The Wandering Donkey

Today's comic read

I figure I'll try this and let everyone see the comics I like to read. Let me know if you like it or not.

Get Fuzzy

---

Pearls Before Swine

---

Doonesbury

---

Dilbert

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

We've Never Been Islam's Enemy?

My post title is the sub-title, sans the question mark, of Charles Krauthammer's column in the Washington Post today. It is his attack on President Obama's presumption that we have fence mending to do in the Muslim world. There are so many places to go with this but let's start by tearing apart the sub-title, "We've never been Islam's enemy."

What is most amazing about having that line at the top of his piece is that Krauthammer himself debunks that notion in his zeal to expose President Obama for whatever he is trying to expose Obama for. Try this on:

And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed "as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran's radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. Embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.

Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his chargé d'affaires.

This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations.

That reads to me that you think that Islam thought we were there enemy 30 years ago. Obviously, we have had difficult relations with the Muslim world in the past. But he would not see it that way, like you or I might, because that is not his point.

You see, we have never meant to be Islam's enemy, therefore we never have been Islam's enemy. This is the way many, although not all, conservatives think in their world-view.

The paternal United States has only done things for the betterment of your society and country and therefore should not be held to account for the fact that you didn't want us doing them in the first place. In fact, if you didn't want us there, that is completely irrelevant. We know best. We are not your enemy.

In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

We'll leave Bosnia and Kosovo out of this for the moment. Two of those last three were, for various reasons, tolerated by most Muslim regimes whilst being hated by the large majority of most Muslim nations populace. Iraq was not even on that "tolerated" list. It was a deeply unpopular move both with Muslim regimes in the region and their populaces.

Long story short, most Muslim people think we're a big bully who wants to foist our world view and morals upon them. Why wouldn't they? Despite their opposition to us, we still do whatever we want. Their governments, particularly those in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, have become very disenchanted with us because we have pushed them to the brink. They have acquiesced as we have encroached further and further into their part of the world even while their populations grumbled about their governments cooperation with us. They have sacrificed the stability of their own regimes to cooperate with us and have seen precious little thrown back their way.

Oh sure, you can argue that removing Saddam and removing the Taliban are good for the region. But the tangible benefits of allowing large amounts of American troops to permanently occupy Middle Eastern territory have been hard if not impossible to see for these governments. They were not under imminent threat of attack by either Saddam or the Taliban. It has been known since before the Gulf War that Arab Muslims do not like American troops in or around their countries. President George H. W. Bush had to navigate a whole sea of diplomatic mines when trying to conduct the Gulf War because of this. President Clinton had to move troops out of the area during his term because of complaints from the likes of Saudi Arabia about the destabilizing nature of American troops being on their territory. Finally, the main gist of al-Qaeda being an organization revolved around the fact that there were U.S. troops on Arab Muslim soil and that that was not acceptable.

The reason that al-Qaeda was initially popular amongst the people of the Muslim world was that they agreed with the position that the American troops should not be in the Middle East! So we, in response, sent more people in! Brilliant!

I am not here to argue about Afghanistan. I supported it when we did it and I still support it now. I think it should have been followed through on much better but that will get us into an argument about the reason we didn't follow through on Afghanistan: Iraq.

Krauthammer is right to criticize President Obama for say we need to restore, "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago." We need to go way beyond that. We have never shown proper respect to the people of the Islamic world even when we have shown some deference to the regimes that rule them. We need to show them we are willing to work with them or, if they wish, even leave them the heck alone, as long as they show mutual respect towards us.

We have never given the Islamic culture "respect" or "partnership". That is what lies at the heart of their resentment of the west. It is therein that our greatest opportunity lies for peace in the Middle East. President Obama is on the right track. Let's hope he stays on it.

For those who didn't see it here is President Obama's al-Arabiya interview:

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Makes you wonder

Not being completely in the tank for the Obama administration, I find this "honest mistake" of Timothy Geithner failing to pay payroll taxes rather hard to swallow.

I am not qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury. I am not an accountant by trade. I have used "a popular tax-preparation computer program" to prepare my taxes. I have also not used said program and done it by hand. I have paid payroll taxes due from self-employment under both circumstances. Why this man didn't raises some big flags for me.

I will suppose my first statement, that I am not qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury, is the most important. As Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said, "To some, he is not only the best choice, he is the only choice." I am still apprehensive of this choice. Seems like a really crappy personal decision.

I am familiar with people who are incredibly successful professionally while having a disastrous personal life. Also, I am familiar with many who are great at handling their personal affairs whilst being unsuccessful professionally. I must assume that this man will not carry over his personal oversights into his professional obligations. I make this assumption with great trepidation.

