Has anybody other than Obama remembered the War in Iraq?

Joel Wing, the author of the blog Musings on Iraq has correctly pointed out the number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq has declined from a high water mark of 171,000 in October 2007 to a mere 77,500 today. This is mainly a result of Obama's withdrawal strategy he announced soon after being sworn in as President. This fact has mainly been overlooked by the mainstream media, who have been preoccupied by the President's Afghanistan strategy. Yes, many of the troops being withdrawn from Iraq will eventually end up in Afghanistan, but that does not mean that the United States withdrawing from Iraq is not a big deal. The war in Iraq is arguably one of the most controversial military incursions the U.S. has ever engaged in, after Vietnam. Afghanistan, however, is far from that.

President Obama announced his strategy in Afghanistan to the usual responses. The liberals criticized the surge and conservatives criticized the planned withdrawal. The notable thing there was the existence of a withdrawal at all. Had Obama really wanted to fight the war in Afghanistan he would not have set a withdrawal date. By pulling troops from Iraq to Afghanistan he was doing a politically popular move. Once public opinion toward the War in Afghanistan shifts toward opposition, Obama can easily pull all the remaining troops out of the Middle East. Expect public opinion to solidify in the coming months around strong disapproval of the war. When that happens, it is likely we will see most combat troops returning home.


This is what I hope will happen. Escalating the War in Afghanistan was a pillar of Obama's campaign, one which seems to be forgotten by most anti-war activists. If he doesn't withdraw from Afghanistan, get ready for Lyndon Johnson (The Sequel.)

Why were we even talking about repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the first place?

Rand Paul, the winner of the Republican Senatorial primary in Kentucky, has since made statements indicating he is opposed to several portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main title he was referring to the title which bars racial discrimination in private enterprise. He made the statements while being interviewed by Rachael Maddow of MSNBC and has come under fire from liberals and conservatives alike. Conservatives have gone as far as criticizing Rand Paul for not committing to a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Liberals, such as Jim Clyburn (D-SC) have called his comments "appalling."

Nonetheless, this debate over his comments couldn't come at a worse time. Portions of the voting rights act were almost struck down earlier this year in a closely watched Supreme Court decision. Not many people are still talking about it, but George W. Bush pushed for the privatization of Social Security less than 10 years ago. These pieces of legislation form some of the most important achievements in the history of the United States. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is so important to who we are as Americans it is even taught so in public school textbooks.

So why are we even talking about it as if it is a campaign issue? It increasingly appears the political climate is moving closer and closer to what it was 100 years ago. We don't have to be moving backwards. This country was built on freedom, equality, and individual opportunity. Any person who claims to oppose such core aspects of Civil Rights legislation oppose these fundamental principles. Let's send a message to these politicians that we do not want our country going back 100 years.

Nominations should not be made for political reasons

It has recently been revealed that President Obama offered the position of Secretary of Education to Colin Powell before nominating Arne Duncan, the CEO of the Chicago public school system. Colin Powell is the former Secretary of State under George Bush (43), former National Security Adviser (1987-1989), and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993). Before this he was a four star general. He is known to be a moderate Republican, advocating for a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, among other things. Why on earth did Obama nominate him to be Secretary of Education if he has no experience in the matter?

President Obama, upon taking office in 2009, began to nominate moderate Republicans to high up positions within his Administration. Ray LaHood, a moderate Republican House member from Illinois, was nominated and confirmed as the Secretary of Transportation. He served on the House Transporation and Infrastructure Committee, though held no other qualifications for the position. John Huntsman, the moderate Republican senator from Utah, was nominated and confirmed to become the Ambassador to China. Though he is fluent in Mandarin, many viewed this nomination as a potential way to remove a strong 2012 presidential election contender from the country.

That is not to say the picks have all been chosen for political considerations. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense under Bush and now Obama, was widely regarded as a strong man for the position. John McHugh, a moderate Republican from upstate New York, was nominated as the Secretary of the Army after being the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. These were very deserved picks.

For the most part, the Obama Administration has clearly been selecting moderate Republicans and placing them in his administration, far from where they could have an effect on the direction and policy of their party. This is especially true of John Huntsman, who was a vocal critic of the rightward swing of the GOP until his nomination. Preventing a Republican messiah from appearing is an effective way to prevent an upswing from their 18 point approval ratings. It is not, however, an effective governing strategy. Colin Powell was not qualified to be the Secretary of Education and Ray LaHood was equally unqualified to be Secretary of Transportation. Politics will only get you so far, but governing well will get you even farther.