Powell Speaks Candidly on Meet the Press

On Meet The Press this morning, Colin Powell's answers to Tim Russert's question were very diplomatic and respectful. He did however make multiple concessions about the war in Iraq. For one, he stated that if we (meaning the U.S. and its allies in the war) knew in 2003 what we know today in terms of the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the justification for going war would not be there. He explicitly stated:

"Without weapons of mass destruction the justification would not be there even though Hussein was a terrible person, there were human rights abuses abounded, he was cheating on the UN Oil for Food program...but I think it is doubtful that without the weapons of mass destruction case, the President, the Congress, the United States, and those whose joined us... would have found a persuasive enough reason to go to war."

In addition, Powell also admitted that the U.S. led coalition was ill prepared for the aftermath in Iraq:

"There was a realization that it [the war] would tie up a significant portion of our armed forces for a long time, it would cost a great deal, [and that] we're getting inside a sectarian conflict that we would have to keep a lid on and we would have to get Iraqis up and moving as quickly as possible in order to hand the responsibility off to them. And so I don't think any of us were unaware of the kinds of problems we might face. I certainly was not unaware and I was informed by my own thinking alongside CIA documentation...but all along the way, those that had experience in this part of the world and had experience in war understood that we were taking on something that was going to be a major burden for us for many years and I think the President was well aware of that and my judgment is that we didn't prepare ourselves for the kinds of challenges that occurred in the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad."

Colin Powell's candid comments today and in the recent past are refreshing to hear from a former high ranking official of the Bush administration. He admits that the war in Iraq is a civil war, does not utilize Republican talking points, but also realizes that pulling American troops out at this juncture in time is not necessarily the smartest of ideas. His independent reason guides him to believe that Americans should increase the "surge" when it comes training Iraqi troops - increasing the capacity of the Iraqi people to secure and govern their own people.

Powell's voice of reason is where Americans should turn to when placing a judgment about the war in Iraq. Forget the politicians and the catch phrases "cut and run," "slow bleed," etc. Americans should listen to experts such as Powell, read and understand the facts of the war, and devise not only a passionate belief about where America should be headed with regards to Iraq, but also one that is based on logic, reason, and concrete facts. I dare the presidential candidates to enter the debate on Iraq this way. If one does, and I believe he/she is sensible and independently minded, then he/she has my vote.

3 Decades, 2 Adversaries, 1 Meeting

Is this the start of something new or was it merely a political charade for both sides? Today both U.S. and Iranians ambassadors to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker and Hassan Kazemi Qumi, met in Baghdad to discuss various issues that relate to the security and future of Iraq. This event is more symbolically important than anything because it is the first time in over three decades that these two countries have had high level diplomatic talks.

However, I'm curious about the timing of the event. Why now?

The first motivation that I see on the U.S. side is that Bush may finally be realizing that if he doesn't see progress in Iraq by September when Petraeus comes and reports back to the Senate Armed Services Committee, then Republican leadership in both the House and Senate will become even more agitated and really start turning against the President and his agenda. House Minority Leader John Boehner has already signaled the importance of September and future policy in the region. If progress is non-existent at that time, Bush will need to really start thinking about a plan B centered on diplomacy in the region.

Also, Bush maybe starting to take notice of the Baker/Hamilton report. The report which is used by both parties for various talking points, really provides a broad overview of where Americans, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents stand on the issue of Iraq. Knowing that he can only isolate the majority of the public for so much longer this may be an attempt at showing the American people that he is listening to advice from others.

The problem that I see in this situation is that while it is important the relations (even on the level of one meeting) resume between Iran and the United States, I suspect that neither country is truly serious about addressing the issue of security in Iraq. For the most part, according to Crocker, the U.S. "“laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq.” I don't believe that Bush really cares if the Iranians listen or not, it just gives him an opportunity to say "I told you so - diplomacy doesn't work" to the American people when future connections are found between Iran and the insurgencies in Iraq.

The Iranians also have things to gain from these talks. First of all, from a public relations standpoint, there is no greater legitimizing force if you're a government than to meet with representatives from the U.S. government. This meeting will display to the Iranian people that Islamic government is more powerful than ever. Through "show-boat" diplomacy the Iranians did what the Iranians do best - unleash wild allegations of U.S. hostility, and display anger over U.S. policy. According to Crocker the Iranians, “mechanisms, if you will, and principles rather than the detailed security substance that we need to see improvement on.” This translates into a scenario where the Iranian government simply lectures at the U.S. discussing its lack of principles, rather than truly addressing the issues.

So while on the surface this meeting between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq may seem like a pivotal moment, it is to remain to be seen whether or not this starts a trend of conversations between adversaries.

While some would say that these talks are a waste of time, I would disagree. While the purposes of the conversations to this point seem selfish on both ends, disregarding the true topic at hand, any conversation is an improvement step in the right direction. You never know, a breakthrough between the two countries could happen if talks continue to occur. This is diplomacy, and while it may be slow, hopefully the trend will continue in the region.

