Hank Kalet

I think my thoughts on Iraq can be summed up pretty simply by The Clash:

Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double

Jay Bookman offers a more thoughtful take in this column in Atlanta Journal-Constitution. His take — that we accomplish the same thing whether we stay or go — is on the money. But he leaves his own question — stay or go? — answered only by implication and even that is unclear:

By staying, the most we can probably accomplish is to ease Iraq toward that final outcome with somewhat less bloodshed and chaos than would result if we began to withdraw soon. And given growing viciousness in Iraq, even that small hope may prove far-fetched.

Staying delays the inevitable and lessen the bloodshed some, he says. In the end, however, staying or going results in loss of American prestige, loss of lives and a boost to Iran’s fortunes in the region.

I think Mr. Bookman asks the wrong question, though he does imply the right one. The question isn’t “should we leave?” It is “when should we leave?”

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Have to wonder who on Oprah’s staff had the bright idea to bring in the charismatically challenged former governor of New Jersey, a man whose administration would have collapsed under the weight of its own ineptitude and corruption had he not come out of the closet when he did.

Jim McGreevey’s appearance has bad television written all over it — which may make it worth watching.

Anyway, a funny line from The Opinion Mill:

Attention, K-mart shoppers! McGreevey’s memoir, “My Life As the Worst-Kept Secret in New Jersey,” hits the stores next week! Skip it now, and avoid the rush.

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Is anyone else out there troubled at all by our use of the word “homeland” to describe the United States? It has a very nationalistic ring — nationalistic in the bad sense — almost fascistic.

Here is a fragment of a quote from President Bush, admitted out of context. Read it aloud and see how it sounds: “I reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland.”

I hear a vaguely German accent, almost can’t help falling into a Col. Klink imitation, and that troubles me.

This is not an implied criticism of the president — believe me, I have no problem being overtly critical. This is about language and the way we use it and how it affects what we do. If we think of the nation as a homeland, it changes our relationship, makes the soil and our borders and the physical fact of it more important than the ideals on which the nation was created, more important than the constitution that governs it, etc. And, if we take this thinking to its extreme, that means that in the name of protecting the homeland we can just torch the Constitution.

It’s a dangerous direction to take.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Is anyone else getting tired or reading this same old editorial on the MOM line from The Asbury Park Press? Just another one using suspect numbers to push a faulty argument.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

This was a tough race to watch, as Rhode Island Republcian incumbent Lincoln Chafee held off a challenge from the hard right of his party and retained the nomination for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.

The anti-Iraq War Chafee is an interesting character. As MJ Rosenberg writes in the TPM Cafe,

Sen. Chafee is the Senator the neocons (John Bolton, for one) most hate. And he is a good and decent man (and about the least senatorial senator I ever met; I mean that in a good way).

He not only voted against the Iraq War but also voted against the nomination of Samuel Alito and has been critical of the way in whcih the United States has dealt with the Israel-Palestine conflict.

At the same time, a Republican majority in the Senate — even if it includes someone like Sen. Chafee — leaves the GOP with too much power. It will continue to control the various committees and subcommittees, menaing that “drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub” types and anti-environmentl zealots will still have too much decision-making power.

So, as I said, I am torn. In the end, progressives like me have to remember that Sen. Chafee opposed the war and every anti-war candidate that wins is a loss for the Bush foreign policy, but also hope that enough Republicans lose their seats to shift control away. (The best outcome might be a Chafee win with some other Democrat putting the party over the top.)

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick