Politics of the Mid-Term Elections
Mohammad Gill October 31, 2006
#43 Posted by mehrozsiraj731 on November 5, 2006 8:07:25 am
My article, Iraq`s future would be a worthwhile read!
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007192&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007192&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#42 Posted by mehrozsiraj731 on November 5, 2006 7:57:16 am
agree with both the post below mine... But let me make somethings clear. Yes, if the Democrats win, they will surely have no excuses to make regarding their dissenting policies on Iraq and the War on Terror and surely, it would then be more of a contest between a Democratic Parliament and a Republican White House, but there can simply be no cut and run. If the Democrats win, then they can give a huge bolster to their Presidential candidates for 2008. Their agenda and policies would be much clearly presented to the people and so would be the wobbling and back stabbing of the Bush Administration. What needs to be learnt here is that in case of the Democrats, they have had support of the mainstream American media for quite some time now. CNN has been supporting Democratic candidates and so has been Newsweek and New York Times.
The Democrats, especially Howard Dean have been there on CNN`s Late Edition saying that they will not increase taxes and they will ensure that they come up with plans that increase the tax net without harming the average middle class. Dean has said it that if the Democrats win, they would ensure that Americans get better protection against the wrath of natural disasters. Dean also said it on the record that they would not be `flip-flopping` on the issue of Iraq and the war on Terror.
In other words, this time round the Democrats have been uttering those same policies and agendas that were being spoken about by Senator John Kerry during the Presidential campaign in 2004. But the difference this time round is the change in the mindset of the people and the American press.
Bob Woodward has surely given the Bush White House many sleepless nights and has surely put them in a `State of Denial.` The Democrats must surely thank Woodward and the Washington Post for enlightening the American masses about the reality of Iraq. Senator Kerry kept on emphasising and pointing out the follies and errors in Bush`s assessment of Iraq and the way the Administration had gone into Iraq and also did he adequately criticise the way the war was being handled, but who was listening? Not many. Today people are listening because mindsets have now taken a turn.
Further more, Republicans like Ken Mehlman have been arguing that irrespective of whatever the Democrats say, if they gain control they surely would raise taxes, furthering adding to the burdens of the American middle class. How much more incorrect can the Republicans get?? According to Senator Kerry and former President Clinton, the tax cuts that the current administration has given to America`s top one percent, has cost the economy more than $1 trillion since Bush has taken over and that is roughly the same amount of cost incurred during the War on Terror so far. The deficits have been covered up by adding strain to the Middle Class and Mehlman does not comment on this!
How can Mehlman forget what Reagan and Bush 41` did in 1984??? They continued to target the Democrats on their taxation policies, profusely arguing that had they not been re-elected, the Democrats would increase the taxes and guess what happened? By creating fear of tax rises among the American tax payers, they whipped the hell of of the Democrats and got re-elected and after their re-election, two things were done first, Reagan began a patch up with Gorbachev and second, increased the TAXES!
So, how wrong can Mehlman get is all exposed by now. The Democrats have all the more reason to win. How ever, what URSTRULY does not mention or perhaps understand that if the Democrats allow the Republicans to take control for the next term, surely they would be cleaning their path for their presidential candidates, but the America they would inherit, would be nearly horrible to manage. Even some one like Abraham Lincoln or Bill Cinton might find it hard to manage it...
The Democrats, especially Howard Dean have been there on CNN`s Late Edition saying that they will not increase taxes and they will ensure that they come up with plans that increase the tax net without harming the average middle class. Dean has said it that if the Democrats win, they would ensure that Americans get better protection against the wrath of natural disasters. Dean also said it on the record that they would not be `flip-flopping` on the issue of Iraq and the war on Terror.
In other words, this time round the Democrats have been uttering those same policies and agendas that were being spoken about by Senator John Kerry during the Presidential campaign in 2004. But the difference this time round is the change in the mindset of the people and the American press.
Bob Woodward has surely given the Bush White House many sleepless nights and has surely put them in a `State of Denial.` The Democrats must surely thank Woodward and the Washington Post for enlightening the American masses about the reality of Iraq. Senator Kerry kept on emphasising and pointing out the follies and errors in Bush`s assessment of Iraq and the way the Administration had gone into Iraq and also did he adequately criticise the way the war was being handled, but who was listening? Not many. Today people are listening because mindsets have now taken a turn.
Further more, Republicans like Ken Mehlman have been arguing that irrespective of whatever the Democrats say, if they gain control they surely would raise taxes, furthering adding to the burdens of the American middle class. How much more incorrect can the Republicans get?? According to Senator Kerry and former President Clinton, the tax cuts that the current administration has given to America`s top one percent, has cost the economy more than $1 trillion since Bush has taken over and that is roughly the same amount of cost incurred during the War on Terror so far. The deficits have been covered up by adding strain to the Middle Class and Mehlman does not comment on this!
How can Mehlman forget what Reagan and Bush 41` did in 1984??? They continued to target the Democrats on their taxation policies, profusely arguing that had they not been re-elected, the Democrats would increase the taxes and guess what happened? By creating fear of tax rises among the American tax payers, they whipped the hell of of the Democrats and got re-elected and after their re-election, two things were done first, Reagan began a patch up with Gorbachev and second, increased the TAXES!
So, how wrong can Mehlman get is all exposed by now. The Democrats have all the more reason to win. How ever, what URSTRULY does not mention or perhaps understand that if the Democrats allow the Republicans to take control for the next term, surely they would be cleaning their path for their presidential candidates, but the America they would inherit, would be nearly horrible to manage. Even some one like Abraham Lincoln or Bill Cinton might find it hard to manage it...
