Safety Last

Here's a fun conversation that I've been having with Republicans for the last few years. I say something like, "The President lied about why he went to war with Iraq. How can you defend him after you tried to crucify Clinton for lying?" They say, "We went to war to remove an evil dictator who was tormenting his people." I reply, "that's not the reason I heard back in 2003." They ignore that and attack me with, "Don't you think we're safer now that that madman is in custody?" (to which I think to myself "What do you mean, he's still the President...")

For years, I would just sit there staring at them, scratching my head as to how they can flip-flop rationale without even noticing. I'd just stop talking about it because it's not nice to argue with your siblings at the holiday dinner table. It occurs to me though, that we aren't safer. Seriously, how are we safer? The madman (Saddam, not the other one) may be out of power, but all that did was create a void. That madman, evil as he is, was keeping religion out of his government (You can tell I mean Saddam here, as the other one isn't keeping religion out of the government).

Now that there's a democracy (another of the famous flip-flopped rationale for invading, yes invading, Iraq), the people of Iraq are trying to vote into power a theocracy. Well, sure, they're allowed to do that. It's their country. If we're honest with ourselves, we have to let them do that if it's what they want. But guess what? It's not what we wanted. Name for me all of the Muslim theocracies. Now how do those countries on your list feel about the United States? Are those flowers and sweets I smell? Probably not.

All we've managed to do is to foment legitimate anger against the U.S. in Iraq. A country, by the way, that had nothing to do with attacking U.S. soil, ever. Not on 9/11, not ever. Now, instead of a dictator oppressing his people, we have terrorist training camps throughout the region gunning for U.S. soldiers. This is not an improvement for us, folks. We are not safer now! Your rhetoric is flawed; having Saddam out of power is not safer for us, the U.S. people. So, examine your facts, turn off Faux News, and pass the potatoes.

Second verse, same as the first!

So once again the President's reputation is pulled from the fire, at least on paper. Just like with the Harriet Miers nomination, Dubai Ports World has ended the controversy by withdrawing their desire to run the USA-based ports. This ends all of the arguments, investigations, and bad press. I guess my question is: Why? Now they got me curious. I wonder what kind of ties we would have found if we were to investigate. Why was the President even interested in this? Not just interested, but down right adamant. He seemed willing to break the law to push this sale through (and yes, it would have been illegal without the mandatory 45-day investigation), so I wonder if he stood to benefit directly from the transfer...

The President fakes a hand-off...

Okay, I'm reading my latest missive from the DSCC as they describe the voting habits of Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona). Apparently, he votes with the President about 96% of the time. The line that got me thinking is where Anne Lewis, the letter's author, says that "he's found a politically convenient issue [and] this right-wing Republican Senator is proudly touting his independent credentials." The issue? The sale of management of U.S. Ports to UAE-based UAE-controlled Dubai Ports World.

Everyone seems like they're opposed to this one, everyone except the Administration. Republicans and Democrats alike are lambasting the Executive Branch, though to varying degrees, about how wrong this is. Here's a crazy thought: What if the President intended to give his party members a rally flag? Think about it. If it passes, then the President's friends in the UAE get their lucrative contracts and Georgie's off to think up something else. But, if the people don't like this idea, and clearly they don't, the President gives his party something better than coattails on which to coast through the mid-term elections. For a President whose coattails are rather unclean, he gives them a non-issue that his party can oppose vehemently, without really getting in any trouble over it.

Now this might be read as a cry out for all of the conspiracy theorists to unite, but I'm honestly just trying to think outside the box a little here. The public is upset about Katrina. The public is upset about the Iraq War. The public is upset about George. Who wants to be seen with him right now? Nobody. Why not find an issue that you can go either way on, and then make an arbitrary stand on it? This gives your teammates the perfect opportunity to say "I'm an independent thinker, and this is wrong. Vote for me and I'll fix it. I'll get us back on track!" This kind of idea brings all of the middle-of-the-roaders of the Republican Party back to their guy. Of course it gives the Dems something to scream about, but they're always screaming about something, right? Only because we have to.

I'm not saying that he officiated the deal, or even asked the U.K. company sell it to the Saudis, but I think that Mr. Rove is keen enough to see a good thing when he sees it. Assume your looking for some issue that you don't care about, but want to make a stand. Wouldn't just about anything work for you? Maybe you'd even try to appoint your personal attorney to the Supreme Court, just for shits and grins.