Perpetual Calendar Watch....
As previously noted in this space, on October 5, 2006, Sen. John Warner's position on Iraq was the following:
The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a Bush loyalist offered his darkest assessment of Iraq yet on Thursday, suggesting the war there was "drifting sideways" without a firm commitment from its government to disarm militias and rebuild the country.It is now exactly three months later. Does Warner believe that the coming escalation constitutes a bold decision? Does it obviate his self-admitted responsibility to make such a decision?
Returning from a recent trip to the region, Sen. John Warner said the military had done what it could, and if after three months the Iraqis have made no progress to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction, then Congress will have to make some "bold decisions."
Warner's office number is (202) 224-2023. His email contact page is here. Let's remind him of today's date. Please post any replies you get in the comments section, or email me.
posted by The Cunning Realist at Friday, January 05, 2007
10 Comments:
its a few hundred million vs a few hundred...mobilise...but quietly...
sent, no reply yet, not holding breath.
the time for pamphlets and standing around is passing...
http://newsbusters.org/node/9974
givem some fred emery for starters...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOW502A.html
Democratization: could it happen here?
you have to be interim president first hedley ...pending fresh elections...hope you give everyone who voted to go into iraq a fair trial (or some sort of trial) and brzy is summoned by you to guide (just guide) on big picture stuff...even Peace's warrior says 'pora'... realist started it...it had to come from realist...
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10269
What if the Republicans in both Congress and the administration have realized that an end to the American war in Iraq would instantly drain two to three hundred billion dollars a year out of the economy? Could ~that~ be the major motivation for sustaining the war until the next presidency?
Defense spending was around $300 billion a year, pre-9/11; now it's approaching $600 billion a year, with all the GWOT supplementals. ~Every~ American war paid for with the printing press has been followed by a brutal recession, and we've paid for this one with the printing press just as surely as Lincoln did. Shut off the printing press, and the balloon deflates. How much better to make that move in three years, with a Democratic president, so the Republicans can say, "See, the economy was strong until a Democrat took over the White House."
Just one in a series of arguments that the course of the war in Iraq is driven by domestic politics in the U.S., rather than by events on the ground in Iraq.
Create domestic, non-defense infrastructure allocations for those monies. These could be reverse indexed over time, to act as a counterweight against recession and reposition the economy for further expansion that's less dependent on Federal borrowing.
This would do more than create the soft landing that Alan Greenspan allowed to develop into the real estate bubble. It would create productive domestic investments that yield returns for several generations, with the added benefit of keeping Americans working (and paying their bills and mortgages), housed, advancing educations and creating a next generation energy paradigm.
This is more than a substitution strategy. It's investment in our future, as opposed to pissing billions away to support big oil wars.
Remember Robert Rubin, Al Gore and that other fella?
http://www.policestateplanning.com/preface.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home