#41 Posted by mehrozsiraj731 on November 5, 2006 7:52:15 am
I agree with both the post below mine... But let me make somethings clear. Yes, if the Democrats win, they will surely have no excuses to make regarding their dissenting policies on Iraq and the War on Terror and surely, it would then be more of a contest between a Democratic Parliament and a Republican White House, but there can simply be no cut and run. If the Democrats win, then they can give a huge bolster to their Presidential candidates for 2008. Their agenda and policies would be much clearly presented to the people and so would be the wobbling and back stabbing of the Bush Administration. What needs to be learnt here is that in case of the Democrats, they have had support of the mainstream American media for quite some time now. CNN has been supporting Democratic candidates and so has been Newsweek and New York Times.
The Democrats, especially Howard Dean have been there on CNN`s Late Edition saying that they will not increase taxes and they will ensure that they come up with plans that increase the tax net without harming the average middle class. Dean has said it that if the Democrats win, they would ensure that Americans get better protection against the wrath of natural disasters. Dean also said it on the record that they would not be `flip-flopping` on the issue of Iraq and the war on Terror.
In other words, this time round the Democrats have been uttering those same policies and agendas that were being spoken about by Senator John Kerry during the Presidential campaign in 2004. But the difference this time round is the change in the mindset of the people and the American press.
Bob Woodward has surely given the Bush White House many sleepless nights and has surely put them in a `State of Denial.` The Democrats must surely thank Woodward and the Washington Post for enlightening the American masses about the reality of Iraq. Senator Kerry kept on emphasising and pointing out the follies and errors in Bush`s assessment of Iraq and the way the Administration had gone into Iraq and also did he adequately criticise the way the war was being handled, but who was listening? Not many. Today people are listening because mindsets have now taken a turn.
Further more, Republicans like Ken Mehlman have been arguing that irrespective of whatever the Democrats say, if they gain control they surely would raise taxes, furthering adding to the burdens of the American middle class. How much more incorrect can the Republicans get?? According to Senator Kerry and former President Clinton, the tax cuts that the current administration has given to America`s top one percent, has cost the economy more than $1 trillion since Bush has taken over and that is roughly the same amount of cost incurred during the War on Terror so far. The deficits have been covered up by adding strain to the Middle Class and Mehlman does not comment on this!
How can Mehlman forget what Reagan and Bush 41` did in 1984??? They continued to target the Democrats on their taxation policies, profusely arguing that had they not been re-elected, the Democrats would increase the taxes and guess what happened? By creating fear of tax rises among the American tax payers, they whipped the hell of of the Democrats and got re-elected and after their re-election, two things were done first, Reagan began a patch up with Gorbachev and second, increased the TAXES!
So, how wrong can Mehlman get is all exposed by now. The Democrats have all the more reason to win. How ever, what URSTRULY does not mention or perhaps understand that if the Democrats allow the Republicans to take control for the next term, surely they would be cleaning their path for their presidential candidates, but the America they would inherit, would be nearly horrible to manage. Even some one like Abraham Lincoln or Bill Cinton might find it hard to manage it...
The Democrats, especially Howard Dean have been there on CNN`s Late Edition saying that they will not increase taxes and they will ensure that they come up with plans that increase the tax net without harming the average middle class. Dean has said it that if the Democrats win, they would ensure that Americans get better protection against the wrath of natural disasters. Dean also said it on the record that they would not be `flip-flopping` on the issue of Iraq and the war on Terror.
In other words, this time round the Democrats have been uttering those same policies and agendas that were being spoken about by Senator John Kerry during the Presidential campaign in 2004. But the difference this time round is the change in the mindset of the people and the American press.
Bob Woodward has surely given the Bush White House many sleepless nights and has surely put them in a `State of Denial.` The Democrats must surely thank Woodward and the Washington Post for enlightening the American masses about the reality of Iraq. Senator Kerry kept on emphasising and pointing out the follies and errors in Bush`s assessment of Iraq and the way the Administration had gone into Iraq and also did he adequately criticise the way the war was being handled, but who was listening? Not many. Today people are listening because mindsets have now taken a turn.
Further more, Republicans like Ken Mehlman have been arguing that irrespective of whatever the Democrats say, if they gain control they surely would raise taxes, furthering adding to the burdens of the American middle class. How much more incorrect can the Republicans get?? According to Senator Kerry and former President Clinton, the tax cuts that the current administration has given to America`s top one percent, has cost the economy more than $1 trillion since Bush has taken over and that is roughly the same amount of cost incurred during the War on Terror so far. The deficits have been covered up by adding strain to the Middle Class and Mehlman does not comment on this!
How can Mehlman forget what Reagan and Bush 41` did in 1984??? They continued to target the Democrats on their taxation policies, profusely arguing that had they not been re-elected, the Democrats would increase the taxes and guess what happened? By creating fear of tax rises among the American tax payers, they whipped the hell of of the Democrats and got re-elected and after their re-election, two things were done first, Reagan began a patch up with Gorbachev and second, increased the TAXES!
So, how wrong can Mehlman get is all exposed by now. The Democrats have all the more reason to win. How ever, what URSTRULY does not mention or perhaps understand that if the Democrats allow the Republicans to take control for the next term, surely they would be cleaning their path for their presidential candidates, but the America they would inherit, would be nearly horrible to manage. Even some one like Abraham Lincoln or Bill Cinton might find it hard to manage it...
#40 Posted by zeemax on November 3, 2006 4:03:34 am
#37 by SR
I mean, whether there will be a massive bombing raid or just a token cruise missle attack could make a difference between whether thousands of innocents die or just an asprin factory and a few tents get blown away.
Yes but that was Clinton. Despite all his ... ahem... weaknesses, I don`t see any democrats now with Clinton`s understanding of world affairs.
