We Need a Hero

I hate that I am posting a liberal, anti-war, get-out-of-Iraq post on Memorial Day, but it does seem to be the most fitting time. Before people start to characterize me as a military-hating, anti-war, delusion peacenik liberal, hear me out for a moment.

I am in full support of all branches of the US Military. I think the work they have done and continue to do worldwide has been essential to world stability and America's strength and superiority. But I also think the time has come where their presence in Iraq no longer adds to American security and does seriously jeopardize the security of our boys (and girls and bois) in uniform.

I may sound callous when I suggest that American lives are more important than other lives. In the eyes of the US Government, at least, they should be. Americans both civilian and military, at home and abroad must be protected. The original premise of the war in Iraq was to ensure our safety at home. It is not the job of American forces to unilaterally solve the political problems of other nations. Our primary objective was to remove from power forces with the ability to put Americans in danger in the United States.

The mission succeeded in some ways and failed in others.

Clearly, Saddam Hussein is dead. Osama bin Laden has gone into hiding and has been unable to successfully orchestrate a large-scale attack on US soil since 9/11. Many other terrorist leaders have been killed or captured.

Unfortunately, every day, we lose more young people, primarily men of my own age, to a war that has had very little positive effect on American life.

In the months following September 11, 2001, America was in absolute fear of another attack. We were so fearful that we were willing to relinquish some of our most sacred liberties to the government to ensure our protection. While we now must live with a greater government intrusion in our personal lives than ever before, we feel only slightly more safe. This is evidenced by the paranoia that still surrounds us in public transportation, parks, and other public places. Unattended packages, groups of Arabs, and any whisper of a bomb has the potential to ground a flight. Even a bottle of shave gel or cologne can set the airlines in a panic.

The truth is, we were careless before 9/11. We, the American people, and our government should have been paying more attention and enacting policies to prevent terrorism. Now we are in a war to prevent further acts of violence. Unfortunately, our war has ceased to provide a net gain in terror prevention and is instead training guerillas that are well prepared to fight, and kill, Americans.

The best that can be done now is to reduce the situation. Our government has no other suitable option than to begin a withdrawal of troops and enact domestic policies that will prevent the war from reaching our soil.

On this Memorial Day, I want to applaud our armed services for their hard work and sacrifices, and honor those that have fallen. Their work and sacrifices have not been in vain. Their work might, however, be better suited toward other ends than a fruitless war in Iraq.

Retired Chair of Joint Chiefs asks for end to DADT

Now that President Bush is trying to find another 20,000+ troops to send to Iraq in a hurry, he may finally be thinking in terms of how to reduce the limits on who can serve in the military. Specifically, the administration should look toward lifting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

I have posted a few times about DADT. Any regular readers know that I think that reversing DADT is a more pressing concern than the right to marry. From a Gay rights standpoint, Gays and Lesbians should be able to participate openly in any career in the United States for which they are otherwise qualified-especially those jobs provided by government. From a national security standpoint, Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to serve openly because it allows a greater pool of qualified candidates to serve our nation proudly. This larger pool allows for a larger, stronger, more effective, and better military.

A recent editorial in the New York Times written by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John M. Shalikashvili, criticized DADT and declared that it may be time to reverse the policy. What is remarkable is that Shalikashvili was instrumental in establishing the policy during the Clinton years. The retired general has fully changed his mind in light of the 24 other nations that currently allow Gays to serve openly in the military and the recent polls showing that the men and women currently serving would not have a significant problem if Gays and Lesbians were allowed to serve alongside.

Supporters of DADT have argued for years that allowing Gays to serve would undermine unit cohesion, harm recruitment, and lower morale. Shalikashvili has unequivocally stated that while he believes that DADT was necessary in 1993, the time has come when the United States no longer needs to consider homosexuality incompatible with military service. This may come as the greatest strike against DADT yet!

The Bush administration needs at least 20,000 more soldiers on the ground, by their own count. While the military has never actually been very successful at preventing all Gay people from serving, DADT has very effectively prevented openly Gay men and women from entering military service. While it is unlikely that 20,000 qualified, young Gay and Lesbians would immediately enlist, the Bush administration would certainly have an easier time meeting recruitment needs.

