Is this what a run-up to War looks like?

Today, the United States claimed that Iranian supplied roadside bombs were responsible for 170 US troops deaths since 2004. It seems that the United States government is slowly prepping the American public to begin blaming Iran for Iraq's troubles. Instead of taking responsibility, President Bush seems to be finding evidence of Iranian involvement in the anti-U.S. insurgency.

While Iran is not a necessarily a good neighbor, these claims have not been verified by an independent source, states BBC News. To avoid another mess and War, the United States needs to begin multi-lateral talks. Even if Iran balks, then at least the U.S. government can say they tried to talk. Instead, the United States government wants to push unverifiable evidence to find any reason to depose of the Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Hopefully, the American press and public have learned to be leery of American intelligence reports and not jump the gun on War. Now is the time to question and stand up to the people we have elected. If Iran truly is a threat to world peace then it is up to the United States and other nations to come to an agreement without beginning another Middle East conquest.

Barack Embraces Netroots

Today Barack Obama made an announcement from his website, via video link, that he is going to be making an important speech tomorrow from Springfield, Illinois, the state capital. In this video announcement he mentioned how he would create a hub for netroots campaigners to interact with each other and organize through his website.

This strategy is what propelled Howard Dean to the forefront of the 2004 Democratic primaries until "The Scream" was broadcast into the homes all across America

Above the Fray

I have avoided preaching on this blog until now, but I feel that since Monday will be a day that is inundated with debate over Senate resolutions on the War in Iraq, today was my day to get on The Mount.

Partisanship will kill this nation. We are all allowed to have our own political opinions. I have my own and so does everyone I know, however, our legislators and executives, while they are bred to be partisan, should learn to compromise more efficiently. Every Sunday morning, many of our legislators and prognosticators pull out their soap boxes and start attacking the opposing party.

What does this accomplish? Pointing out the other sides weakness is key to winning votes, but it is not key to solving critical issues saving this country. An example of this is Bill Kristol's editorial in the Weekly Standard today. In his article he says

"John Warner of Virginia, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine are the four Republican senators (in addition to Nebraska's Chuck Hagel) currently signed on to the Democrats' anti-surge, anti-Petraeus, anti-troops, and anti-victory resolution."

We have to ask Bill Kristol what exactly he is trying to accomplish by publishing such venomous words, because if it is unity in the face of "the terrorists" then he is acting in discord. It is this kind of language that divides.

If this country is to succeed through the War on Terror and into the future as a global player, then we have to try and stay above the fray of partisanship. Although America as an "empire" will most likely be eclipsed by China in 25 years as the new superpower, the nation will cede power much like Britain did to America in the early 20th Century. To maintain a working government and a civil electorate, we have to compromise and learn not be consumed by our own human nature. It was Henry Clay, "The Great Compromiser" who said, "“Let him who elevates himself above humanity . . . say, if he pleases, 'I will never compromise'; but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromise.”