Everyone saw how inept Kerry is with that stupid remark ... he should have said ``otherwise you will be loitering around jobless in shopping malls and lured to go to Iraq``, which he could prove through documented evidence, instead of what he actually said; and was embarassed and had to apologise.
Then there`s Hilary who is more Islamophobic than even the neocons ... who scuttled a perfectly good Dubai Ports World deal just because the ultimate owners are Muslims.
Besides, the main beef of Democrats is why didn`t Bush listen to Generals and send MORE troops to Iraq to finish the job than what he did; not why he attacked Iraq in the first place.
So I beg to disagree that even a fine tuning of policy implementation will take place. If at all, it will become even more harsh. After all, they`re all quick to the draw cowboys ... and xenophobic.
You should know having lived in the deep South where the `bama mama` comes from... :-)
I mean, whether there will be a massive bombing raid or just a token cruise missle attack could make a difference between whether thousands of innocents die or just an asprin factory and a few tents get blown away.
Yes but that was Clinton. Despite all his ... ahem... weaknesses, I don`t see any democrats now with Clinton`s understanding of world affairs.
Everyone saw how inept Kerry is with that stupid remark ... he should have said ``otherwise you will be loitering around jobless in shopping malls and lured to go to Iraq``, which he could prove through documented evidence, instead of what he actually said; and was embarassed and had to apologise.
Then there`s Hilary who is more Islamophobic than even the neocons ... who scuttled a perfectly good Dubai Ports World deal just because the ultimate owners are Muslims.
Besides, the main beef of Democrats is why didn`t Bush listen to Generals and send MORE troops to Iraq to finish the job than what he did; not why he attacked Iraq in the first place.
So I beg to disagree that even a fine tuning of policy implementation will take place. If at all, it will become even more harsh. After all, they`re all quick to the draw cowboys ... and xenophobic.
You should know having lived in the deep South where the `bama mama` comes from... :-)
#39 Posted by bjkumar on November 2, 2006 6:39:31 pm
Eight Issues That Will Shape the 2006 Elections
Which party will control Congress?
….
The Democrats need 15 seats to regain control of the House and that is now clearly within reach. Republican leaders anticipate that, at a minimum, they will lose seven or 10 or even 12 seats in the House. Their worst-case scenarios have jumped from losing 20 seats to losing 30.
The Senate also is in jeopardy. Democrats need to win six seats to capture the Senate and enough races are in the tossup category now to make that possible, though still more difficult than taking back the House. Republicans are in deep trouble in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio and Rhode Island. Contests in Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia are considered toss-ups. Republicans appear to have just one chance to pick up a Democratic seat and that is in New Jersey.
…..
The Eight Issues
#38 Posted by ferozk on November 2, 2006 6:28:39 pm
Re: HP # 35
I am not confused, between American ``obligation`` and ``responsibility``. David McCulloch in biography of Truman explains this distinction very well. Even a bare minimum reading of the American diplomatic dispatches from the time period would suggest that the entire State Department and for that matter, Truman`s whole cabinet was against the idea of Israel. Truman`s reasoning for supporting the cause of Israel was a moral one and in his cabinet discussions, he mentions it as the ``right thing to do``.
The sense of responsibility and obligation, which the United States has towards Israel, are different entities. The obligation to defend Israel actually came in the aftermath of the 1973 war, when it seemed possible that the Arab armies might overrun and destroy Israel. It was this fear, and off course the pleadings of Golda Meir, that brought about a massive infusion of American military aid to Israel. The United States` policy towrds Israel before 1973 and after 1973 was different and this is also reflected in the number of United Nations` resolutions against Israel that have been vetoed by the United States. Also, some careful attention to the speeches on the American politicans on the subject will also highlight the difference between American obligations and American responsibilities towards Israel.
As to the Saudi and Turk situtation, I will comment on it later when my headache allows it. :)
Ciao
P.S.: I stand corrected on the Congress; it was a hurried response between classes, but still; a mistake is a mistake. :)
I am not confused, between American ``obligation`` and ``responsibility``. David McCulloch in biography of Truman explains this distinction very well. Even a bare minimum reading of the American diplomatic dispatches from the time period would suggest that the entire State Department and for that matter, Truman`s whole cabinet was against the idea of Israel. Truman`s reasoning for supporting the cause of Israel was a moral one and in his cabinet discussions, he mentions it as the ``right thing to do``.
The sense of responsibility and obligation, which the United States has towards Israel, are different entities. The obligation to defend Israel actually came in the aftermath of the 1973 war, when it seemed possible that the Arab armies might overrun and destroy Israel. It was this fear, and off course the pleadings of Golda Meir, that brought about a massive infusion of American military aid to Israel. The United States` policy towrds Israel before 1973 and after 1973 was different and this is also reflected in the number of United Nations` resolutions against Israel that have been vetoed by the United States. Also, some careful attention to the speeches on the American politicans on the subject will also highlight the difference between American obligations and American responsibilities towards Israel.
As to the Saudi and Turk situtation, I will comment on it later when my headache allows it. :)
Ciao
P.S.: I stand corrected on the Congress; it was a hurried response between classes, but still; a mistake is a mistake. :)
#37 Posted by SR on November 2, 2006 1:06:59 pm
Re: # 34 zeemax {``...Does anyone really think any of US policies will change in the event of any particular result?...``}
No. Nothing fundamental will change. I agree. But a lot of difference can be made just by the minor alterations in fine tuning of policy implimentation... I mean, whether there will be a massive bombing raid or just a token cruise missle attack could make a difference between whether thousands of innocents die or just an asprin factory and a few tents get blown away. On a policy level it may amount to almost the same, but the thousands who lose their loved ones in the one case will be spared the trauma in the other case. That is something at least.
As for Iraq, the US public opinion is already being shaped. The US has to get out. There is a growing bias developing in that direction.
