Just to note on some more information that came out today involving Blackwater, the premise of which I mistakingly left out of my previous post:
While most Americans have still perhaps not heard of or have no clear understanding of Blackwater USA, the mercenary firm did garner some macabre notoriety in 2004 during a tragic incident in Falluja.
In one of the most gruesome incidents of the war, a group of Blackwater personnel in Falluja were ambushed and overpowered by insurgents. The insurgents beheaded them, set fire to their corpses, dragged them through town behind their vehicles, and hanged their mangled, lifeless bodies from a bridge. This event, which most Americans will likely recall, is considered by some critics to be a major turning point in the war; these disturbing images drove many Americans to question or withdraw their support of the War in Iraq.
Well, it turns out that there is more to this incident than meets the eye. As I discovered during my research for my last piece, the families of these four murdered men filed a lawsuit against Blackwater in an attempt to find out all the facts of the incident. The families - who are not seeking financial restitution, just the truth - have accused Blackwater of under-equipping and under-preparing their family members for the mission. They have claimed that the men were in an unarmored vehicle, lacked the necessary weaponry, and were undermanned, since Blackwater had taken their two tail gunners off the mission. They supposedly even lacked so much as a map of the area. They were forced to ride blindly and unprepared into a lion's den.
Furthermore, according to an article from CNN.com (read it here), Blackwater "impeded" the investigation into this matter.
The House Oversight and Reform Committee reported that Blackwater interfered in their February hearings by claiming that documents the committee had requested were classified, which they were not. The Pentagon later told the committee that this was not true, but not before Blackwater tried repeatedly to have the Pentagon retroactively classify the documents in question.
This company appears to be corrupt to the core; what's more, it is playing games with the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. It has killed at least 20 Iraqis seemingly indiscriminately; its actions and billions of dollars in contracts have undoubtedly risked the lives of hard-working and honorable American soldiers in Iraq. And now it appears that it does not even value the lives of its own personnel - many of whom are former members of the US military - more than the almighty dollar.
Yet, despite all of these facts, they still appear to have the unwavering support of this administration. Well, Mr. President, "childrens" do learn, so why can't you learn that you can't fight a war for democracy abroad through undemocratic means and by stripping away democracy at home?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Here Come the Men in Black; or On Blackwater and Military Outsourcing
In May 2005, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld presented his plan to re-align the United States military in order to change the military to handle “the new demands of war against extremists and other evolving 21st century challenges.”
Rumsfeld’s actions were intended to restructure the Pentagon to fight the War on Terror, which began with the atrocious attacks of September 11, 2001.
But the real war of which Rumsfeld spoke began not on September 11, but the day before. In a September 10, 2001 speech in front of Pentagon deputies, he declared war on the imminent threat posed not by terrorism, but by the Pentagon’s bureaucracy.
This statement highlights the trend that the Bush administration brought into the White House – privatize everything possible. The privatization of the War in Iraq has been the gem of the administration’s plan.
Military privatization began during the Korean War, but got a huge boost during the 1990s, when congress decreased oversight over corporations. The Pentagon cut 38% of its contracting officials, according to a July 31, 2006 article in Business Week.
When President Bush entered office, he further increased dependence upon contractors, while continuing to cut government oversight. It also changed the rules to allow the Pentagon to award no-bid contracts. Because of this lack of oversight, many companies took advantage of the government’s funding by cutting corners, overcharging and taking kick-backs.
Last Thursday, Pentagon officials testified before the House Armed Services Committee that six billion dollars in contracts given out to companies to provide essential services – like food and water – to soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait were being inspected by criminal investigators; this amount was more than double what the Pentagon had previously disclosed to Congress. Another $88 billion in contracts were being reviewed by auditors. These included contracts for body armor and weapons for combat troops.
One unfortunate example of corporate shortcomings involved International American Products, the company hired to maintain and operate Walter Reed Army Hospital in 2006. IAP was previously given a contract to help provide ice to residents in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The company failed miserably in this pursuit; yet, it was given the contract for Walter Reed even while the Pentagon was investigating it for this debacle.
IAP further wasted taxpayer money and did an incredible disservice to injured soldiers at Walter Reed. It failed to improve the sometimes squalid conditions in which soldiers lived. Due to IAP’s administrative failures, many soldiers were ignored, forgotten, received sub-standard care or were forced to endure conditions hardly befitting their service to the nation.
Another company that has benefitted greatly from the government’s generosity is Blackwater USA – the most powerful and notorious of the companies who provide private security contractors to the US government. They are essentially mercenary armies.
Blackwater was founded in 1996 by Erik Prince. Prince comes from a wealthy, well-connected conservative family. His father, Edgar, co-founded the conservative Christian group the Family Research Council with Gary Bauer. His sister, Betsy DeVos, is the former chair of the Michigan Republican Party. Prince, a former Navy Seal, has interned under former President George H.W. Bush and for the Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign. He also helped to bankroll George W. Bush’s campaign for the White House.
Since the beginning of the War on Terror, Blackwater has landed several lucrative contracts with the Pentagon and State Department to protect US diplomats and the American embassy in Baghdad.
But Blackwater is only one of these private security firms. Its personnel account for around 1,500 of the nearly 50,000 mercenaries fighting in Iraq. They make up nearly one-third of the 160,000 civilian contractors in the nation – a number equal to the American military presence.
These firms, like Blackwater and its main rivals DynCorp and Triple Canopy, provide a unique service to the Bush administration. They receive federal funding and carry out dangerous tasks, such as protecting US envoys in Baghdad’s “green zone.” And although an estimated 800 Blackwater personnel have died in Iraq, the Pentagon does not include these “civilian” deaths in casualty numbers. This allows the White House to try and downplay the cost of the war.
In exchange for this, Blackwater and other firms have been generously rewarded. Before turning over control of Iraq to the new government in June 2004, the White House wrote Order 17, which gives these organizations complete immunity from Iraqi law.
Blackwater has taken full advantage of this. According to an interview given by Iraqi Defense Minister Mohammed al Askari to McClatchy Newspapers last Wednesday, Blackwater guards have killed Iraqis on at least seven different occasions.
