In the face of the overwhelming success of the election in Iraq yesterday, what are those of us who opposed the war to make of this?
We must acknowledge the desire of Iraqis to find stability and democracy – I, and I’m sure my readers, never doubted it. They turned out to the polls in great numbers, braving terrorist threats and actions. There can be no doubt that this war torn nation and its citizens will go to great lengths to stop the carnage. This acknowledgement in no way, however, signifies that how we came to this day and this result was an appropriate action on the part of our government.
That a people would rather elect their officials and select their constitution and form of government instead of living under a tyrannical regime should surprise no one. Frankly, I will admit surprise at the large number of voters who turned out. The threats made by the terrorists were very frightening and it took courage to stand in open lines at the polling stations.
In retrospect, the confidence of the Bush Administration that an election could be held and that many voters would brave the dangers was correct. Obviously, the intelligence within Iraq is improving. But what does all this mean?
My first thought is that my mindset during the Inaugural Address of two weeks ago was improperly focused and I evaluated it in the wrong light. My initial reaction to the speech was, as directed by the words of the president, to look to the future. While our military position in Iraq made it obvious that we could not at this time sustain another war and rebuilding project in an even larger and more difficult situation such as in Iran, President Bush was staking a claim to the hearts and minds of oppressed people across the globe.
In the wake of the Iraqi election, perhaps we were looking in the wrong direction. Maybe we should have been looking backward. Since all of our reasons for attacking Iraq and toppling the existing regime turned out to be wrong, perhaps the Inaugural Address was meant to be President Bush’s apology for the war. Since why we went in could not be supported, the new Bush Doctrine of helping oppressed people everywhere could be applied retrospectively and all would be made right with American citizens and voters.
Unless one buys into the idea that toppling Saddam was a good thing for the Iraqi people, everything we’ve done is a terrible waste of lives and resources and makes no sense in the War on Terror. Agreeing with the Bush Doctrine makes the regime change in Baghdad a permissible use of American military might and an ex post facto legitimizing of the action. And the president’s constant mantra of stating that the Iraqis are better off without Saddam suddenly takes on new meaning.
All of these mental gymnastics must, however, be performed in isolation from the rest of the world. Nothing has changed in the way we went to war except our after the fact explanation of why we did it. We did not secure the approval of the Security Council. Our coalition of the willing is still us, Great Britain, and token support from a small percentage of the nations of the world. And all of the problems of illegality of our preemptive (really it was preventive) action under international law have not been expunged.
We know that the Iraqis want peace, democracy and stability. We knew that before the war. We can deduce the same for the people of Iran, North Korea and just about any other place in the world governed by a tyrant. That said, what’s next? I don’t know, but there are still questions to be answered.
The Iraqis will have a self selected government within weeks. They will have a wonderful constitution in the very near future. The presence of more than 100,000 troops from the U.S. and its coalition partners assures that the new government will have time to prepare for its own security and survival. When the Americans leave, will the coalition of ethnic groups hold? Will the new Iraqi government require significant financial and military aid even after the oil revenue begins to pour in? Even further out, if a coup is attempted, would we intervene militarily? Could we? Could we not?
Yesterday was great. The future lies ahead, a great unkown.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, January 31, 2005
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Carnac the Magnificent
With the death this week of late night host Johnny Carson, those of us who watched him for years were saddened by his loss and the reminder of our own mortality. But sadness should not lead to despair. As Johnny borrowed liberally from his predecessors, like his own hero, Jack Benny, so others borrow from him. As we recognize these techniques in a new generation of comedians, we can take comfort and smile that nothing is ever really lost and gone forever.
You recall how with the great red and gold combination pillow and turban, Carnac the Magnificent could divine the answer to any question without the need of reading or hearing the query. Thus, “Sis-boom-baa,” was the answer to the yet to be asked, “What sounds does an exploding sheep make?”
And you thought we’d never hear such cleverness again. Silly reader.
The answers by George are: “The Iraqi people are better off without Saddam.” “Condi Rice will make a great Secretary of State and should be confirmed without delay.” “Al Gonzalez will make a great Attorney General and should be confirmed without further delay.”
Give up? Okay, I won’t tease you any longer; here are the questions in order:
“Since all of the reasons you gave for attacking Iraq turned out to be wrong and we’ve lost almost two thousand American lives, more than ten thousand of our troops have been wounded, almost twenty thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, we poured more than two hundred billion dollars into the desert sand, and we’ve lost our focus on the War on Terror, was the Iraq War worth fighting?”
“Since Secretary Designate Rice withheld information from the Congress, press and public on the uses of the aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq before the war, and completely misrepresented the threat posed by Iraq, should she not be rejected by the Senate?”
“Since Attorney General Designate Gonzalez was the architect of a policy to undermine the Geneva Convention’s prohibition on the torture of those in our custody, and since he refused to explain his role in this to the Senate Judiciary Committee, should he not be rejected by the full Senate?”
Clearly dear reader our period of mourning for Johnny should be shortened as we realize that his best routines will never die.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
You recall how with the great red and gold combination pillow and turban, Carnac the Magnificent could divine the answer to any question without the need of reading or hearing the query. Thus, “Sis-boom-baa,” was the answer to the yet to be asked, “What sounds does an exploding sheep make?”
And you thought we’d never hear such cleverness again. Silly reader.
The answers by George are: “The Iraqi people are better off without Saddam.” “Condi Rice will make a great Secretary of State and should be confirmed without delay.” “Al Gonzalez will make a great Attorney General and should be confirmed without further delay.”
Give up? Okay, I won’t tease you any longer; here are the questions in order:
“Since all of the reasons you gave for attacking Iraq turned out to be wrong and we’ve lost almost two thousand American lives, more than ten thousand of our troops have been wounded, almost twenty thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed, we poured more than two hundred billion dollars into the desert sand, and we’ve lost our focus on the War on Terror, was the Iraq War worth fighting?”
“Since Secretary Designate Rice withheld information from the Congress, press and public on the uses of the aluminum tubes acquired by Iraq before the war, and completely misrepresented the threat posed by Iraq, should she not be rejected by the Senate?”
“Since Attorney General Designate Gonzalez was the architect of a policy to undermine the Geneva Convention’s prohibition on the torture of those in our custody, and since he refused to explain his role in this to the Senate Judiciary Committee, should he not be rejected by the full Senate?”
Clearly dear reader our period of mourning for Johnny should be shortened as we realize that his best routines will never die.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Amendment XXII
A question that often arises these days is whether the Twenty-second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed. That amendment limits U.S. presidents to two elected terms and to not more than ten years total in that office.
The amendment was proposed in 1947 in reaction to the long tenure of Franklin Roosevelt. When the amendment was adopted in 1951, I – a youngster of but seventeen years - was outraged as it was clearly directed at my political hero. With the passage of time, my political views and the presidency itself have changed.
Despite having feet of clay, Roosevelt remains my hero. Since my youth, when anything he did was in a word `heroic’, heroes and the presidency have changed. Until recently, the private lives of those in leadership positions were generally off limits to the public, and our leaders were portrayed as the unalloyed gold standard of humanity. Today, even seventeen year olds realize that our leaders are mere mortals.
Times have changed since 1951. Men are smaller, but that has given rise to a much more powerful presidency. Theodore Roosevelt’s `bully pulpit’ has morphed into the ubiquitous and unrelenting presence and sound of George Bush in our living rooms. While politicians and pundits scream for our attention, only the President of the United States commands that great window in our homes and cannot be banished from our TV screens.