In the following six to eight minute interviews, held weekly on National Public Radio, with an ex-pat Iraqi living in the US, a former US Ambassador, a couple of generals, a historian, a former presidential advisor and other similarly placed people give views that say it all. From the earliest (8 July) to the latest (28 October) the tone changes steadily. This series is a MUST LISTEN...
Zbigniew Brzezinski (July 8th)
Frederick Kagan
Shibley Telhami
Ambassador Galbraith
Maj. Gen. John Batiste
Sir Jeremy Greenstock
Gen. William Odom
Larry Diamond
Adeed Dawisha (October 28th)
...SR
PS: Let`s forget all this gloom and Doom. Go out to a hip and happening nightclub this Saturday night and give a kiss to one of those Singapore beauties for me.
No. Nothing fundamental will change. I agree. But a lot of difference can be made just by the minor alterations in fine tuning of policy implimentation... I mean, whether there will be a massive bombing raid or just a token cruise missle attack could make a difference between whether thousands of innocents die or just an asprin factory and a few tents get blown away. On a policy level it may amount to almost the same, but the thousands who lose their loved ones in the one case will be spared the trauma in the other case. That is something at least.
As for Iraq, the US public opinion is already being shaped. The US has to get out. There is a growing bias developing in that direction.
In the following six to eight minute interviews, held weekly on National Public Radio, with an ex-pat Iraqi living in the US, a former US Ambassador, a couple of generals, a historian, a former presidential advisor and other similarly placed people give views that say it all. From the earliest (8 July) to the latest (28 October) the tone changes steadily. This series is a MUST LISTEN...
Zbigniew Brzezinski (July 8th)
Frederick Kagan
Shibley Telhami
Ambassador Galbraith
Maj. Gen. John Batiste
Sir Jeremy Greenstock
Gen. William Odom
Larry Diamond
Adeed Dawisha (October 28th)
...SR
PS: Let`s forget all this gloom and Doom. Go out to a hip and happening nightclub this Saturday night and give a kiss to one of those Singapore beauties for me.
#36 Posted by HP on November 2, 2006 9:51:27 am
#26 by HP
“This is first time in the US history that mid term elections are all about Foreign policy. Even during the hay days of Vietnam, Foreign Policy was not a dominant issue in mid term elections.”
Not exactly, the 1966 midterm elections in the US were called “The Vietnam Midterm”.
But “The Iraq Midterm” will probably have a bigger impact than the Vietnam Midterms.
#35 Posted by HP on November 2, 2006 9:11:11 am
#31 by ferozk
Feroz,
Regarding Israel, I think you are mixing up responsibility with obligation.
I think we will visit this issue some other time, as now I would rather concentrate on the future US policy in Iraq. Of course, since the elections results are not in yet, so some of our points may be just speculative but I will attempt to stay away from speculation as much as I can.
Before that let me go over the Turkish and Saudi concerns that you mentioned.
It is always hard for a neighboring country to detach from the surroundings especially when a civil war is going on next door. Both Turkey and Saudi also have to deal with cross border ethnic rivalries that may spillover to their countries and some of their concerns are genuine. However, we need to determine whether those concerns have reached a point where both Turkey and Saudis would be unable to deal with them, without the US presence in Iraq.
Imo, that point has not been reached yet. Turkey’s concerns can be addressed by posting an international force on its borders with Iraq and reduce the infiltration of the Kurds in the Turkish areas. For the long-term requirements, Turkey may have to follow a policy of containment that it already has in place for the last many decades. Turkey would surely be concerned with an independent Kurd state but it can deal with an autonomous Kurd province within the Iraqi state and I think given the situation in Iraq that would be an acceptable solution for both Turkey and Iran.
I hope you realize that the status quo maintained by Saddam and the other Iraqi governments before him, has already been broken with the physical US entry in Iraq. So, both Turkey and Iran will have to live with the new realities and will have to make adjustments as the US cannot be in Iraq forever and it will have to leave eventually. The US cannot commit its forces at the scale they are now forever and at some point, a reduction would have to take place. Whenever the US leaves or reduces its commitment to minimum, Turkey will have to find a way to deal with the issues in the aftermath of US decision. The pressure on the US is to leave now vs. later and the “later” cannot be vague.
So imo, Turkey’s concerns cannot influence the decisions in Iraq though the US may set up some system to address those concerns without committing its presence in Iraq.
The Saudi position is somewhat difficult. The Saudis have been living with the Iraq situation since the 1991 war and they had previously allowed the US army to stay in Saudia to protect its interests. I feel that the Saudis would accept similar arrangement and allow increased numbers of the US army in its territory thus reducing the risk of spilling of civil war or the ethnic tensions in Saudi Arabia from Iraq and to perhaps, insulate itself from the growing Shia or the Iranian influence.
For Saudis, the US decision in Iraq would require a whole lot more consideration compared to the Turkey situation. Still, keeping the US army in Iraq forever is not a viable situation in the long run for Saudis themselves and they would too be leery of a situation where the insurgency in Iraq or the mounting public pressure in US, would cause an abrupt US withdrawal.
An orderly withdrawal from Iraq with a clear timetable would benefit both Turkey and Saudia and that would be acceptable to the US public too.
“regardless of the American public`s anger at being lied about Iraq, the fact of the matter is that American foreign policy is decided by 435 members of Congress and 100 members of senate.”
Feroz, that is incorrect. The US Congress does not have whole lot of influence over the foreign policy. It can tighten the financial strings or raise lot of stink abt the foreign policy but the ultimate “Decider” is the executive branch led by POTUS.
Congress = House of Reps and the Senate :)
Will come to this later…
Feroz,
Regarding Israel, I think you are mixing up responsibility with obligation.
