PBS: NewsHour- David Brooks & EJ Dionne on Ground Troops Debate

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

When was the last time that Congress had big bipartisan votes on anything? Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly voting in favor of President Obama getting America involved in Syria and Iraq to defeat ISIS or ISIL, depending on how you define what Secretary of State John Kerry calls, “The Enemy of Islam”. The so-called Islamic group that wants to occupy the Levantine region of Arabia that includes both Iraq and Syria.

As far as Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I think it is pretty likely that Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2016 and perhaps will announce by the spring of 2015. Otherwise she doesn’t have much business being at Senator Tom Harkin’s political event last weekend. But as David Brooks and EJ Dionne pointed out, she won’t have an easy ride to the Democratic nomination. She’ll get pushed by both center and further Left Democrats to take hard stands on key issues in order to win the nomination.

As far as the battle for the U.S. Senate. Yeah Kansas is good news for Democrats this week. Because it means a popular Center-Left leaning Independent will be the main challenger to a very unpopular Republican Senator Pat Roberts in November. But as I’ve been talking about for months now, Kansas is not the only problem and thing that could keep Republicans from winning back the Senate in November. They are still defending Georgia and Kentucky where the Democratic challengers are running very strong. Tied in Kentucky against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senate Republicans will may have to hold all three of these states in order to win back the Senate.

PBS: NewsHour- Brooks & Dionne On The Ground Troop Debate

Read Full Post »

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks on ISIS and Bob McDonnell

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I believe the United States is getting ready to wipeout ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and NATO may help them out. And NATO may step in when it comes to Ukraine as well by arming the Ukrainian Government against the Russian Federation and their rebels. To me that seems what these meetings this week were about. And it reminds me of what happened in Libya in 2011 when the West got off to a slow start in dealing with Quadafi, but finally got around to doing the right thing.

As far as Bob McDonnell the former Governor of Virginia. The former GOP superstar who without this scandal would’ve made a very prominent Republican presidential candidate in 2016, has seen his career fall as fast as the Stock Market in 2008, or an asteroid being dropped from a bridge into the water. And why, because of Bob McDonnell and his wife and their own selfishness in using Virginia taxpayer funds for their own personal expenses.

As far as the Kansas Senate race. I’ve always believed the U.S. Senate was a tossup that could go either way with a Republican majority in the next Congress looking like 51-49. Or Senate Democrats holding in the Senate with a 50-50 margin because Vice President Joe Biden is a Democrat. But with Senate Pat Roberts now facing a popular mainstream at most center-left Independent that would most likely caucus with Senate Democrats in the next caucus and you add Georgia and Kentucky that are vulnerable for Senate Republicans who have to hold those seats, no one knows which party will control the Senate in the next Congress.

Read Full Post »

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields & Brooks: Islamic State in Syria & Iraq

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Of course Congress has to and needs to not only approve any new war America gets involved in Syria and Iraq. Because what President Obama and the National Security Council are considering is a new war and new operations as they involve Syria and Iraq. Air strikes in Syria for the first time in Syria at least from this President. And perhaps the possibility of us putting ground troops on the ground in Iraq especially Kurdistan to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group there. This should be the first debate that the House and Senate deals with when they come back in September.

Read Full Post »

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields & Brooks on Iraq, Richard Nixon’s Legacy

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

What choice does President Obama have, but defend Americans who are still in Iraq? That is what the airstrikes are about defending our personal that is still in there. Now you can make a good argument about President Obama not acting early enough. But the fact is the country and for very good reasons wants us out of Iraq. And if we say we are going to be there indefinitely, Iraq will take that seriously and not do what they need to do in order to govern their own country.

As far as Richard Nixon’s legacy as President. Watergate and the other criminal activities that went on in the Nixon White House are still the biggest part of President Nixon legacy. But you have to look at his whole administration and presidency and the positive things that he accomplished as well. Especially in foreign policy like ending the Vietnam War, opening up China and Russia. But also what he tried to do when it came to energy policy, Welfare reform, health care reform. And what he did when it came to environmental policy.