In my posting of December 28, 2004, Blog On, I made the case that the presidency has grown too powerful vis-à-vis the Congress and the courts and that our system of checks and balances is out of whack.
While I voted for President George W. Bush in 2000, The Iraq War, his tax policy tilt in favor of the rich, and the tremendous trade and budget deficits caused me to vote for Senator John F. Kerry. Since then, the president’s ability to transmit his message and to not waver has drawn both my ire and admiration. While harboring no personal animus toward Mr. Bush, I believe that permitting him or anyone else to run for more than two terms would not be in the best interest of the country and would not favor repealing the Amendment.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
The amendment was proposed in 1947 in reaction to the long tenure of Franklin Roosevelt. When the amendment was adopted in 1951, I – a youngster of but seventeen years - was outraged as it was clearly directed at my political hero. With the passage of time, my political views and the presidency itself have changed.
Despite having feet of clay, Roosevelt remains my hero. Since my youth, when anything he did was in a word `heroic’, heroes and the presidency have changed. Until recently, the private lives of those in leadership positions were generally off limits to the public, and our leaders were portrayed as the unalloyed gold standard of humanity. Today, even seventeen year olds realize that our leaders are mere mortals.
Times have changed since 1951. Men are smaller, but that has given rise to a much more powerful presidency. Theodore Roosevelt’s `bully pulpit’ has morphed into the ubiquitous and unrelenting presence and sound of George Bush in our living rooms. While politicians and pundits scream for our attention, only the President of the United States commands that great window in our homes and cannot be banished from our TV screens.
In my posting of December 28, 2004, Blog On, I made the case that the presidency has grown too powerful vis-à-vis the Congress and the courts and that our system of checks and balances is out of whack.
While I voted for President George W. Bush in 2000, The Iraq War, his tax policy tilt in favor of the rich, and the tremendous trade and budget deficits caused me to vote for Senator John F. Kerry. Since then, the president’s ability to transmit his message and to not waver has drawn both my ire and admiration. While harboring no personal animus toward Mr. Bush, I believe that permitting him or anyone else to run for more than two terms would not be in the best interest of the country and would not favor repealing the Amendment.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Just What Do We Owe To Our Grandchildren?
President Bush has made a point of repeatedly reminding us that we must reform Social Security so that our grandchildren will not be left unprotected when the program can no longer pay full benefits sometime after 2042. Just what do we owe our grandchildren?
During the Great Depression, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this nation took on unprecedented debt as a result of public works and social spending deemed essential to maintaining our society. This great program of Keynesian economics may or may not have contributed to the ending of bad times, but it certainly worked as political tool in preserving our government and nation in its worst economic crisis.
Before we knew it, we were at war with forces of evil that exceed even those we face today since it was directed by nation states with the power to back it up with arms. Again that greatest generation did what it had to do to preserve protect and defend the nation against its enemies.
Frankly, these double barreled crises called for action without regard to what it might do to the children and grandchildren of the nation. In the first, our social fabric was at stake and in the second our very survival was in question. During the period between 1932 and 1945, we took on greater debt than could ever have been dreamed of just a decade earlier. There was no concern over how would repay this debt or its impact on future generations.
That debt has never been paid in full and is now commingled with debt that can be attributed to the Civil War and perhaps even earlier. Certainly dear reader, you don’t think that we compartmentalize our debts by year or event. You must know that debt loses its identity with the years and is rolled over – the new with the old – as new paper is issued and old retired by the Treasury.
President Bush says over and over again that he is intent on protecting our grandchildren from a crisis in Social Security funding. This is a problem not of his making, but it is one that he is bound and determined to bring to our attention. Rome is burning, and he is intent on solving a problem that can wait? Could it be that he is attempting to distract us? As I’ve written before, this is red herring designed to take our minds off of our real problems.
We are at war in Iraq. We overthrew a regime – admittedly hated and without morals – that was no threat to us or our allies. The two major charges against Saddam’s government: that they had weapons of mass destruction with which they threatened us and our allies; and that they were conspiring with al Qaeda in an effort to aid that evil institution – by making it possible for the terrorists to acquire WMDs. No such weapons were uncovered and no such conspiracy was proved.
As the president talked about a nation at war, he asked no sacrifice from us, the citizens of this generation. In fact he pushed through a major tax program that reduced our liability in funding our adventures. As an aside, this reduction was far greater for those with high income and wealth than on those of modest means, but that’s for another posting. The rationale for the cuts was clear and simple, we needed to stimulate the economy. Even giving on that point, the president now alleges that the economy is going great guns but we must extend the tax benefits – that still favor the rich over the middle class.
Social Security must be addressed, but is certainly not something that must be faced while we are at war and in budget crisis. Our people are living longer – and healthier – and there is no reason why over time we could not raise the age of retirement. Some of our people will make a lot more money than the amount taxed by Social Security. That doesn’t mean that a larger amount should not be taxed; it is after all an insurance program. I find it ludicrous that one of the selling points for the private accounts is that one can be left as part of an estate. To me SS is a term policy for those who live to collect and for the dependents of those who die or become disabled. Why you would divert a third of the self contribution and turn it into an inheritable asset while the fund continues to gallop its way to bankruptcy.
As many have noted, for years we have had retirement accounts but millions of our citizens, especially lower income people, do not participate in these programs. That has some bearing on why I would favor the government investing a portion of the fund in slightly higher yielding investments – with the obvious caveats about risk. Clearly the intent for me would be to extend the solvency period and not enrich the few lottery winners who invest very well over their careers. These winners have the talent and will have the resources to win without further government support.
The country is in the midst of a demographic revolution. Since readily available and reliable birth control measures became available in the sixties all elements of the society (not just the rich) have been able to reduce the number of children born per woman. Over time, we will have to adjust to that fact. Right now, however, we can tinker on the edges of our social system, Social Security, and demographic problems while observing how nations that are even more demographically challenged deal with the problem. Obviously, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and many others will show us the way.
Our SS fund is sufficient until about 2042. And contrary to what the president says it will not be bankrupt then. If we do nothing, benefits will have to be reduced substantially or retirement made even later. If we tinker modestly at this time, we can push that time frame out by many decades. Long before that time, many of the mature nations above will have solved the problem by hook, crook, or bankruptcy, and we will have the opportunity to pick the best models and courses.
I believe that it is for each generation to solve the problems it faces. I’m not saying we should intentionally ruin our grandchildren for our pleasure and comfort, but we don’t have to go out of or way to solve their problems. The greatest generation paid for Keynesian solutions to the Great Depression and created the greatest military machine in the history of warfare with borrowed dollars that we gladly pay for even today. Had they not saddled their grandchildren with this debt, there might well be no United States.
In the same vein, those of us who came of age in time to fight – if that’s the word for it – the Cold War created the great technology that underlies much of our success today. We defended the free world and saved Western Civilization once again. This too involved debt that is commingled with our present obligations to be paid much later.
Still the president, the protector of generations yet unborn, asks for no sacrifice from those of us alive and kicking. He wants to take on more debt for the future so that some child will have a chance at winning a stock lottery.
All this while, the president is calling for us to take on debt to solve the SS `crisis’ while carrying budget and trade deficits of record proportions. He has no trouble solving a problem of his choosing while ignoring one of his making.
I’m for working on the budget and tax problems of today and tomorrow and only playing with the edges of a problem that will become a crisis only after more than another generation comes and goes.
We are a nation with gigantic problems. The Iraq War is directly attributable to President Bush. The budget deficits are as much his as anyone’s, yet he insists on continuing his tax cuts and solving the problem with Social Security while our men and women fight and die in a cause that clearly does not in any way measure up to the one described in the run up to the conflict
We owe our grandchildren the inheritance of the best society and healthiest nation we can pass on. Beyond that, they we will have to solve their own problems
Blog on!
