listen to the Congress, the military, the Independent Study group, the American people, nor the military experts--such as retired General Odom. He, along with everyone else, decries Bush's "stay-the-course" strategy (and the recent "stay the course plus 21,500"). Retired General Odom addressed four myths in a recent article that are perpetuated by the right-wing to keep our troops quagmired in Iraq:

1. We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

2. We must continue the war to prevent Iran's influence from growing in Iraq. This is another absurd notion. One of the president's initial war aims, the creation of a democracy in Iraq, ensured increased Iranian influence, both in Iraq and the region. Electoral democracy, predictably, would put Shiite groups in power -- groups supported by Iran since Saddam Hussein repressed them in 1991. Why are so many members of Congress swallowing the claim that prolonging the war is now supposed to prevent precisely what starting the war inexorably and predictably caused? Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

3. We must prevent the emergence of a new haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was the U.S. invasion that opened Iraq's doors to al-Qaeda. The longer U.S. forces have remained there, the stronger al-Qaeda has become. Yet its strength within the Kurdish and Shiite areas is trivial. After a U.S. withdrawal, it will probably play a continuing role in helping the Sunni groups against the Shiites and the Kurds. Whether such foreign elements could remain or thrive in Iraq after the resolution of civil war is open to question. Meanwhile, continuing the war will not push al-Qaeda outside Iraq. On the contrary, the American presence is the glue that holds al-Qaeda there now.

4. We must continue to fight in order to "support the troops." This argument effectively paralyzes almost all members of Congress. Lawmakers proclaim in grave tones a litany of problems in Iraq sufficient to justify a rapid pullout. Then they reject that logical conclusion, insisting we cannot do so because we must support the troops. Has anybody asked the troops?