I think we will visit this issue some other time, as now I would rather concentrate on the future US policy in Iraq. Of course, since the elections results are not in yet, so some of our points may be just speculative but I will attempt to stay away from speculation as much as I can.
Before that let me go over the Turkish and Saudi concerns that you mentioned.
It is always hard for a neighboring country to detach from the surroundings especially when a civil war is going on next door. Both Turkey and Saudi also have to deal with cross border ethnic rivalries that may spillover to their countries and some of their concerns are genuine. However, we need to determine whether those concerns have reached a point where both Turkey and Saudis would be unable to deal with them, without the US presence in Iraq.
Imo, that point has not been reached yet. Turkey’s concerns can be addressed by posting an international force on its borders with Iraq and reduce the infiltration of the Kurds in the Turkish areas. For the long-term requirements, Turkey may have to follow a policy of containment that it already has in place for the last many decades. Turkey would surely be concerned with an independent Kurd state but it can deal with an autonomous Kurd province within the Iraqi state and I think given the situation in Iraq that would be an acceptable solution for both Turkey and Iran.
I hope you realize that the status quo maintained by Saddam and the other Iraqi governments before him, has already been broken with the physical US entry in Iraq. So, both Turkey and Iran will have to live with the new realities and will have to make adjustments as the US cannot be in Iraq forever and it will have to leave eventually. The US cannot commit its forces at the scale they are now forever and at some point, a reduction would have to take place. Whenever the US leaves or reduces its commitment to minimum, Turkey will have to find a way to deal with the issues in the aftermath of US decision. The pressure on the US is to leave now vs. later and the “later” cannot be vague.
So imo, Turkey’s concerns cannot influence the decisions in Iraq though the US may set up some system to address those concerns without committing its presence in Iraq.
The Saudi position is somewhat difficult. The Saudis have been living with the Iraq situation since the 1991 war and they had previously allowed the US army to stay in Saudia to protect its interests. I feel that the Saudis would accept similar arrangement and allow increased numbers of the US army in its territory thus reducing the risk of spilling of civil war or the ethnic tensions in Saudi Arabia from Iraq and to perhaps, insulate itself from the growing Shia or the Iranian influence.
For Saudis, the US decision in Iraq would require a whole lot more consideration compared to the Turkey situation. Still, keeping the US army in Iraq forever is not a viable situation in the long run for Saudis themselves and they would too be leery of a situation where the insurgency in Iraq or the mounting public pressure in US, would cause an abrupt US withdrawal.
An orderly withdrawal from Iraq with a clear timetable would benefit both Turkey and Saudia and that would be acceptable to the US public too.
“regardless of the American public`s anger at being lied about Iraq, the fact of the matter is that American foreign policy is decided by 435 members of Congress and 100 members of senate.”
Feroz, that is incorrect. The US Congress does not have whole lot of influence over the foreign policy. It can tighten the financial strings or raise lot of stink abt the foreign policy but the ultimate “Decider” is the executive branch led by POTUS.
Congress = House of Reps and the Senate :)
Will come to this later…
#34 Posted by zeemax on November 2, 2006 8:46:26 am
SR,
I`m just grateful the mid-term elections don`t clash with the ICC cricket final ..
Does anyone really think any of US policies will change in the event of any particular result? If they do, they have another think coming. US has really no option but to continue with the military course. Change of tactics, maybe, but the dadagiri will not change. US will only be defeated and brought down to its knees by the `opponents` tactics.
I`m just grateful the mid-term elections don`t clash with the ICC cricket final ..
Does anyone really think any of US policies will change in the event of any particular result? If they do, they have another think coming. US has really no option but to continue with the military course. Change of tactics, maybe, but the dadagiri will not change. US will only be defeated and brought down to its knees by the `opponents` tactics.
#33 Posted by SR on November 2, 2006 8:31:20 am
Re: # 32 zeemax ...
No I do not argue with those whose only interest appears to be kj-behasi... I provided the references for the benefit of the general reader... I include hereunder two ``market based prediction`` weblinks. The first one shows a prediction of how the US Senate race is shaking out. While the second shows predictions about the Governors` races. Supposedly, this so-called ``market prediction method`` has been quite accurate in the last several elections.
http://www.fortnow.com/senate/
http://www.fortnow.com/governor/
...SR
No I do not argue with those whose only interest appears to be kj-behasi... I provided the references for the benefit of the general reader... I include hereunder two ``market based prediction`` weblinks. The first one shows a prediction of how the US Senate race is shaking out. While the second shows predictions about the Governors` races. Supposedly, this so-called ``market prediction method`` has been quite accurate in the last several elections.
http://www.fortnow.com/senate/
http://www.fortnow.com/governor/
...SR
#32 Posted by zeemax on November 2, 2006 6:15:13 am
SR,
Are you really reasoning with arjun_m(acaca)? You should just hand him this and he`ll be quite grateful ...
Antiseptic aftershave made of gaomutra, Delhi.
Are you really reasoning with arjun_m(acaca)? You should just hand him this and he`ll be quite grateful ...
Antiseptic aftershave made of gaomutra, Delhi.
#31 Posted by ferozk on November 2, 2006 2:26:53 am
Re: HP # 26
United States`s sense of a moral obligation towards Israel stemmed from the Truman administration at the time of Israel`s creation in 1948. In 1948, when Israel was in the process of being created, George C. Marshall who was Truman`s Secretary of State, was advised by the British foreign office that an independent Jewish state would not be acceptable to the majority of Muslim states. Based on the fact, that British were governing Palestine and had been its administrators since 1918, Marshall considered the recommendations as expert advice. Based on the recommendations of the British, Marshall had argued against the United States accepting the state of Israel. Truman over ruled Marshall and said that the United States and the world, having been aware of the Jewish holocaust and having done nothing to prevent it, owed a moral responsibility to protect the Jewish people from another similar fate.