Two of these incidents took place in December. Askari accused Blackwater of being responsible for breaking former Electricity Minister Ahyam al Samarrai out of jail. al Samarrai had been accused of embezzling $2.5 billion set aside to rebuild Iraq’s electrical grid. On Christmas Eve, another Blackwater guard, who was intoxicated, killed a bodyguard for Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi.
The most recent incident involving Blackwater took place Sunday, September 16, when guards traveling in a convoy in Baghdad, pulled over in a traffic circle in the green zone and opened fire into a crowd of cars. Details of the incident are still under investigation; the Iraqi government has accused Blackwater of killing indiscriminately, while the firm claims it shot at insurgents in response to a car bar near the embassy.
Either way, the Iraqi government was infuriated by the killing of 11 citizens and revoked Blackwater's contract to work in Iraq. The US government, which is dependent upon the firm, has worked to get the ban removed.
Supporters of Blackwater, which includes nearly the entire Bush administration, claim that the outsourcing of military is beneficial to the United States, because it saves the government money that it would have to spend on training and equipping American soldiers.
However, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in a memorandum from February 7, questions this.
According to the memorandum, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction estimates that 12.5% of federal spending for Iraq’s reconstruction, or about $3.8 billion, has gone to these security firms.
The report also accuses Blackwater of overcharging the government. According to the report, Blackwater charged the government a per diem for each guard of between $815 and $1,075. But the company only paid these employees $500 per day. The yearly salary of these guards amounts to between $297,475 and $392,375; oh, and these costs don’t include the price to feed, house, equip or ensure these guards. That’s extra. These services would typically be performed by an Army Sergeant, who would make about $140-$190 per day, including food and housing. That amounts to between $51-69,000 per year. Thus, a Blackwater employee costs four to ten times as much as a comparable soldier.
Blackwater has also been accused of double billing the government by charging salaries for drivers and security specialists, who were in fact the same person.
I do not blame the Blackwater security personnel for making this amount of money. They are, by and large, former military personnel who took the job for the pay that they deserved while in the military and to serve their country in a different manner.
I blame the administration who supports these mercenary firms and the firms who take full advantage of every government grace, and then some. The same administration who pays these guards more than $33,000 per month also threatened to veto a bill from the House in May that would have increased the pay raise for soldiers from three percent to three-and-a-half percent.
I have a problem with trying to spread democracy though inherently undemocratic means. I have a problem with saying that you support the troops when your actions say just the opposite.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Apocalypse Now Redux; Or On President Bush Comparing Iraq to Vietnam
Last Wednesday, in his speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City, President Bush made parallels between the current War in Iraq and the Vietnam War. Unfortunately, Bush was not clearly defining the similarities between the two wars. Rather, he was using the results of the American withdrawal from Vietnam to reiterate the necessity of keeping American troops in Iraq "until the job is done."
In the speech, Bush stated that "One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens. He added, "There's another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle — those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001." (read more from Time at here.)
Now, the President is right on one thing: there are certainly parallels between the two wars. However, his statements do not go far enough to highlight these numerous similarities.
For one, just as was the case with Vietnam, Americans have pursued a convoluted, destructive foreign policy in Iraq over the years. Just as Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman supported Ho Chi Minh because of his desire to overthrow the Japanese and promote a new Vietnamese state free from oppression, so too did Ronald Reagan support Saddam Hussein in his war to stave off the Iranians in the wake of the Iran Hostage Crisis. (Unlike Reagan, however, FDR and Truman did not sell weapons to Japanese, Chinese, or the Russians in order to bankroll other military exploits). Once our interest in these men ran its course, we found that they were not the noble freedom fighters we took them for; on the contrary, their political desires ran completely counter to our own.
Just as in Vietnam, there is a tenuous and tricky mesh work of ethnic, political, religious, and ideological groups living in Iraq. Both of these situations were largely the results of Western imperialism and colonization. In Vietnam, the US allied itself with the non-Communist South Vietnamese government against the Communist North. We completely funded and equipped the entire South Vietnamese army and police forces. Despite their large numbers and superior weaponry, these South Vietnamese soldiers were completely incapable of overcoming their Communist brethren without American support.
In Iraq, we are perhaps even in a worse setting. The Vietnamese were at least ethnically related, and religion played a fairly minor role in the conflict among the people. In Iraq, however, there are Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, all of whom have hated one another for generations. Throw into that volatile situation the fact that Iraq is not a nation of ethnic identity, but rather clan loyalty, and you have considerable divisions within these clans. Just as the South Vietnamese people were divided in their loyalties between pro-US, anti-Southern government and VietCong, so too are the Iraqi sects divided into dozens of groups, each with differing loyalties and agendas. You have Shiites who run the government, while other sects, such as the Madhi army under Moqtada al-Sadr actively seek to use force and coercion to undermine that same government and oppose the American presence in Iraq. Sunnis are cleft in many groups as well, with some still ultimately loyal Baathists from the Saddam-regime who hate the US accordingly, others who sympathize with or openly work with and for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and still others who have decided for the time being that their best chance for survival and a decent way of life rests in fighting with Americans, not against them. In addition, though it continues to improve, the Iraqi army and police are still almost wholly dependent upon American aid and support and are not in the least insulated from these difficult questions of loyalty and sectarianism.
Just as Vietnam was neither a conventional war, nor one fought in terrain favorable to Americans, so too is Iraq. In Vietnam, Communist and VietCong forces lived in a manner incomprehensible to Americans. They ate, slept, and fought in tunnels that they dug; they worked in small groups traversing dense jungles; they seemed to lack any real need for centralization or large-scale organization; they were more than willing to sacrifice themselves and others to take out the American soldiers. Vietnamese fought a rigorous guerrilla war - one that was, to paraphrase Ho Chi Minh, between a tiger and an elephant, with the powerful elephant succumbing to the quicker, more agile tiger. The climate and geography of Vietnam also made it nearly impossible for Americans to adapt, while the native Vietnamese took advantage of every nook and cranny.
