American Accountability

The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before investigating the conduct of the war.

“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Senator Levin, of Michigan, said on the ABC News program “This Week.” Later, in a telephone interview, he added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”

-Democrats to Press Bush to Reduce Troops in Iraq from the New York Times


Usually I'm pretty proud that Levin is from Michigan, but I'm not a huge fan of this statement. Why is he all-out blaming the Iraqis for the problems in their country? It is true (obviously) that these sectarian issues were already present before the US entered in 2003, but the amount of violence has only gotten worse since we've been there. Iraq's actual problems are not our fault, but the way that they are (not) being dealt with right now kind of is. I agree with Levin: the Iraqis do need to solve these problems on their own, but their problems and their current situation are very different, and we cannot forget who got them into the current situation. I don't think we should be there anymore, but the tone of this statement isn't what I was looking for. With this change in leadership, I was looking forward to a new level of accountability for the issues of the war in Iraq (at least as they relate to the US), but I guess that was just too much to hope for.

PS I don't understand what phased redeployment means, anyone want to explain that to me?

Democrats are evil because they make children cry

Rick Santorum's family concedes


As you watch the video, it looks like the number of children Rick Santorum has actually grows and grows. The camera kept panning out and showing another kid and I was just like... okay, so Rick practices what he preaches for real.

In other news, proposal 2 continues to suck.

Ya Haifa...

"Arguably, the Arab world's leading sex symbol, the singer's style is frowned upon by conservative clerics. In one video, the chart topper cavorts in outfits that leave little of her ample bosom to the imagination, singing: "Here is the pain, kiss the pain, make it better.When you kiss the pain, the pain is over."

But to Ms. Wehbe, 30, whose brother died fighting Israel in the 1980s, Sheik Nasrallah is a national hero.'It's a land that has people to defend it, and therefore Nasrallah had a big role in defending Lebanon's honor and border,' she said last week."

-Lebanese pop star Haifa Wehbe sides with Hezbollah from the Sunday Telegraph, via lebaneselobby.org


Does anyone remember that interview with Britney Spears about how much she loves Dubya? "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." I love when pop stars are political pundits.

Michigan Zionists plus the loveliness of Barack Obama

So I'm walking through the diag today on my way to children's lit (obviously a very up time in my day), and there are people asking for money for northern Israel and giving out free hummus and bread (don't even get me started on that)... and they're wearing Michigan Zionists shirts!

If you're trying to get money for relief for northern Israel - obviously a legitimate, humanitarian cause - perhaps that is not the best choice of attire. I thought that the point was to get money for people to be able to rebuild their homes and everything. It's about the people, so why are you turning it into something political? I don't care what your original intention was - the second you label yourself like that and wear that t-shirt, you're making this into political activity. There is so much wrapped up in the word "zionist" that you can't just drop it nonchalantly. Before you put on a shirt that says Michigan Zionists on it, you have to have put some serious thought behind what you are calling yourself and with whom you are identifying.

I'm not going to give money to someone wearing a Michigan Zionists shirt. Yes, I realize that now I'm doing exactly what I told them not to do and looking at this politically, but on the other hand, if their main concern is raising money for relief rather than raising awareness about Zionism/their political cause, shouldn't they take that perspective into account? I feel like if you're concerned with being a humanitarian, you need to leave your politics at the door. I know that that sounds like "if you put down your gun I'll put down mine," but in this case it is not the same thing because they are the ones out there actively looking for money. They're soliciting something from me - they're looking for my charity, but the second their politics get in my way, I'm no longer willing to look at them outside of those politics. If they're representing a humanitarian movement for nothern Israel, that need to be the primary image that they put out there. That needs to be the first thing I see, not their politics.

If they insist on wearing something somewhat political, then wear a tshirt with an Israeli flag on it or something. I don't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure that when Lebanese Student Association was on the diag collecting money for relief, they were wearing regular clothes and had Lebanese flags on the buckets they were putting the money in.

Okay, that's my two cents for the day.

Also, something I was going to mention awhile ago, and has nothing to do with this: I was looking at both Barack Obama's and Bill O'Reilly's new books at Borders last week. I only had time to read the intros but I saw O'Reilly on Oprah the day before and the tone of his intro was pretty much exactly the same as the tone he had on Oprah. Basically, O'Reilly is all about this culture war (the book is called Culture Warrior) and setting up two different groups in the US, the Secular-Progressives (S-P's, or, according to O'Reilly, spawn of Satan) and the Traditionalists (T-Warriors... wow). These groups are fundamentally opposed to each other and his point is that you have choose one side or the other - you can't be both, and they can't reach a compromise. By contrast, Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope), is in the same vein as his 2004 DNC speech (blah blah blah this is all anyone talks about lately I know, but I don't care because he's awesome) and puts unity first. He's all about one America, whereas O'Reilly is totally focused on us vs. them.

I have no real point. I just felt the need to point that out, not because it means all conservatives are terrible or because it means all Democrats are angels, but because O'Reilly sucks and Obama is lovely and beautiful and possibly one of my favorite people for no reason other than his charisma and idealism - which is the main thing we need right now anyway.