Tag: Iraq

Shameful neglect

Two editorials today ask two different, but equally important questions surrounding the scandal at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington.

The New York Times links the “shameful neglect of wounded soldiers” to the overall war effort, once again reminding its readers that an administration puffed up with its own power callously and unnecessarily sent American troops into battle without considering the consequences.

(T)he fundamental responsibility rests with the president and his former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who stubbornly insisted on going to war without sufficient resources — and then sought to hide the costs of their disastrous mistakes from the American public.

Is it any surprise that the war’s wounded have been hidden away in the shadows of moldy buildings by an administration that refused to let photographers take pictures of returning coffins? Or a White House that keeps claiming that victory in this failed and ever more costly war is always just a few more months away?

The paper goes on to say that the “president needs to learn that the horrors of this war can no longer be denied or hidden away.”

The Record offers this:

Once again, the Bush administration is unprepared for the aftereffects of its rush to war in Iraq. The veterans’ health system is obviously unable to cope with the huge strain of treating so many unforeseen casualties, many of whom will need care for the rest of their lives.

Like the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, this deplorable situation once again raises profound questions about the administration’s management of government agencies. The White House has sought to limit the cost of treating wounded veterans and has underfunded their care.

Is Walter Reed the tip of the iceberg? That’s what outraged Americans are asking, and that’s what Congress and independent investigations must find out.

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

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Averting the bloodbath

Nicholas D. Kristof, with whom I don’t always agree, offers the most concise and pointed response in his New York Times column today to the pro-surge crowd’s contention that leaving with result in a bloodbath.

His argument can be boiled down to this:

1. The Iraqis don’t support the surge and want us to leave.

2. Our presence maybe impeding a political settlement, meaning that the bloodbath maybe more likely to happen with us there.

3. We can minimize the potential for a bloodbath by reminding the Iraqi government that, should large-scale massacres occur, government officials will be prosecuted for war crimes.

4. We can create stability by bringing the regional powers — including Iran and Syria — to the table.

So at the end of the day, genocide is possible in Iraq, but there’s no crystal ball to tell anyone what will happen if we stay or go. Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy.

A majority of Iraqis may well be right in thinking that we are part of the problem rather than the solution — and maybe a phased withdrawal will nudge Iraqis back from the brink and make a cataclysm less likely.

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

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Remember the nuclear option

I know I was in the minority on this point among liberals and progressives, but back when the Senate was preparing to vote on several Bush court nominees I wrote a column calling for the end of the Senate filibuster.

My argument was a simple one: The filibuster thwarts, rather than defends, democracy, giving the minority too much power over the Senate.

The filibuster is, as the self-professed “liberal Democrat” Timothy Noah wrote … on the online magazine Slate, a conservative instrument designed to thwart the will of the majority. The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial, echoes this: “The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators,” the paper wrote.

At the time, Democrats were threatening to use the method to prevent some noxious Bush nominees from rising to the federal bench. Liberals were calling loudly for all Democrats to stand firm, their 45-vote bloc allowing them to prevent the majority from closing out debate, which would mean that no vote could be taken and the judicial nominees would remain in limbo. (Disclosure: I had the same argument in an earlier column, before thinking the issue through.)

Republicans were livid and were calling for the “nuclear option” (a poor choice of words in a time of war), in which the party would just change the rules and eliminate the maneuver. Thanks to a group of so-called moderates, it never happened. A compromise was reached and some of the nominees were confirmed.

The compromise ended two debates — one on the judges and the other on the legitimacy of the filibuster.

The filibuster is back in the news these days, as the Republicans, now in the minority, are resorting to the very tactic they decried just two years ago in an effort to prevent debate over a nonbinding resolution opposing the Bush surge plan for Iraq.

Democrats should take note and remember their history. They may have successfully used the filibuster to keep some nominees from getting through, but conservatives also have been successful in the past — Southern Democrats used it from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s to derail civil rights legislation.

Basically, if there were no filibuster, the Senate would be debating war and not whether to debate.

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

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.