This Week in America

The new Democratic leadership has officially taken control of Congress and the big headlines, other than whether Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama will top the Democratic presidential ticket in ’08, is that the first 100 hours of Congress will change the course of American history.

By 100 hours, they really only mean 100 hours when they are actually in chambers during their newly extended four day work week. And by first, they really mean starting next week. So really, instead of saying first 100 hours, they should say, “first month in office including the week we don’t really do anything except talk.”

According to Steny Hoyer’s office (as a side note, I have always really liked Congressman Hoyer in a non-Mark Foley sort of way) there is a calendar of historic congressional actions events happening between the 9th and the 26th of January.

The rundown is like this:

January 9th: Enact 9/11 Commission Recommendations
January 10th: Increase Minimum Wage
January 11th: Allow Stem Cell Research
January 12th: Negotiate for Lower Prescription Drug Prices
January 13th: Saturday
January 14th: Sunday
January 15th: Monday (Doesn’t everybody have Mondays off?)
January 16th: Votes postponed until 6:30pm (to recover from Monday hangovers)
January 17th: Cut Interest Rates on Student Loans
January 18th: Cut Subsidies for Big Oil and Invest in Renewable Energy
January 19th: Votes
January 20th: Saturday
January 21st: Sunday
January 22nd: Monday (You mean to say, You work on Mondays?!)
January 23rd: State of the Union Address (Maybe President Bush will solve this silly problem of working on Mondays)
January 24th: Votes
January 25th and 26th: Republicans Vacation after an exhausting “100 hours”

What is not on the calendar is that immediately afterward, the Pelosi Congress will solve world hunger (food instability), earthquake-proof California, find Osama bin Laden, pay off the national debt, make peace with Iran and North Korea, and still find time to keep declare Mondays a national day of rest for those of us that are not Members of Congress.

Seriously, why do we have to work on Mondays?

Three's Company

And then there were three. With Giuliani’s establishment of an exploratory committee for a presidential run in 2008, there are now three Republicans that have tentatively thrown their hats in the ring.

But who are these three Republicans? After such a beating by the Democrats last week, do any of the three have what it takes to lead the party in a new direction? Do any of them have the ability to win?

Duncan Hunter has served in the House of Representatives since 1981 and currently serves the 52nd District of California. He has a strong military background and even has a son currently serving in the United States Marine Corps. His voting record on Gay Rights is less than astounding: with a vote in favor of Bush’s Federal Marriage Amendment, he has earned a zero on a recent scorecard from the Human Rights Campaign. Though Hunter is relatively unknown and has little chance of being a serious contender for president, he has recently gained some notoriety for his support for a fence spanning the entire US/Mexico border.

John McCain failed as a presidential candidate against Bush before the 2000 election. The popular senator from Arizona is largely a moderate and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Once a Prisoner of War himself, McCain has been a staunch supporter of the US military. He has supported sending more troops into Iraq as a method to protect our interests and bring the war to an end in a more timely manner. Notably, he has spoken against the use of torture on prisoners we have captured in the war on terror. He has also taken a relatively pro-environment stance, is pro-life, and labels himself pro-Gay Rights. The HRC, however, has given him a score of 33 for the 109th Congress because his only pro-Gay vote was against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In the past, he has said he supports domestic partnerships but opposes Same-Sex Marriage.

Rudy Giuliani gained his infamy as the Mayor of New York City. He became a hero to millions of Americans in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 when he emerged as a strong American leader in the face of the terrorist attacks. Giuliani has called himself pro-choice and pro-Gay Rights. In fact, the former mayor famously lived with two Gay men for a time. As Mayor Giuliani signed a huge plan for domestic partners in New York City and has spoken in favor of Domestic Partnerships but not of Gay Marriage. Republicans are unlikely to find a popular candidate for the presidency that is more favorable toward the war in Iraq than Giuliani. As mayor during 9/11, Giuliani made a name for himself as a leader against anti-US terror.

