US diplomacy in the Middle East

US diplomacy in the Middle East: Iraq, Syria, and why it matters

With the previously dominant neoconservative hawks in Washington seeming to take the back seat in US foreign policy, America has finally started to embrace a more pragmatic approach to diplomacy in the Middle East — to an extent.

Diplomatic relations with such a tumultuous region can be hard to maintain at times, but keeping the channels of communication open is essential in order to help fix the problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere. In addition, discussion with states like Syria and Iran can resolve ongoing tensions. Unlike war, diplomacy is soft and does not always produce immediate effects. Some are dissatisfied with the outcome of diplomacy. However, also unlike war there are few instances where diplomacy actually hurts the problem one or both sides wish to resolve.

On 3 May, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Syrian foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, in a much-needed discussion. At the top of the agenda was Iraq, and Syria's borders — which many extremists cross through to enter Iraq — were also an issue. Even though the meeting lasted a modest 30 minutes, just the fact that Rice spoke to Moallem illustrated a turning point in the Bush administration's foreign policy. This discussion came during a conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt on the Iraq issue. Iran and Syria are both in attendance, as America finally showed a more logical and less stubborn diplomatic policy in similar talks on Iraq in late March. One development of the summit comes as no surprise: Iran blames the US for Iraq's woes, which is only partially correct. Both Iran and America are to blame. Although the US started the war, and has made it worse, Iran and other external (and internal) actors have only inflamed it further.

A while back, the influential, bipartisan Iraq Study Group, or Baker-Hamilton commission, recommended in its report that the United States work with Syria in the fight against Islamic extremism and to help stabilize and secure Iraq. This set off shockwaves in Washington, making some politicians, including President George W. Bush, show their cowboy international diplomacy mentality again — that is, they scoffed at and ignored the sensible recommendations. The ISG emphasized discussion and cooperation with all relevent Middle Eastern states, even the ones the White House had a particular distaste for. The report said:
"Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability."

The meeting between Condi Rice and Walid Moallem was the first direct, official, and high-level talks between Syria and the United States in years. Remember: Syria has been labeled an 'evil' state by Bush, and an honorary member of the infamous "axis of evil". Way to be diplomatic, Mr. President. While some — including a prominent Newsweek article and conservative American commentators like Michelle Malkin — call talks like this "talking with the enemy", Rice said her discussion with the Syrian foreign minister was "professional", and that she "didn't lecture him and he didn't lecture me." However positive this news might be, signs are yet to reveal themselves of direct talks between the US and Iran. America came close to talking to its Persian arch-nemesis, but an official diplomatic discussion never panned out. Neither American nor Iranian diplomats actually took the initiative of beginning the discussion, another reflection of the state of US diplomacy in the Middle East. Further, more broad discussions are also needed between the United States and Syria.

The two-day summit on Iraq resulted in an International Compact for Iraq (ICI), a five-year plan for financial help and 'national reconciliation' for Iraq. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon placed the stated 'financial commitments' to Iraq at over $30 billion. The conference included delegations from the United States, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and the European Union. Such a summit brought together all the G8 and UN Security Council powers, several members of the Arab League, and then some, but was still seen as a relative failure. Nevertheless, it brought more attention to the Iraq humanitarian issue of international interest. The conference also brought out a less resistive foreign policy from the US.

As this is the Middle East, surely not in its finest days, pessimism remains. Abd-al-Bari Atwan wrote in the Pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, translated by BBC Monitoring:
"The Sharm al-Shaykh conference will conclude by issuing a communique. There will be a photo opportunity and smiles, but, after that, the region will return to its situation and the conditions in Iraq will be even more dangerous and turbulent."

In these times it's hard to talk about Syria without bringing up Iran. They’re currently like two peas on a pod. But things didn’t used to be so peachy for Syrian-Iranian relations. Isolation by the United States and the fall of Saddam Hussein's Iraq are a couple of factors that have led to Syria getting closer to Iran — a predominantly Shia nation and wannabe nuclear power slated as the next regional power. In fact, Saddam's overthrow has led to a massive inbalence of power. The ruthless dictator, now dead, kept Iran, and many sectarian factions, in check.

In early April, there was a row over the decision by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) visit to Syria. Syria is a Middle Eastern nation that had been isolated by the Bush administration in some misguided notion of hope that alienating an active power in a region that needs all the help it can get would help things. Of course Pelosi’s excursion revealed a wider hypocrisy: the fact that a Republican delegation had visited earlier left the White House and the media unfettered, as did the visit of representative, Darrell Issa (R-CA), on 5 April — a day after Pelosi’s much-debated trip. Like Pelosi, Issa met with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, a dictator, but one with the potential for more amiable feelings for the United States.

