July 22, 2008
What's the difference between a time line and a time horizon? Apparently the Bush administration is flip flopping again. See up until recently, the White House has rejected any idea of a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq. In fact, in the past, Republicans and Republican speaker boxes have called any kind of timetable a "surrender date". and "It would let our enemies know when we plan to give up".
That was until last weeks press conference when Bush admitted he supports a "time horizon" for troops to leave Iraq. WTF?
A time horizon. That's just laughable. It's more political speech contrived by Washington think tanks. A time horizon? Oh so now you can't say we want timetables. We support time horizons. Which means to me it's a time table that's set for the horizon.
Funny thing about the horizon, the closer you think you get to it, the further it goes. Which brings me to my next point. The fact is, we are never going to get all our troops out of Iraq. That's the truth Bush, McCain or Obama would never tell you. You won't get much love telling the American people the whole truth. So a time horizon is the perfect phrase.
Imagine if Bush just stepped up there and said, "Look you idiots, we have built billion dollar permanent bases in Iraq. Do you think we are just going to walk away and leave this oil rich, centrally located, region? We will be here long after your grandchildren are buried."
So now we have time horizons. My question is this. When will John McCain get on the time horizon talking point? See the scorecard is this. The Iraqi people want us out, the President of Iraq wants a timetable, the American people support a time table, the Democrats supported a timetable when they had spine, Obama supports a time line, and now even Bush supports a time horizon. So that leaves John McCain holding the bag, he is the only one against a timetable. Seems McCain has been thrown under the straight talk express.
But there is really a bigger question at hand. Who is the ultimate authority in Iraq? Is it the newly democratically elected government or the White House? Here is hypothetical. If the Iraqi government votes for our troops to leave, would we? Hmmmmm.
July 17, 2008
While you were sleeping
When Barack Obama proposed diplomatic relations with Iran earlier this year he was widely criticized by the Republicans, including John McCain, the White House and of course the pundits on talk radio. I can still remember the howls from the right.
"He is so naive" , "He will make the US look weak", "Why would he legitimize Ahmadinejad by meeting with him?" "The US has a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorist nations" and so on and so on.
When the President was asked about diplomatic relations with Iran he said and I quote, "We have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a possible change in U.S policy. uh A policy that has been in place for 27 years. And that is, that if they (Iran) would like to engage the United States they have got to verifiably suspend their enrichment program"
And so it was, up until yesterday, when the White House announced what has been described by the International Herald Tribune as the "most significant US diplomatic contact with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979" .
While you were sleeping, the Associated Press discovered that a top level U.S. diplomat, William Burns, will join other world powers at a weekend meeting with Iran's chief nuclear weapons negotiator. Burns is America's third-highest ranking diplomat and will attend talks in Switzerland to talk with the Iranian envoy.
Wow, are you surprised you haven't heard about this from your favorite talk show hosts? Where is Fox News on this one? Bush said we would not negotiate with Iran unless they clearly demonstrated that they have suspended their nuclear enrichment program. Would you call this a flip flop? Don't hold your breath for anyone to call him on this.
Is Bush making the U.S. look weak? Is he appeasing Ahmadinejad? Or maybe I have it wrong. Perhaps, Iran has clearly demonstrated that they have suspend their nuclear weapons ambitions. Maybe I missed it.
See, the only thing I saw last week was Iran testing long range missiles. Is that why we are so anxious to talk to them now? So they test missles and we get punked into talking to them?
Let's take a look at the time line. I know some conservatives have difficulty with time lines and timetables so I will make this very simple.
-For 29 years we have not had diplomatic relations with Iran.
-Iran says they are working on a nuke.
-Bush says we won't talk with Iran until they demonstrate they have stopped their nuclear program.
-Barack Obama says we should at least talk with Iran instead of spout tough rhetoric from Washington DC.
-Obama is criticized for being naive on foreign policy. He is called a weak appeaser for nearly suggesting that we try to work on a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear ambitions.
-John McCain says meeting with Iran would lend international prestige to a U.S. foe. On May 19 of this year John McCain said, "An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically, when he is very unpopular among the Iranian people"
-Iran conducts missile tests.
-White House sends it's third-highest ranking diplomat to talk with Iran about their nuclear weapons program.
-Meanwhile Fox News is reporting that Jesse Jackson's says he is going to cut off Obama's nuts. Now that's fair and balanced.
Mind you, no one will say that maybe Obama had it right all along. Diplomatic relations with Iran could possibly be a better avenue to a solution than just tough talk from the White House.
And poor John McCain. Bush has left him holding the bag on this one. He can't come out and say Obama is right. He can't criticize his boy Bush and call him a weak appeaser who legitimizes an Iranian president who is unpopular with his own people. All he can do is hope you are still sleeping on this one.
So that's one more reason to vote for Obama. He was, and has been, right on foreign policy. In fact, he is so right, it seems even the White House is listening to him.
July1,2008
Well, I'm still getting the emails from listeners perplexed that I would have the audacity to support Barack Obama for the Presidency of this great country. I am going to attempt to explain my views on the Obama candidacy. I anxiously await the next set of emails.
The following is a list of reasons why I support Obama. They are not in any particular order mostly just train of thought. But I think the most important reason is first. Keep in mind these are my views, not those of the Obama campaign, WSB, the Boortz show or anyone else for that matter. This is the way Royal Marshall sees it.
1A. The War in Iraq. I think you already know I could care less about the Iraqi people. That's blunt but true. If they want freedom and Democracy let them fight for it on their own.
Obama promised to start an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. As of late, he has said he will ask the commanders and generals for a working strategy on withdrawal. Lets face it, he is not going to withdraw the troops as fast as the liberals want. In fact, we may still have a limited amount of troops in Iraq till 2020. I am a realist. You can't just pack up and leave.
But the mere promise of bringing our troops out of that hell hole is enough for me. At least the White House will be occupied by a President who is looking at all options to bring our fine Men and Women home to their families.
Hey, we won the war! Saddam is dead, the rape rooms are closed. They have a working government and a trained Army. Let's bring out that Mission Accomplished banner, declare victory and get the hell out.
1B THE WAR IS COSTING TOO MUCH. Yesterday Bush signed a 162 billion dollar bill into law that provided more funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. It also included money for unemployment benefits in California, disaster relief in the Midwest, expanding the GI Bill and I am sure some undetermined amount of pork spending.
The best figures I have for the Iraq War costs are around about 500 Billion dollars. Keep in mind, that before the war started, we had White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsay, tell us the war would cost between 100 and 200 billion dollars. Bush and Company pushed his ass out and told us the new "revised" numbers would be about 50 to 60 billion. On March 28, 2003 Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz stated that we were dealing with a country that could "really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon"
"Yes, Paul. Tell me more of what I want to hear." Said Bush.
Let's not get into the 9 to 23 billions of dollars that "went missing" in Iraq or the billions of dollars spent on no bid contracts. We kicked butt in Iraq like Mike Tyson in his prime, but we got Don King managing our money.
It's no coincidence that while we are spending billions in Iraq our National Debt is growing to record proportions, which in turn, is leading to a devaluing of the American dollar.
So, my point simply is this. Get the Iraqi's off welfare. It's bringing us down. Bring our troops home and spend that money here. Which candidate is saying that? You got it Obama.
That's just 1A and 1B ! Keep checking back because I have about 12 more points to make.
