Neo-Con swoon over Bush's blind support of Israel

Well it looks like neo-cons are falling for their old sweetheart George Bush again. This cabal of warhawks that pushed this country into the war in Iraq have once again fallen for Bush. Yet at the same time:
" 'What we are seeing are precisely the same divisions as we saw over Iraq with the neo-conservatives rallying behind Mr Bush and almost everyone else feeling rising panic at the direction of American diplomacy,' said Francis Fukuyama, a former neo-conservative."

This is indicated by the fact that the "American public opinion is evenly divided on the merits of Israel's response to Hizbollah's raid. But almost two-thirds say that the US should play a neutral broker role between Israel and Lebanon, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll."

America can't be a moderator for peace in the Middle East if we stand too close to one side, it just ruins our credibility. The article mentions an excerpt from a speech from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel which I think is very profound and true:
" 'The war against Hizbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield.' " The US and Israel must engage these groups before resorting to military punishment. It will only make things worse. In the end, those who really get punished are innocent civilians which we have seen in both the Gaza Strip (where nearly half the citizens have gone without water and electricity when Israel bombed their main power station) and Lebanon (especially in the recent Qana incident). Thus, as I showed in an earlier post, these actions are isolating America and turning Arab opinion against Israel in its conflict against Lebanon.

Whats pathetic though is that again Democrats won't show the same spine to defy Bush in his foreign policy like Hagel is:
"Mr Bush is largely insulated from a political backlash by the muted stance of the opposition Democrats, who are nervous of being painted as weak on national security in the build-up to mid-term elections in November."
Which makes me continually pessimistic about the Democratic Party because they refuse to stand for anything in foreign policy that much different than the Republican Party.

The article illustrated Hillary Clinton as the classic example. She is an opportunist like her husband who is moving increasingly to the right by wooing the DLC for her eventual run as a presidential candidate. Hilary condemned the Iraqi Prime Minister with "tough talk" for condemning Israel and not Hezbollah in this conflict. al-Maliki would never condemn Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist group, since his own party the Islamic Dawa Party is a shiite group.

OH YEA:

Our stance in this Lebanese-Israeli crisis is also hurting our position among the Shia majority in Iraq.

California and the Governator leading the way towards dealing with Global Warming in the US

The Bush administration's apathy towards taking action against global warming is forcing California, who had the "12th largest source of greenhouse gases in the world last year, bigger than most nations," to handle the problem on its own by working with the UK to create "a new trans-Atlantic market in carbon dioxide emissions."

If I was the president, I'd be extremely embarassed by such an event since no one from the Bush administration is even participating in this collaboration and that one of the people involved, the governator, is from his own political party. There were "about 25 chief executive officers of major corporations around the world" in attendance including Dupont and Goldman Sachs. Bush's environmental advisor, James Connaughton (the architect of the pro-industry "Clear Skies Initiative") couldn't be there because of a "scheduling conflict." With so many important figures attending this meeting, you would think that the Bush administration would have one representative there. Well it seems that the Bush administration just doesn't care about global warming. Which is pretty obvious.

Thinkprogress writes that "Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan professor and an expert on U.S. climate policy at the state level, said the administration’s failure to attend sends the wrong message. 'It suggests certainly in this instance the federal government is really conspicuous by its absence,' he said.'"

Global warming is a real threat with an international consensus among scientists of its causes. The Bush administration must get its priorities straight in terms of taking action against global warming!

The Israel-Lebanese conflict and the massacre at Qana

Check out Professor Juan Cole's (who teaches at my school) blog for some of the best insight and information about the current crisis in the Middle East. I get alot of Middle East news sources from his blog. I myself am disgusted with the Israeli military's actions in Lebanon to systematically destroy the country. Not only have they attacked infrastructure but they've bombed food factories, Lebanese army bases, and social service centers. As a Jew, I support Israel but I don't support this. It won't make Israel any safer nor will it destroy Hezbollah. Instead Israel has killed over 750 civilians (many of them children) and created a humanitarian crisis of 700,000 displaced people. Hezbollah, as Professor Juan Cole points out, can't be destroyed by force very easily. They are not the same as Al-Qaeda, rather they are a sub-nationalist group akin to Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland. Also, the claim that Israel claims that Hezbollah militants hide among civilians is completely false, and couldn't be further from the truth.

I hope that the massacre at Qana that occurred yesterday really is a turning point in this crisis as Rami G. Khouri, an editor at the Beirut-based "Daily Star" newspaper, writes. Israel needs to work more on diplomacy especially when these conflicts usually mean civilian casualities.