Wild Bill
During the Great Depression, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this nation took on unprecedented debt as a result of public works and social spending deemed essential to maintaining our society. This great program of Keynesian economics may or may not have contributed to the ending of bad times, but it certainly worked as political tool in preserving our government and nation in its worst economic crisis.
Before we knew it, we were at war with forces of evil that exceed even those we face today since it was directed by nation states with the power to back it up with arms. Again that greatest generation did what it had to do to preserve protect and defend the nation against its enemies.
Frankly, these double barreled crises called for action without regard to what it might do to the children and grandchildren of the nation. In the first, our social fabric was at stake and in the second our very survival was in question. During the period between 1932 and 1945, we took on greater debt than could ever have been dreamed of just a decade earlier. There was no concern over how would repay this debt or its impact on future generations.
That debt has never been paid in full and is now commingled with debt that can be attributed to the Civil War and perhaps even earlier. Certainly dear reader, you don’t think that we compartmentalize our debts by year or event. You must know that debt loses its identity with the years and is rolled over – the new with the old – as new paper is issued and old retired by the Treasury.
President Bush says over and over again that he is intent on protecting our grandchildren from a crisis in Social Security funding. This is a problem not of his making, but it is one that he is bound and determined to bring to our attention. Rome is burning, and he is intent on solving a problem that can wait? Could it be that he is attempting to distract us? As I’ve written before, this is red herring designed to take our minds off of our real problems.
We are at war in Iraq. We overthrew a regime – admittedly hated and without morals – that was no threat to us or our allies. The two major charges against Saddam’s government: that they had weapons of mass destruction with which they threatened us and our allies; and that they were conspiring with al Qaeda in an effort to aid that evil institution – by making it possible for the terrorists to acquire WMDs. No such weapons were uncovered and no such conspiracy was proved.
As the president talked about a nation at war, he asked no sacrifice from us, the citizens of this generation. In fact he pushed through a major tax program that reduced our liability in funding our adventures. As an aside, this reduction was far greater for those with high income and wealth than on those of modest means, but that’s for another posting. The rationale for the cuts was clear and simple, we needed to stimulate the economy. Even giving on that point, the president now alleges that the economy is going great guns but we must extend the tax benefits – that still favor the rich over the middle class.
Social Security must be addressed, but is certainly not something that must be faced while we are at war and in budget crisis. Our people are living longer – and healthier – and there is no reason why over time we could not raise the age of retirement. Some of our people will make a lot more money than the amount taxed by Social Security. That doesn’t mean that a larger amount should not be taxed; it is after all an insurance program. I find it ludicrous that one of the selling points for the private accounts is that one can be left as part of an estate. To me SS is a term policy for those who live to collect and for the dependents of those who die or become disabled. Why you would divert a third of the self contribution and turn it into an inheritable asset while the fund continues to gallop its way to bankruptcy.
As many have noted, for years we have had retirement accounts but millions of our citizens, especially lower income people, do not participate in these programs. That has some bearing on why I would favor the government investing a portion of the fund in slightly higher yielding investments – with the obvious caveats about risk. Clearly the intent for me would be to extend the solvency period and not enrich the few lottery winners who invest very well over their careers. These winners have the talent and will have the resources to win without further government support.
The country is in the midst of a demographic revolution. Since readily available and reliable birth control measures became available in the sixties all elements of the society (not just the rich) have been able to reduce the number of children born per woman. Over time, we will have to adjust to that fact. Right now, however, we can tinker on the edges of our social system, Social Security, and demographic problems while observing how nations that are even more demographically challenged deal with the problem. Obviously, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and many others will show us the way.
Our SS fund is sufficient until about 2042. And contrary to what the president says it will not be bankrupt then. If we do nothing, benefits will have to be reduced substantially or retirement made even later. If we tinker modestly at this time, we can push that time frame out by many decades. Long before that time, many of the mature nations above will have solved the problem by hook, crook, or bankruptcy, and we will have the opportunity to pick the best models and courses.
I believe that it is for each generation to solve the problems it faces. I’m not saying we should intentionally ruin our grandchildren for our pleasure and comfort, but we don’t have to go out of or way to solve their problems. The greatest generation paid for Keynesian solutions to the Great Depression and created the greatest military machine in the history of warfare with borrowed dollars that we gladly pay for even today. Had they not saddled their grandchildren with this debt, there might well be no United States.
In the same vein, those of us who came of age in time to fight – if that’s the word for it – the Cold War created the great technology that underlies much of our success today. We defended the free world and saved Western Civilization once again. This too involved debt that is commingled with our present obligations to be paid much later.
Still the president, the protector of generations yet unborn, asks for no sacrifice from those of us alive and kicking. He wants to take on more debt for the future so that some child will have a chance at winning a stock lottery.
All this while, the president is calling for us to take on debt to solve the SS `crisis’ while carrying budget and trade deficits of record proportions. He has no trouble solving a problem of his choosing while ignoring one of his making.
I’m for working on the budget and tax problems of today and tomorrow and only playing with the edges of a problem that will become a crisis only after more than another generation comes and goes.
We are a nation with gigantic problems. The Iraq War is directly attributable to President Bush. The budget deficits are as much his as anyone’s, yet he insists on continuing his tax cuts and solving the problem with Social Security while our men and women fight and die in a cause that clearly does not in any way measure up to the one described in the run up to the conflict
We owe our grandchildren the inheritance of the best society and healthiest nation we can pass on. Beyond that, they we will have to solve their own problems
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, January 24, 2005
Just How Did It Happen?
Often decisions in government – and I presume elsewhere – are made on the “I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with facts,” system.
My GUESS is that this tried and true method got us into the situation in Iraq. Let me make it perfectly clear; this posting is no more than conjecture.
For all of the reasons enumerated in the press, on television, and on numerous blogs, including this one, we wanted to go to war against and to topple the Saddam regime in Iraq. This hypothetical case does not address arguments of preemption and preventive action that I and many others have raised numerous times.
Before the final decision was made, there were some uncomfortable issues on the table concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. inspection teams operating in the country had been unable to find any, and there some folks – certainly not including me – who doubted elements of the intelligence, for example that involving alleged purchases of yellow cake uranium.
The decision makers, including high ranking officers preparing to invade, military and civilian leaders at the Pentagon, other high ranking executives at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, at the State Department and elsewhere, as well as the Vice President and, ultimately, the President had to weigh the inability of the U.N. inspectors to locate caches and protestations of the Iraqis that there weren’t any forbidden weapons.
Our own intelligence and that of our allies indicated to almost a certainty that there were such weapons or programs to develop them in Iraq. So, if WMDs were the rationale for the war, why not go ahead and cause regime change? What could be the downside?
Under those conditions, based on my own government experience, if the big boys wanted war, most of the bureaucrats I’ve known and the political leaders would have attacked in a heart beat. The underlying thought was almost certainly that Saddam just wouldn’t have given up these weapons; it’s as simple as that. Our leaders – not just the people in this administration whom I’ve beaten about the head and shoulders for so long – but virtually all of them are rather cynical when it comes to the motives and actions of the leaders of other nations, especially petty third world tyrants.
We constantly ascribe completely cynical motives to them and believe that they maintain power through the unsentimental use of power to crush their enemies and in lying about it to the world at large. Therefore, in my view, it would have been incomprehensible to almost any high level appointee that I ever knew that someone like Saddam wasn’t telling bald faced lies when he denied having such weapons that he did in fact once have.