ISIS Victory

Read Full Post »

RAND Corporation: Opinion: Brian Michael Jenkins: Iraq Observations: The Future of Iraq

Iraq

RAND Corporation: Opinion: Brian Michael Jenkins: Iraq Observations

I posted this a few days ago on this blog about then Senator Joe Biden proposing back in 2007-08 to partition Iraq which of course the Iraqi people would have to approve themselves. And how that may of seem radical then and even a few months ago when Iraq still look fairly stable. But now with the chaos going on in Iraq that 3-4 state solution inside of a Federal Republic of Iraq with a federalist system. Which each state having autonomy over their own domestic affairs now looks like a very reasonable approach.

It wouldn’t make much sense to propose that now especially in an ongoing civil war in Iraq. Some level of security would have to be retained first that leaves the country as one. Without the North breaking away from Baghdad and the South and West remaining part of the Federal Republic as well. But assuming the Federal Government and Iraq with their military can regain control of the country at least to the point that the country is still officially one country, then maybe the partition idea would make a lot of sense.

The partition idea would have to have a responsible government in the Province of Baghdad where Baghdad City is also located which in the Central West of the country. A responsible government in the West where the Sunnis would govern. A responsible government in the North where the Kurds would govern. And a responsible government in the South where the Shia would government. Meaning the terrorists in each of these areas would have to be defeated first. Which is no small order considering the current Federal Government in Iraq.

Read Full Post »

National Post: Staff: An Historical Look at How Iraq Was Formed: A Three State Solution For Iraq

National Post: Staff: An Historical Look at How Iraq Was Formed

Back in 2006-07 then U.S. Senator Joe Biden as he was then Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee in 2006 and then when Democrats won back Congress in 2006 he became Chairman of that committee proposed a radical idea about Iraq which was beaten down by both Republicans and Democrats in the last few years. His idea was that Iraq would remain a one independent country, but that three new states would be created inside of Iraq. Kurdistan in the North. A Sunnistan or Sunni-Arab state in Western Iraq. And a Shiastan or Shia-Arab state in the South.

Well since Iraq reached a certain level of sustainability and competence under the Maliki Administration the last seven years or so with a real federal united republic being formed there. So Senator Biden’s idea about breaking up Iraq into these three ethnic and religious states or divisions similar to Britain looked well cooky if not radical. Since Iraq seemed to have reached some level of legitimacy and sustainability as a united federal republic.

Well over the last few weeks thanks to the ISIS now in control of parts of Iraq, ISIS being the Islāmic terrorist group Iraq’s future as an independent united nation looks at best up in the air. With the idea of Northern Iraq breaking away from the rest of the country now seems to look credible if not definite. And Senator Biden’s idea about a three state Iraq not only looking less radical, but a strong proposal that had it gone through in 2007-08 maybe Iraq is a unified country now not looking at a civil war. With all the competing factions having the power and responsibility over their own domestic affairs.

Read Full Post »

Contra Corner: Opinion: Michael Krieger: Mission Accomplished in Iraq

Contra Corner: Opinion: Michael Krieger: Conflagration in Iraq is all the Proof You Need to Know

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

Whatever you think of the War in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 when it officially ended with American troops pulling out the “mission has already been accomplished”. If you look at what the original neoconservative goals from the Bush Administration and outside of the Bush Administration were and what they wanted to accomplish in Iraq they’ve already been accomplished. “A peaceful democratic state in Iraq with a functioning government that can defend itself”. Yes they meaning the Maliki Administration and the Iraqi defense forces lost Northern Iraq. But it was there’s to lose and they were the ones to lose it.

Governing and defending Iraq is not an American responsibility especially if the country is not in danger of going under and being replaced by some type of fringe authoritarian rule. And Iraq doesn’t want us there. It would be one thing if Iraq was being invaded by another power private or another nation and they weren’t in position to defeat that force similar to Britain being under attacked by Nazi Germany during World War II. Then at the request of the Iraqi Government we would then be put into a position of whether we should help them or not.

But that is not the situation in Iraq now. Parts of Northern Iraq are under the control by Islāmic terrorists that seek to create an Islāmic state in Iraq. And it looks like they may be going through the early stages of an Iraqi civil war that the Iraqi people are going to have to figure out for themselves. This is not the business of Americans and our soldiers and our broke taxpayers that one way or the other would have to fund any involvement in Iraq. This is the business of the Iraqi people.

