Sleepless Senate Awakens Iraqi Unity

Forget democracy and Iraqi self-determination as motivating factors for reconciling the internal differences plaguing their parliament. It seems that all it took to accomplish such a feat was the mental image of Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid in pajamas. The all-night Senate slumber party this week to debate troop withdrawal from Iraq was reported with amusement and no shortage of mockery by the American media, and ultimately the amendment to withdraw U.S. troops by April 2008 went down to inglorious defeat. Senator Levin (D-MI) argued at length that the Iraqis simply had not done enough to secure their own country, and virtually every Democrat who participated in the amendment debate cited Iraqi internal divisions and "civil war" as the primary reasons to withdraw American troops from the conflict. I disagree completely with those characterizations of the situation in Iraq, but perhaps the Democrats' emotional anti-Iraqi rhetoric lighted a few fires under certain factions within Iraq's parliament.

It may just be coincidence, but perhaps Iraqi parliamentarians, surely watching the captivating "Sleepless in the Senate" production via satellite, took note that while this particular troop withdrawal amendment failed passage in the Senate, others are sure to follow. They likely realized that the only way to blunt the criticism was to demonstrate unity in purpose among Shi'ite and Sunni members of parliament. That is one possible explanation for a news report Thursday that should have been heralded in the media as a great breakthrough in Iraq but was largely relegated to obscurity through beneath the fold attention. Credit Reuters for placing the headline "Sunni Bloc Ends Boycott of Iraqi Parliament" as the lead international news story at Reuters.com for a few hours Thursday.

Reuters reported that Sunni Arabs, who had staged a boycott of the Iraqi parliament since June, decided Thursday to end the boycott and work with the majority Shi'ite bloc to work on "very important legislation." The Sunni Arabs constitute 44 of the 275 seats in Iraq's parliament, making the passage of legislation without that bloc a difficult task that has bogged down Iraq's legislative attempts at unity. When combined with 30 Shi'ite followers of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who ended their boycott of parliament earlier this week, the end result was that 74 disgruntled Iraqis of varying religious sentiments returned to parliament to rebut accusations from the House and Senate that unity of Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis is not possible.

In typical fashion, the Washington Post determined that this effort at reconciliation might bring good news from Iraq and hope for its future, and the Post immediately buried the Reuters wire story at the bottom of its online front page, where only avid news observers might stumble upon it. It is sadly ironic that the main reason given in the Senate Sleepover for withdrawing our troops was that Iraq is engulfed in a hopeless "civil war," yet when Iraq's minority members of parliament set aside their differences with the majority and vowed to work together to secure Iraq's sovereignty and security, neither the Democrats in Congress nor the liberal media wanted to give that sign of progress any meaningful attention. Clearly, while they waxed philosophical (Sen. Schumer, D-NY) or emotional (Sen. Kennedy) about the "quagmire" in Iraq, none had any sincere desire for an actual reconciliation of Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. The prospect that President Bush might be right about the instinctive human thirst for freedom in Iraq was just too politically frightening for the chorus of critics to consider or patiently nurture.

The Iraqi government still faces rough seas ahead, but at least now it will face challenges with a full complement of Shi'ite and Sunni leaders who presently appear committed to proving the sleep-deprived Senate critics wrong. Yet as the Senate Snoozefest demonstrated, if our Congress actually put in the kind of work hours that most Americans do each week, the number of world crises they could solve, even in their pajamas, would be impressive.

Photo Credit: McClatchey Washington Bureau

Technorati Tags:
Senate, Iraqi Parliament, Sunni, Shia, Boycott, Troop Withdrawal, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Moqtada al-Sadr

France Doing Job Americans Won't Do

I never thought it would come to this. The more I observe America’s political state, I find myself wishing that our president and Congress were, well, more French. I do not refer to their culinary tastes or mandatory maximum 35 hour work week (that would require Congress to put in many more hours than they currently do!). Perhaps it would be more accurate to write that I wish our leaders had the courage of the newly elected and unapologetic pro-American French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. While President Bush and political opportunists in the House and Senate, such as John McCain and Ted Kennedy, attempt to sneak amnesty past the American people while insisting it is not amnesty, the French are taking steps to do what the vast majority of its citizens have demanded: Not granting legalization (amnesty) to France’s illegal immigrants and continuing to deport them at an increasing rate.