In Iraq, the different hostile forces - sectarian fighters, insurgents, terrorists - all employ a variety of tactics, none of which is conventional. They use car bombs, suicide bombers, IEDs, ambushes, civilian attacks, etc. to defeat the "imperial" Americans. Because they never know who will be their allies and enemies from one day to the next, US soldiers must fight with the rifle in one hand and the flower in another. This lack of knowledge and constant sense of change continues to act as a death knell for hundreds of young Americans. Insurgent warfare plays well in the type of environment in which the Iraq war is taking place - congested, difficult urban areas where terrorists can easily blend in among a crowd of market-goers or innocent people on the way to the mosque.
Southeast Asia in the mid-20th century, like the Middle East then and today, was a region of extreme political confusion and difficulty. Communism, which had taken hold in China under Mao Tse-Tung was spreading its influence rapidly into the remaining nations of the region, including Vietnam. The Vietnamese have a history as a bellicose people, however, and had interests for expansion into Laos and Cambodia. The Middle East is an extremely contentious and fiery region today. The ethnic and religious divides that dominate Iraq also work to define relationships and political intercourse in the region. While Saddam Hussein was in power, a Sunni government in Iraq fought bitterly with the Shiite government in Iran. Now that Iraq is ruled by the Shiite majority, Iran sees its neighbor and longtime enemy as a new ally and possible alley for influence. In addition, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, & the United Arab Emirates all have a vested interest in the situation in Iraq.
During the Vietnam era, Lyndon Johnson and particularly Richard Nixon took steps to consolidate all real power into the vested Executive control of the President. This had numerous circumstances, including Congress being swept to the side, the will of the President defining all foreign policy for better or for worse, and the Executive Branch taking drastic steps to curb opposition at home and shore up support for policy. This ultimately led to the Watergate scandal. Just as the political problems in the 60s and 70s stemmed mostly from Vietnam, so too do the Bush administration and the Republican party's political dilemmas mostly derive from Iraq. Like Nixon, President Bush has taken steps to further consolidate power in the hands of the President and prevent Congress from having much say in the manner in which the war is dictated. Also, Bush has increased the government's interference into the civil liberties of American citizens in the pursuit of fighting the War on Terror.
Unfortunately, both Vietnam and Iraq polarized a significant portion of the populace. Just as in Vietnam, when supporters of the war continually called for the government to ramp up its efforts - General Westmoreland requested Lyndon Johnson increase the number of troops by over 200,000 in 1968 to a total of 700,000+ - conservatives and war supporters are of the mindset that if the military could ramp up the war as is deemed necessary without political or public interference, the war would be won almost overnight. As misguided as this notion is, so too are those who in both wars have demanded an immediate withdrawal of American forces with no questions asked. Both solutions try to place a simplistic one-size-fits-all solution onto an extremely complicated war laden with numerous and diverse issues.
Also, on the home front, war supporters have, just as they did in Vietnam, made the media their whipping boy and used the nightly news as a call to action for their supporters. This comparison does not hold as much water today, however, because the news coverage of the war has been more fair and straightforward than it was during the 70s.
In an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopolous last October, President Bush accepted the given parallel between last fall's increased violence in Iraq and the infamous 1968 Tet Offensive, which is considered to a major turning point in the war, if only from a public opinion standpoint. When asked if he agreed with the comparison made by New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, Bush said ""He could be right. There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." (read about this here).
I'm glad to see that the President, if only in a roundabout way, finally understands that the war he is conducting is in many ways merely another Vietnam. Unfortunately, the manner in which the Vietnam War was resolved did, as Bush asserted, cause a whole heap of problems, including the deaths of countless thousands of Vietnamese from starvation and violence, the spread of Communism to the south, a general feeling of mistrust among Americans towards their government, and a significant loss of face for the United States in the international community. We have already encountered some of these problems, if albeit to a lesser extent. The world distrusts us and was not willing to assist our invasion. The president has approval ratings consistently in the 30s - the lowest numbers since Nixon. According to Time, 70% of people disapprove of the war, while only 1/4 approve.
If the president wanted to learn from his history and try to avoid repeating the mistakes of his predecessors, he should have done so before he invaded Iraq. If the administration was 1/100th as good at digesting the past as Dick Cheney was at predicting the future in 1994 (keep in mind that half of this administration actually helped architect Vietnam, i.e. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and consultant Henry Kissinger), then maybe they would not have made this blunder of such a monumental scale. Unfortunately, the time for positive results have passed. They disappeared in March of 2003 when we invaded Iraq. The best solution is to cut our losses now, take about one-half of our troops home and leave a residual force of 50,000 in Iraq. Thirty-thousand would patrol Baghdad, Anbar, and other hot spots, while 20,o00 would defend the borders to Iran and Syria. Another 10-25,000 naval and marine personnel should remain in the Persian Gulf as a constant presence to deter further violence and provide an immediate reaction to any problems that do arise.
They say those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it. I know that President Bush was a C-student, but what are the rest of the administration members' excuses?
In the speech, Bush stated that "One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens. He added, "There's another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle — those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001." (read more from Time at here.)
Now, the President is right on one thing: there are certainly parallels between the two wars. However, his statements do not go far enough to highlight these numerous similarities.
For one, just as was the case with Vietnam, Americans have pursued a convoluted, destructive foreign policy in Iraq over the years. Just as Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman supported Ho Chi Minh because of his desire to overthrow the Japanese and promote a new Vietnamese state free from oppression, so too did Ronald Reagan support Saddam Hussein in his war to stave off the Iranians in the wake of the Iran Hostage Crisis. (Unlike Reagan, however, FDR and Truman did not sell weapons to Japanese, Chinese, or the Russians in order to bankroll other military exploits). Once our interest in these men ran its course, we found that they were not the noble freedom fighters we took them for; on the contrary, their political desires ran completely counter to our own.
Just as in Vietnam, there is a tenuous and tricky mesh work of ethnic, political, religious, and ideological groups living in Iraq. Both of these situations were largely the results of Western imperialism and colonization. In Vietnam, the US allied itself with the non-Communist South Vietnamese government against the Communist North. We completely funded and equipped the entire South Vietnamese army and police forces. Despite their large numbers and superior weaponry, these South Vietnamese soldiers were completely incapable of overcoming their Communist brethren without American support.