The White House said that Pelosi's trip 'sent the wrong message', making Syria think it is a valid member of the international community. This level of logic is not the kind that should be resonating from the White House press room, nor any other branch of the government. Of course, as the Bush administration intends to alienate nations like Syria, it is doing a fine job, depending on how you look at it. While America and Syria are not very engaged, Syria is less likely to help the US on issues like, say, Iraq. Iraq is devastated as it is, and the militants and terrorists within its borders do not need any more additions.

I supported Nancy Pelosi's recent (unofficial, non-policy related) diplomatic trip to Syria, whether a political stunt or not. By isolating Syria, this current administration has forced it nearer to Iran — by no means a positive influence. Lucky for the US, Syria is open to working with America and has an interest in the outcome of the current civil conflict in Iraq as well as the spread radical Islamic terrorism. The Syrians have even more to worry about political stability against terrorists than the US does: they are situated in the Middle East hotbed of terror, America is not. Along with many experts and foreign governments, the Iraq Study Group and many members of Congress have urged the White House to talk to Syria before relations deteriorate further and Iraq gets even worse.

Syria’s foreign policy remained fairly moderate — that is, until they were shunned by the United States. Syria also fights against terrorist groups and ideologies like jihad and al-Qaeda, and has an interest in the wider Middle East conflicts. Pelosi has met with the Syrian foreign minister and is expected to talk with President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian press has been very friendly to Pelosi, slapping labels such as 'brave lady' to the first ever female speaker and highest ranking Congressional Democrat; Syrian — mostly state-run — media pointed to her visit as 'positive'.

Not only does the transnational flow of terrorists and their radical movements need to be halted, but a helpful combination of good PR, economic agreements, and open-channel diplomacy should be kept with states suspected of harboring — or even directly or indirectly supporting — terrorism. Countries like Syria, which is a major hub for insurgents entering Iraq, could help in the fight against terrorism if they were not shunned by the US. In Syria's case, good relations with America could even bring the state further from more devious states like Iran. Lest we forget, terrorism is a problem for other governments too, even 'evil' ones. Most every state in the Middle East and North Africa fears terrorism of the radical Islamic persuasion.

Channels of diplomacy need to be kept open. US-Syria relations are needed and welcomed by Syria. Syria isn’t as seemingly sinister or incessantly meddling as Iran, and its close relations to Iran deal largely with the United States. Unlike Iran, Syria is not interested in a so-called Shia crescent across the Mid-East. Syria may be authoritarian, but so is Egypt, an American ally, which shares the Syrian policy against Islamic extremism. Iran has been a (mostly) bad influence on Syria, but there is still hope.

The common misconception is that the US talking to Syria is like talking to the enemy, whomever the enemy actually is. In reality, neither Syria nor Iran are real enemies. Al-Qaeda — or what’s left of it — is an enemy; Nazi Germany was the enemy in World War II, of course that was easier to define because it was a nation-state, not a movement or ideology. It is hard to make the case that diplomatic relations with Syria would hurt. There is also the tolerance issue. While we shouldn’t tolerate Syria’s mass human rights abuses, for instance, how was Nancy Pelosi a terrorist when she put on a frankly western-looking headdress? Just because others are different doesn’t make them wrong, yet another issue both the extremist fringe in Washington and in Tehran and Damascus need to recognize. There’s one thing the US has in common with Iran, Syria, and certainly others.

The US and other powers should work with Syria while working with Israel in order to stifle Syria's terrorist group support. Just because Syria has a deplorable human rights record shouldn’t keep the US from talking to it. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan also commit unjustified acts, and America remains close diplomatic relations with those three countries. On the human rights front, the US should try to nudge Syria in the right direction and work on its own human rights situation. This will cover the fronts of Syria-terrorist, Syria-Iran, and Syria-Israel relations, and, by working with Syria and other Middle Eastern states, America and the international community can better Iraq as well as the states they are working with. Win for US, win for Syria, win for Iraq, and win for Middle East and international political stability; both good and bad for Israel; not too good for Iran (but they are in control of much of their fate in these matters).

The US cannot fight its war — in Iraq or against the ever-ambigious 'terror' — alone. It needs to be willing to reach out to friends and foes alike, observing the greater good while still keeping on the ethical side of things. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two American 'allies' and key political players, have hosted recent Middle East diplomatic initiatives on topics ranging from a new Palestinian unity government to the aforementioned multi-national solution for Iraq's woes. Be sure to keep an eye on these not-too-radical nations as diplomacy in the Mid-East progresses, hopefully in a forward direction.