Therefore, without trying to slander some very fine public servants I’ve known, I’m convinced that virtually no one in the advisory or decision making chain ever dreamed that we wouldn’t find enough WMDs, such as canisters of poison gas, to be able to point to when the dust settled and say, “See, told you so.”
So while opponents of the war like me rant and rave about the lack of WMD evidence, at least in my case, I’m shocked to this day that we didn’t find them.
In my mind, the argument about WMDs was never essential; it was the lack of threat to us and our allies, the terrible precedent of preemption, and our failure to secure U.N. approval for the war.
As Saddam tends his flowers at the Baghdad International Airport Hilton, I wonder whether his action to dispose of the chemical, biological and radiological programs was made in case such an attack would come, a decision that was made by others without his knowledge, or just dumb luck.
In any case, the failure to locate these weapons gave the U.S. a huge black eye. Had I been in the chain, I'd be sporting one too.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
My GUESS is that this tried and true method got us into the situation in Iraq. Let me make it perfectly clear; this posting is no more than conjecture.
For all of the reasons enumerated in the press, on television, and on numerous blogs, including this one, we wanted to go to war against and to topple the Saddam regime in Iraq. This hypothetical case does not address arguments of preemption and preventive action that I and many others have raised numerous times.
Before the final decision was made, there were some uncomfortable issues on the table concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. inspection teams operating in the country had been unable to find any, and there some folks – certainly not including me – who doubted elements of the intelligence, for example that involving alleged purchases of yellow cake uranium.
The decision makers, including high ranking officers preparing to invade, military and civilian leaders at the Pentagon, other high ranking executives at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, at the State Department and elsewhere, as well as the Vice President and, ultimately, the President had to weigh the inability of the U.N. inspectors to locate caches and protestations of the Iraqis that there weren’t any forbidden weapons.
Our own intelligence and that of our allies indicated to almost a certainty that there were such weapons or programs to develop them in Iraq. So, if WMDs were the rationale for the war, why not go ahead and cause regime change? What could be the downside?
Under those conditions, based on my own government experience, if the big boys wanted war, most of the bureaucrats I’ve known and the political leaders would have attacked in a heart beat. The underlying thought was almost certainly that Saddam just wouldn’t have given up these weapons; it’s as simple as that. Our leaders – not just the people in this administration whom I’ve beaten about the head and shoulders for so long – but virtually all of them are rather cynical when it comes to the motives and actions of the leaders of other nations, especially petty third world tyrants.
We constantly ascribe completely cynical motives to them and believe that they maintain power through the unsentimental use of power to crush their enemies and in lying about it to the world at large. Therefore, in my view, it would have been incomprehensible to almost any high level appointee that I ever knew that someone like Saddam wasn’t telling bald faced lies when he denied having such weapons that he did in fact once have.
Therefore, without trying to slander some very fine public servants I’ve known, I’m convinced that virtually no one in the advisory or decision making chain ever dreamed that we wouldn’t find enough WMDs, such as canisters of poison gas, to be able to point to when the dust settled and say, “See, told you so.”
So while opponents of the war like me rant and rave about the lack of WMD evidence, at least in my case, I’m shocked to this day that we didn’t find them.
In my mind, the argument about WMDs was never essential; it was the lack of threat to us and our allies, the terrible precedent of preemption, and our failure to secure U.N. approval for the war.
As Saddam tends his flowers at the Baghdad International Airport Hilton, I wonder whether his action to dispose of the chemical, biological and radiological programs was made in case such an attack would come, a decision that was made by others without his knowledge, or just dumb luck.
In any case, the failure to locate these weapons gave the U.S. a huge black eye. Had I been in the chain, I'd be sporting one too.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Inauguration Day 2005
President Bush’s second inaugural speech clearly places him in the neoconservative intellectual camp.
Even as war clouds gathered over Iraq, I gave him the benefit of the doubt about the policy of military preemption and laid the blame (that is my loaded word for it) for the policy on such people as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, the Kristols, and other neocons. I was wrong.
Clearly, Mr. Bush stepped front and center and declared himself a neocon rather than a member of the realist camp that virtually all previous presidents, but especially Republicans, have espoused since the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
In his speech the president threw down the gauntlet to Americans, its allies and its opponents and enemies that we would be on the side of activists for democracy and freedom. The clear inference must be drawn that China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, North Korea, Iran and dozens of other nations that are not democracies are on notice that their relations with the U.S. will no longer be the same as they have been in recent decades.
What this means for major trading partners such as China and Saudi Arabia has yet to be defined, but his speech was a clear message of, “in your face,” to these and other nations not classified as democracies. We shall see.
There will be no blaming of others for Iraq. If it turns out well, George W. Bush will be exonerated by time. A bad outcome will consign his presidency to the dustbin of history. His ability to define success and stay on message is as great or greater than any of his predecessors, so we may have to wait for some time after he leaves office to find the answer.
I look forward to learning the outcome of this ambitious program and wish my readers the same good fortune in determining the result. On this day I step away from my anger and hope for the sake of the nation that the president is right.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Even as war clouds gathered over Iraq, I gave him the benefit of the doubt about the policy of military preemption and laid the blame (that is my loaded word for it) for the policy on such people as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, the Kristols, and other neocons. I was wrong.
Clearly, Mr. Bush stepped front and center and declared himself a neocon rather than a member of the realist camp that virtually all previous presidents, but especially Republicans, have espoused since the Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
In his speech the president threw down the gauntlet to Americans, its allies and its opponents and enemies that we would be on the side of activists for democracy and freedom. The clear inference must be drawn that China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, North Korea, Iran and dozens of other nations that are not democracies are on notice that their relations with the U.S. will no longer be the same as they have been in recent decades.
What this means for major trading partners such as China and Saudi Arabia has yet to be defined, but his speech was a clear message of, “in your face,” to these and other nations not classified as democracies. We shall see.
There will be no blaming of others for Iraq. If it turns out well, George W. Bush will be exonerated by time. A bad outcome will consign his presidency to the dustbin of history. His ability to define success and stay on message is as great or greater than any of his predecessors, so we may have to wait for some time after he leaves office to find the answer.
I look forward to learning the outcome of this ambitious program and wish my readers the same good fortune in determining the result. On this day I step away from my anger and hope for the sake of the nation that the president is right.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Racism in High Places
This Saturday the National Football Conference Championship Game will feature two African American quarterbacks. Michael Wilbon in a column in the Washington Post describes this as the culmination of a great effort to root out racism from the sport. There can be no doubt that Michael Vick and Donovan McNabb are among the elite in the ranks of NFL players and quarterbacks, despite the protestations of Loudmouth Limbaugh, and this game represents a watershed in race relations.
Wilbon describes a conversation he had years ago with Warren Moon – a pioneering Black quarterback – about when Black QBs would no longer be a big deal in the league. Moon’s answer, ”…when Blacks could be backups at quarterback, hold clipboards, get traded and released, picked up by coaches with whom they had become friends at previous stops.” That’s happened and Blacks can make it and be fired based on their performance. The same pretty much goes – or is soon going to go - for coaches.
Racism and sexism are receding, however glacially, in our society. It’s unfortunate that the same goes for the United States Senate – a glacial pace of improvement in race, sex and ethnic relations. Two of President Bush’s major proposed appointees, Attorney General Designate Alberto Gonzales and the Secretary of State Designee Condoleezza Rice were treated by the Justice and Foreign Affairs Committee’s of the Senate with kid gloves because of race, ethnicity, and gender.