In Iraq, we are perhaps even in a worse setting. The Vietnamese were at least ethnically related, and religion played a fairly minor role in the conflict among the people. In Iraq, however, there are Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, all of whom have hated one another for generations. Throw into that volatile situation the fact that Iraq is not a nation of ethnic identity, but rather clan loyalty, and you have considerable divisions within these clans. Just as the South Vietnamese people were divided in their loyalties between pro-US, anti-Southern government and VietCong, so too are the Iraqi sects divided into dozens of groups, each with differing loyalties and agendas. You have Shiites who run the government, while other sects, such as the Madhi army under Moqtada al-Sadr actively seek to use force and coercion to undermine that same government and oppose the American presence in Iraq. Sunnis are cleft in many groups as well, with some still ultimately loyal Baathists from the Saddam-regime who hate the US accordingly, others who sympathize with or openly work with and for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and still others who have decided for the time being that their best chance for survival and a decent way of life rests in fighting with Americans, not against them. In addition, though it continues to improve, the Iraqi army and police are still almost wholly dependent upon American aid and support and are not in the least insulated from these difficult questions of loyalty and sectarianism.
Just as Vietnam was neither a conventional war, nor one fought in terrain favorable to Americans, so too is Iraq. In Vietnam, Communist and VietCong forces lived in a manner incomprehensible to Americans. They ate, slept, and fought in tunnels that they dug; they worked in small groups traversing dense jungles; they seemed to lack any real need for centralization or large-scale organization; they were more than willing to sacrifice themselves and others to take out the American soldiers. Vietnamese fought a rigorous guerrilla war - one that was, to paraphrase Ho Chi Minh, between a tiger and an elephant, with the powerful elephant succumbing to the quicker, more agile tiger. The climate and geography of Vietnam also made it nearly impossible for Americans to adapt, while the native Vietnamese took advantage of every nook and cranny.
In Iraq, the different hostile forces - sectarian fighters, insurgents, terrorists - all employ a variety of tactics, none of which is conventional. They use car bombs, suicide bombers, IEDs, ambushes, civilian attacks, etc. to defeat the "imperial" Americans. Because they never know who will be their allies and enemies from one day to the next, US soldiers must fight with the rifle in one hand and the flower in another. This lack of knowledge and constant sense of change continues to act as a death knell for hundreds of young Americans. Insurgent warfare plays well in the type of environment in which the Iraq war is taking place - congested, difficult urban areas where terrorists can easily blend in among a crowd of market-goers or innocent people on the way to the mosque.
Southeast Asia in the mid-20th century, like the Middle East then and today, was a region of extreme political confusion and difficulty. Communism, which had taken hold in China under Mao Tse-Tung was spreading its influence rapidly into the remaining nations of the region, including Vietnam. The Vietnamese have a history as a bellicose people, however, and had interests for expansion into Laos and Cambodia. The Middle East is an extremely contentious and fiery region today. The ethnic and religious divides that dominate Iraq also work to define relationships and political intercourse in the region. While Saddam Hussein was in power, a Sunni government in Iraq fought bitterly with the Shiite government in Iran. Now that Iraq is ruled by the Shiite majority, Iran sees its neighbor and longtime enemy as a new ally and possible alley for influence. In addition, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, & the United Arab Emirates all have a vested interest in the situation in Iraq.
During the Vietnam era, Lyndon Johnson and particularly Richard Nixon took steps to consolidate all real power into the vested Executive control of the President. This had numerous circumstances, including Congress being swept to the side, the will of the President defining all foreign policy for better or for worse, and the Executive Branch taking drastic steps to curb opposition at home and shore up support for policy. This ultimately led to the Watergate scandal. Just as the political problems in the 60s and 70s stemmed mostly from Vietnam, so too do the Bush administration and the Republican party's political dilemmas mostly derive from Iraq. Like Nixon, President Bush has taken steps to further consolidate power in the hands of the President and prevent Congress from having much say in the manner in which the war is dictated. Also, Bush has increased the government's interference into the civil liberties of American citizens in the pursuit of fighting the War on Terror.
Unfortunately, both Vietnam and Iraq polarized a significant portion of the populace. Just as in Vietnam, when supporters of the war continually called for the government to ramp up its efforts - General Westmoreland requested Lyndon Johnson increase the number of troops by over 200,000 in 1968 to a total of 700,000+ - conservatives and war supporters are of the mindset that if the military could ramp up the war as is deemed necessary without political or public interference, the war would be won almost overnight. As misguided as this notion is, so too are those who in both wars have demanded an immediate withdrawal of American forces with no questions asked. Both solutions try to place a simplistic one-size-fits-all solution onto an extremely complicated war laden with numerous and diverse issues.
Also, on the home front, war supporters have, just as they did in Vietnam, made the media their whipping boy and used the nightly news as a call to action for their supporters. This comparison does not hold as much water today, however, because the news coverage of the war has been more fair and straightforward than it was during the 70s.
In an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopolous last October, President Bush accepted the given parallel between last fall's increased violence in Iraq and the infamous 1968 Tet Offensive, which is considered to a major turning point in the war, if only from a public opinion standpoint. When asked if he agreed with the comparison made by New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, Bush said ""He could be right. There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." (read about this here).
I'm glad to see that the President, if only in a roundabout way, finally understands that the war he is conducting is in many ways merely another Vietnam. Unfortunately, the manner in which the Vietnam War was resolved did, as Bush asserted, cause a whole heap of problems, including the deaths of countless thousands of Vietnamese from starvation and violence, the spread of Communism to the south, a general feeling of mistrust among Americans towards their government, and a significant loss of face for the United States in the international community. We have already encountered some of these problems, if albeit to a lesser extent. The world distrusts us and was not willing to assist our invasion. The president has approval ratings consistently in the 30s - the lowest numbers since Nixon. According to Time, 70% of people disapprove of the war, while only 1/4 approve.