May 2007 has seen a shift in White House policy on discourse with states like Syria. While it is good that the world’s powers are meeting — hopefully on equal grounds — on a topic as important as Iraq, one must wonder what has really been accomplished by meetings like the one in early May. Keeping up efforts to work alongside the United Nations, by any means a bastion of global diplomacy, is a best bet if the State Department really has modified its policy for the better.

It's time for all parties with a vested interest in the outcome of the Iraqi civil war to open their minds and look at the sensible options. At the moment US popularity is very low. That should only encourage and give warrant to a flexible diplomatic campaign, an emphasis on multilateralism, and the need for a massive rethink of the Bush administration's "Global War on Terrorism". A diplomatic, multilateral foreign policy campaign has been dismissed time and time again for a militant, unilateral 'us against them', 'with us or against us' policy. We've seen the disastrous effects of such a policy. It's time for change.

Republican meets Syrian president, Pelosi battle continues

It's getting harder and harder for critics to criticize US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's diplomatic trips in the Middle East. I have written in defense of her. We have already seen some positive effects, namely Syria and Israel opening up to talks. Now a Republican, Rep. Darrell Issa, has met with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.

"It is difficult to isolate Syria which is pivotal to finding solutions to all issues in the region," the Syrian agency quoted Assad as saying. Issa, who is of Lebanese dissent, also met Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem.

More than a dozen U.S. lawmakers have visited Damascus in the last four months and met Assad after the Iraq Study Group recommended to Republican President George W. Bush engaging with Damascus and Iran to help stabilize Iraq.

Pelosi urged Assad on Wednesday to end alleged Syrian support to rebels in Iraq and to use its influence with the Palestinian group Hamas.

Pelosi said holding a dialogue with the secular Syrian leader, whom the Bush administration has been trying to isolate, was in the U.S. interests.

This is hypocrisy at its extreme — American polarization mixing with regional dialogue. Pelosi gets heavily slammed by the White House and many members of the public — even CNN, and NYT to a lesser extent — for going to Syria and other countries on a largely-diplomatic capacity. Other Republicans have visited Syria and now Issa has met with the country's leader!

For more analysis on the Pelosi-foreign policy issue:

By law, Congress must keep out of diplomacy. In history, House speakers and lawmakers have crossed that line, some with the blessing of the president and some against his wishes.

Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip. But in a nation deeply divided over America's role and standing in the world, the Democratic-led Congress's push into foreign policy has prompted a ferocious reaction from a White House doubly protective of its turf.
...
International uproar over a House speaker is something relatively new, said Brookings scholar Thomas E. Mann.

Pelosi is not making policy. That would be bending the law, although it is sometimes done. She is visiting, talking, being diplomatic without saying 'This is official policy' or 'This is where the United States stands' like Secretary Rice or President Bush can do.

Of course Pelosi's diplomacy has not been flawless. There were political and communication troubles on the Israeli issue. But is it really worse than nothing, no diplomacy with Syria at all? No, it isn't.

Update: A member of Pelosi's office points out what's fact and what's fiction. I am not a huge supporter of Pelosi, but the fact she can get slammed for taking a congressional diplomatic trip and others don't is very disturbing. The Washington Post editorial (see link in last paragraph) is obviously anti-Pelosi. Although it does point out some truths it is smothered in partisanship. The American news media has also cast a negative light on the trip. This is, in my opinion, all getting kind of ridiculous.

I guess the White House still does have plenty of support — enough to crack the line of political polarization once again and turn many against something they have little reason to dislike. I have yet to hear a convincing, logical argument outrightly against Pelosi's visit to Syria. It is not meddling. She is not going against Bush's policies any more than other Congresspeople have when they've visited.

technorati tags: darrell+issa, nancy+pelosi, pelosi, syria, bashir+al-assad, syria+visit, pelosi+syria, issa+syria, politics, foreign+policy, diplomacy, news

More on Pelosi's diplomacy...

It is highly hypocritical of many observers and the government to be criticizing Pelosi for even talking to Syria, an important player in the Middle East that has been isolated by the United States, leading it to turn to Iran as a close ally.

I still wonder why there was no uproar when politicians visited in the past. Since when can't a US policy-maker make a foreign trip and meet officials? Syria isn't perfect, but it is only an 'enemy' of the US because of Bush's haphazard "axis of evil" inclusion.