Gonzales was the architect of the tortured logic of the torture policy that gave this nation a huge black eye in the Islamic world. He was probed only gently by the senators and allowed to get away with what no one should have been in refusing to be drawn out on his role in the scandal.
Rice was given virtually a free pass on the contradictions in her prior statements about the Iraq War. She bristled when Senator Boxer probed these conflicting statements and for her troubles the Senator was curbed about coming close to questioning the designee’s integrity, which of course she was and should have been doing. Only because Boxer was a woman was she allowed an escape route on a charge of racism or sexism.
There can be no doubt that these two designees did what was only hinted at, yet because the Senators are indeed still in the dark ages of racism and sexism these two people who should have been exposed for what they did escaped scrutiny and will be appointed to two of the highest offices in the land.
Clearly, we have a long way to go in this country before people will be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It’s too bad the United States Senate is not the equal of the National Football League in this important area of human relations.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wilbon describes a conversation he had years ago with Warren Moon – a pioneering Black quarterback – about when Black QBs would no longer be a big deal in the league. Moon’s answer, ”…when Blacks could be backups at quarterback, hold clipboards, get traded and released, picked up by coaches with whom they had become friends at previous stops.” That’s happened and Blacks can make it and be fired based on their performance. The same pretty much goes – or is soon going to go - for coaches.
Racism and sexism are receding, however glacially, in our society. It’s unfortunate that the same goes for the United States Senate – a glacial pace of improvement in race, sex and ethnic relations. Two of President Bush’s major proposed appointees, Attorney General Designate Alberto Gonzales and the Secretary of State Designee Condoleezza Rice were treated by the Justice and Foreign Affairs Committee’s of the Senate with kid gloves because of race, ethnicity, and gender.
Gonzales was the architect of the tortured logic of the torture policy that gave this nation a huge black eye in the Islamic world. He was probed only gently by the senators and allowed to get away with what no one should have been in refusing to be drawn out on his role in the scandal.
Rice was given virtually a free pass on the contradictions in her prior statements about the Iraq War. She bristled when Senator Boxer probed these conflicting statements and for her troubles the Senator was curbed about coming close to questioning the designee’s integrity, which of course she was and should have been doing. Only because Boxer was a woman was she allowed an escape route on a charge of racism or sexism.
There can be no doubt that these two designees did what was only hinted at, yet because the Senators are indeed still in the dark ages of racism and sexism these two people who should have been exposed for what they did escaped scrutiny and will be appointed to two of the highest offices in the land.
Clearly, we have a long way to go in this country before people will be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. It’s too bad the United States Senate is not the equal of the National Football League in this important area of human relations.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Winner Take All
There is a new meaning for the word election. Election: a referendum on your policy positions. If you win all of your positions are approved by the voters.
Last week in an interview with the Washington Post, President Bush claimed that because he won the election his policy on Iraq was approved by the voters and no longer a subject of concern to the majority of voters.
By that logic, I don’t see why we bother with a long debate on Social Security. He ran on platform that would change the program. He should just send up his proposals and Congress should adopt them - without debate.
Naturally, the same goes for such issues as a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting Same Sex Marriage, another Amendment prohibiting abortion, approving his program for Homeland Security, and everything else he supported in the campaign.
Am I the only person shocked by this absurdity?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Last week in an interview with the Washington Post, President Bush claimed that because he won the election his policy on Iraq was approved by the voters and no longer a subject of concern to the majority of voters.
By that logic, I don’t see why we bother with a long debate on Social Security. He ran on platform that would change the program. He should just send up his proposals and Congress should adopt them - without debate.
Naturally, the same goes for such issues as a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting Same Sex Marriage, another Amendment prohibiting abortion, approving his program for Homeland Security, and everything else he supported in the campaign.
Am I the only person shocked by this absurdity?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, January 14, 2005
George Washington on Iraq
“…it is well known, that when one side only of a Story is heard, and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it, insensibly.” George Washington understood that the repetition of a great untruth would inevitably lead to `brain washing.’ Forgive me for inserting this modern term into the great man’s thought process. On page 214 of his new biography of our first president, His Excellency: George Washington, Joseph J. Ellis sums up Washington’s view of the big lie in government, indeed in all human activities.
It was saddening to learn yesterday that President George W. Bush asserted, after having to acknowledge under pressure of the revealed facts and truth that our hegemonic venture into Iraq based on that country’s possession of and threats to use `weapons of mass destruction’ against us or our allies was without foundation, that our War in Iraq, was still a good thing.
Either President Bush is scandalously out of touch with reality or he is in the process of redefining reality. It is one thing to have taken this nation to war based on flawed intelligence. He (and I hope most of our citizens, including me) may be forgiven for believing that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was in the process of seeking to restart its nuclear weapons program. It is quite another to, in the face of his own government’s findings to the contrary, to assert, despite no evidence to support our attack, that what we did to that nation and ours was the best policy.
In effect, we attacked a stable nation whose government we despised, toppled that government, and inserted ourselves into a civil war on the side of the largest ethnic and religious faction. Regardless of the outcome of the election – almost certainly a Shiite victory – we have alienated Sunnis everywhere. The likely result will be an Iraqi government friendly to its traditional enemy, Iran, that calls into question the balance of power in the region.
It is possible, even likely, that we have destroyed a secular government in favor of one that will be controlled by a theocracy that is even more opposed to us and our presence in the central Civilization than was Saddam. It is difficult to imagine a worse outcome to this act of hubris that has cost us the lives and health of thousands of young men and women, destroyed the lives of thousands of Iraqis who admired us, poured our treasure to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars into the desert, alienated a civilization with more than a billion adherents, and cost us the respect of the nations of our own civilization, including Canada, Mexico, France, Germany and many more.
Repetition of obviously false assertions can work for only so long. The American people see what is going on and, more importantly, believe their eyes rather than the propaganda emanating from the president’s mouth. If Mr. Bush loses complete credibility on this vital issue, his presidency will be a total failure. If he cannot separate himself from those neoconservatives who took him down this terrible path, he will join them in being wrong on the single issue that will define his presidency in history.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
It was saddening to learn yesterday that President George W. Bush asserted, after having to acknowledge under pressure of the revealed facts and truth that our hegemonic venture into Iraq based on that country’s possession of and threats to use `weapons of mass destruction’ against us or our allies was without foundation, that our War in Iraq, was still a good thing.
Either President Bush is scandalously out of touch with reality or he is in the process of redefining reality. It is one thing to have taken this nation to war based on flawed intelligence. He (and I hope most of our citizens, including me) may be forgiven for believing that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was in the process of seeking to restart its nuclear weapons program. It is quite another to, in the face of his own government’s findings to the contrary, to assert, despite no evidence to support our attack, that what we did to that nation and ours was the best policy.
In effect, we attacked a stable nation whose government we despised, toppled that government, and inserted ourselves into a civil war on the side of the largest ethnic and religious faction. Regardless of the outcome of the election – almost certainly a Shiite victory – we have alienated Sunnis everywhere. The likely result will be an Iraqi government friendly to its traditional enemy, Iran, that calls into question the balance of power in the region.
It is possible, even likely, that we have destroyed a secular government in favor of one that will be controlled by a theocracy that is even more opposed to us and our presence in the central Civilization than was Saddam. It is difficult to imagine a worse outcome to this act of hubris that has cost us the lives and health of thousands of young men and women, destroyed the lives of thousands of Iraqis who admired us, poured our treasure to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars into the desert, alienated a civilization with more than a billion adherents, and cost us the respect of the nations of our own civilization, including Canada, Mexico, France, Germany and many more.
