Play Time: | How Many Words-Per-Minute Do You Read? 500-550 here (probably my best skill). |
Link of the Day: | preparingforemergencies.co.uk. Thanks Sunlight. |
Stories of the Day: |
Eating candy a U.S. capital offence. Cat droppings yield chic coffee. Pre-Incan brewery found in Andes. |
Science!: |
Electric
cars that pay. Brain not body makes athletes feel tired. No Anti-Fat Bullet. Duh. |
Image of the Day: |
Just Like Many Battlefield Drivers. Thanks Ant. Itty Bitty Bible. Thanks Ant. |
Auction of the Day: | CDGoRound.com Online Music and Trading Community. Thanks Late. |
Follow-ups: |
Study Lends Support to Mad Cow Theory
(registration required). U.S. mad cow testing criticized. Clone Steak Safe, Unless It Isn't. |
Thanks Mike Martinez |
And I really like Kerry's plans for Iraq - "I have a secret plan that I am not going to share with anyone until I am elected".
As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.
Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.
I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.
Here is how we must proceed.
First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.
But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.
To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.
The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.
Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others.
In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role. NATO is now a global security organization and Iraq must be one of its global missions.
To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to. He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission—a mission consistent with the principles of collective security that have formed the basis of the alliance’s remarkable history in the pursuit of peace and security.
To bring others in it is imperative we share responsibility and authority. When NATO members have been treated with respect, they have always – always – answered the call of duty. So too with other key contributors. Every one has a huge stake in whether Iraq survives its trial by fire or is consumed by fire and becomes a breeding ground for terror, intolerance and fear.
I know that some will say that this is an impossible task, but I believe it is doable with the right approach. We must lead but we must listen. We must use every tool of diplomacy and persuasion to bring others along.
True, but THAT WAS NOT BUSH's FAULT! You cannot blame him for the CIA blowing their part of the job.
I agree, but what harm has it done? I don't want an essay, give me ONE concrete example of how you personally are harmed by the Patriot Act.
In the long run, yes. The country was a known supporter of terrorism
He DID support the war, but constantly lies about it.
I just mentioned it as an example of a President stating a position in his candidacy and keeping that stand after being elected despite intense political pressure.
Also, the idea of "undecided voters" seems somewhat perplexing to me, unless they just haven't been paying any attention.