She has allowed the Syrians and Israelis to communicate by relaying diplomatic messages. That is a good thing. Also she can take foreign policy trips if she damn well pleases. Republican congresspeople can do the same; I don't mind.

U.S. House members meeting with President Bashar Assad Sunday said they believed there was an opportunity for dialogue with the Syrian leadership.

The U.S. House members, who included Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about "ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon."

Wait, isn't Pelosi basically doing the same thing as these congresspeople did, but on a wider scale? (After all, she is also the House speaker, a major position.)

Pelosi is not instating official US foreign policy also, it is just a trip. Just recently three GOP congresspeople went to Syria, why didn't you all attack that? She is helping diplomacy, a good thing considering the White House's failure in Iraq. She is acting as an official does, she is not instituting official policy like Secretary of State Rice or President Bush do.

Pelosi is getting slammed left and right. However, this is much less partisan politics and much more just a congressional visit. Policy makers make official visits all the time. How is this visit different? Pelosi is visiting a country that the US administration doesn't care for. Pelosi is laying foreign policy groundwork; the Bush administration effectively has no real policy with Syria!

I have even heard allegations and cries of 'terrorist' because Pelosi wore a moderate headscarf — people saying she has no right to wear one. It's a headscarf, not a veil! She does have a right to dress in a headscarf if she wants to. What's wrong with dressing differently? I doubt she conformed anyways. She has any right to dress in a headscarf or a suit or whatever so piss off. Those saying things like this — that because she dressed differently or just the fact she visited — are just as bad as many fundamentalists in the Arab world: restricting dialogue by slapping dirty labels on people and saying they do not have the power or right to do something as simple as making a diplomatic visit.

Furthermore, keep in mind the White House's foreign policy record and how Congress has failed to check those policies. Foreign policy does not lie solely under the president.

Both Israel's acting president and prime minister have praised Pelosi; and she has gotten a surprisingly warm reception in the Arab press.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has relayed messages of peace from a nation supposedly the enemy of another. When has Secretary Rice done that in even an official capacity? The United States accuses Syria of destabilizing the Mid-East, but does a fine job of that itself. One reason Syria is making ties to unhelpful countries and groups is because of US isolation — its a look never-ending under the current Bush administration policy.

See this post and this post for background info on Pelosi's visit to Syria and the reaction to her visits.

Syria, Israel, and Pelosi

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Syrian President Bashir al-Assad is ready for renewed peace talks with Israel. Pelosi is currently visiting various Middle Eastern countries — including Israel, Lebanon, and Syria — at the condemnation of the White House. I fail to see how this is, as US President Bush put it, undermining US foreign policy, considering how America’s foreign policy lies in shambles from his war on terror policies. Just because Bush blocks out the vital entity of Syria from his diplomacy does not mean others have to.

Pelosi did express worries over Syrian support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and terrorist groups, but also said the Middle Eastern nation had a role in the Israel-Palestine peace negotiations. Syria is also blamed for allowing some terrorist fighters into Iraq, although it has sealed much of its border. It is home to many Iraqi and Palestinian refugees. Because of the Israeli occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights, they have their own interests with Israeli peace talks. Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert said he was ready to begin talks too.

Pelosi’s visit has contrasted with the Bush administration’s often hostile or meaningless foreign policies, though some see her as overstepping her bounds. Remember: the Baker-Hamilton ISG report strongly pushed for talks between the United States and Syria (and Iran) over Iraq.

There have been changes in the administration policy, albeit small ones, when talks that included Syria and Iran were announced in March. However, these talks are only indirect. A real step forward is needed for the sake of the horrendous situation in the Middle East, diplomacy is needed.

"The meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well", Pelosi stated. The Bush administration has been trying its hardest to isolate the Syrian government, which is suspected of killing a Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in 2005. The assassination led to Syria leaving Lebanon and a new, more independent Lebanese government being set up. The assassination still remains shrouded in mystery; Syria has received much of the blame and international condemnation has been the norm.

However, diplomacy cannot work without isolation. If the US is able to make better ties with Syria, Syria may stray from Iran, whose influence has been a major issue. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States — and many other Mid-East states — all share the common interest and worry: Iraq. Pelosi’s reception by the Arab press is quite interesting, and overall positive. Common themes include: this visit is a blow to the Bush administration in a domestic political and foreign policy sense; Pelosi is taking a step forward and opening up communication, which is needed; she is also recognizing Syria’s importance in the Middle East, including in Iraq and Israel-Palestine; she is seeing reality and hopes to work on the issues at hand.

