Politics as Usual

This picture at yahoo news is really precious. Drudge has it captioned "Kerry can only watch as Reid and Schumer storm the Senate..." It's not that I don't like Kerry, Oh, Wait, I don't.

Then there is this article on Abramoff's testifying on more corruption in politics. Seems he's now telling on some Dems. Though, as expected, there aren't any names. The only name offered up in the report is Karl Rove. Amazing how they got that name out of the grand jury, but no others.

Then there is Giuliani's exploratory committee. Gives me the shudders when he's being proposed for president. Of course, someone had to run out and poll how he'd rate against Hillary. I suppose the question I want to know most of all is what in the hell is with NY Republicans supporting gun-control? I'm really hopeful that when we get to the actual elections there will be someone more reasonable than the shoddy offerings we're seeing at present.

Then there is the brawl over who is to become the Dems House majority leader. Anyone that reads my opinions here knows that I'm pretty much of the attitude that anyone running shouldn't be allowed to serve. These two are proving my point.

I enjoy reports like this one. No doubt proving that ultimately the MSM will always go for the money shot. The poll is actually pretty damning.

Amid new talk of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill and at the White House, Americans are divided on whether the new Democratic-controlled Congress and President Bush can work together on their top priorities.

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll shows Americans in the aftermath of last week's power-shifting election remain divided over the country's direction and on their hopes for bipartisan cooperation.

Still, the poll indicates that after a year of dismal public approval ratings, Americans have higher expectations for Congress and that many are upbeat about Democrats holding the reins of power in the House and the Senate.

Of those surveyed, 47 percent said they were confident the president and congressional Democrats could work together to address national problems; 51 percent said they were not confident. For every 10 adults polled, four said the country will be better off, three said it would not make much difference and two said the country will be worse off. Most Democrats shared that optimism. Republicans tended to be pessimistic or anticipated no discernible change.

I'd say that the results aren't particularly surprising. Though you'd think that if the Dems had been given a mandate from the population that the results would be more enthusiastic.

In the wake of the election, Democrats as well as the president and his Republican allies have emphasized the need for bipartisanship on the war in Iraq and on a number of other legislative fronts.

But both sides also have made it clear that there will be limits to cooperation. On Tuesday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada placed the burden on Bush.

"I've met with the president. He said he wanted to work with us," Reid said. "He said that two years ago and it didn't work. I told him that. I want to work with the president of the United States. I want to work with the Republican leader of the Senate, Republican leader of the House."

In the poll, more Americans ranked Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party has no plan to deal with the war.

I wonder where the American citizenry could have come up with the idea that the Dems had no plan. Couldn't be that that was their tactics in most of the last few congresses. Obviously many individual Dems have offered some level of detail on plans of action for Iraq. Murtha had his "run-away" plan right from the start. No real details needed there. Others like Biden pushed the divide-and-contain idea and more details. Biden's proposal has more merit than any of the others, though I would say it wouldn't be as easy nor as successful as leaving with a stable government.

Then there is the Baker-Hamilton Commission. A baffling collection of professionals that doesn't include a military voice. And if you're thinking of pointing out that William Perry is such a voice, I'll stand by my original statement. I'm looking forward to their results. I'm setting my sites low though. Especially when I continue to hear this:

Mr. Baker has made no secret of his belief that the Bush administration must talk to its enemies, Syria and Iran included. In a speech on Monday, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said the West should be open to Iran and Syria — but only if they take a cooperative stance.

Mr. Bush did not budge on those points. Asked about Syria, he said, “We do have an embassy there in Syria,” without mentioning that contacts with the Syrian government have been limited. The president then laid out preconditions for talks with the Syrian government. Nor did Mr. Bush give any ground on Iran, instead reiterating his long-held stance that the Iranian government must suspend the enrichment of uranium before Washington will join talks.

The discussions that are constantly floating around the talking-head circuit seem to think this is a viable tactic, including the thought that the US could discuss Iraq in a vacuum. Can anyone truly believe that Iran won't demand some benefit from helping. You don't suppose they would want their nuclear program to be part of the incentives to help. I've stated before, they have no reason to help and in fact have more then enough reasons to hope Iraq fails. The argument that the discord in Iraq will affect them is ludicrous. They hope that they can be the hegemon in the region, so they most certainly want an environment that will support that conclusion.

It would be interesting if Iraq took the discussions to Syria and Iran on their own. This may give those countries a more honest out to take constructive actions. They may even cooperate more if they believe that the present government will be capable of standing on its own after the US leaves.

Then there is Carl Levin:

"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves," he said. "We've been told repeatedly by our top uniform military leaders that there is no purely military solution in Iraq; there is only a political solution in Iraq."

Yep, can't save them, so there's no reason to assist them in solving that political solution. Idiot.

That posture misses that the environment in Iraq isn't simply a matter of a political solution. No doubt there is a political problem that must be solved. The missing part is that in order to solve it the political environment must be stable enough to allow a solution to solidify. Therefore there needs to be a reasonably stable environment overall. Since the Iraqi police aren't doing any stabilizing, and their military is pockmarked with military commanders who are sanctioning repression on the sectarian front, it really comes down to the US to try and stabilize the environment.

There has to be an understanding that the planning of the solution to Iraq isn't as simple as partition or running away. Each solution has repercussions that appear to be actively ignored by the biggest mouths in government.