Timothy Geithner appears to be an extremely intelligent man. Under most circumstances, I would be more than happy to cheer his nomination. I, like a number of Republicans (aagghh, I'm agreeing with Jim Bunning!), have deep reservations about this nomination. He is someone who, under most circumstances I would be pleased with which really ticks me off!

In conclusion, we need this guy. He's going to get confirmed. I think he'll work. I hope he'll work. But I am really annoyed that there are stupid things in his past that nag at me! I would rather that he had an affair. At least that wouldn't touch on his professional competence.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

One of many great performances

I was rather struck by this performance just before President Obama was sworn in:

Itzhak Perlman, Yo Yo Ma, Anthony McGill and Gabriela Montero perform on, respectively, violin, cello, clarinet and piano. John Williams composed. The name of the piece? "Air and Simple Gifts" A wonderful piece. It captured the moment beautifully.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Will Olbermann stop already

With the amount of complaining that Keith Olbermann has gone on about today about the "speed" of the motorcade through the parade route you would think he has never watched an inauguration before. Perhaps he is used to GW in 01 and 05 as well as Clinton in 97 avoiding thrown eggs and thus speeding through the parade route but I think it was an appropriate speed. Shut up Keith! The time was lost before noon and in it's immediate aftermath not in the procession down Pennsylvania Avenue! I love you man! But shut up!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Let it go people II

The mis-spoken presidential oath. I will let Mark Silva's post at The Swamp speak to this:

The Constitution prescribes the text: The oath of office for the president of the United States.

And President Barack Obama, a constitutional lawyer in his time, apparently stood ready to repeat them. Because when Chief Justice John Roberts, administering the oath for his first time, misspoke the order of a few words, Obama took notice.

With the Bible used by Abraham Lincoln at his first inaugural, where the same words were mouthed, Roberts asked Obama: "Are you prepared to take the oath, senator?" Obama, now the 44th president, said he was.

Roberts, one of former President George W. Bush's appointees on the high court, led the way. But, when he reached the phrase, "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States,'' Roberts at first omitted the word "faithfully'' - he re-inserted it after "president of the United States.''

Obama paused, not taking the miscue at first.

So Roberts repeated the phrase correctly, inserting "faithfully" in the right order: "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States."

Yet Obama then repeated Roberts' original misstatement - "the office of president of the United States faithfully."

Later, shaking hands before a congressional luncheon of pheasant and duck in Statuary Hall of the Capitol, Roberts chatted briefly with Obama - observers reported that the chief justice apparently allowed that he was to the blame for the missteps.

So, righties, if you wish to attack Obama on that count, and you have, Chief Justice John Roberts shall be attacked as well. To be fair, despite the initial barrage of attacks from right wing radio and a few blogs, the right has been forthcoming in admitting that it was Roberts who screwed things up.

Does it matter? Not really. Calvin Coolidge retook the oath of office from a Supreme Court Justice after questions arose about whether his oath taking from his father, a notary public, was valid. Many still maintain that was not necessary as the original oath was valid anyway. (I would argue thusly, although the fact that I was a notary public for 15 years would make me somewhat biased.) Regardless, Barack Obama was actually President for several minutes before he stepped to the podium anyway. When he takes the oath is not as important as the fact that he is the Constitutionally recognized holder of the office to begin with. I am quite sure that at some point in the post inauguration hulabaloo, he will be given the oath again, just in case there are any further questions. (Like the right would really try that! ;-) )

Enough already, on with the history of our country!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Let it go people

I am quite sure that Rush Limbaugh will, with the help of his ample staff, jump on every single miscue President Barack Hussein Obama makes, real and imagined. It will require his staff because, unlike President Obama's immediate predecessor, he will make far fewer gaffes. Those he does make will probably often require someone more intelligent than an average fifth grader to pick up on as well. Another difference.

But, enough Bush bashing. The was NO good way to phrase this sentence other than how he did.

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

The loyal opposition: OMG! He doesn't realize that Grover Cleveland served twice! He's not worthy!

Well, "forty-four presidents" might have been better. At least you can make an argument that Grover Cleveland was two presidents as he was both the 22nd and 24th president. Regardless, using a number other than forty-four would have seemed disjointed at best to the bulk of the populace that was listening to that speech. The phrasing might have seemed disjointed if used any other workable way as well. Sorry, "Forty-four Presidents have now taken the presidential oath" just does not flow as well. So, a tiny bit of room for poetic license here please? It was not completely inaccurate! Certainly not as much as saying that Iraq "certainly" possessed WMD's on a national television broadcast before the invasion of Iraq! (I know that was former Vice-President Dark Lord, but the idea is the same!)