See this post for background on Syria.

technorati tags: syria, pelosi, nancy+pelois, bush, al-assad, harari, lebanon, iran, usa, united+states, diplomacy, foreign+policy, politics, news, israel, olmert, palestine, iraq, isg

Diplomacy under fire: Pelosi visits Syria

White House criticizes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) trip to Syria
Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, produced uproar by the White House and others when it was let known she would visit Syria in her latest diplomatic tour of the Middle East. If a planned trip was slammed so much, imagine how annoyed the Bush administration was when she arrived in Syria. (At least she is not visiting Iran!)

White House anger failed to quell when she actually made the visit today. Pelosi rightfully stated that keeping an open line of communication with Syria, which holds some standing in the Mid-East, is a good thing in order to help with the situations in Iraq and Lebanon.

Syria’s foreign policy remained fairly moderate — that is, until they were shunned by the United States. Syria also fights against terrorist groups and ideologies like jihad and al-Qaeda, and has an interest in the wider Middle East conflicts. Pelosi has met with the Syrian foreign minister and is expected to talk with President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian press has been very friendly to Pelosi, slapping labels such as 'brave lady' to the first ever female speaker and highest ranking Congressional Democrat; Syrian — mostly state-run — media pointed to her visit as 'positive'.

Channels of diplomacy need to be kept open. US-Syria relations are needed and welcomed by Syria. Syria isn’t as sinister or meddling as Iran, and its close relations to Iran deal largely with the United States. Unlike Iran, Syria is not interested in a so-called Shia crescent across the Mid-East. Syria may be authoritarian, but so is Egypt, an American ally, which shares the Syrian policy against Islamic extremism. Iran has been a (mostly) bad influence on Syria, but there is still hope.

Pelosi hopes to be able to relay Israel’s diplomatic message to Syria, and vice versa. Dialogue is key to diplomacy; diplomacy is key to peace. The Middle East needs peace, and keeping a stubborn, aggressive mindset like that of the White House cannot achieve such an objective. American hostility is hardly needed. Interesting how an administration accusing others of hindering the peace process is indeed hindering it on its own.

Accusations and pejorative labels need to be dropped if Bush wants any bright area whatsoever in the already-gloomy area of history labeled "George W. Bush's foreign policy". Ignorance and 'us against them', 'with us or against us' catchphrases of political rhetoric is 79 percent of Bush diplomacy. Another 15 percent is warfare. 5 percent more is baseless and objective-less foreign visits. That leaves roughly 1 percent left for any sort of pragmatic, positive maneuvering by this administration — the leaders of the world's most powerful nation, and one of the most increasingly despised.

Update: Pelosi is not the first American politician to visit Syria. Why didn't the White House call it a 'bad idea' when three Republican congresspeople visited recently?

technorati tags: syria, middle+east, nancy+pelosi, pelosi, politics, white+house, bush, middle+east, pelosi+syria, foreign+policy, diplomacy, USA, news

Let the swearing [in] begin

Post updated with more information covering President Bush and Congress.

A while back, I wrote an in-depth analysis on the Democrat's win in the US Congress and what is to come in the American political climate. Now, that blog post will be put to the test as the 100th Congress will be sworn in tomorrow, 4 January 2006. Get ready for Congress v. White House for at least the next two years! (As if Congress v. Congress wasn't bad enough.)

As I covered in the aforementioned post, (from The Guardian):

The proposed legislation from the Democrats includes:
· Ethics reform, with a ban on gifts from lobbyists to congressmen and other controls;
· A rise in the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour;
· An end to the Bush administration's restrictions on stem cell research;
· Implementation of the recommendations of the commission on the 9/11 terror attacks;
· A plan for the federal government to negotiate cheaper prices for prescription drugs;
· And the halving of interest rates on student loans.

Many of those items listed are included in the so-called 100 hour plan House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi says she will bring to the table — and work on passing — within her first 100 hours as the first woman speaker of the house, and the first Democrat speaker in over a decade. (Just as a reminder, the speaker is similar to the Senate majority leader, but has more authority, power, etc. leading the lower legislative body, the House of Representatives.)

Also in the article,

President George Bush, who for nearly four years had a free hand in decision-making over the war in Iraq, faces a series of concerted challenges starting from tomorrow from a newly installed and assertive Democratic Congress.

"I think the White House will be answering lots of questions. There will be a blizzard of paper, and I think we are in for a year of examination of administration policy," said Stuart Rothenberg, who publishes a Washington newsletter.

