Congress may actually pass an economic stimulus bill this week, which is good news for the short-term needs of the country. There is no question the economy is tottering, and could easily tip over from recession to depression, so a bill that focuses on saving jobs and creating jobs is desperately needed. The good news is that the bill will definitely help achieve some of those aims. The bad news is that it will lay a crushing debt burden on taxpayers for the future, which can only be addressed if government becomes far more efficient in the use of tax dollars than it has in the past. That could very well force, down the road, what many of us have wanted for years, a smaller, more efficient government. But somehow, that doesn't seem likely. Because Congress hasn't figured out that the model for government is, and should be, changing. And the best example is the stimulus package. Despite billions of dollars in cuts, it still contains way too much pork. And some of the cuts (to make way for that pork) seem to make no sense, such as dropping $40 billion to help keep schools from having to fire teachers. That's counter-productive. The bill is supposed to save or create jobs, not leave them threatened. Both sides of the aisle bear the blame. The Democratic leadership rolled over on way too many pet projects among its members, losing sight of the long-term goal of the bill. And Republicans kept insisting on sticking to the same failed policies of the past, and playing the same old games where personal and party political power carried more weight than the needs of the nation. One GOP leader actually admitted his goal for the bill, and the amendments he introduced, were designed to divide the Democrats and make them look bad. So much for caring about the people of this country. Both parties should be ashamed. It is time for Congress to look up from its myopic and petty party power games, and its proclivity for pork, and look at the desperate state of the nation, focusing solely on programs that stand a good chance of meeting the goal of keeping people working. Making things work should be a bipartisan issue. This bill should be about America, not the Republican or Democratic parties. -- Kelly Everitt

Our work is not finished

Posted Wednesday, September 11, 2013, at 8:36 AM

Twelve years ago today was one of those times where you remember where you were and what you were doing when you heard the news.

The attack on the two World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon are seared in our memory, joining a pantheon of events in the electronic age that include the two shuttle disasters, the landing on the moon, Kennedy's assassination (50 years ago this November) and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

As a nation, we have rarely been as united as we were in those early dark days after the attacks.

Those terrorist attacks launched America's longest war -- in Afghanistan (we're still there) -- the war in Iraq (we're out but the country is melting down behind us), and the open-ended War on Terror in response to a threat that realistically will never go completely away (but will keep all those restrictions on our liberties firmly in place).

When we hit the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan our blood was hot. We wanted revenge. It's a rule other nations should take to heart. Never royally piss off the United States. You can chip at the edges. You can annoy us. But don't ever make us genuinely mad, because if you do, we'll introduce you to a few Marines we know (and soldiers and sailors and airmen).

Still, 12 years after the attacks, al-Qaeda is a shadow of its former self, and every time it comes out from under the rocks where it's been hiding it gets hammered back into the ground.

The threats are still there, but the blood has cooled and the American public is tired of war. For that matter, so are the troops, and especially their families, who've watched them head off to war and then worry themselves sick until they came home. Most of the time.

That war fatigue is being expressed in many ways, but perhaps most significantly in the president's efforts to punish Syria for using chemical weapons on its own people.

Our standing in the world isn't quite what most Americans think it is. There's some tarnish on our shining silver armor. But when push comes to shove, we're still the only nation that really acts on its moral principles, we're still the only nation the rest of the world can turn to for help against the world's bullies. We can't solve every problem, but we try to solve the ones we can. That makes us still a very special nation.

A week ago, it seemed certain we'd be punishing Assad this week. Now, it's not so certain (Congress, as usual, is playing politics and following the president's lead at being indecisive). But if we can do some damage to Assad's regime (and the Hezbollah/Iran "volunteers" fighting for him) without risking any American lives directly, using stand-off missiles and drones, then it seems to us the risk/reward is worth it.

Because, no matter how beat up, tattered and torn we may have gotten in the last decade, we are still the good guys, the ones who genuinely care. Some highly limited strikes will at least send a message that bullies must pay a price. We may not be able to cripple Assad, but we can at least sting him and let him know there are still a few who will stand up for humanity.