What is particularly annoying is how the right is attacking the statement like it is proof of his incompetence! That works now? It didn't work for us for the last eight years! Further, these were not off the cuff remarks, this was a Presidential Inauguration speech. This, regardless of whether or not it was largely written by President Barack Obama, was vetted. I believe President Obama knows that only 42 individuals preceded him. I am completely sure that David Axelrod knows that only 42 individuals preceded his boss. They went with the terminology not from ignorance but because they preferred it to other alternatives.

What the right really hates is this: President Barack Hussein Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama.

They will do anything to discredit him. If they do it indiscriminately, such as with the "Obama Flag" incident in Ohio (it was Ohio's state flag), then it will simply further discredit them.

One last thing, just for Rush Limbaugh: President Barack Hussein Obama!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

A New Day

Welcome aboard, President Barack Obama!

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Starting the engines

With only one more day of the Bush administration left things are, of course, starting to be portrayed in a different light. No longer the 'loyal opposition', the Democrats must once again learn to lead without becoming parodies of themselves. The Republicans need to find a way to be the 'loyal opposition' after a number of years claiming that it wasn't necessary.

Already, in a post highlighting the potential coming battle between soon to be President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Glenn Thrush inserts this little bit:

and the GOP is already rushing to label the 111th Congress as a tax-and-spend nightmare.

Personally, I say have at it! You portray the Democrats as "tax and spend" then we will have no problem pointing out the 6 years of Republican "cut taxes and spend" that we have recently gone through. Oh!...That's not fair? He wasn't a real conservative? Too bad. You claimed he was for eight years can't change now.

Further, you are not allowed to insist on any government oversight by Congress. You just spent eight years claiming that it was not necessary, unpatriotic and/or purely partisan. While I fully expect the Democrats to insist on Congressional oversight of the executive branch I no longer think the Republican party should be allowed to call for such things since they don't believe it necessary when in power.

Well, anyway, hopefully we are entering a new era in Washington politics. I am not naive enough to have a great deal of realistic hope for that sentiment. I am, I hope, not yet cynical enough to not hold out for the tiniest glimmer of a chance that that may yet occur.

I will not promise to post anywhere near as often as I did pre-election, but, hopefully, if you care, you'll see me around a little more often than in the last two months.

Here's looking forward to the end of eight years that were even more horrendous than I thought they'd be. Good riddance.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Can we please just seat the man?

I am not more of a fan of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich than anyone else. Indeed, coming from a pair of states that had total morons of this ilk for governors, Connecticut (John Rowland) and Ohio (Bob Taft), I can safely say that I have had more than my fill of these guys. That having been said, he is, as I referred to him at the beginning, Governor Rod Blagojevich, the sitting governor of the State of Illinois.

This, regardless of what we might wish, means that he is legally entitled to and, indeed, as he himself said when announcing it, compelled to appoint a replacement for Barack Obama in the United States Senate. There is no way around that. He has not be impeached and convicted or otherwise removed from office. The legislators of the State of Illinois have not managed to change the laws to prevent or preempt his appointment of someone to this seat. Illinois' Secretary of State Jesse White, while presumably well intentioned, doesn't appear to have any legitimate legal basis to refuse to certify an appointment from a sitting Governor. His role is essentially to make sure it is the Governor and not Oprah Winfrey or Ozzie Guillen who is making the appointment.

Exactly how long does everyone expect the State of Illinois to have half their Constitutionally mandated representation in the United States missing? Is Rod Blagojevich going to be removed from office tomorrow? Next week? Next month? This year?

No one can answer this with any reasonable certainty. That is why I agree with California Senator Dianne Feinstein that Roland Burris should be seated as the junior Senator from the State of Illinois. It does, happily, appear that this is the direction in which things are going.

I, unfamiliar as I am with Illinois politics, can probably rattle off at least a handful of more qualified names that could be, and even should be, appointed instead Mr. Burris. Unfortunately, most of those names are involved to some extent or another at the moment in the Blagojevich scandal. That makes him a viable candidate simply by virtue of the fact that he is not one of those so tainted.

So, let the man represent the people of the State of Illinois for two years. He doesn't appear to have any taint from the scandal. He is a former Attorney General and State Comptroller having held statewide office for 16 years. That a relatively impressive length of time to hold statewide office. While there are no distinguishing moments from that service there are, with only one exception, no besmirchments either. And as far as what I consider his big error as Attorney General goes, well, he won't be making any death penalty decisions on his own as a U.S. Senator.

The people of the State of Illinois can show him the door in two years if they are not satisfied with him and would prefer someone else. In the meantime, there are some serious issues going on in this country and internationally. We are about to swear in a new President. Can we keep our eye on the ball here people? We don't need to be making this as big of a deal as it has turned into.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.