Every American administration since 1948, has accepted this ``responsibility`` and has given Israel a status of primus inter pares (first amongst equals) in United States` foreign policy interests.
HP, regardless of the American public`s anger at being lied about Iraq, the fact of the matter is that American foreign policy is decided by 435 members of Congress and 100 members of senate. The members of Congress are not idealist people, but highly pragmatic and calculating individuals. The real ``popular influence`` in the United States is not wielded in an electoral sense, but through the financial and monetary leverages of Political Action Committees. American public might vote in a member of Congress, but its the PAC money which allows them to contest re-elections and no congressman/woman only wants to be a ``one timer`` and lose re-elections.
The only American administration to have belled Israel, was the Eisenhower administration which forced Israel to withdraw from Egypt after it invaded the country in the wake of the Suez nationalization crisis of 1956. Ever since 1973 Yom Kippur War, the American administrations have tilted their influence and power in the favor of Israel. In fact, many American observers mark the start of American influence in Middle East from 1956 Suez Crisis, when United States threatened to pull its nuclear umbrella from Israel, France and Britain if they did not withdraw their forces from Egypt. This American ultimatum, to Isreal and to the colonial powers of France and Britain, was seen in the Arab world as the sign of even handed American policies. It was this American decision that earned it the title of ``honest broker`` int the Middle East just as it was the American choice to tilt in favor of Isreal after 1973 war, which lost it its` ``honest broker`` title.
The American public`s anger over Iraq may be real, but in political terms; it is an idealized anger because politically speaking, no American politican can hope to alienate the American-Isreal Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and survive politically. The truism in Washington politics has been that votes are enough to get to Congress, but it is the PAC money that allows one to stay in Washington. When this consideration is taken in lieu with the moral responsibility that American politics feels towards Israel, the role of Israel in formulating American foreign policy cannot be underestimated.
It is not in Israel`s interests to see Iraq fragmented and see Iran emerge as the most influential player in the region.
Ciao
I will answer the rest of your comments later.
United States`s sense of a moral obligation towards Israel stemmed from the Truman administration at the time of Israel`s creation in 1948. In 1948, when Israel was in the process of being created, George C. Marshall who was Truman`s Secretary of State, was advised by the British foreign office that an independent Jewish state would not be acceptable to the majority of Muslim states. Based on the fact, that British were governing Palestine and had been its administrators since 1918, Marshall considered the recommendations as expert advice. Based on the recommendations of the British, Marshall had argued against the United States accepting the state of Israel. Truman over ruled Marshall and said that the United States and the world, having been aware of the Jewish holocaust and having done nothing to prevent it, owed a moral responsibility to protect the Jewish people from another similar fate.
Every American administration since 1948, has accepted this ``responsibility`` and has given Israel a status of primus inter pares (first amongst equals) in United States` foreign policy interests.
HP, regardless of the American public`s anger at being lied about Iraq, the fact of the matter is that American foreign policy is decided by 435 members of Congress and 100 members of senate. The members of Congress are not idealist people, but highly pragmatic and calculating individuals. The real ``popular influence`` in the United States is not wielded in an electoral sense, but through the financial and monetary leverages of Political Action Committees. American public might vote in a member of Congress, but its the PAC money which allows them to contest re-elections and no congressman/woman only wants to be a ``one timer`` and lose re-elections.
The only American administration to have belled Israel, was the Eisenhower administration which forced Israel to withdraw from Egypt after it invaded the country in the wake of the Suez nationalization crisis of 1956. Ever since 1973 Yom Kippur War, the American administrations have tilted their influence and power in the favor of Israel. In fact, many American observers mark the start of American influence in Middle East from 1956 Suez Crisis, when United States threatened to pull its nuclear umbrella from Israel, France and Britain if they did not withdraw their forces from Egypt. This American ultimatum, to Isreal and to the colonial powers of France and Britain, was seen in the Arab world as the sign of even handed American policies. It was this American decision that earned it the title of ``honest broker`` int the Middle East just as it was the American choice to tilt in favor of Isreal after 1973 war, which lost it its` ``honest broker`` title.
The American public`s anger over Iraq may be real, but in political terms; it is an idealized anger because politically speaking, no American politican can hope to alienate the American-Isreal Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and survive politically. The truism in Washington politics has been that votes are enough to get to Congress, but it is the PAC money that allows one to stay in Washington. When this consideration is taken in lieu with the moral responsibility that American politics feels towards Israel, the role of Israel in formulating American foreign policy cannot be underestimated.
It is not in Israel`s interests to see Iraq fragmented and see Iran emerge as the most influential player in the region.
Ciao
I will answer the rest of your comments later.
#30 Posted by krishna_abcd on November 1, 2006 10:37:58 pm
Kerry made a stupid mistake that I`m hoping would prove costly to the Democrats. The Republican Right must prevail in the USA in order to take on the Islamists around the globe. There is a lot of unfinished work. The Iranian Mullahs must be vaporised, beard and all. Pakistan must be divvied up into Balochistan, Sindh, Punjab and Talibanistan. The Taliban in Afghanistan must be given their chance to meet with the Houris and the ghilmans with the help of a few thousand daisy cutters. The Lashkar-E-Toiba and the various Ikht-Ukht-Ullah Islamic parties must be given the opportunity to prove that they are true Islamic patriots by serving time in various Indian jails. Dawood must meet his maker in style, in a Mumbai jail. Land in Mecca and Medina has to be given out free of cost to various non-Muslim religious organizations. Muslims worldwide have to be converted to Shintoism. Pakistan-Stolen Kashmir has to be brought back into the Indian Union. Unhappy Muslims in Kashmir are to be kicked out to Tibet.