Repetition of obviously false assertions can work for only so long. The American people see what is going on and, more importantly, believe their eyes rather than the propaganda emanating from the president’s mouth. If Mr. Bush loses complete credibility on this vital issue, his presidency will be a total failure. If he cannot separate himself from those neoconservatives who took him down this terrible path, he will join them in being wrong on the single issue that will define his presidency in history.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
No Weapons of Mass Destruction
Today it was announced that the U.S. had recently abandoned its efforts to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The failure of the United States to find these weapons or programs for their development troubles me not nearly such much as the post war revelation that differences between CIA and Department of Energy analysts over the possible uses for the aluminum tubes that became the basis for the administration charge that a nuclear weapons program was being reestablished by the Iraqi government were not shared with the Congress. This is especially damning as all of the key players in the administration were aware of the withholding of this information while the Congress was being asked to back the attack.
For months after the war was instigated and prior to the revelation, Members of Congress were repeatedly castigated by the president and other key officials for complaining about the war after authorizing it based on the same information the administration had used to seek Congressional authority for the venture.
Based on everything I’ve read and heard, the President, the CIA, the Department of Defense and most of our allies believed that weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of the Iraqi military. Based on the limited public information, I held these same beliefs about Iraq’s weapons, and I see no reason to condemn the administration on this one point even though it is the most important item of intelligence failure by the government during the prewar period.
My complaint before the attack had little to do with weapons intelligence. Rather, it was based on our failure to permit U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their program prior to going to war. I also did not believe that the administration had made its case that Iraq was an immediate threat to us or to our allies in the region. And our naked bullying of the Security Council members and our clear intent to attack Iraq without such inspection program and without a grand coalition summed up my problems.
It was also my deeply held belief that that the prattle that our military would be welcomed as liberators and that we could deliver Western style democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq was incorrect – at least in anything resembling a reasonable time frame.
That I believe I was right on these points gives me no comfort. But I do not believe that we can castigate the president about our inability to find evidence of weapons or programs to develop them.
Wild Bill
The failure of the United States to find these weapons or programs for their development troubles me not nearly such much as the post war revelation that differences between CIA and Department of Energy analysts over the possible uses for the aluminum tubes that became the basis for the administration charge that a nuclear weapons program was being reestablished by the Iraqi government were not shared with the Congress. This is especially damning as all of the key players in the administration were aware of the withholding of this information while the Congress was being asked to back the attack.
For months after the war was instigated and prior to the revelation, Members of Congress were repeatedly castigated by the president and other key officials for complaining about the war after authorizing it based on the same information the administration had used to seek Congressional authority for the venture.
Based on everything I’ve read and heard, the President, the CIA, the Department of Defense and most of our allies believed that weapons of mass destruction were in the hands of the Iraqi military. Based on the limited public information, I held these same beliefs about Iraq’s weapons, and I see no reason to condemn the administration on this one point even though it is the most important item of intelligence failure by the government during the prewar period.
My complaint before the attack had little to do with weapons intelligence. Rather, it was based on our failure to permit U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their program prior to going to war. I also did not believe that the administration had made its case that Iraq was an immediate threat to us or to our allies in the region. And our naked bullying of the Security Council members and our clear intent to attack Iraq without such inspection program and without a grand coalition summed up my problems.
It was also my deeply held belief that that the prattle that our military would be welcomed as liberators and that we could deliver Western style democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq was incorrect – at least in anything resembling a reasonable time frame.
That I believe I was right on these points gives me no comfort. But I do not believe that we can castigate the president about our inability to find evidence of weapons or programs to develop them.
Wild Bill
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Goodbye John
I voted for John Kerry, but I’m no longer crying over the loss.
This President Bush 43 and his handlers are so obdurate and stay so relentlessly on message that is virtually impossible for them to acknowledge reality. Surely, had Senator Kerry won, the long knives of the reactionary right and the neocons would be out for him with regard to his plan to disengage from Iraq.
That the Iraq War and its aftermath is one of the great foreign policy blunders in American history is becoming more evident to the American people each day, and President Bush is going to have to redefine all of his goals and definitions of success in order to disengage our forces from this quagmire.
Had Senator Kerry won, these very steps would likely have been cause for the radical right to call for his impeachment. Surely his actions would have been labeled a stab in the back to our men and women in the military and a cowardly retreat in the War on Terror. So we must suffer through as many months and years as it takes for President Bush to explain that his disastrous folly in Iraq is in actuality a great success and that the Iraqis will now and forever more enjoy freedom and the American way.
The neocons and their drum beaters on the radical right like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Oliver North are going to have to put their stream of consciousness baloney machines into overdrive to talk their way out of this mess. Their constant upbeat messages about the true situation in that troubled land are going to have to be finessed over the balance of 2005 and probably long after.
I’ve said about everything I can or care to on this matter and will try to avoid writing about this tragedy any more. Let's hope I succeed.
The Republicans have clearly overreached, and I look forward to a safely divided government. My hope is that never again in my lifetime will we have both houses of Congress and the White House in the hands of either party at the same time. I look to 2008 with great hope and optimism.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
This President Bush 43 and his handlers are so obdurate and stay so relentlessly on message that is virtually impossible for them to acknowledge reality. Surely, had Senator Kerry won, the long knives of the reactionary right and the neocons would be out for him with regard to his plan to disengage from Iraq.
That the Iraq War and its aftermath is one of the great foreign policy blunders in American history is becoming more evident to the American people each day, and President Bush is going to have to redefine all of his goals and definitions of success in order to disengage our forces from this quagmire.
Had Senator Kerry won, these very steps would likely have been cause for the radical right to call for his impeachment. Surely his actions would have been labeled a stab in the back to our men and women in the military and a cowardly retreat in the War on Terror. So we must suffer through as many months and years as it takes for President Bush to explain that his disastrous folly in Iraq is in actuality a great success and that the Iraqis will now and forever more enjoy freedom and the American way.
The neocons and their drum beaters on the radical right like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Oliver North are going to have to put their stream of consciousness baloney machines into overdrive to talk their way out of this mess. Their constant upbeat messages about the true situation in that troubled land are going to have to be finessed over the balance of 2005 and probably long after.
I’ve said about everything I can or care to on this matter and will try to avoid writing about this tragedy any more. Let's hope I succeed.
The Republicans have clearly overreached, and I look forward to a safely divided government. My hope is that never again in my lifetime will we have both houses of Congress and the White House in the hands of either party at the same time. I look to 2008 with great hope and optimism.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Who is Losing Iraq?
“He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana’s oft stated observation is as reviled as it is relevant.
Who lost China? When the Cold War was ramping up and China’s civil war ended badly for our side, scapegoats had to be dredged up to satisfy the mob’s need for blood. In that case, a generation of `Old China Hands’ was condemned to take the fall for something that was inevitable given the nature of the corrupt regime we were backing. Great Americans, including President Harry Truman, General George C. Marshall and General Joseph Stilwell, were badly tarnished because ardent anticommunists such as Senator Joseph McCarthy could not accept the reality of the situation.
When great ventures end badly, someone must pay. That World War I ended badly for Germany could not possibly have been the fault of the Kaiser’s great military machine. It had to have been because of `the stab in the back’ of politicians back in Berlin. The leader of the American Expeditionary Force, General John J. Pershing, was against the Armistice in 1918. Pershing argued that if the German army was perceived by the German people not to have lost, the conflict would have to be reopened and fought to the finish. He was overruled and a quarter of a century and sixty million deaths later, it was settled.
