Sunday, November 25, 2007

FAILURE IN AFGHANISTAN... ANOTHER REASON TO IMPEACH BUSH?

>


There weren't many Americans-- anywhere on the political spectrum-- who opposed Bush's post-9/11 attack on Afghanistan. I was one of the few but I was primarily opposed because I knew Bush was a weak and incompetent bungler who would lose-- and probably lose disastrously. Unlike Bush, I've spent a good deal of time in Afghanistan, in the 60s and 70s, and unlike Bush I've read a lot of Afghan history. And unlike Bush, I knew Bush would be no match for the Afghanis. Any other president and I would have been for it. This one? I imagined the worst from the first day.

All week I've been reading bits and pieces about Italians and Australians being killed, Afghan policemen being beheaded and the Taliban approaching Kabul. Yesterday I read that the Taliban now controls half the country. Thursday's Guardian painted a pretty bleak picture, with 54% of the country back in Taliban hands, despite the billions of dollars Bush and the coalition of the drilling have spent there.
Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries," the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change."

It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul-- a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

The council goes as far as to state: "It is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when... and in what form. The oft-stated aim of reaching the city in 2008 appears more viable than ever and it is incumbent upon the international community to implement a new strategic paradigm before time runs out."

This morning's Washington Post reports that even the Bush Regime has been forced to admit their strategic goals are largely unmet. "The evaluation this month by the National Security Council followed an in-depth review in late 2006 that laid out a series of projected improvements for this year, including progress in security, governance and the economy. But the latest assessment concluded that only "the kinetic piece"-- individual battles against Taliban fighters-- has shown substantial progress, while improvements in the other areas continue to lag, a senior administration official said." The military talks about all the tactical battles of little or no consequence they win while intelligence officials say a strategic defeat, of great consequence, is looming. Momentum is on the side of the Taliban everywhere in the country. And instability in Pakistan isn't making anything look brighter-- at least not for the Bush Regime policies.
In Washington, Afghanistan policy has often seemed to be on the back burner since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Republican presidential candidates rarely discuss it, while Democrats generally bring it up to criticize the administration, saying officials are paying too much attention to Iraq at the expense of a "forgotten" war.

President Bush seldom mentions Afghanistan. In White House remarks last month asking Congress for an additional $200 billion for both wars, he noted that "our troops, NATO allies and Afghan forces are making gains against the Taliban," then offered an extensive recounting of progress in Iraq.


The picture on the right comes from an editorial in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Impeachment: If Not Now, When? I hope Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer read it. The two of them are preventing a constitutional impeachment investigation from proceeding. I honestly believe they should both be removed. Our country is in grave danger and Pelosi and Hoyer are preventing the only constitutional solution we have to protect ourselves.
After six years of state of emergency, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, continual war and occupations, our Constitution is deeply in crisis. Americans are in danger of losing our system of government and civil rights if they do not roll back the Bush administration's assault on the rule of law.

Allowing Cheney and George W. Bush to finish their terms without being impeached means future presidents are free to copy their lawless behavior. Of course many important issues deserve the attention of Congress. But the Constitution is the foundation of our democracy, not just an issue. Without the Constitution, we have nothing.

Polls show that 74 percent of Democrats and the majority of American adults support impeaching Cheney. "Never in our history have the high crimes and misdemeanors been so flagrant, and the people of our country know it," writes local author Richard Behan.

According to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, "Impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran.
"The most conservative principle of the Founding Fathers was distrust of unchecked power. Centuries of experience substantiated that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Constitution embraced a separation of powers to keep the legislative, executive and judicial branches in equilibrium," Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and associate deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said in the October 2006 edition of Washington Monthly.

Pelosi and the congressional Democrats she leads have been a dismal failure, barely better than the criminal and contemptible Republicans they replaced.

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

At 1:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

DownWithTyranny,

Thank you for your blog comments: "Pelosi and the congressional Democrats she leads have been a dismal failure, barely better than the criminal and contemptible Republicans they replaced." There is a way to put impeachment on the table: Force the House to decide whether it wants to side with Pelosi; or find new leadership.

Challenging Pelosi As Speaker

There is an effort underway to challenge Pelosi: Lead, or get out of the way. Many appear inclined to support this effort; but the key is to force the House to discuss this option, not make excuses to do nothing or avoid putting pressure on the House to discuss the Speaker. Perhaps you and your friends may wish to publicly comment on your blogs your views on whether the House leadership should or should not be held to account.

Some like Matt believe it's time to put Pelosi's Speakership on the table: Lead, or get out of the way, Madame Speaker. I hope you'll consider the links in the spirit that they are intended: To use all lawful options to defend the Constitution against what appear to be domestic enemies in the US House of Representatives. Not all are silent. Some are stirring, sharing their support while running for Congress.

State Proclamations Are Well Known, Familiar To Americans

There are many who know about using state proclamations to call on the House to act. These people well understand the power of poblic discussion: The discussion of state proclamations sent Kucinich a clear signal: There is support in challenging the VP. There is also support to remove all options to investigate the Vice President.

It's time to consider one of those options: Whether the blogosphere will or will not use all lawful options to discuss whether to force the House to confront this issue: Whether the Speaker, if she refuses to support an investigation, should remain as Speaker, or removed to make way for someone who will support an investigation.

GOP and DNC Supported Kucinich's Resolution: They Can Support New Leadership

It cannot be said that not all DNC and GOP Members of Congress will block an impeachment investigation. For whatever reason, the House GOP-DNC (the majority) voted on the Kucinich resolution. Similarly, that same group can be mobilized to support an effort to challenge the Speaker. Once the GOP-DNC agree to challenge the Speaker, the House would have the power -- by popular vote -- to elect a new Speaker. The current DNC Majority leader in the House does not assume the Speakership. The vote would be by the same people who challenged Pelosi: Someone who, most likely, would support impeachment.

Debate On Leadership Belongs In The House, Not Just the Blogosphere

The issue isn't whether the blogosphere should or should not discuss this -- it should -- but what must be done to ensure the House if forced to discuss this. In my view, it is not appropriate for the public to make excuses for inaction; but do the opposite: Force the House membership to go on the record: Why do they -- as a majority -- support a Kucinich proclamation calling for an investigation; but they are not willing to support all options to clear the way for that investigation? The answers are for the House to provide, not for the public to make as an excuse not to challenge the House leadership on the impeachment investigation.

Thank you for your blog, efforts, and hoped-for support in this effort to defend the Constitution. Best wishes.

 
At 4:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate what anonymous has offered and agree with it. I also want to point out that while Iraq may have less violence, there is increased violence by the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Taliban forces are moving throughout much more of the Middle East.
If Mr. Bush wants to discuss terror and safety, he can begin to discuss how his policies have fueled the flames throughout the most vulnerable region of the world (maybe Africa is an exception).

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carol,

Thank you for your support. Perhaps you know of others who may wish to post at this Kos Diary about their reactions to this?

Please let others know: Simply blogging about their reactions -- for, opposed, indifferent, confused -- can make a difference. It only takes one blogger to raise the right voice to the right person. Thank you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home