There is a lot of work ahead of us.
Go Bush!!!!
#29 Posted by bjkumar on November 1, 2006 10:30:54 pm
Excerpted from a six month old article in the New Republic. (Note: the gas prices have actually come down since.)
THE CASE FOR LOSING.
Long-term Investment
by James Forsyth
Even the most cautious Democrats must be beginning to believe that they might win back the House or Senate this year. Gas prices are rising almost as fast as George W. Bush`s ratings are falling, GOP corruption scandals turn more lurid by the day, and Democrats have a double-digit polling lead while Congress`s approval rating is a mere 22 percent. The nagging fear of blue America, though, is that its bęte noire and the architect of Bush`s reelection, Karl Rove--whom the recent White House shuffle placed firmly in charge of 2006 strategy--will somehow engineer another Republican victory, or at least deny the Democrats a clear-cut win. Then again, maybe that`s exactly what Democrats should be hoping for.
Yes, it would be strange for Democrats to root against their own party this fall; and there are plenty of reasons a Democratic victory this year could bolster the party heading into 2008. But in one crucial respect a Republican victory this November could dampen the odds that a Republican will succeed Bush in the White House. Consider that the GOP has three potential candidates for 2008--Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Condoleezza Rice--with 50-percent-plus approval ratings from Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. The Democrats have none. An opponent with these kinds of numbers would be more or less impossible to defeat. But if Republicans maintain their majorities, it becomes far more likely that Democrats will not have to face one of these candidates--or if they do, that the GOP candidate`s moderate credentials, and hence his or her crossover appeal, will have been severely damaged before the general election.
That so-called values voters swung the last campaign for Bush rapidly became the accepted wisdom immediately after the election. Now we know that wasn`t true: Detailed number crunching of the exit poll data by the University of Virginia`s Paul Freedman demonstrated that the ``terrorism gap`` not the ``morality gap`` best explained Bush`s victory. Nevertheless, the religious right was quick to take credit for Bush`s win and increase its clout within the party.
So, when the Terri Schiavo case arose, the GOP felt politically obligated to act. As a memo written by an aide to Florida Republican Mel Martinez put it, ``This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.`` Republicans moved on Schiavo despite data showing that by a considerable margin the public supported the removal of her feeding tube. Predictably, their involvement sparked a backlash. Polls showed that more than three quarters of people disapproved of Congress`s handling of the issue, while 67 percent of those surveyed thought politicians were acting for political advantage, not moral principle.
The fact the Republicans walked into this political trap despite all the danger signs shows just how powerful the ``values voters`` myth was. Success in 2006 would make the myth even stronger. With national security no longer a Republican trump card, a GOP victory would be chalked up to Rove`s turnout tactics, the presence of gay marriage amendments on the ballot in seven states, and Senate votes on the Federal Marriage Amendment and other wedge issues. (Even if, in reality, such success would be owed more to gerrymandered electoral districts, incumbent advantage, and a robust economy.) This narrative would empower the religious right; and that, in turn, would have negative consequences for Republican prospects in 2008.
With the religious right feeling confident, Rudy Giuliani--who has an 80 percent approval rating from Democrats, according to a recent Pew Poll--would probably conclude that his socially liberal views and lifestyle put the nomination out of his reach. Jerry Falwell has already declared that he ``could not support him for president`` because of ``irreconcilable differences on life and family.`` If Giuliani did decide to run, he would be under tremendous pressure to tack to the right on these issues. (His biographer Fred Siegel predicted to The Australian this weekend that Giuliani would shift his position on partial-birth abortion in advance of the primaries.) But any concessions Giuliani makes will undercut his reputation for leadership and his appeal to Democrats and independents.
McCain will have a slightly easier time with the religious right as he is pro-life and opposes gay marriage (though he also opposes the constitutional amendment that would ban it). Yet, if 2006 is seen as a demonstration of the power of Christian conservatives, McCain will have to continue his assiduous courting of them well into the primary season and under intense media scrutiny. Cozying up to those he once dismissed as ``agents of intolerance`` won`t do much for his straight talk reputation--the key to his appeal to swing voters.
Condoleezza Rice is a far less likely contender for the Republican nomination than either Giuliani or McCain. Many see Rice as the ideal vice-president for almost any Republican candidate and don`t expect her to leave the State Department at a crucial time in order to run for the White House. There is no doubt, though, that Rice would be a formidable presidential candidate. The only scenario under which one can imagine her getting into the race is if the GOP appears to be in crisis and she is drafted as the electoral savior. If Republicans survive 2006, it is hard to imagine they would decide that circumstances require them to recruit a presidential candidate who has never run for public office.
By contrast, if Republicans receive a pasting in November they will cast around for someone distinct enough to overcome the GOP`s negative numbers. That might mean tolerating Giuliani`s heresies on social issues, McCain`s maverick streak, or Rice`s lack of political experience. On the other hand, if Republicans come out of this election having dodged the bullet, they will feel increasingly confident that any candidate with appeal to values voters can win the White House for them. This confidence might inspire them to nominate a more traditional conservative like George Allen, Bill Frist, or Mike Huckabee--any of whom Democrats would have a good chance of beating. In other words, if Rove engineers another victory for the Republican Party this November, he might also become the unwitting architect of its defeat in 2008.
Long-term Investment
by James Forsyth
Even the most cautious Democrats must be beginning to believe that they might win back the House or Senate this year. Gas prices are rising almost as fast as George W. Bush`s ratings are falling, GOP corruption scandals turn more lurid by the day, and Democrats have a double-digit polling lead while Congress`s approval rating is a mere 22 percent. The nagging fear of blue America, though, is that its bęte noire and the architect of Bush`s reelection, Karl Rove--whom the recent White House shuffle placed firmly in charge of 2006 strategy--will somehow engineer another Republican victory, or at least deny the Democrats a clear-cut win. Then again, maybe that`s exactly what Democrats should be hoping for.