If the president wanted to learn from his history and try to avoid repeating the mistakes of his predecessors, he should have done so before he invaded Iraq. If the administration was 1/100th as good at digesting the past as Dick Cheney was at predicting the future in 1994 (keep in mind that half of this administration actually helped architect Vietnam, i.e. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and consultant Henry Kissinger), then maybe they would not have made this blunder of such a monumental scale. Unfortunately, the time for positive results have passed. They disappeared in March of 2003 when we invaded Iraq. The best solution is to cut our losses now, take about one-half of our troops home and leave a residual force of 50,000 in Iraq. Thirty-thousand would patrol Baghdad, Anbar, and other hot spots, while 20,o00 would defend the borders to Iran and Syria. Another 10-25,000 naval and marine personnel should remain in the Persian Gulf as a constant presence to deter further violence and provide an immediate reaction to any problems that do arise.
They say those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it. I know that President Bush was a C-student, but what are the rest of the administration members' excuses?
NostraDickmus, or On Dick Cheney's 1994 Iraq Interview
One video has generated almost unmatched interest and views on You Tube in the last few weeks. And no, it does not involve a dog riding a skateboard or a skateboarder lacerating his scrotum.
Rather, this video shows an interview that Vice President Dick Cheney gave to C-SPAN in 1994 to discuss the aftermath and the lingering questions of the Persian Gulf War, during which Cheney was President George Herbert Walker Bush's Secretary of Defense. In the interview, Cheney responds to the question "Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?" with the following retort:
Either Dick Cheney was possessed by the spirit of the seer when he gave this interview, or he and the administration have been playing the ignorance card with astounding success over the last four-plus years.
In light of what has taken place in the last few days regarding the political footing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Cheney looks downright prophetic. The administration has once again followed its patented formula of allowing a problem to boil over until there is no conceivable solution, then present a pointless and useless observation.
In this instance, al-Maliki and his tenuous coalition of moderate Shiites, Sunni, and Kurds have been largely unable to foster any sense of political power and compromise needed to enact the reforms necessary to establish a stable and secure Iraq. As has been reported from many different sources, the surge has been working in some aspects. Violence and chaos has lessened slightly in portions of Baghdad and the Anbar province. Moderate Sunni clans that fought against us just a few years ago have taken up arms to combat the power of the pro-Al Qaeda tribes that have gained power in their towns and villages.
Unfortunately, the surge is not the slam dunk success that President Bush might lead you to believe. On the contrary, the fragile pillars supporting this success could come tumbling down at any moment. Two columns that appear in today's New York Times highlight the difficulties of maintaining this fragile grip on power.
In "Watch the Sunni Tribes," Thomas L. Friedman discusses these alliances with moderate Sunnis and the possible outcomes of them. He quotes a U.S. general as saying that these tribes "still hate us. They just hate Al Qaeda even more right now and they hate the Persians more even more than them. But they could turn their guns back on us anytime."
As Friedman details, the only foreseeable way to keep these Sunnis in line is to improve access to public services like clean water and electricity - services which are controlled by a Shiite-led government that is hesitant to make up with the minority that dominated them for decades.
On the other side of this ethnic merry-go-round is an article by Jack Miles titled "Occupational Hazard." In it, Miles explains that the current United Nations resolution providing the United States authority to occupy Iraq is set to expire at the end of this year. Unfortunately, the Iraqi Parliament is not set to support re-upping this resolution; it has passed both a non-binding resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal as well as a resolution stating that it would not support a renewal of this mandate come December.
Now, as Miles explains, al-Maliki could veto this bill. However, he is not likely to come vacation at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport any time soon. On the contrary, given the increasingly loud chorus of calls for his ouster in the few weeks and Bush's contradictory stance on the matter - separating himself from the Iraqi PM one day and then assuring his support on another - al-Maliki has become quite irritated with the United States. He told the US to stay out of Iraq's politics and vowed to find support elsewhere if the US abandoned his side. This means Iran and Syria. Oh, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged to fill the gap if the US leaves Iraq.
So, to recap:
- The Sunnis who were our enemies are now our allies and could become our enemies again at anytime based on the decisions of the Shiite government
- The Shiite government, under al-Maliki, on whom we have placed the fate of this war, has not gotten much done for the nation and now hates the US
- Al-Maliki has pledged to find support from US-haters in Syria & Iran if we don't help him, an offer which both nations would readily accept
Taken in light of his 1994 speech, Dick Cheney is brilliant. Maybe the next time we invade Iraq, the people really will greet us with flowers, and the insurgency really with be in its last throes. It could happen.
Rather, this video shows an interview that Vice President Dick Cheney gave to C-SPAN in 1994 to discuss the aftermath and the lingering questions of the Persian Gulf War, during which Cheney was President George Herbert Walker Bush's Secretary of Defense. In the interview, Cheney responds to the question "Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?" with the following retort:
"Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off -- part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.When I first heard about this video, I didn't know what to make of it. It wasn't until I watched it for the first time the other day that the sheer magnitude of this really took hold of me.The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right."
Either Dick Cheney was possessed by the spirit of the seer when he gave this interview, or he and the administration have been playing the ignorance card with astounding success over the last four-plus years.
In light of what has taken place in the last few days regarding the political footing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Cheney looks downright prophetic. The administration has once again followed its patented formula of allowing a problem to boil over until there is no conceivable solution, then present a pointless and useless observation.
In this instance, al-Maliki and his tenuous coalition of moderate Shiites, Sunni, and Kurds have been largely unable to foster any sense of political power and compromise needed to enact the reforms necessary to establish a stable and secure Iraq. As has been reported from many different sources, the surge has been working in some aspects. Violence and chaos has lessened slightly in portions of Baghdad and the Anbar province. Moderate Sunni clans that fought against us just a few years ago have taken up arms to combat the power of the pro-Al Qaeda tribes that have gained power in their towns and villages.
Unfortunately, the surge is not the slam dunk success that President Bush might lead you to believe. On the contrary, the fragile pillars supporting this success could come tumbling down at any moment. Two columns that appear in today's New York Times highlight the difficulties of maintaining this fragile grip on power.
In "Watch the Sunni Tribes," Thomas L. Friedman discusses these alliances with moderate Sunnis and the possible outcomes of them. He quotes a U.S. general as saying that these tribes "still hate us. They just hate Al Qaeda even more right now and they hate the Persians more even more than them. But they could turn their guns back on us anytime."
