This is not an easy issue, though some would have us believe so. Here are some differing perspectives:
The Record reminds us today that there is only one solution in Iraq, and it’s not the one the president is pushing.
In focused its attention on competing U.S. Senate resolutions:
The best resolution in the Senate, setting a July 2007 deadline for almost total troop withdrawal, was defeated yesterday, 86-13.
Its sponsor, John Kerry, D-Mass., is said to be mulling another run for the presidency, and he was criticized the last time around for waffling on the war. But politics aside, his call for a reasonable deadline for troop withdrawal makes sense.
As Mr. Kerry said, Iraqis have responded well to other deadlines the United States has set for elections and the writing of their constitution.
The war, as the paper rightly says, “is not a war that the United States is going to ‘win.’ “
Even if the insurgents were crushed, which obviously cannot be done at current troop levels, much of the violence in Iraq is sectarian, compounded by a growing criminal element operating on its own.
Even Mr. Bush says U.S. troops will leave once the Iraqis themselves can stabilize their country. The question becomes are we enabling them by allowing them to depend on us rather than take charge, and how much is the U.S. troop presence contributing to the chaos?
This newspaper, which has consistently opposed the Iraq invasion, has also recognized the problems and dangers that an abrupt pullout would present. But blindly “staying the course,” hoping for the best and continually insisting that success is just around the corner, has cost the nation dearly in terms of lives, funding, credibility and the ability to address other crises, both foreign and domestic.
So, the course seems clear to me. How ’bout the rest of you.
Nothing easy about this — and it does not appear that anyone will come out unscathed. The state is facing a shutdown as the majority Democrats in the Assembly feud with the governor and the GOP offers a slew of unfathomable cuts. No one wins, especially the citizens of New Jersey.
You know Jon Stewart is affecting the political process when the “researchers” try to prove he’s dangerous for democracy.
Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart’s faux news program, “The Daily Show,” develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.
That’s particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don’t bother to cast ballots.
Notice the weasel word “could” here, as in these young potential voters “could” shy away from the voting booth, as if they were voting in droves now, as if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter and all the rest of vapid, ignorant talking heads on cable on both sides of the aisle were not already keeping them home. As if the corruption scandals, ugly partisanship and general bad behavior of the folks in government were not enough to scare them away.
A pointed two-part editorial from The New York Times on federal largesse for the rich and powerful and the lack thereof for the rest of us.
Hank Kalet 