Iraq House Training, er, Nation-Building

MSNBC's catoonist, Daryl Cagle, after hearing Bush explain his Adminstration's failure in Iraq this week after so many years, captures in living color the fact that looking backwards, "house training" (aka "nation-building") in Iraq has gone rather badly.

Nations are just not very good at nation-building and a long serious review of history informs us of that fact. The issue was addressed last week-end in many of the pundit talk shows like Hardball, the McLaughlin Group, This Week, and others: the commentators were all, by and large, in agreement.

The neo-con idea that the USA could start a pre-emptive war and then hope to nation-build was flawed from the begining.

A Lost Cause

Mike Lester, with the Rome News Tribune in Georgia, captures Senator Russ Feingold's dilemma last week.

The thing is that Feingold has not been consistent lately: to wit, he voted for Bush's boys on the Supreme Court. Shame!

On Immigration

Guest Blogger: Charlie Ara, Cerritos, Calif.

This morning I attended the Cerritos Optimist Club's annual Oratorical Contest at the Sheraton Hotel. In addition to a delicious meal with parents, teachers and fellow Optimists, I heard the excellent inspirational speeches of seven students from the ABC School District.

As I listened, I noticed that all seven students had dark black hair. I reflected that all were either immigrants or the children of immigrants and that the future of our country will be denriched with their contributions and talents.

To me, the Oratorical Contest was a teaching moment for all the adults present. It was an opportunity to reflect on the immigration debate now raging in the United States.

I do not know if each of these students or their parents are documented or undocumented. However, this was on my mind as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee takes up a series of proposed immigration reforms.

At the present time there exists a hysterical anti-immigration sentiment sweeping even Cerritos as evidenced by the Cerritos Republican Club inviting Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, to address their meeting.

Recently, Cardinal Roger Mahony spoke out against this hysteria. He framed the immigration debate in moral and ethical terms. He suggested that the Judeo-Christian Tradition welcomed the immigrant.

Yes, some reforms are needed. As we say in our Optimist Creed "...to spend so much timeon our own self improvement that we have no time to be critical of others..."

The Minutemen type would have it be a felony to help an undocumented immigrant. The priest, rabbi, iman, minister, etcetera would have to have everyone show their papers before entering a house of worship.

What are we coming to as a country? What can we do about the mean spirited hysteria?

As we are all immigrants or children of immigrants (except for Native Americans) why can't we find ways to deal with our problems without being mean-spirited?

What are some considerations for reforming immigration?

Here are some ideas being considered:

(1) Visas for family members of migrants to reduce what can be decades-long waits to reunify.
(2) A guest worker program with a path to permanent residency.
(3) Legalization of undocumented migrants.
(4) Better legal process to guarantee immigrants rights.
(5) Economic development in poor countries to reduce the need to migrate.

Yes, let's debate the issue of immigration but let us do it with a sense of justice, fairness and concern for all our fellow human beings on planet earth.

Harboring Terrorists

As the Parker political cartoon describes well (and after today's vote in the House), Bush's plan for our harbors seem like a lost idea.

George W. Nixon

Paul Conrad's view of the Bush, er, Bush-Nixon Administration.

Mr. Conrad always gets to the core of the argument.

Plutocracy versus Democracy

It was widely reported in the Associated Press recently that the US Coast Guard raised some red flags when the proposed take-over by Dubai Ports World of certain US ports was brought to their attention. Last December the Coast Guard warned of potential intelligence gaps and, as such, made it difficult for the Guard to evaluate the true security threat before the business deal was approved. We still do not know why their concerns were ignored (or ameliorated) but I have a view, and to me it seems the plutocrats continue to wield power in America.

It’s such a tragedy that so many Americans do not see the irony as this little political brouhaha developed vis-a vis our policy towards Iraq the last four years. Our Splinters team member George Giacoppe wrote a sizzling post a few days ago as he unmasked the realities of life for many living in the UAE, especially foreigners. As Mr. Giacoppe discussed, in the UAE there is no democracy, but the Bush Administration, it seems, can care less.

By contrast, let’s remember than one of the goals (later stated) of invading Iraq was to bring democracy and freedom to a country under the control of a political strongman. Yet, as the Bush Administration cozies up to the UAE regime demonstrably shows it’s not about democracy that concerns Bush when it comes to the conflicts in the Middle East, but, what else, the eternal lucre and getting along with other plutocratic regimes in the area. All the arguments made about the UAE being America’s friend in the “so-called” war on terrorism is just a red herring. We Americans have to keep our eye on the events that are developing without relying on the faux arguments made by the ever-lying White House.

When plutocrats—like the ones in power in Washington DC (mostly the executive branch, but not exclusively) and the UAE—have the same agenda they are all too willing to work together. This is the same throughout the Middle East as we work warmly with the non-democratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Before the fall of the Shah (1979), America was so nice to Iran, another plutocratic regime. We never criticize these regimes, not even a little bit. I'll say it out loud, “There is a hidden agenda, and it’s about money, oil, and control.”

And I have heard zero about the political background of the UAE that Mr. Giacoppe addressed in his post in the mainstream media, yet the media networks continue to parrot Bush’s democratic goals in Iraq daily. Shameful.

Yet, for Bush, the problem with plutocratic regimes, especially in open societies, is that not everyone with spheres of governmental influence is in adherence with the plans of the leadership in power at any point in time. In this fiasco many Republicans in Congress who worry about re-election next year have determined the Bush Administration is not concerned about their needs, and as expected, they are fighting Bush on this contentious issue. Look at the public opinion polls: 75% of Americans oppose the UAE taking charge of our ports. So it comes to no one’s surprise that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said, "I am more convinced than ever that the process was truly flawed. I can only conclude that there was a rush to judgment."

I've mentioned in my posts that the legislative goals of Democrats in Congress lie with moderate Republicans. Now it seems that Republicans concerned about loosing the next election can also help, at least in this instance. I strongly believe that in the end Congress will stop this very strange deal and override Bush’s threatened veto.