As Friedman details, the only foreseeable way to keep these Sunnis in line is to improve access to public services like clean water and electricity - services which are controlled by a Shiite-led government that is hesitant to make up with the minority that dominated them for decades.
On the other side of this ethnic merry-go-round is an article by Jack Miles titled "Occupational Hazard." In it, Miles explains that the current United Nations resolution providing the United States authority to occupy Iraq is set to expire at the end of this year. Unfortunately, the Iraqi Parliament is not set to support re-upping this resolution; it has passed both a non-binding resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal as well as a resolution stating that it would not support a renewal of this mandate come December.
Now, as Miles explains, al-Maliki could veto this bill. However, he is not likely to come vacation at the Bush compound in Kennebunkport any time soon. On the contrary, given the increasingly loud chorus of calls for his ouster in the few weeks and Bush's contradictory stance on the matter - separating himself from the Iraqi PM one day and then assuring his support on another - al-Maliki has become quite irritated with the United States. He told the US to stay out of Iraq's politics and vowed to find support elsewhere if the US abandoned his side. This means Iran and Syria. Oh, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged to fill the gap if the US leaves Iraq.
So, to recap:
- The Sunnis who were our enemies are now our allies and could become our enemies again at anytime based on the decisions of the Shiite government
- The Shiite government, under al-Maliki, on whom we have placed the fate of this war, has not gotten much done for the nation and now hates the US
- Al-Maliki has pledged to find support from US-haters in Syria & Iran if we don't help him, an offer which both nations would readily accept
Taken in light of his 1994 speech, Dick Cheney is brilliant. Maybe the next time we invade Iraq, the people really will greet us with flowers, and the insurgency really with be in its last throes. It could happen.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
You Can't Support the Troops without Supporting the War, But You Can Support the Troops without Supporting Them Financially; Or, On President Bush Opp
I know this argument is waaay out of date, but I hadn't written anything for two months until yesterday, and this has been irking me greatly for that whole time span.
So, I was reading my hometown paper, The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer on Sunday, May 20th, when I came across an interesting little column. I can't remember the author - maybe The New York Times' David Brooks? - but the content was what really mattered. It discussed a piece of legislation that had just passed through the House - HR 1585 - which was an appropriations measure for the Department of Defense. (Read the story from The Army Times here).
According to the story, the HR 1585 allowed for a 3.5% pay raise for military personnel beginning January 1, 2008. It also calls for an additional .5% pay raise for troops over the increase in the private sector for each additional year between 2009 and 2012. Members of the House Armed Services Committee, the group that penned this amendment, felt that "the slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase" (Military Times article).
Seems reasonable enough and about 4 years too late, right? Well, don't tell that to the Bush administration. Once they heard about this preposterous, un-American measure, they were all over it. The administration called the additional half-percent raise "unnecessary," stating that "When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families."
Now, instead of expressing his concerns for the additional expenditures - which are estimated to be a whopping $7 billion over the 5 years of the supplemental bill - as he would have done with a GOP-controlled Congress, Bush threatened, yet again, to use his veto pen. Our President, the one who put our troops in Iraq, threatening to veto a military spending bill in large part because he won't consent to more pay for the enlisted.
This is the same administration that thought we could fight the war on the cheap, that bragged about how oil revenues would easily cover the cost of this war. The same administration who, just as they were shipping our boys across the world, was slashing funding to the VA. The same administration who had to beg for an extra $2 billion in 2005 because it underestimated the cost of treating wounded Iraq war vets. The same administration that tried not only to fight increased benefits and pay to troops in 2004, but tried to slash their heath benefits while they were half way across the world.
Now, I am not a big proponent of an immediate withdrawal. I have been sitting on the fence of this issue for quite some time now. I was opposed to the war from the start, but I have been unsure of how to end it. I am coming over the side of a phased re-deployment, however. But regardless of your political affiliation, race, creed, opinion on the war, etc. NO ONE should be undercutting our troops when they are in the middle of the war. Especially not those who claim to be supporting those troops and question the patriotism of everyone else.
Opposing the military pay raise. Yet another example of the Bush administration supporting the troops in public, while stabbing them in the back in reality.
God Bless America. I hope He will at least.
So, I was reading my hometown paper, The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer on Sunday, May 20th, when I came across an interesting little column. I can't remember the author - maybe The New York Times' David Brooks? - but the content was what really mattered. It discussed a piece of legislation that had just passed through the House - HR 1585 - which was an appropriations measure for the Department of Defense. (Read the story from The Army Times here).
According to the story, the HR 1585 allowed for a 3.5% pay raise for military personnel beginning January 1, 2008. It also calls for an additional .5% pay raise for troops over the increase in the private sector for each additional year between 2009 and 2012. Members of the House Armed Services Committee, the group that penned this amendment, felt that "the slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase" (Military Times article).
Seems reasonable enough and about 4 years too late, right? Well, don't tell that to the Bush administration. Once they heard about this preposterous, un-American measure, they were all over it. The administration called the additional half-percent raise "unnecessary," stating that "When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families."
Now, instead of expressing his concerns for the additional expenditures - which are estimated to be a whopping $7 billion over the 5 years of the supplemental bill - as he would have done with a GOP-controlled Congress, Bush threatened, yet again, to use his veto pen. Our President, the one who put our troops in Iraq, threatening to veto a military spending bill in large part because he won't consent to more pay for the enlisted.
This is the same administration that thought we could fight the war on the cheap, that bragged about how oil revenues would easily cover the cost of this war. The same administration who, just as they were shipping our boys across the world, was slashing funding to the VA. The same administration who had to beg for an extra $2 billion in 2005 because it underestimated the cost of treating wounded Iraq war vets. The same administration that tried not only to fight increased benefits and pay to troops in 2004, but tried to slash their heath benefits while they were half way across the world.
Now, I am not a big proponent of an immediate withdrawal. I have been sitting on the fence of this issue for quite some time now. I was opposed to the war from the start, but I have been unsure of how to end it. I am coming over the side of a phased re-deployment, however. But regardless of your political affiliation, race, creed, opinion on the war, etc. NO ONE should be undercutting our troops when they are in the middle of the war. Especially not those who claim to be supporting those troops and question the patriotism of everyone else.