Who is to blame for the situation in Iraq? Already as the adventure proceeds to a bad outcome, those who led us into it thrash about for scapegoats. Liberals, the media, France, a few bad apples in abu Ghraib – were it not for them, democracy and freedom would be flourishing among the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately for the small group of leaders who made this war, scapegoats while under slight temporary pressure as the situation deteriorated will not have to take the fall for this debacle. President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, their immediate aids and small number of advisors in and out of government together with those who beat the drums for them are responsible for this failed mission. The focus will not change.
We’ve learned that our military can beat any foe that stands up to it. Of this there was no doubt before we attacked Iraq.
We’ve learned that the administration cooked the books on the mission. We know, for instance, that internal debate among intelligence analysts over the potential uses of aluminum tubes was not brought to the attention of the Congress, the media or the public. We realize that the dazzling display put on for the U.N. Security Council by Secretary of State Colin Powell was vastly overstated. We’ve learned that charges that Saddam’s government conspired with terrorists have yet to be shown to have any merit.
We’ve learned that while our military is capable of defeating any enemy, it is not sufficiently staffed to occupy even a middle sized country. We know that the Army advised the top leaders that the force proposed to pacify Iraq was insufficient to do the job. For that assessment, we know that the Army Chief of Staff lost the confidence of the top leaders in the country.
We know that the stated reasons for the war: Saddam’s weapons programs that threatened us and our allies and the conspiracy between Iraq and al Qaeda have yet to be found or proved.
We were told by the President, the Vice President, their advisors and their media drum beaters that our forces would be welcomed as liberators. Not even fools continue to hold that mad view. As the election nears, most Americans are aware that the result will not satisfy the Iraqi nation. The winners will be viewed as American puppets and only force of arms – ours now and theirs as soon as possible – will hold the country together long enough for us to retreat.
The War on Terror has almost disappeared from the media and public attention. Iraq, the terrible Tsunami, and the false crises on the domestic front have driven the focus from our true enemies, international terrorists. American lives and treasure are being spent while our defenses against terrorists on the home front are being starved for lack of funds. A deficit created by tax cuts made while the nation was, according to our president, at war limits our ability to defend our ports and cities.
What to do? Borrow two billion dollars to fix Social Security; hey, it’s a start.
Wild Bill
Who lost China? When the Cold War was ramping up and China’s civil war ended badly for our side, scapegoats had to be dredged up to satisfy the mob’s need for blood. In that case, a generation of `Old China Hands’ was condemned to take the fall for something that was inevitable given the nature of the corrupt regime we were backing. Great Americans, including President Harry Truman, General George C. Marshall and General Joseph Stilwell, were badly tarnished because ardent anticommunists such as Senator Joseph McCarthy could not accept the reality of the situation.
When great ventures end badly, someone must pay. That World War I ended badly for Germany could not possibly have been the fault of the Kaiser’s great military machine. It had to have been because of `the stab in the back’ of politicians back in Berlin. The leader of the American Expeditionary Force, General John J. Pershing, was against the Armistice in 1918. Pershing argued that if the German army was perceived by the German people not to have lost, the conflict would have to be reopened and fought to the finish. He was overruled and a quarter of a century and sixty million deaths later, it was settled.
Who is to blame for the situation in Iraq? Already as the adventure proceeds to a bad outcome, those who led us into it thrash about for scapegoats. Liberals, the media, France, a few bad apples in abu Ghraib – were it not for them, democracy and freedom would be flourishing among the Iraqi people.
Unfortunately for the small group of leaders who made this war, scapegoats while under slight temporary pressure as the situation deteriorated will not have to take the fall for this debacle. President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, their immediate aids and small number of advisors in and out of government together with those who beat the drums for them are responsible for this failed mission. The focus will not change.
We’ve learned that our military can beat any foe that stands up to it. Of this there was no doubt before we attacked Iraq.
We’ve learned that the administration cooked the books on the mission. We know, for instance, that internal debate among intelligence analysts over the potential uses of aluminum tubes was not brought to the attention of the Congress, the media or the public. We realize that the dazzling display put on for the U.N. Security Council by Secretary of State Colin Powell was vastly overstated. We’ve learned that charges that Saddam’s government conspired with terrorists have yet to be shown to have any merit.
We’ve learned that while our military is capable of defeating any enemy, it is not sufficiently staffed to occupy even a middle sized country. We know that the Army advised the top leaders that the force proposed to pacify Iraq was insufficient to do the job. For that assessment, we know that the Army Chief of Staff lost the confidence of the top leaders in the country.
We know that the stated reasons for the war: Saddam’s weapons programs that threatened us and our allies and the conspiracy between Iraq and al Qaeda have yet to be found or proved.
We were told by the President, the Vice President, their advisors and their media drum beaters that our forces would be welcomed as liberators. Not even fools continue to hold that mad view. As the election nears, most Americans are aware that the result will not satisfy the Iraqi nation. The winners will be viewed as American puppets and only force of arms – ours now and theirs as soon as possible – will hold the country together long enough for us to retreat.
The War on Terror has almost disappeared from the media and public attention. Iraq, the terrible Tsunami, and the false crises on the domestic front have driven the focus from our true enemies, international terrorists. American lives and treasure are being spent while our defenses against terrorists on the home front are being starved for lack of funds. A deficit created by tax cuts made while the nation was, according to our president, at war limits our ability to defend our ports and cities.
What to do? Borrow two billion dollars to fix Social Security; hey, it’s a start.
Wild Bill
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Mom? Dad?
A few questions for Moms and Dads living in the heartland - and elsewhere.
Does the Iraq War make you and your little Dick and Jane feel safer from terrorists? Have you abandoned the cloth coat conservatism of your own parents? As you drive young Dick and Jane around, are you aware that much of your gasoline is refined from crude oil from Saudi Arabia and other sources that may not be secure or guaranteed? If California, New York and Massachusetts seceded – without bloodshed, of course – would America be a better country?
Are you aware that many blue states, including the three named above, have a net transfer of tax dollars to red states? Are you and your neighbors dependent on dollars from the Left or Right Coasts? Those good old conservative values - do they include imposing U.S. national will on a worldwide economic empire? Are you aware that you live in a country with five or six percent of the world's people? That we gobble up about 30% of the resources that are consumed on the planet's each year? That our consumption is underwritten by economic competitors, some of whom really don't like our policies?
Are you aware that every day American men and women are dying in Iraq to protect you from terrorists? Are you aware that the reasons given before attacking that country had no basis in fact? Are you aware that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died because of the deception the drove us into their midst? You know that Saddam gassed 5,000 of his own people, but what multiplier of that number have been killed by our forces in your name?
Did your own Moms and Dads want America to be an aggressor nation? Did they believe in collective security based on strong international alliances? Do you remember when America was the last best hope for democracy? Do you remember when America was both respected and loved by the vast majority of the world’s peoples and nations? Is it possible that even young Dick and Jane remember when the answer to that question was `yes'?
Are you aware that many of the nations that our leaders admonish for failure to support us in Iraq are fighting with us in Afghanistan where the national government actually supported those who attacked us on September 11?
After reading these questions, are you still convinced that you’re doing right by young Dick and Jane? Are you really conservative? Sen. Chuck Hagel from Nebraska is a conservative who voted to support the Iraq War; why is he questioning our strategy? Does he know something you don't?
Are we really going in the right direction in the world? Should you be writing your representatives in Washington?