Bush has his war, one of the major reasons the GOP lost in last November's midterm elections. Although economy was another issue say exit polling data and other post-election polls; albeit the economy was largely overlooked by the media in coverage after the election. The Democrats — well, Pelosi at least — have positive, progressive initiatives (those outlined above) that I for one want passed, but not only do the moderate-liberal Democrats have the White House and presidential veto as a stopper on this legislative road-map, but there are also conservative factions in the Democratic party that will not stand for some of the goals outlined by Pelosi and company.

It's hard to tell if this will be a strictly Pelosi v. Bush battle, but time will tell. Gridlock, as we all know, is an imminent fact. It's the seriousness of the gridlock and how it is dealt with that will be the major looming matters for Americans and their government.

One main thing the president says he wants to do is keep pork-barrel — 'earmark', unneeded costly legislation — to a minimum. The president has had plenty of chances to veto legislation that is bad and useless (pork-barrel spending too), but he has not used his veto then. Instead, Bush wastes it on a stem cell research bill that Congress and the American public opinion approved (MSNBC)!

Bush has been criticized from both sides for failing to keep big spending bills from being passed, what makes people think he will act any different now? This also zaps his credibility, although it was already mostly zapped on a large variety of issues — including dealing with Congress and the balance of [presidential] power in areas like wiretapping in the "war on terror". How can the American public expect him to hold to his 'working with Congress' word if he talks nonsense about a power he has never righteously executed?

President Bush also spoke of a plan to be able to balance the federal budget without raising taxes by 2012. Since he has already unbalanced the budget enough, I dunno if that would be hard or easy, impossible or feasible.

And as if signing statements were not bad enough... (NYT):

[Bush] also repeated his desire for legislation giving the president the power to delete individual provisions from spending bills, known as a line-item veto — a power that Congress, even when controlled by the same party as the president, has refused to grant.

Okay people, all this BS-talk of bipartisanship is over — or should be as of the 4th — and will be falling to its regular, previous levels once the real political battles begin. Bipartisan is only a word of phony rhetoric for American politicians; not a practice. Pelosi and a few other Democrats — and Republicans — have voiced their stance on the two parties (Democrat and Republican) and branches of government (executive and legislative) working together, especially on things they both agree on. But the obviously fabricated rhetoric streaming from the President Bush's mouth following the Democratic win has been amazing — and obviously not representative of his true intentions (it is politics after all). Even now, right before the new Congress convenes. BBC News:

US President George W Bush has urged his Democratic rivals to work with the White House, a day before the opening of a new session of Congress.

Speaking at the White House, Mr Bush called on Democrats "to set aside politics and look to the future".

The Democratically-led 100th United States Congress will be sworn in tomorrow, and, contrary to the president's bridge-building past (when he was governor of Texas, apparantly), there are already plenty of battles looming on the horizon for executive-legislative (White House-Capital Hill, presidential-Congressional) relations.

“We hope that when the president says compromise, it means more than ‘do it my way,’ which is what he’s meant in the past,” Mr. Schumer said.

Great quote by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in a New York Times article that covers the upcoming Congress and its relation to the White House.

--
Song stuck in my head right now: "This River is Wild" by The Killers.

technorati tags: bush, george+w+bush, pelosi, nancy+pelosi, house+speaker, democrats, republicans, congress, 110th+congress, white+house, politics, united+states, usa, swearing+in+congress, news, in+the+news, elections, midterm+elections, analysis, guardian

Yeah, the Democrats won, what's next?

Okay, the “thumpin’”, as President Bush put it, is over. The 2006 US midterm elections came to a close weeks ago, believe me, after all the blogging I did during the elections, I am relieved. Yeah, yeah, the Democrats took the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, by a landslide and a margin, but what’s next? Time to celebrate for moderates and liberals in the country? Time for change with the new majority Democrats? Not exactly.

The upcoming Democratic-majority US Congress may well be as bad as the current one. One positive: maybe the Dems will stick it to President Bush. One negative: do they have enough of a majority — even within their own party — to get anything done, let alone show the president that he is not the sovereign leader of America (or the world)? What about the fact that Bush has veto power? Just the squabbling — regardless of political affiliation — over Iraq, which, coupled with economy, was the main focus of the voters this past election, shows that the American people may be in for some ride these next years.

