Why Federalism?

Federalism? What is it mean for Iraq? Nothing! It was an idea in the beginning because of the success it seemingly had in the US. But unlike the US, Iraq did not go through a building process as the US did. The US started with a confederation which was no exactly the best way to go for the States. For one, it was riddled with infighting for control. So the “Founding Fathers” were searching for a system that would consolidate that control in the hands of the wealthy few, and BAM! federalism was born.

John Jay, Hamilton and Adams, John to be exact, were the major contributors, if I remember my history correctly. But Iraq did not go through this process. It rather went from a dictatorship to elections in just a couple of years. And to boot, it was not their idea; rather it was another countries dictating their political process to them. Sorry, but that is doomed from the start, not matter how noble you try to paint the series of events; it was still a form of imperialism.

But please keep in mind that Yugoslavia under Tito was called a Socialist Federal state, so capitalism is not a prerequisite for federalism. So basically it is just a number of states that fall together under the strong central government.

Amb. Crocker during his recent testimony to Congress used the word Federalism, about a ga-zillion times while answering questions from the Congress. What he was speaking about, IMO, is the “slimy” Plan B of the Bush Admin. That is that Iraq would become three separate states and that their would be a central government but not a strong one. The Kurds are already functioning as a separate state, laboring in the interests of their beliefs and ignoring a national Iraq identity. The idea of partitioning seems to be the plan, but it is being put together to make it appear that the Iraqis are behind this move, not that Washington is pushing it.

Once again it is all about money, never a thought of the Iraqi people. Will the US be safer? Should not the question be, will the Iraqis ever have a descent life? But wait! The US is not into nation building. I believe I heard someone in the Bush Admin say this. If you believe anything these toads have to say, then I have a bridge for sale.


What Can Democrats Do? Page 2

Patraeus was an excellent salesman in his testimony before the two houses of Congress. The Dems are up to their butts in the quagmire. They are losers, before you try to lump me with the Repubs, they are bigger losers.

The General and the Ambassador played their parts well. The Dems took the punch and are now on their heels reeling from that punch. What can they do? Their position is set in stone! Their options are few. They will give the Pres everything he wants.

Even the Pres is punching at the Congress, before the elections, he will announce a draw down of 30, 000 troops by next summer. BAM! Another hit to the head of the Dems. The Repubs are making all the political points and it may carry over to the elections. If it does then nothing is written in stone for the outcome of the elections.

The Dems are losing ALL support for their so-called agenda. The best question to ask is, “how will these morons salvage their political lives”?

By the way, if you were paying attention to the General’s comments, he gave the Dems the most perfect opening for their stands. But will they seize the day? When asked if the surge is making the US safer, he basically said no, but it was making Iraq safer.

To Dems: There is your opening will you be smart enough to seize it? We will see!