There are so many things to write about, I can't fully mention them all.
First, there's that Iraq thing (I don't mean to make light of the war, BTW, but "Iraq" has become by now sort of a code for a whole disparate group of issues). The Bush administration has, in the last week, gone on the offensive by restating the goals of the occupation, and setting up a quasi-timetable for the conditions under which a withdrawal might be considered and implemented. It's hard to take it all seriously from a foreign policy standpoint, since it's merely (albeit potentially a brilliant and successful plan) a means to help stem the tide of opposing public opinion. In spite of the less than competent manner in which the administration has handled the occupation, anyone who initially supported the war but now opposes it (and this could be as much as a quarter of the US population) is an idiot who should be ashamed of themselves. What the hell did these people think was going to happen? Did they actually believe the rosy projections by Rumsfeld? I actually supported the war (mainly for reasons I suspect were genuine, but unstated by the administration) and I never thought it would be so easy... But I digress. Representative Murtha's 'stunt' last week, and the shameful response by the House Republicans, has at least opened up the debate a bit on this, even if one contends, as I do, that foreign policy should not follow the dictates of public opinion.
Then, there's Hillary. In a desperate continuation of her need to appeal to the centrist wing of the party, she is maintaining her support for at least the principle behind the invasion, even if she opposes the administration's handling of the aftermath. In doing so she is bucking the current trends in her party, and might run the risk of losing a nomination that is supposedly hers for the asking. Meanwhile she's sent her lackey husband out to calm the waters with the left wing of her party, by having him slyly (wink wink, nudge nudge) suggest she opposes the whole thing. And Senator Feingold's getting in on the act, speaking to ever larger groups of potential donors and supporters, who, in a response worthy of Pavlov, reflexively stand and cheer every time it's mentioned he voted against the resolution allowing the invasion. Too bad a significant number of Democrats feel the need to lose every single fucking time.
Concurrently, things have broken loose in Israel, where, faced with a revolt from the right by "Bibi" Netanyahu, Prime Minister Sharon bolted the Likud Party that he helped found, in order to govern from the center. This had been expected, but more surprising was Shimon Peres' announcement that he would leave the Labour Party and join Sharon in his new moderate party. This newest triumph of moderation in Israel is most encouraging. One hopes American politicians are paying attention.
First, there's that Iraq thing (I don't mean to make light of the war, BTW, but "Iraq" has become by now sort of a code for a whole disparate group of issues). The Bush administration has, in the last week, gone on the offensive by restating the goals of the occupation, and setting up a quasi-timetable for the conditions under which a withdrawal might be considered and implemented. It's hard to take it all seriously from a foreign policy standpoint, since it's merely (albeit potentially a brilliant and successful plan) a means to help stem the tide of opposing public opinion. In spite of the less than competent manner in which the administration has handled the occupation, anyone who initially supported the war but now opposes it (and this could be as much as a quarter of the US population) is an idiot who should be ashamed of themselves. What the hell did these people think was going to happen? Did they actually believe the rosy projections by Rumsfeld? I actually supported the war (mainly for reasons I suspect were genuine, but unstated by the administration) and I never thought it would be so easy... But I digress. Representative Murtha's 'stunt' last week, and the shameful response by the House Republicans, has at least opened up the debate a bit on this, even if one contends, as I do, that foreign policy should not follow the dictates of public opinion.
Then, there's Hillary. In a desperate continuation of her need to appeal to the centrist wing of the party, she is maintaining her support for at least the principle behind the invasion, even if she opposes the administration's handling of the aftermath. In doing so she is bucking the current trends in her party, and might run the risk of losing a nomination that is supposedly hers for the asking. Meanwhile she's sent her lackey husband out to calm the waters with the left wing of her party, by having him slyly (wink wink, nudge nudge) suggest she opposes the whole thing. And Senator Feingold's getting in on the act, speaking to ever larger groups of potential donors and supporters, who, in a response worthy of Pavlov, reflexively stand and cheer every time it's mentioned he voted against the resolution allowing the invasion. Too bad a significant number of Democrats feel the need to lose every single fucking time.
Concurrently, things have broken loose in Israel, where, faced with a revolt from the right by "Bibi" Netanyahu, Prime Minister Sharon bolted the Likud Party that he helped found, in order to govern from the center. This had been expected, but more surprising was Shimon Peres' announcement that he would leave the Labour Party and join Sharon in his new moderate party. This newest triumph of moderation in Israel is most encouraging. One hopes American politicians are paying attention.