Opposing the military pay raise. Yet another example of the Bush administration supporting the troops in public, while stabbing them in the back in reality.
God Bless America. I hope He will at least.
The Pot Just Called the Kettle Black, and a Pot; Or On President Bush's Attack on Congressional Democrats
So I was clicking around on the political pages and blogs when I ran across this piece on the CNN Political Ticker here:
"President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress’ inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government.
'Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people’s money wisely,” Bush said in his weekly radio address. “This moment is a test'
The White House has said the failure of a broad immigration overhaul was proof that Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill cannot take on major issues. 'We saw this with immigration, and we’re seeing it with some other issues where Congress is having an inability to take on major challenges,' said spokesman Tony Fratto...With the Senate and House now in Democratic hands, this year’s bills are producing skirmishes with the White House that also are causing delays. Almost every domestic bill already has attracted a veto threat because it exceeds Bush’s proposed budget in certain areas.
All told, Democrats plan spending increases for annual agency budgets of about $23 billion above the White House budget request. Bush put it in terms of a five-year outlook, and said their budget plan would be $205 billion bigger than his over that period, and would include 'the largest tax increase in history' by allowing some of his tax cuts to expire as planned.
The president said Democrats are embracing “the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past,” and vowed to stand firm for fiscal restraint. Republican lawmakers have pledged to support him and sustain any vetoes.
'No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity,” Bush said. “And I have made it clear that I will veto any attempt to take America down this road.'"Really George? Did you honestly say all of that? Democrats in Congress are the reason that your immigration bill died on the floor? Are you sure about that? Because I seem to recall conservatives all across the country railing that bill as a ridiculous piece of Amnesty - I heard one commentator title it "Shamnesty" - and they called up the army of right-wingers to take it behind the woodshed.
Now, it is true that there was opposition from very liberal Democrats and more moderate, heartland democrats like Senator Ben Nelson (NE), and it is true that not all Democrats in the Senate voted to bring cloture on the bill. But are you kidding me?
And accusing the Democratic Congress of being responsible for any missteps in this country right now is quite a leap. Granted, I am not pleased with the people I helped put in office. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are complete disasters, and I would love to never have to see or hear from them again. They and their old guard pals are talking reform with one hand while holding Congress in place with the other.
But you aren't making the situation much better, Mr. President. The American Research Group just finished an interesting little poll regarding the American people's mindset on you. The poll numbers state that 45% of all adults favor beginning impeachment proceedings on you, while 46% oppose the idea. When you look at voting adults only, that number shifts 46% in favor and 44% opposing. Thirteen percent of Republicans and a whopping 50% of independents favor it.
While I am not really on board for impeaching Bush - I don't think you can make a real case for it, and there is no way it gets through the Senate - maybe these numbers mean that the President should bite his tongue here for a few minutes. Most of the problems that he has laid at the feet of the Democrats really trace right back to him and the GOP.
Problems with spending and appropriations bills came about as a result of the Republicans in the 109th Congress refusing to make any real progress right before the election and then afterwards in their lame duck period. They sat on their hands and played politics over the interests of the American people, including the troops that they voted to put in Iraq. Oh, and it doesn't help domestic agenda matters when the President threatens to veto every bill Congress even ponders debating. How many vetoes did you use during a GOP majority? Oh yeah, two. Everything is clearly on the same footing. You aren't playing politics at all, Mr. President.
If you would like to see the man who is responsible for the War in Iraq, for 3,500 troop deaths, for the failure of immigration and Social Security reform, largely at fault for the continued growth of economic inequality in this country, responsible for the Supreme court taking 3 steps back towards sanctioned segregation, simply look in the mirror, Sir. You know the truth. You aren't as dumb as people think you are.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Barack's Bringin' in the Cash, or My Return from a Two-month Blogging Hiatus.
So, I know that I haven't written a new post for this blog in almost 2 months, but whatever. It's not like anyone actually reads this thing anyway. I already know what goes on inside my head. I don't need the Internet to remind me. But here we go again, regardless.
So, Sen. Barack Obama released his fundraising statistics Sunday night. We all learned that he raised a remarkable $32.5 million in the last fiscal quarter (April-June). That is an incredible number. According to The Los Angeles Times, it is the second highest fundraising total for a quarter since the President raised $35 million in the second quarter of 2003. That is an incumbent president raising that much money, an incumbent who has made many a bedfellow with shady corporate donors and political action committees. (see article here).
Barack Obama has raised the second highest amount of money for a political campaign during any quarter in history. His $32.5 million is more than all the 2004 Democratic candidates raised in the 2nd quarter of 2003 combined. Of that $32.5 million, $31 million is set aside for the primary campaign. That raises the amount of money he has raised this year to battle Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination to $55.7 million. Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that Obama's campaign is not accepting money from PACs or lobbyists.
To her credit, Clinton raised $27 million this quarter, about $21 million of which will go to the primary. When you add that to the $26 million that she raised last quarter, along with the $10 million she transferred from her Senate campaign war chest, she has actually outraised Senator Obama $63 million to $55.7 million. However, not all of that money is earmarked for the primaries. In fact - I do not have the actual numbers in front of me - but it appears as though when you take the $6 million this quarter, along with the similar figure from last quarter, and some of her $10 million transfer into account as general election money, Obama and Clinton are on an even keel, even with the former-First Lady's $10 million head start.
But putting the money aside, as huge a statistic as this is for the Obama camp (of which you can count me a member, if you hadn't noticed), the real revelation lies in another number. More than 258,000 people have donated to the Obama campaign since January 1. That is, without question, more than any other single candidate at this point in history. These 258,000 have made more than 350,000 donations, and more than 1,500 people join the ranks everyday. Talk about a grassroots explosion (read more here).
While money does not buy every election, simply ask Ross Perot, it will amount to an enormous shot in the arm for Obama's campaign. He will almost certainly come close to reaching $100 million by the end of 2007. That kind of money buys him several things.
One is notoriety and media coverage. Any candidate who can garner this kind of unprecedented support is certain to steal the headlines on a semi-regular basis. Even if Bill Clinton is making the rounds with his wife and squeezing money out of the Clinton stalwarts from the 90s, Barack Obama is going to make the nightly newscast, he is going to get play on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. And most publicity is a good thing at this point in the race, especially free publicity.
