John Bolton Round II

The Senate has another chance to stand up to an appointment of the Bush administration. Republican candidates are trying to distance themselves from poor poll numbers. Now would be a great time to show voters that they are not in lock step with the administration.

A year ago John Bolton was nominated for U.N. ambassador. His record was so inconsistent and undiplomatic that Democrats and key Republican leaders joined together to block the appointment. Bolton’s history of temper tantrums and verbal abuse of those that worked for him prompt Arlen Specter to call him “the poster child of what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be.” By the end of the confirmation process it was clear that the Republican held Senate would not put John Bolton anywhere near representatives of our allies or our enemies. The present international situation demands that we put the most qualified people in place to navigate us through these difficult times.

The President felt that his own will was more important than the consensus of the elected body of the Senate. He waited until they went on summer recess. A Constitutional provision allows him to make emergency appointments if the congress is unavailable. The emergency of course being he wasn’t going to get his way if the Senate were to vote. The recess appointment provision was designed to give the President latitude in times of immediate crisis to put people in key positions while congress was riding back to their home states by horse back. This Constitutional provision the President used was written before the invention of what we now call, the telephone. What immediate crisis Bolton was installed to handle is not known. The same intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq was likely used to put Bolton on the front lines of our diplomatic efforts.

The Constitution is wise in its structure. Not only does it give Presidents the opportunity to short circuit the democratic process in times of crisis but it also gives opportunities for us to restore the rule of law. Without the advice and consent of the Senate, John Bolton‘s appointment was only temporary. His emergency year is now over. Once again the Senate has a chance to determine if Bush’s choice is the best America has to offer. Republican Senators will be asking tough questions of the man installed behind their backs. It will be a very public opportunity to show their loyalty to the nation and their dedication to the responsibility of balance to presidential power.

A year in the post of U.N. Ambassador has not strengthened Bolton’s position. He was recently caught berating representatives from third world countries. When commenting on negotiations with Iran over their nuclear programs Bolton said, “I don’t do carrots.” The worst fears of Senators have been realized in the performance of John Bolton. Now, for the sake of their country, their party, and the world they must take action. We haven’t seen the excellence in the Bush administration the country would have liked in large part because we have not demanded it. It is time that Senators demand excellence from the appointees the White House sends to the hill. We’ve wasted another year with the administrations stubborn disregard for the seriousness of the moment in history we live. The nation deserves a serious nominee to represent our diplomatic efforts around the world.

Pragmatism and the Environmentalist

For the past several years environmentalist and scientists have been trying to get our attention. They have been warning of dangerous changes in our world if we continue to disregard the natural balance of things. The danger of global warming has not changed neither have the solutions. Only now are we starting to take the warnings serious. Why has it taken so long for our public conscience to wake up to the message that has been shouted for so long?
Part of the problem has been the messenger. Scientists are notoriously unclear in their jargon and wary of speaking in certainties. This lets people who oppose setting high environmental standards say there is no consensus. Oil companies and car manufacturers all have a financial stake in playing up the uncertainties that are the nature of scientific research. A good scientist is always ready to admit that they’ve been wrong in the past and could be wrong in their analysis now. However, every scientist that isn’t working for the oil industry or the Bush administration agrees that we are reaching a global crisis and humans are in large part to blame. This isn’t a new position for the scientific community. Only now the data and our own experience have gone past speculation to the kind of reality that people in New Orleans and Peek’s Creek are still recovering from.
Beyond the scientist, there is the environmental activist. This group of citizens have been offering a choice of environmentally friendly actions we could all take to help the world at large. Activists often ask too much from people struggling to solve the day to day problem of life in general. This planet is big and our problems are only getting bigger. The results of any action we take now or the action we refuse to take will only have noticeable effect 100 years from now. For people used to living paycheck to paycheck this long-term problem is hard to integrate into their hectic lives. Activist like Al Gore often, in their passion for this planet of ours, paints too broad of a picture of the problem at hand. If the problems are that big, how can we tackle them as individuals? It often sounds hopeless. So why bother trying?
The fact is, setting my thermostat from 75 to 80 degrees won’t stop icebergs from melting by itself. What it will do is save me money when my electric bill comes in. Driving my car with high miles per gallon saves me trips to the pump and leaves dollars in my wallet. In order to make the message connect with most of America, environmentalist must speak in economic terms.
Can we expand our imagination to see a day where each home is powered by solar cells on rooftops? Much is made of the “Big Brother” of government, but what of our dependency to the multinational corporation? What if we could free ourselves from the energy cycle that made CEO’s like Ken Lay so very rich at our expense. Is it possible to change our very idea of what energy is and how we utilize it? Lets change how we function in the world not for the sake of the ice sheets of the artic or the whales in the ocean. Small changes to how we address the problems we face in our day to day lives can save us real money and open up new opportunities for every working American.
Helping the planet because we want to be better citizens is fine and good, but a more practical approach is to find ways of helping ourselves. What would it mean to your family’s budget if the electric bill were something you no longer had to pay? Home wind and solar power technologies are ready to fill the need. All we have to do is have the courage to try it. Automobile technologies are almost ready to take us away from burning hundreds of thousands of gallons a day. Think of the freedom this would give you and your family. Think of what this might mean to national security and the amount of money we now spend securing fossil fuels. When thinking of environmental issues don’t think of the Spotted Owl or the Polar Bear. These far away animals don’t play a part in my day to day life. Think of how much better Christmas will be with extra money in our pockets. There is value in our efforts to save the environment that goes beyond the good deed. A better more prosperous nation may be created if we just think a little more green. Maintaining a climate that gives us white snow at Christmas time may just be the icing on the cake. The damage that has been done to the world can be healed. The first step might just be as simple as turning that thermostat just a little higher.