Read Full Post »

DNC Press: ‘Senator Byrd’s Speech Opposing Iraq War 3/19/03’

Source:DNC Press– U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) speaking out against the War in Iraq, in 2003.

“Remarkably prescient speech opposing the Iraq war by Senator Byrd in March of 2003.”

From DNC Press

I wish more people had listened to Senator Byrd in the beginning, especially in Congress but in America as a whole when the war was popular, because Senator Byrd was right all along. And had more people listened to him who wasn’t an isolationist or pacifist, or some other extremist on the Far-Left, we would’ve saved a lot of lives and money in America and Iraq. And not had gone to war over weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there when we went to war in 2003.

Read Full Post »

New York Times: Ross Douthat- ‘The Obama Era, Brought to You by the Iraq War’

Source:New York Times– “An antiwar protest in Washington in 2007. The war divided the left but ultimately energized it.Credit…Jim Bourg/Reuters” Also from the New York Times.

Source:The Daily Times

“WHEN prominent people in Washington spend an anniversary apologizing for being catastrophically, unforgivably wrong about a decade-old decision, you might expect that the decision in question had delivered their party to disaster or defeat. But last week’s many Iraq war mea culpas were rich in irony: one by one, prominent liberals lined up to apologize for supporting a war that’s responsible for liberalism’s current political and cultural ascendance.
History is too contingent to say that had there been no Iraq invasion in 2003, there would be no Democratic majority in 2012. (It’s easy enough to imagine counterfactuals that might have put Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office.) But the Democratic majority that we do have is a majority that the Iraq war created: its energy and strategies, its leadership and policy goals, and even its cultural advantages were forged in the backlash against George W. Bush’s Middle East policies.

All those now-apologetic liberals who supported the war in 2003 are a big part of this story, because without their hawkishness there would have been no antiwar rebellion on the left — no Michael Moore and Howard Dean, no Daily Kos and all its “netroots” imitators. ”

From the New York Times

OK, so I agree with Ross Douthat that the Iraq War has been good for the Democratic Party.

Political history lesson of the day: in 2003 the Republican Party had The White House with President George W. Bush and his administration, as well as a Republican Congress (House and Senate) with small majorities, but large enough for them to put through most of their economic agenda through, at least during that Congress.

With a divided Democratic opposition that really only had the Senate filibuster as a weapon they could use against the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans. And any communications strategy and message that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and the Democratic National Committee could put together against the Republican Party.

In 2004, President Bush is elected, with a small majority, but enough to get him reelected. House Republicans add a few seats to their thin majority. Senate Republicans go from 51 to 55 seats in the Senate. President Bush is at around 50% approval in late 2004 and going into 2005. This all looks like the Republican Party is not only the majority party, but it’s going to be that way for a while.

As the old political saying goes (or one that I just made up) a governing party and majority is only as good as it’s ability to govern and lead. You had a divided Republican Party on Social Security reform in early 2005, with House and Senate Democrats having no political reasons to work with Congressional Republicans on SS reform and that dies in the House and Senate by the summer of 2005. Hurricane Katrina happens in the late summer of 2005 and the disaster and the Bush Administration showing almost no ability to deal with that disaster and cleanup happens as well.

Going into the summer of 2005, I don’t think anyone was predicting that House and Senate Democrats had any real shot at either winning back the House or Senate in 2006, but the debacle in the Iraq War, and hurricane Katrina, President Bush’s low 30s approval rating by late 2005, as well as the corruption that was going on with House Republicans that year and into 2006, started this feeling in the country, especially with Democrats and Independents, that united government wasn’t working and Republican Party needed a check in Washington.

So yes, the War in Iraq has been good politically for the Democratic Party, especially when you look at where they were in 2003 and where they were less 4 years later. But the country has paid a helluva a price for it economically and militarily that I believe most Americans would love to go back to pre-Iraq War and thinking there’s no real good reason to ever invade Iraq, at least at this point.

Read Full Post »