Furthermore, the US' do-nothing stance is making things worse for our image across the world. According to the a Washington Post article: "if the war [in Lebanon] drags on, as appears likely, it could leave the United States more isolated than at any time since the Iraq invasion three years ago and hindered in its foreign policy goals such as shutting down Iran's nuclear program and spreading democracy around the world." The Bush administration sees this crisis as fighting against Iran, who sponsors Hezbollah, but the article provides no evidence that Iran actually orchestrated Hezbollah's initial attack and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

Evangelical Christians Sick of Right Wingers Politicizing their Religion

Evangelical christians may not be a monolithic group of people after all. The guy they profile, Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, may not be someone who I agree with on particular social issues like gay rights or abortion but I do agree with his stance of not forcing his religious beliefs on others through the government.

There seems to be a debate among evangelicals in concerns of their ties with the Republican Party. One pastor, Brian D. McLaren sums up this sentiment of concern over the politicized evangelical movement in the New York Times Article:

“ More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people.

“Because people think, ‘Oh no, what is going to come next is homosexual bashing, or pro-war rhetoric, or complaining about ‘activist judges.’ ”

I think this has many people on the left so disdained about the dominant strain of Christianity in this country. That they are nothing but ignorant bigots that try to force their religious beliefs on others. I am pretty disgusted at how Republicans constantly politicize religious beliefs. If they really believed in a "culture of life" we wouldn't have the death penalty, we would have a national health care system, we wouldn't be in Iraq, we wouldn't spend so much money on worthless military garbage like the missile defense system, and we would spend more money for those in this country suffering in debilitating poverty.

Another part of the article that I thought was very interesting was this:

"One woman asked: 'So why NOT us? If we contain the wisdom and grace and love and creativity of Jesus, why shouldn’t we be the ones involved in politics and setting laws?'

Mr. Boyd responded: 'I don’t think there’s a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don’t slap the label ‘Christian’ on it.' " Though I myself am a Jew, I know that this politicized evangelical christian movement has distorted what Christianity means which is what I think the reverend is trying to say. We can't make judgments about people's faith based on the predominant strain of that faith in our country.

Bush's Voting Rights Extension Hypocrisy

On July 27th, 2006 George W. Bush signed into law an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an important bill that came out of the civil rights movement, with a strong endorsement that it "broke the segregationist lock on the voting box." Furthermore, he asserted that "my administration will vigorously enforce the provisions of this law, and we will defend it in court."

Yet at the same time the Bush Administration has been gutting the DOJ's Civil Rights Division that enforces this law. According to a July 23 Boston Globe article, in the Fall of 2002, John Ashcroft changed the hiring system to be overseen by administration political appointees rather than career lawyers. Thus a majority of people are being hired for their ideological stances rather than their experience in civil rights. It shows in the recent hiring statistics: "42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003, after the administration changed the rules to give political appointees more influence in the hiring process, have civil rights experience" as opposed to "two years before the change, 77 percent of those who were hired had civil rights background" in the Division's voting rights, employment litigation, and appellate sections. Furthermore, these hirings since 2003 have had strong conservative credentials including 11 lawyers who were members of the conservative Federalist Society, 7 from the Republican National Laywers Association, and 2 who even volunteered for Bush-Cheney campaigns. Also "several new hires worked for prominent conservatives" including Kenneth Starr (we all remember that dirt bag), former attorney general Edwin Meese, Trent Lott, and Judge Charles Pickering.

This shift in hiring procedures has reflected in the types of cases the Civil Rights Division has taken on. They are "bringing fewer voting rights and employment cases involving systematic discrimination against African-Americans and more alleging reverse discrimination against whites and religious discrimination against Christians."

Thus Bush's strong support for extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965 seems to be just a good PR ploy rather than actually having any weight. He has the power to undermine it when it comes to enforcing the law which is what his administration is doing. This is further illustrated in his administration's support of a 2005 Georgia law requiring that all voters there get photo identification cards (costing $20 if they don't have driver's licenses) which would discourage poorer, mostly minority people. Its important that people remain vigilant over such acts by the Bush administration.

The shifting nature of the Civil Rights Division is perfectly illustrated in this excerpt from a Boston Globe editorial about the debate in the CRD over the Georgia Voting Law:

"Five career officials reviewed the law. Four of them, appointed before the hiring changes, thought the Justice Department should reject it, a power granted under the Voting Rights Act. The one hired under the new rules said the law was fair. His superiors, also political appointees, agreed"

Fortunately, the Georgia law was struck down in Federal Court but it is scary what the Bush administration is doing to undermine the Civil Rights Division and the laws that are within its enforcement jurisdiction.

The Beginning...

As a new blog with a focus on American politics (including domestic and foreign affairs), I am a small fish in a big pond. I plan to bring up daily current events like every other political blog but I also hope to give some insight that others will find interesting. I will also strive to present (what I feel are) important stories and perspectives not always heard in the mass media. Furthermore, I will try to keep an update on various grassroots campaigns that I know about going on in this country. Gotta look out for the little guy! ENJOY!