Yes, it would be strange for Democrats to root against their own party this fall; and there are plenty of reasons a Democratic victory this year could bolster the party heading into 2008. But in one crucial respect a Republican victory this November could dampen the odds that a Republican will succeed Bush in the White House. Consider that the GOP has three potential candidates for 2008--Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Condoleezza Rice--with 50-percent-plus approval ratings from Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. The Democrats have none. An opponent with these kinds of numbers would be more or less impossible to defeat. But if Republicans maintain their majorities, it becomes far more likely that Democrats will not have to face one of these candidates--or if they do, that the GOP candidate`s moderate credentials, and hence his or her crossover appeal, will have been severely damaged before the general election.
That so-called values voters swung the last campaign for Bush rapidly became the accepted wisdom immediately after the election. Now we know that wasn`t true: Detailed number crunching of the exit poll data by the University of Virginia`s Paul Freedman demonstrated that the ``terrorism gap`` not the ``morality gap`` best explained Bush`s victory. Nevertheless, the religious right was quick to take credit for Bush`s win and increase its clout within the party.
So, when the Terri Schiavo case arose, the GOP felt politically obligated to act. As a memo written by an aide to Florida Republican Mel Martinez put it, ``This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.`` Republicans moved on Schiavo despite data showing that by a considerable margin the public supported the removal of her feeding tube. Predictably, their involvement sparked a backlash. Polls showed that more than three quarters of people disapproved of Congress`s handling of the issue, while 67 percent of those surveyed thought politicians were acting for political advantage, not moral principle.
The fact the Republicans walked into this political trap despite all the danger signs shows just how powerful the ``values voters`` myth was. Success in 2006 would make the myth even stronger. With national security no longer a Republican trump card, a GOP victory would be chalked up to Rove`s turnout tactics, the presence of gay marriage amendments on the ballot in seven states, and Senate votes on the Federal Marriage Amendment and other wedge issues. (Even if, in reality, such success would be owed more to gerrymandered electoral districts, incumbent advantage, and a robust economy.) This narrative would empower the religious right; and that, in turn, would have negative consequences for Republican prospects in 2008.
With the religious right feeling confident, Rudy Giuliani--who has an 80 percent approval rating from Democrats, according to a recent Pew Poll--would probably conclude that his socially liberal views and lifestyle put the nomination out of his reach. Jerry Falwell has already declared that he ``could not support him for president`` because of ``irreconcilable differences on life and family.`` If Giuliani did decide to run, he would be under tremendous pressure to tack to the right on these issues. (His biographer Fred Siegel predicted to The Australian this weekend that Giuliani would shift his position on partial-birth abortion in advance of the primaries.) But any concessions Giuliani makes will undercut his reputation for leadership and his appeal to Democrats and independents.
McCain will have a slightly easier time with the religious right as he is pro-life and opposes gay marriage (though he also opposes the constitutional amendment that would ban it). Yet, if 2006 is seen as a demonstration of the power of Christian conservatives, McCain will have to continue his assiduous courting of them well into the primary season and under intense media scrutiny. Cozying up to those he once dismissed as ``agents of intolerance`` won`t do much for his straight talk reputation--the key to his appeal to swing voters.
Condoleezza Rice is a far less likely contender for the Republican nomination than either Giuliani or McCain. Many see Rice as the ideal vice-president for almost any Republican candidate and don`t expect her to leave the State Department at a crucial time in order to run for the White House. There is no doubt, though, that Rice would be a formidable presidential candidate. The only scenario under which one can imagine her getting into the race is if the GOP appears to be in crisis and she is drafted as the electoral savior. If Republicans survive 2006, it is hard to imagine they would decide that circumstances require them to recruit a presidential candidate who has never run for public office.
By contrast, if Republicans receive a pasting in November they will cast around for someone distinct enough to overcome the GOP`s negative numbers. That might mean tolerating Giuliani`s heresies on social issues, McCain`s maverick streak, or Rice`s lack of political experience. On the other hand, if Republicans come out of this election having dodged the bullet, they will feel increasingly confident that any candidate with appeal to values voters can win the White House for them. This confidence might inspire them to nominate a more traditional conservative like George Allen, Bill Frist, or Mike Huckabee--any of whom Democrats would have a good chance of beating. In other words, if Rove engineers another victory for the Republican Party this November, he might also become the unwitting architect of its defeat in 2008.
#28 Posted by bjkumar on November 1, 2006 10:08:53 pm
#26, #27
Absolute buckwaas, but not unexpected considering its source!
Feroz Sahib, you are right!
There ain`t no pulling back from Iraq! This baby is goling to go its full term, let the sissy old khalaa-jaans do as much ``hai tauba`` as they are capable of!
Interact Index
Also by Mohammad Gill
Similar Articles
- Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses Dost Mittar
- Feminist Mumbo-Jumbo! Pranay Rupani
- Translation of a (Love) Letter by Allama Iqbal to Miss Atiya Faizi Asif Naqshbandi
- Fields Of Joy Umer Murtaza
- Time for Musharraf to Quit saeed qureshi
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- anil: Ijaz sahib: The economic view... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- ijaz_gul: As per latest reports,... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- ijaz_gul: "IN THE fullness of... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- anil: Re: # 57 Massaddi Mian: Please... Why is Karachi Turning
- masadi: #348 laddu writes "Re:... Dhokha and Being a
- ijaz_gul: Re: # 3 majumdar and... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- masadi: An ilog I posted... Why is Karachi Turning
- masadi: ....not to mention how... Why is Karachi Turning