2006 elections
Even before the elections, political analysts were warning that even if the Dems won not all would be well. First of all, winning Democrats would most likely be unseating moderate Republicans, replacing them with slightly conservative to conservative Democrats, and, since they would not be able to get any moderate or liberal change done, the Democrats would be sad and worn out (as if they were not already). Meanwhile, the GOP would be ready to rise up to the Democrats. America [usually] loves an underdog, and keep in mind, a quarter of the electorate are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians — predominately in the South. The GOP would rally this massive demographic and stall any good chance of reform by creating a Democratic nightmare in 2008.

Gridlock, past and future
For the next two years, the Democratic Party will also have to deal with the fact that, even though they control the legislature, the executive still has its occupier — a Republican. I am speaking, of course, of President George W. Bush.

Back in 1992, a man from Arkansas, a man with a hope for America, was elected. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, served for eight years, many of which were probably not what he wished they were. In 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich and others launched what they coined as the “contract with America”, now referred to as the ‘Republican Revolution’ that resulted in massive seat gains for the GOP in both houses of Congress. This disabled Clinton from passing many of his sought-after laws. This also gave Americans a good taste of what political gridlock really is.

After the 110th United States Congress is sworn in next January, there will be at least two years of this gridlock. The differences between the Clinton era gridlock and the upcoming gridlock include the fact that back then the Democrats controlled the presidency, the Republicans the Congress, and it is now the other way around. The Dems also have less of a majority now then the Republicans had back in the ‘90s, and there is an ever-increasing conservative base ready to be fired up to come to the assistance of the Republican Party.

Pelosi and the Democratic roadmap
It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will bring. Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years).

I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party and America as a whole. Pelosi’s "100-hour plan" — a spin-off of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “100-day plan” — looks especially promising, albeit quite ambitious. The plan, outlined in an often-cited Associated Press article, calls for ethics reforms (e.g. lobbying restrictions), implementation of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), and an easier way for people to pay for college (e.g. interest rate cuts for student loans, educational initiatives). On Pelosi’s 100-hour to do list is also the passing of federally-funded stem cell research legislation, a raise of the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7.25), the creation of a path to lower drug prices (which 85% of Americans back) [for those using Medicare], and other positive and progressive goals.

The ethics reforms are planned for the first day, in order to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation,” says Pelosi. During this entire plan, Pelosi has told AP she does not wish to further raise the national deficit that has ballooned under this president and this Congress; she says she is to institute a “pay-as-you-go” plan after her first 100 hours. The ultimate goal of this so-called 100-hour plan: "drain the swamp" of Republican rule the past 12 years in Congress, says Pelosi.

Political climate
The political winds have changed with the elections resulting in a Congressional majority for the Democrats, but it may be too insignificant, too late. Speaking of changes in the political winds, President Bush seems to want to be everyone's bipartisan friend again; a "united, not a divider", I doubt it. Much of the White House's political strategy depends on polarizing and dividing a nation, which is easy to do with (1) lack of government transparency and accountability more than ever (2) fear mongering in the "war on terrorism" (3) splitting a two-party nation so most vote for the GOP, using (1) and (2) as vote-gainers. This is all along with ideological and economic class partitioning, e.g. evangelicals/religious right, neoconservatives, 'safety moms', 'Wall Street types', and [other] special interests.

One ongoing question is whether the GOP can keep these conservatives and evangelicals on their side and can get them out to the polls, while staying congruent with respective ideologies of their various right-wing bases. This is where a two-party system with lax campaign finance regulation gets America: extreme polarized partisanship, elevated positions for special interest groups, and very limited choices for already-disgruntled constituents.

Representatives Pelosi (D-CA) and Boxer (D-CA) are two of the few quite liberal House members; Senators Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), and Kennedy (D-MA) are some of the few quite liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).

Dem options; in conclusion
The Democratic win in Congress is symbolic at best. There are, however, a handful of things that may be of good use to the Democrats and the nation. One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. DeLay is now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges, including those relating to campaign finance, and is being investigated for his roll in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals.

It ultimately comes down to this question: can the Democrats make a significant difference with their new majority in the US political scene? Unless the Democrats can rally support for the required two-thirds vote for a presidential veto override, I remain pessimistic. The Democrats may be or may not be lucky enough to get some of the forward-looking reforms passed by a majority of Congress anyway.

I am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena, but not to the extent that Executive-Legislature relations are harmed [too much]. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30-seat advantage in the 435-seat House of Representatives. No matter what, there will be gridlock.

Meanwhile, the race for 2008 is already well underway. That’s politics.

