by Nick on July 25, 2008
The Obama VP team has floated Ann Veneman in their discussions with members of congress. Veneman was George W. Bush’s Secretary of Agriculture from 2001 - 2004. She is now the executive director of UNICEF.
“You select a strong independent woman who appeals to Republicans and independents, and so that’s hard to beat,” the Hill source said, explaining the logic of the possible choice. “Choosing someone like [Veneman] doesn’t hurt you with the Democrats. It just doesn’t hurt you. But it helps you with Independents and Republicans.”
Maybe. But that also depends a lot on her positions on many issues. If she is socially conservative it very well could hurt Obama with Democrats. Although perhaps the Obama campaign thinks the Democrats will stick with him no matter who he picks. House Democrats, however, have a history with Veneman:
“Are you serious?” one lawmaker asked vetters when Veneman’s name came up, a second source familiar with the conversations said.
The surprise stems from the fact that, while Veneman was seen as an experienced leader for her department, she often clashed with Democrats on a central battle front of the Bush years: regulation. Venemen was criticized by some Democrats and environmentalists, and praised by agriculture and food interests, for lightly regulating the industries and for encouraging trade and biotechnology during her tenure.
In my opinion there are two reasons you ask about someone to be your VP: 1) You are actually considering that person; 2) You have some specific objective in mind by leaking the name. If the Obama team is doing the latter, then I’m thoroughly confused as to why. Perhaps to test the waters about a Republican VP without leaking the actual name?
Obama Veep Team Floats Republican Name - The Politico
by Nick on July 14, 2008
Posted By: Nick
On Sunday, Taliban militants in Afghanistan attacked a U.S./NATO military base. Nine American soldiers were killed, 15 NATO soldiers (likely Americans) were wounded, and 4 Afghani soldiers were wounded. That the Taliban has been able to regroup to the extent that it feels comfortable attacking a U.S. military base is extremely troublesome. That they managed to inflict the damage they did is even more troublesome. Things are not going well in Afghanistan.
I wrote about Afghanistan last week, and I’m sure I will continue to do so. The fact of the matter is, we have a foolish, shortsighted strategy in Afghanistan that is doing nothing to increase our national security. Iraq distracted us from what should have been our real focus: Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Now they have regrouped and we are beginning to pay the price.
We need more troops in Afghanistan, we need a new, aggressive military strategy, we need to convince Pakistan to take a more proactive stance against the Taliban; and we need these things now. If militants in Afghanistan (likely operating from inside Pakistan) are capable of launching such an attack on a U.S. military base, then what else can they do?
Six and a half years into the war in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is unacceptable. The failure of the Bush Administration to properly execute this war has real consequences that we are now beginning to see.
NYTimes Article
by Nick on July 11, 2008
Posted By: Nick
Little known fact: the United States is actually fighting TWO wars right now. There’s the one we all know about, in Iraq, and then there’s this whole other war in a place called Afghanistan. Amazing, huh?
Well, as it turns out, that other war isn’t going too well these days. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in Pakistan and are causing all sorts of headaches for everyone in the region. The NYTimes thinks its about time that sodid something about this problem.
Both countries have a common and increasingly urgent interest in rolling back the power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and working together to promote democracy and development in Pakistan. President Bush needs to persuade Pakistan’s leaders of that — and he needs to do it now, before Al Qaeda and the Taliban get any stronger.
For 6 years Bush has not done this. I’m sure nothing is going to change for his last 6 months in office. Hopefully the next president will actually do something useful.
by Nick on July 11, 2008
Posted By: Nick
There has been quite the increase in commentary this week about possible war with Iran. It’s an unfortunate situation that looks like it may not have a happy ending with the current administration running the show.
The truth of a war with Iran is that the United States would win. While Iran is larger than Iraq, and has a better military, they are still no match for the United States Military. We would win. We would win quickly and decisively. But after we win… then what? Suddenly we would find ourselves occupying a vast swath of the middle east (Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan). Iran is much larger than Iraq both in terms of geographic area and population. The occupation of Iraq will likely pale in comparison to an occupation of Iran.
The further concern is what will happen in terms of the broader Middle East. Will Iran launch missiles at Israel in response? Will this draw other nations into the conflict? The situation could quickly get out of hand. The mere though of the United States occupying so much more of the Middle East will surely inflame the Islamic world.
Oil prices, already at ridiculous levels, will surely increase.
But these things may be inevitable. Afterall, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Though some in my party on the far left would like us to never go to war for any reason, sometimes we must. If Iran looks to be on the verge of developing a bomb, we must stop them. Fortunately the recent estimates I’ve read give us at least another year before Iran has an operational nuclear weapon. And even then, they would have only the one (or maybe two?). We still have time to resolve the situation without war, and the Bush administration (and whichever administration comes in next year) should actively pursue all avenues of dealing with Iran. We should be talking to Iranians. Diplomacy works, and can work in this situation. But that shouldn’t be our only action. We should continue to actively seek sanctions as long as the Iranians continue nuclear development. We should maintain our covert actions to both hamper Iran’s nuclear production and to make Iran’s cost of doing business unmanageable.
If we actively engage Iran on numerous fronts (Diplomatic, Economic, Military [covert operations and threats]) we can resolve this situation before it gets out of hand.
The alternative of course is a war that we will win, but which may cripple our nation as a result.