-- Kelly Everitt

Comments

View 10 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

"We can't solve every problem, but we try to solve the ones we can."

Why don't we start with our own problems here on our soil, you can't take of others until you can take care of yourself. And I don't understand why America needs to be the country that paddles these bullies. I am sorry but I don't care, whats the difference in using a poison and using missles and bombs?

-- Posted by shockwave on Wed, Sep 11, 2013, at 3:58 PM
Dear Editor:

We don't think the USA needs to attack, bomb or police Syria but I understand your rationale and cannot find much fault. But for my friends, family and co-workers, we all are united in a "no war, no bombing" mindset and opinions. To each their own.

As far a Moral majority's logic is concerned, we all wonder what side he would have been on in WWII? The Nazis didn't seem all that friendly to the Red Commie's of Russia so that must mean the USA was supporting the USSR? Japan didn't seem all that friendly to the Red Chinese? That darn old critical thinking or lack there of surfaces again with the ultra-conservatives.

Shockwave, the difference is chemical weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction and have been outlawed in civilized warfare since about 1930.

-- Posted by sara-connor on Wed, Sep 11, 2013, at 4:55 PM
The United States, Great Britain, France and other countries stood by while the Holocaust was going on to avoid war. Before World War II America was very isolationist and Roosevelt ran for President on a campaign that we weren't going into the war. Secretly, he knew that we had to, in order to stop Hitler. Japan attacking us was probably an answer to many prayers.

I wonder how history will judge us in regards to chemical warfare against children in Syria?

-- Posted by Sam_1776 on Wed, Sep 11, 2013, at 8:11 PM
CoolBreeze you remind me of someone else that just liked to bash liberals and used other people's words to do it rather than his own. -- Do you have anything to provide on the subject of the blog?

-- Posted by Sam_1776 on Thu, Sep 12, 2013, at 7:10 AM
Re: moral majority's comment at the top o' the comments

Anybody else had the chance to see Argo?

As I understand the basis of the Iranian Revolution, Jranians revolted against the Shah and the support the United States had provided the Shah during his nearly 40 year reign.

You reckon we're going to win over a lot of Syrians by supporting Assad in his fight with al-kida (sic)?

What do you think of Assad's "get 'em while they're young" approach? Do you suppose he employs that approach to offset "al-kida's" efforts at recruiting youngsters?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Sep 12, 2013, at 9:06 AM
I have to admit that the Syrian thing has had me puzzled. I found an article from a someone that seems to know what he is talking about. The whole situation of why Syria is fighting, and why the chemical weapons use are a really big deal was explained very well.

"9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-s...

-- Posted by Sam_1776 on Thu, Sep 12, 2013, at 6:24 PM
Moral majority you are picking and choosing out of context excerpts from an article that was intended to provide more information on a complicated situation.

You seem to be missing the main points.

-- Posted by Sam_1776 on Fri, Sep 13, 2013, at 3:10 PM
Bad guys trying to retain or gain control of banned weapons. What will Russia be stuck with if Assad falls? They have a presence in Syria that they may not want to give up if the wrong bad guys win.

Time will tell how this will game out.

The nations involved may be playing agreed roles. Russia has the presence in Syria and Putin doesn't want to suffer the indignation of seeing their ally walloped by the United States; Putin doesn't want a bunch of belligerent radicals with chemical weapons on their continent. Russia is under threat from Islamic fundamentalists as well.

Russia plays peacemaker and the United States keeps the big stick handy.

Assad consistently denied having chemical weapons until this week. Now, he's admitted that Syria does possess them. In fact, he's willing to give them up and join other nations in condemning them.

Both Putin and President Obama are putting pressure on Assad.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Sep 13, 2013, at 5:44 PM
50 years from now we may find that Putin and Obama were working together to solve a problem or at least mitigate the risks.

-- Posted by Sam_1776 on Fri, Sep 13, 2013, at 6:04 PM
Who is putting and what does golf have to do with Syria?

-- Posted by Geordey on Mon, Sep 16, 2013, at 6:36 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register