Out of Iraq and into the War

As the war in Iraq has gone from bad to worse the term “anti-war movement” has once again entered the social lexicon. This generalization has been used to suggest that those opposed to the Iraq war and how it has been run are pacifists. For some that may be true. However, as the number of Americans that are ready to withdraw from Iraq increase it is clear things are not that simple.

“Cut and run” has been the chanted response from the administration. They’ve tried to equate being against the war in Iraq to an idea that denies that we are fighting a war at all. Before 9/11 people in the government like Richard Clark (counter terrorism expert for Reagan to George W.) were aware of the danger posed by Al Qaeda. The threat posed by an ideology twisted to hate was real and growing long before the dark day that marked this war’s beginning. Up to that time it was the administration itself that seemed to be ignoring the problem and the danger. After 9/11 the Bush administration took action that I supported from day one and still do. The invasion of Afghanistan and removal of the Taliban was bold and courageous. They represented a government power that supported and protected Al Qaeda and it’s leader Osama Bin Laden. Removing the Taliban from power was just the kind of nation building exercise of military power that was necessary to help insure our own safety. Flush with the quick victory against the Taliban government the administration turned to Iraq. Why? There were still terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Somalia, Europe and elsewhere. The one place in the entire world, especially the Middle East, that was isolated, controlled and free of Al Qadea activity was Iraq. With sanctions and travel restrictions already in place very few people were coming and going under the nose of Hussein’s secular authoritarian government.

The theory behind the Iraq invasion was that it would be an example of democracy in action in the heart of the Middle East. The fact that it would have to be imposed at gunpoint was an irony not seen by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld. Afghanistan is not in the heart of the Middle East. They, as a general rule, are not Arab but Persian. They have more poppies than they do oil but there is almost universal acceptance that the Afghanistan invasion was a necessary action against those that would do us harm. Why not build that nation and liberate those people? Why split our resources without a plan to win the peace?

130 thousand troops that are now in Iraq could be combing the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. 308 billion dollars could have been spent building Afghanistan into a positive example of American intervention. Unfortunately that country is slipping back into chaos. If our military was less engaged in Iraq we could put more military pressure on dangerous governments like Iran, Syria and North Korea. These threats are growing and becoming more emboldened everyday. By trying to do everything the Bush administration has done less than nothing. Iraq isn’t a war that we should oppose because war is wrong. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is keeping us from fighting the war that is really going on.

Perhaps it is time to change the rally cry of the anti Iraq war movement. We should change the focus from getting out of Iraq to getting back into Afghanistan. We need to start demanding that our soldiers be put where they can do the most good for their sacrifices. It is the least support we can give to those that risk so much. War is a terrible exercise in inhumanity. The waste and bloodshed in every conflict should make us pause before acting. What is worse than wars are battles fought without effective purpose. War is and has been a blunt tool of diplomacy since civilization began. Military action is still a necessary evil in these dangerous times as we search for our own security. Opposition to the war in Iraq is not an indictment of the action itself but an acknowledgment of the limitations and inappropriate use of military power.

No Time For Joe

Joe Lieberman used the rise of the neo conservative movement to raise his own political profile. He assumed that Democrats would continue to support him based on party loyalty. He also bargained that Republican voters would be impressed by his new conservative style. This was Lieberman’s strategy for winning the national office of the Presidency. He obviously wasn’t sure of his plan. In 2000 he continued to run for his Senate seat while seeking to enter the White House with Al Gore. In 2004 he ran for President. Joe was seen even then as a pale reflection of the current administration and was quickly removed from the running. Good thing for him his Senate seat was safe, until now.

Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary last week in Connecticut. He gained a great deal of support from the left against a senior Senator that they perceived as turning too much toward the conservative camp of the opposition party. Senator Lieberman has been a steady supporter of the war in Iraq. He’s a supporter of keeping stock options off corporate earnings sheets. He created the American Council of Trustees and Alumni with the help of Lynn Cheney to attack college professors that challenged public policy after 9/11. He is a member of the Empower America foundation along with Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett. Together with these conservative thinkers he created a political agenda. These political friends have long colored Lieberman’s political views.
Lieberman has made many “compromises” and deals with the republican leadership that has almost always favored the conservative position while giving very little to Democrats in return.

The best example may be the failure of Democrats to use the Senate procedure of the filibuster to block conservative nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. This was, in no small part, thanks to Joe Lieberman and the “Gang of 14” that reached a deal letting the vote for Bush appointments to occur. This was great for Republicans but Democrats gained nothing except retaining the right to filibuster some other time, but only under “extreme circumstances”. This was not so much a compromise as it was surrender. Liberal frustration with Lieberman came to graphic illustration when President Bush kissed him on the cheek moments before his 2005 State of the Union address.
Republican voters don’t need a conservative Democrat to vote for. There are plenty of conservative republicans to choose from. Why should party Democrats continue to support Lieberman when he continues to undercut the party’s political position, seemingly at every turn? He voted with Democrats 90 percent of the time during his time in the Senate. Did he think no one would notice how much work he was doing to kill initiatives before the vote? Lieberman has now alienated almost everyone. He has called himself a Democrat for many years, but his agenda has been first and foremost a personal one.

Joe Lieberman is a good man, but his greed for personal advancement has blinded him. The voters of Connecticut should be proud of themselves, seeing past Lieberman’s personal agenda. Standing up for an ideal means more than simply trying to align yourself with a majority. The primary results in Connecticut last week weren’t because of a liberal bloggers “witch-hunt” or simply the issue of Iraq. It was a clarification of party ideals. The President may support policies I disagree with but at least he can be trusted to believe in his own agenda. What Joe Lieberman believes in can no longer be certain. In these difficult times political power players are just a distraction and an impediment to solving the problems we face. It is only right that candidates like Lieberman be asked to step aside. The rest of us have work to do.

President: Same Guy Different Numbers

What’s different about the President? His view on Iraq hasn’t changed since the invasion. He still pushes for 6 party talks in dealing with North Korea. He still supports cuts in taxes and cuts in services. The President has yet to waver on his support for the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, No Child Left Behind, or the Patriot Act. The President has less swagger and bravado than he once projected but he still wears cowboy hats in Texas. So why has his approval rating dropped from 60 percent to 30 in less than 2 years time? One explanation is that the world has changed between now and then. The fact is that the world is always changing. Situations change and new solutions need to be considered.

When the decision was made to invade Iraq certain preconceived ideas of the outcome were held by the administration. We would be greeted as liberators. We would find WMDs proving a direct threat to the U.S. The cost of the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil and national identity would keep the country from tearing itself apart. None of these things turned out to be correct. Instead of adjusting policy according to the new situation the President seems to be waiting for the outcome he was expecting. If only we give the war a little more time we will greeted as liberators, find WMDs, the war will be paid for and national unity will flourish behind the new government. The President could never be accused of “flip-flopping”, the label that proved so devastating to the Kerry campaign in 2004. The shoes most like the Administration policy could only be described as concrete. So afraid of changing course we are sinking deeper into problems that can’t be solved going the current direction. An unwillingness to maneuver in a time of crisis is a kind of paralysis. Once we saw the President as an innovative leader but now the image of deer caught in the headlights seems a more apt description.

The public has had time to see the fruit of policies we were assured would bring security and prosperity. None of the Presidents major initiatives have produced the results they have promised. Some of these policies need only small adjustments for them to work in the real world. Adjustments we’ve seen the administration unwilling, or unable to make. This intractable resolve has haunted the Administration with underachievement and a lack of progress. If this government was held to the standards schools are held by the No Child Left Behind Act the grade would be that of failure.

Further alienating the public the President has catered to the small yet vocal religious activists on his right. These groups with special interests seem to justify applying their moral judgments onto public policy at large. This has left the President not only taking views that differ from the majority of Americans but actually come into conflict with his roll as defender of our Constitutional liberties. His excesses in attempting to appease this demanding demographic has left George W. less of a president and more of a lobbyist in the eyes of the nation.
The President and his party can regain much of the public confidence that they have lost. They only need to remind themselves of their core ideals. Less government, less spending, less interference by the government in the affairs of others, these have been the staples of Republican conservative ideals for many years. The truth is they have failed in practice what they are so successful in preaching. Only when they are ready to return with courage to the ideals of, liberty for all, will the public return to them.