For comparison purposes, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have both been tossed around as potential Democrat candidates for the White House. Both are in favor of Gay Rights but fall short of supporting Gay Marriage. Both Senators received high scores from the Human Rights Campaign. In fact, while Kerry scored a perfect score, Hillary Clinton did not support legislation that would grant same-sex partners of US citizens or permanent residents the same rights and privileges enjoyed by spouses of heterosexual citizens and permanent residents. Both Clinton and Kerry have been critics of the war in Iraq but both initially voted in favor of invading the country.

Presently, I am having a hard time supporting any of the candidates being considered for the presidency. McCain comes closest to getting my support. However, he is rapidly aging and has deteriorating health and isn’t quite where I would hope he would be ideologically. Hunter is too much of a scandal-ridden Border-Nazi for my taste. Giuliani is more of an image than a pragmatic politician. Kerry’s political sun has set and he missed his chance. Another Clinton White House scares me.

Why can’t there be a good candidate in either party that generally supports free trade, laissez-faire economics, and a balanced budget while also supporting Gay equality, constitutional rights, and other libertarian freedoms?

Where Do We Go From Here?

Again, to quote Evita, “What happens now? Where are we going to?” These seem to be some of the most relevant questions when thinking about where America will be headed in the immediate future.

I have already stated that I think Speaker Pelosi will need to move a couple steps right. Similarly, I think we have already begun to see Bush move ever-so-slightly toward the center with the acceptance of Rumsfeld’s resignation. While I certainly question whether we will see more of Pelosi’s spirit of bipartisanship, I remain skeptical that we will see much from Bush.

What we will see from Bush will be Vetoes. Lots and lots of lefty legislation will get the Presidential axe. To date, President Bush has only vetoed one piece of legislation (regarding stem cell research). Certainly a Democratically led Congress will pass more legislation that is not in keeping with the President’s views than the Republican led Congress did. If so, we should expect the President to be more willing to pull out the Veto pen than in years past.

The House of Reps will remain a wild and rambunctious chamber of politicians clamoring to push reactionary legislation to whatever happened to hit headlines that day. The conservatives will continue to push for a constitutional ban on Gay marriage while the liberals will continue to push for the US to leave Iraq. The real difference will be in what gets heard above the noise. Speaker Pelosi will control the floor schedule and will appoint the new committee chairs. The Democrats will decide what issues get significant floor time. Undoubtedly the Iraq War and other military reforms will take center stage while socially conservative issues will be quieted.

This does not mean, however, that things are going to be any better for Gay people. While the Federal Marriage Amendment is now off the table for the moment (thankfully), this opens too wide a door for the left to grandstand on the very same issue: Gay Marriage. I have said it before, and I will say it again. Gay Marriage isn’t going to help us any. We already know that any pro-Gay Marriage legislation that makes it out of Congress is almost certainly going to be Vetoed by President Bush. Further, few bills from the House make it through the Senate.

Which brings me to the more reasonable of the two houses of Congress, the Senate. The Senate has a well-earned reputation for being the place where legislation goes to die. That house tends to be much more moderate and well-regulated. Few reactionary bills get serious consideration in the Senate.

I sincerely doubt that we will see much change as a result of the shakeup in the Senate. The newly elected Democratic leaders tend to be on the moderate side, and often as conservative as their Republican counterparts. The partisan leadership of the Senate is less important than the leadership of the House because the rules of the Senate are largely traditional and based on seniority rather than party affiliation. Further, the presiding member of the Senate will remain Vice-President Dick Cheney who gets to cast tie-breaking votes. Also, this moderate house is further moderated by the close political division: the Senate is nearly divided equally in half by party.

So, in terms of where we are headed, expect little change other than President Bush getting to exercise his Veto power a little more frequently. Certainly, he will have to fight harder to continue the status quo. The prevailing political winds are calling for a change of direction. Expect Democrats to interpret this as a complete reversal of Bush policies. I remain hopeful that Pelosi will keep her word and remain level-headed, bipartisan, and fair. If not, the Senate will continue to moderate legislation.