Also, $55.7 million provides you with a great chance to buy publicity. He has more than enough money to run TV and radio spots in the key early primary states. He has a good marketing & PR team, as well as friends in Hollywood who can capitalize off of these.
Another benefit is that he is able to set up shop in these early states already. He has full-blown campaigns running in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada already - more than 6 months from the first caucus. Having a physical presence on the ground, especially in states where face-to-face politics means as much as it does in New Hampshire and Iowa, can make all the difference between catching the momentum like John Kerry & Bill Clinton and falling face down like Howard Dean & Gary Hart. And as we all know, no amount of money or media play can equal the power winning in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Even though he continues to lose to Clinton in national primary polls, Obama has fared far better on a state-by-state basis. While he is currently running anywhere from -10% in the Cook/RT Strategies poll to -23% in the Fox News poll (which is ridiculous, I must say. No way that Obama has 19% to Clinton's 42%), his marks are better in the states.
In Iowa, he is neck-and-neck with Clinton and John Edwards. Edwards is winning the Strategic Vision poll, leading Obama and Clinton 26%-21%-20% (notice how Barack is beating Hillary as well), and Clinton is leading in the Mason-Dixon poll with 22% to Edwards' 21% and Obama's 18%. (find these numbers here). In South Carolina, Mason-Dixon has Obama ahead of Clinton 34-29%.
Of course, these numbers mean absolutely nothing at this moment. But one thing to give some credence to is a recent poll by Mason-Dixon regarding favorability and votability (yes, I think I just made that up) of the major candidates. Fifty-two percent of those polled said they would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, and 42% said that recognized her name & were unfavorable towards her (read more here). That's a pretty rough number. Like I've said all along, people don't like Hillary Clinton. She is polarizing and she can't win a general election against a decent & well-funded Republican candidate. Oh, and she would have NO chance against Fred Thompson. But that's just one man's opinion.
So, Sen. Barack Obama released his fundraising statistics Sunday night. We all learned that he raised a remarkable $32.5 million in the last fiscal quarter (April-June). That is an incredible number. According to The Los Angeles Times, it is the second highest fundraising total for a quarter since the President raised $35 million in the second quarter of 2003. That is an incumbent president raising that much money, an incumbent who has made many a bedfellow with shady corporate donors and political action committees. (see article here).
Barack Obama has raised the second highest amount of money for a political campaign during any quarter in history. His $32.5 million is more than all the 2004 Democratic candidates raised in the 2nd quarter of 2003 combined. Of that $32.5 million, $31 million is set aside for the primary campaign. That raises the amount of money he has raised this year to battle Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination to $55.7 million. Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that Obama's campaign is not accepting money from PACs or lobbyists.
To her credit, Clinton raised $27 million this quarter, about $21 million of which will go to the primary. When you add that to the $26 million that she raised last quarter, along with the $10 million she transferred from her Senate campaign war chest, she has actually outraised Senator Obama $63 million to $55.7 million. However, not all of that money is earmarked for the primaries. In fact - I do not have the actual numbers in front of me - but it appears as though when you take the $6 million this quarter, along with the similar figure from last quarter, and some of her $10 million transfer into account as general election money, Obama and Clinton are on an even keel, even with the former-First Lady's $10 million head start.
But putting the money aside, as huge a statistic as this is for the Obama camp (of which you can count me a member, if you hadn't noticed), the real revelation lies in another number. More than 258,000 people have donated to the Obama campaign since January 1. That is, without question, more than any other single candidate at this point in history. These 258,000 have made more than 350,000 donations, and more than 1,500 people join the ranks everyday. Talk about a grassroots explosion (read more here).
While money does not buy every election, simply ask Ross Perot, it will amount to an enormous shot in the arm for Obama's campaign. He will almost certainly come close to reaching $100 million by the end of 2007. That kind of money buys him several things.
One is notoriety and media coverage. Any candidate who can garner this kind of unprecedented support is certain to steal the headlines on a semi-regular basis. Even if Bill Clinton is making the rounds with his wife and squeezing money out of the Clinton stalwarts from the 90s, Barack Obama is going to make the nightly newscast, he is going to get play on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. And most publicity is a good thing at this point in the race, especially free publicity.
Also, $55.7 million provides you with a great chance to buy publicity. He has more than enough money to run TV and radio spots in the key early primary states. He has a good marketing & PR team, as well as friends in Hollywood who can capitalize off of these.
Another benefit is that he is able to set up shop in these early states already. He has full-blown campaigns running in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada already - more than 6 months from the first caucus. Having a physical presence on the ground, especially in states where face-to-face politics means as much as it does in New Hampshire and Iowa, can make all the difference between catching the momentum like John Kerry & Bill Clinton and falling face down like Howard Dean & Gary Hart. And as we all know, no amount of money or media play can equal the power winning in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Even though he continues to lose to Clinton in national primary polls, Obama has fared far better on a state-by-state basis. While he is currently running anywhere from -10% in the Cook/RT Strategies poll to -23% in the Fox News poll (which is ridiculous, I must say. No way that Obama has 19% to Clinton's 42%), his marks are better in the states.
In Iowa, he is neck-and-neck with Clinton and John Edwards. Edwards is winning the Strategic Vision poll, leading Obama and Clinton 26%-21%-20% (notice how Barack is beating Hillary as well), and Clinton is leading in the Mason-Dixon poll with 22% to Edwards' 21% and Obama's 18%. (find these numbers here). In South Carolina, Mason-Dixon has Obama ahead of Clinton 34-29%.
Of course, these numbers mean absolutely nothing at this moment. But one thing to give some credence to is a recent poll by Mason-Dixon regarding favorability and votability (yes, I think I just made that up) of the major candidates. Fifty-two percent of those polled said they would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, and 42% said that recognized her name & were unfavorable towards her (read more here). That's a pretty rough number. Like I've said all along, people don't like Hillary Clinton. She is polarizing and she can't win a general election against a decent & well-funded Republican candidate. Oh, and she would have NO chance against Fred Thompson. But that's just one man's opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)