The above is an essay outlining the Democratic victory and the issues surrounding it in this past midterm election in the United States. Some of the writing is extracted from previous posts I wrote on this blog.

technorati tags: democrats, republicans, gop, dems, pelosi, nancy+pelosi, bush, chaney, delay, house, congress, usa, united+states, politics, news, current+affairs, in+the+news, iraq, white+house, 2006, elections, midterm, essay, opinion, news, president, senate, 100-hour+plan, minimum+wage, economy, domestic+issues, liberals, conservatives, ideologies, demographics, gengrich, newt, feingold, feinstein, boxer, california, kennedy, history, analysis, veto, gridlock, majority, in+perspective, clearthought

Chummy with the 'enemy'

GOP and Dems, Bush and Pelosi, 'thumpin' and...
A follow up to the second part of this post about President George W. Bush's altering attitudes towards the American political scene.

See here and here for more on the president's seemingly superficial political change. By the way, he met with House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi.

And the Republicans are not too friendly* with the Democrats regarding their loss...


*For all those who don't know what The Onion is, it is a satirical news publication. Do not take it with even a grain of salt ;)

technorati tags: pelosi, bush, politics, news, in+perspective, clearthought, nancy+pelosi, house, democrats, republicans, bush, president+bush, american+politics, thumpin

Moody partisanship; feelings on the elections

An array of moods extracted from opinion pieces (not necessarily the moods of the pieces themselves)

Glum (NYT op-ed)

Though the assembled reporters were hardly glum, conservatives of every stripe can console themselves by considering the limited scope of the Democrats’ midterm sweep.

Giddy (Brooks article)

Why am I weirdly happy? I’m a conservative. Many people I know and admire lost tonight. And yet somehow this strikes me as a good night for the country.

Rush Limbaugh pissed off/apathetic (multiple feelings expressed) at Republican losses. Apparently the raving irrational 'conservative' commentator is angry at the 'nonpartisan' and non-"conservative" Republicans. The article actually makes less sense than most of his works but it has raised some eyebrows. (By the way, that guy talks a lot [of nonsense]!)

The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.

A final word from that David Brooks post:

All in all, an end to the era of base-mobilizing politics and a victory for the center (albeit with a Democratic tilt). Nancy Pelosi seems to understand this. She’s striking a bipartisan pose, not a triumphalist one. We’ll see if it lasts.

[tagname]

Pelosi and the 'dirty word'

I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party. Especially her "100-hour plan" calling for ethics rules (and lobbying restrictions), 9/11 Commission Report implementation (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), an easier way for people to pay for college (i.e. insurance changes for students and educational initiatives), the passing of stem cell legislation, and more positive and progressive goals.

I do not know much about Pelosi, except that she has been called a "liberal" — which many seem to think is a dirty word. Message to those who believe that "liberal" is a dirty word: look it up in the dictionary! Ignorant closed-mindedness is not being a good conservative; it is being ignorant and closed-minded. Next, they will be saying that the dictionary is 'liberal'...

I am not saying that all who oppose Pelosi are stupid. If you can back up your arguments, and can use facts (in their factual form, of course), than even if you are a 'conservative', you are not the kinds of people I am talking about. Also keep in mind many of these ideologies are from the slightly-demented American political terms (different from political ideologies on the world scale, such as political alliances and more defined terms of what is left and what is right and what is centre), so American liberalism is "liberal", American Conservatism (including Neoconservatives and the religious/Christian right) are "conservatives".

Technorati Tags: pelosi, liberal, conservative, neocon, 9/11+commission, 100-hour+plan, nancy+pelosi, house, democratic+party, democrats, american+conservatism, american+liberalism, religious+right, christian+right, politics, news, current, opinion, commentary, in+perspective, clearthought

Will the Dems take advantage of their wins? Plus, Speaker Pelosi

One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay (now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges) set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. I, however, am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena.

As I talked about in this post outlining various election and post-election scenarios, there will be party change — for better or for worse — almost certainly in the Republican and Democratic parties. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30 seat advantage in the House of Representatives. One problem, the House is still moderately conservative since many moderate Republicans were beaten by Democrats and there are relatively few liberal Democrats (especially compared to the fact that there are 435 seats in that body of Congress).

It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House will bring, Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years). Pelosi and Boxer are two of the few liberal House members; Feingold, Feinstein, and Kennedy are two of the few liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).

I will be panning through the post-election dirt of commentary, sifting for a few pieces of gold today.

technorati tags: commentary, election, elections, politics, news, house, senate, democrats, democrat, tom+delay, gop, pelosi, congress, dems, republicans, post-election, senate, commentary, opinion, political+analysis, in+perspective, clearthought, us+midterm+elections, midterm+elections, us+elections