When did the French develop more backbone than Americans? Why is France becoming increasingly aware of the need to enforce its existing laws and adopting stronger new ones at the very time America’s elected officials are insisting that a “path to citizenship” (amnesty) should be provided to illegal immigrants? Is it possible that France, faced with the largest Muslim population of any European nation, realized that its very survival might depend on securing its borders and developing intelligence regarding who resides in France and why they are there? President Bush and vote pandering members of both parties claim enforcement and deportation are not realistic, yet France is stepping up its efforts to do both.

One of President Sarkozy’s first post-election moves was to establish a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, which is charged with enforcing immigration laws and deporting violators. At Sarkozy’s urging, the new ministry is also concerned with helping legal immigrants better assimilate into French society, culture, and education. Sarkozy insists that immigrants learn the French language and that once legal citizenship is extended and family members from the native country seek to join the new French citizen, those family members must demonstrate French language proficiency as well. While the French require immigrants to speak the national language and integrate better with their new country, America cannot even agree that English is the national language, thus integration or assimilation are optional for immigrants, regardless of legal status.

It is a dangerous situation when law enforcement or other first responders cannot communicate with citizens in entire sections of American cities because learning English is not required for driving, shopping, obtaining government services, or citizenship. France is moving to correct this; America is afraid of offending immigrants by imposing American civilization upon them.

The Senate immigration bill put forward by Senators Kennedy, McCain, Kyl, and others late last week and praised by the president, is rightfully under assault as amnesty by another name. 2008 GOP candidate Mitt Romney spoke out forcefully against the bill, and was joined later by 2008 GOP expected candidate Fred Thompson in that assessment. The 2008 DNC candidates are avoiding this issue like the plague, as they cannot pander to Latino voters and appear tough on homeland security simultaneously. Romney and Thompson appear to grasp that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose amnesty or any policy that offers anything similar to it. Over time, Americans will embrace candidates who, like Sarkozy, recognize that the existence of national culture and identity are threatened by illegal immigration and legal immigration without integration.

Sarkozy’s election victory sparked rioting in French suburbs populated in large part by Muslim immigrants living on government subsidies who feared Sarkozy would follow through with his promises to slash welfare programs and make immigrants work to support themselves. When French voters see this unrest, it only assures that they will continue to ask pertinent questions of their political leaders: Where did these immigrants come from? Are they here in France legally? Why aren’t they trying to become French? Sarkozy offered the desired though controversial answers and the French elevated him to the presidency to restore order and preserve France from a perceived invasion of immigrants, legal and illegal.

Jokes about French retreat are becoming stale and do not apply to Sarkozy’s France, while America’s government is replacing France as a punch line. It is the American government that wants to retreat from Iraq, retreat from confronting near-nuclear Iran, retreat from securing its borders, retreat from establishing English as the national language, and retreat from enforcing existing deportation laws. In coming years, the French may boycott American cheese, American Airlines, and all things American because America, particularly through its elected officials, increasingly symbolizes cowardice.

Many Tom Paines, Few Mr. Smiths Going to Washington

Last month’s election results, as important as they surely will be for the future direction of the Iraq Conflict and the War on Terror, are less troubling than the increasingly noticeable paucity of honorable, selfless, and humble candidates for public office. Federal elections have devolved into a deplorable version of “Star Search” in which the only qualifications a potential office holder needs are name recognition (the more controversial the better) and access to wealth.

While I certainly condemn any American who could be registered to vote but is not, and subsequently does not participate in elections (see my previous post http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraqis-point-purple-fingers-at.html), the lack of enthusiasm for most candidates of either party in this year’s election was understandable. Credit Obi-Wan Kenobi for coining the phrase “hive of scum and villainy,” which applies more readily to the House and Senate than it did to any creatures on the fictional planet Tatooine. My experiences with and in Washington, DC have only solidified my disdain for the fog of ego that drapes this city like no other on earth. The very air reeks of selfishness and moral drift. Unfortunately, long gone are the days when a character such as Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s wonderful film (www.amazon.com/Smith-Goes-Washington-Frank-Capra/dp/B00003L9CJ) could come to Washington for the sole purpose of serving his constituents, and through his integrity convince corrupt politicians to confess their graft and resign from office. For that matter, long gone are the days when politicians could agree that corruption was actually an undesirable trait, both personally and in their colleagues. In today’s Washington, one can wield power for decades despite the following unethical conduct:

1. Accept bribes from parties involved in cases presented to you as a federal judge and be impeached by Congress for that action (Alcee Hastings, D-FL, until this week a strong candidate for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee).
2. Abandon the scene of a fatal vehicle accident (single car) and make no effort to rescue the passenger (Ted Kennedy, D-MA).
3. “Earn” three Purple Hearts in four months service in Vietnam for “injuries” that required no hospitalization or missed time on duty. Then when confronted about this issue, refuse to allow access to personal military service record despite the fact that a campaign opponent allowed full access to his own record and honorable military service in Vietnam became a cornerstone of the presidential campaign (John Kerry, D-MA).
4. Fail a law school course because of plagiarism, then instead of learning from the mistake, get caught plagiarizing speeches from Robert F. Kennedy. Be forced to withdraw from a presidential bid because of these issues (Joseph Biden, D-DE, Chairman-elect of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
5. Accept bribes from individuals, and then deny the bribery despite $90,000 in cash found in the home freezer and the guilty pleas of those who paid the bribes (William Jefferson, D-LA).
6. Unlawfully obtain and improperly peruse FBI files on 900+ Republicans from the Bush and Reagan administrations. Although other scandals are attributable in some way to this person, this one is the most egregious (Hillary Clinton, D-NY).
7. Be an active member and recruiter of the KKK. Write letters to a U.S. Senator stating “With a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds...” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10792#footnote19). Filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Make speeches in the Senate in which the idea of a superiority of white intellect is espoused. Despite this blatant racism, be selected as Senate Majority Leader by a party which ironically captures the black vote in every election (Robert Byrd, D-WV).

Of course Republicans have been involved in several scandals and lapses of moral behavior as well, but it seems Republicans have a much better record of purging corruption once discovered and encouraging their colleagues in question to resign. The Democrats, on the other hand, reward politicians who weather these “vast right wing conspiracies.”

My point is not to castigate any one party. A look at the potential candidates for the presidency in 2008 gives little hope that integrity and substance are on the horizon for either party. Nearly every candidate has a skeleton in the proverbial closet, or more commonly, most of them have been career politicians, whether long in office (McCain), long wielding power behind the scenes (Hillary) or long in preparing a political record taking no positions at all (Obama). Giuliani can be tough on crime and terrorism, but is a social liberal. Romney has succeeded as a businessman, 2002 Olympic savior, and Governor (MA), and certainly is charismatic, but he is a member of a rapidly growing but often maliciously misrepresented (by the media and other religions) faith (http://www.lds.org/). He seems the most likely Frank Capra-worthy character in the group, but like Mr. Smith, champion of Boy Rangers and all things wholesome, stands little chance of getting a fair hearing in today’s scandal-thirsty press. We will never see improvement in our nation until we demand improvement in the character and humility of those we select to lead us.

We are getting what we deserve out of our political leaders, national and local, because our expectations have been set too low. George Washington set the perfect example of what we should seek from a president. He had to be persuaded to accept the presidency, and did so with hesitation and only because it was apparent everything he had fought for would crumble without a president of integrity. After serving as president (and yes it is a service, not a celebrity star tour ala Clinton), though he could have stayed in power indefinitely, he humbly stepped aside and yielded up his enormous power precisely because he viewed that power as a danger to the nation and himself. Perhaps we should focus our searches for political candidates on finding those who must be persuaded to hold office rather than those who feel it a birthright or a career stepping stone. Above all we must avoid those who seek office, particularly the presidency, because of the power it represents.

We do not need any more “sound bite” presidents, congressman, senators, or candidates. We need leaders who take positions, advocate rather than pontificate, and work in session longer than they relax in recess. Who will be our Mr. Smith in 2008?

Alcee Hastings Hillary Clinton Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Robert Byrd War On Terror Ted Kennedy voting