Read an article from the New York Times on the event:
In Rare Talks, U.S. and Iran Discuss Iraq

Iraq Spending Bill - Round II

Although I still may have a comment on the recent Iraq Spending Bill, for now I'm just going to post the recent "Special Comment" from Countdown with Keith Olbermann. His comments are both dramatic and intriguing. They bring up good points about what's wrong with politics and specifically the Democratic party after the election in November.

Spending Habits

I really hate to do this because it will be two stories in a row about one man, but
John Edwards is back in the news this morning - or at least for those political nuts who are willing to read political news on a Saturday morning. This time, he is being questioned about his new policy proposals. While Edwards is being acknowledged by the press for "receiving high praise from Democrats" for his initiatives, he is also taking heat for the cost - a reported $125 billion a year. This would go to fixing healthcare, improving U.S. energy policy, and reducing poverty.

Taking a risk, Edwards is also willing to say that it will take funds that are not there right now - meaning new taxes. He is willing to roll back the Bush tax cuts (to the Clinton levels) for the top 2% of Americans in order to have the necessary finances to fund such ambitious projects.

What seems ironic however, is the criticism from Republican and the press for even mentioning an increase in taxes. Republicans are quick to point out that the tax breaks are working. The media is labeling him as a free spender. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq is approaching a staggering cost of $450 billion. Judging from my rough calculations, that would be enough to fund 3.5 years of the Edwards' plan; a plan that actually has a chance to succeed. Instead the money has been spent in a war where progress and been non-existent, and thousands of Americans have died.

On top of that, the U.S. world image/reputation has never been lower not only in Muslim states, but also in friendly territories such as Europe. In addition, on a domestic front the deficit keeps climbing, borrowing increases (from countries such as China), and disparity in wealth widens; stretching the middle class of America.

So whether it is a philosophical difference or not, I believe that tax cuts are not the answer and that if Bush really wants to take accountability for the war, he should get Americans to pay for it through a new tax. Because when you make people dig in their own personal pocket books I bet sentiment against the war will only increase. Instead, Bush is making future generations pay. I would rather see my $125 billion go to improving the country rather than hurting its future.

The label free spender should not be associated merely with a populist candidate from North Carolina, but also a hard talking, fiscally "conservative" cowboy from Texas.

Taking the Lead From Blair

Like him or not, Tony Blair showed tremendous class today when he announced the definite date of his departure - June 27. During a speech at the Trimdon Labor Club, Blair, as only Blair does, used his skilled oratory skills to convey a simple message to the people of Briton

"I ask you to accept one thing. Hand on heart, I did what I thought was right. I may have been wrong. That's your call. But believe one thing: I did what I thought was right for our country."

This humility is needed on both sides of the pond as of late. As Blair's popularity has plummeted because of Britain's involvement in Iraq, and failure to revamp important domestic areas such as health care, and policing, modesty, honesty, and respect for the people is what Britons wanted and needed to hear.

It is also what American's would like to hear from President Bush as well. While President Bush has said numerous times over that things in Iraq have not been perfect, and we have made mistakes, he has never once clearly said I'm sorry for my actions - not necessarily for getting in the war - but for not trying all diplomatic outlets before going to war, holding those that planned the war accountable, and for misleading Americans byway of publicity stunts like that on the USS Abraham on May 1, 2003. I don't not believe that he has or ever will intend to hurt Americans, but his message should be just as loud and clear as Blairs: "hold me accountable if you must, I understand, but I just want you to know I did what I thought was best for this country, and I'm sorry." Two simple words -I'm sorry- would mean a lot to the American people, his image, and his legacy.

Cheney's Surprise Visit to Baghdad

Flack jacket and all, Vice President Cheney made a surprise visit to Baghdad today. Will this trip be any different from his last couple? Under the growing angst of Congress and the American people, will Cheney's attitude towards the Iraqi leadership finally change from one of support to one of pressure and accountability?

Although the President says that the U.S. will be in Iraq as long as we are needed, grumblings from the Hill highlighted by the House Minority Leader suggest otherwise. According to Rep. Boehner, "By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Therefore, President Bush may win this battle with the Democrats over war spending, but as the old saying suggests, the Democrats still might win the war (no pun intended). If by September we aren't seeing noticeable progress (which I personally don't think there will be), electoral pressures from an upcoming election and a rising death toll in the heat of Baghdad may be enough for most Republicans to start talking about time lines, and definite benchmarks.

However, what needs to be remembered in this whole situation is that there is no good option when it comes to Iraq. Both the Democrats and Republicans are partially correct with their assessments. The Democrats say we can not continue a failed policy - referring a civil war - therefore we need to get out. The Republicans then rebut back - what happens when the Americans do redeploy, is there going to be mass unrest in the Middle East?

It is my opinion that we need to take a third route; different from "cut and run" or "stay the course." This path will take the Republican perspective that we can not simply get out of Iraq, and combine it with the Democratic view that diplomacy and accountability are keys for progress and victory in the region. This war will not end just byway of a "surge." There must be open dialog between countries in the Middle East, and the U.S. I don't know what possible diplomatic solutions can be made, but engagement between ethnic groups and countries can only create more stability for Iraq and the region.