Wild Bill
Does the Iraq War make you and your little Dick and Jane feel safer from terrorists? Have you abandoned the cloth coat conservatism of your own parents? As you drive young Dick and Jane around, are you aware that much of your gasoline is refined from crude oil from Saudi Arabia and other sources that may not be secure or guaranteed? If California, New York and Massachusetts seceded – without bloodshed, of course – would America be a better country?
Are you aware that many blue states, including the three named above, have a net transfer of tax dollars to red states? Are you and your neighbors dependent on dollars from the Left or Right Coasts? Those good old conservative values - do they include imposing U.S. national will on a worldwide economic empire? Are you aware that you live in a country with five or six percent of the world's people? That we gobble up about 30% of the resources that are consumed on the planet's each year? That our consumption is underwritten by economic competitors, some of whom really don't like our policies?
Are you aware that every day American men and women are dying in Iraq to protect you from terrorists? Are you aware that the reasons given before attacking that country had no basis in fact? Are you aware that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died because of the deception the drove us into their midst? You know that Saddam gassed 5,000 of his own people, but what multiplier of that number have been killed by our forces in your name?
Did your own Moms and Dads want America to be an aggressor nation? Did they believe in collective security based on strong international alliances? Do you remember when America was the last best hope for democracy? Do you remember when America was both respected and loved by the vast majority of the world’s peoples and nations? Is it possible that even young Dick and Jane remember when the answer to that question was `yes'?
Are you aware that many of the nations that our leaders admonish for failure to support us in Iraq are fighting with us in Afghanistan where the national government actually supported those who attacked us on September 11?
After reading these questions, are you still convinced that you’re doing right by young Dick and Jane? Are you really conservative? Sen. Chuck Hagel from Nebraska is a conservative who voted to support the Iraq War; why is he questioning our strategy? Does he know something you don't?
Are we really going in the right direction in the world? Should you be writing your representatives in Washington?
Wild Bill
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
George I, Sportsman
In keeping with the Bloggers' pledge of occasionally writing about the serious, pitchers and catchers report in just a few weeks. Sure, the football playoffs have yet to kickoff, but in Florida and Arizona baseball diamonds are already being groomed.
As we all know, this will be the happiest spring training in eighty-four season for the Boston Red Sox. The weight of the world is off their shoulders but, of course, some of those responsible for the joy won’t be there to celebrate. For example, Pedro will be back with the pack of losers from Gotham, but with the low class way he said goodbye few in Southie will be weeping.
George Steinbrenner, the Boss, is a fierce competitor, one who’ll do most anything to win, especially by writing mega checks. But he’s a good sport too. That commercial in which he signs one too many and sprains his arm is hilarious. I’ll bet he’s thought about a secret surprise for the Red Sox fans that will cement his place in the hearts of New Englanders.
When the Yankees and Red Sox meet in Grapefruit League play this spring, wouldn’t it be great if George brought those American League Championship trophies that the Yankees won over the past several years when powered by a juiced up slugger and forfeited them to Red Sox Nation as token of gentlemanly sportsmanship. He can’t help but have thought about it and, given his warm and cuddly feelings about the Sox, wouldn’t that just be the icing on the cake as a way to kick off a new era in New York / Boston relations. So don't wait for Bud Selig to make the ruling, George, just do it! You'll feel so good.
If The Boss does that by opening day, I pledge that Wild Bill will never again describe the Yanks as the Evil Empire. I know that my legion of friends and readers who live for the empire are, in reality, intent on equity and will read these lines and see the wisdom of this proposal.
Deal? Done! Love you, Georgie,
Wild Bill
As we all know, this will be the happiest spring training in eighty-four season for the Boston Red Sox. The weight of the world is off their shoulders but, of course, some of those responsible for the joy won’t be there to celebrate. For example, Pedro will be back with the pack of losers from Gotham, but with the low class way he said goodbye few in Southie will be weeping.
George Steinbrenner, the Boss, is a fierce competitor, one who’ll do most anything to win, especially by writing mega checks. But he’s a good sport too. That commercial in which he signs one too many and sprains his arm is hilarious. I’ll bet he’s thought about a secret surprise for the Red Sox fans that will cement his place in the hearts of New Englanders.
When the Yankees and Red Sox meet in Grapefruit League play this spring, wouldn’t it be great if George brought those American League Championship trophies that the Yankees won over the past several years when powered by a juiced up slugger and forfeited them to Red Sox Nation as token of gentlemanly sportsmanship. He can’t help but have thought about it and, given his warm and cuddly feelings about the Sox, wouldn’t that just be the icing on the cake as a way to kick off a new era in New York / Boston relations. So don't wait for Bud Selig to make the ruling, George, just do it! You'll feel so good.
If The Boss does that by opening day, I pledge that Wild Bill will never again describe the Yanks as the Evil Empire. I know that my legion of friends and readers who live for the empire are, in reality, intent on equity and will read these lines and see the wisdom of this proposal.
Deal? Done! Love you, Georgie,
Wild Bill
Monday, January 03, 2005
Ghosts in the White House
Where have you gone, Franklin Roosevelt?
About a decade ago before becoming painfully aware of my limitations as a scholar, I decided to write the definitive biography of Roosevelt that would capture the human essence of my political hero. None of the efforts by others satisfied me, and there was no doubt that such a work was needed. It would be simple matter of reading what had been done, reviewing the obligatory files in Hyde Park and sitting before the keyboard.
How could a man of perhaps sixty be so silly? The bibliography on Roosevelt and his administration is almost without end and growing, so, true to my youthful M.O. when faced with the very daunting, I didn’t try.
Instead, after reading literally dozens of biographies and histories on FDR and the greatest generation, I determined to approach the `Sphinx’ via fiction. That would be far easier, and I would permit my imagination to fill in the blanks. My notes on the protagonist’s character and events soon ran to hundreds of pages and covered everything from his boyhood birding on the banks of the Hudson to his death in Georgia just prior to victory in World War II.
Ready, the book already written in my mind, I began typing. Fifty pages into the novel, I reviewed what was done with a critical eye. It was awful, an unmitigated disaster. There was no choice but to abandon the effort. The great man had eluded me. Defeat was complete, and I surrendered unconditionally - almost.
Since then, I have written two novels about the first half of the twentieth century, and the ghost of Roosevelt is in the background. My present efforts are devoted to a novel about the internment of the Japanese aliens and citizens residing on the West Coast when the war broke out. The ghost is closer here because of the direct role played by the man. He comes off, of course, as less of hero; regardless, he still resists being drawn from the shadows.
A Christmas present, Joseph Ellis’s biography, His Excellency, George Washington, joined the reading list and is being devoured as part of a buffet of books piled high by my chair. Early on, Ellis complains that his subject did everything in his power to hide from him. From this and my own experience, I began to theorize. Many presidents are charged with deception by their biographers. Among presidents, a few simple men like Grant and Truman seem to defy the tradition but they may be the exceptions that prove the rule.
My theorizing led to this: the vast majority of humans, heroes or not, spend their lives altering, revising, embellishing, and erasing their pasts. The difference between them and the Roosevelts, Washingtons, and Lincolns is that no one cares. The nature of the beast is not revealed by the Grants but by those who would deceive us.
Paul Simon cries out for Joe DiMaggio but his lament is for all of our heroes. We thought they were different from the rest of us, but they too suffer the defect of being human – only grander. As they obfuscated their pasts, they were confident that we would seek them out. They were right. As the rest hide, the error is that no one seeks.
About a decade ago before becoming painfully aware of my limitations as a scholar, I decided to write the definitive biography of Roosevelt that would capture the human essence of my political hero. None of the efforts by others satisfied me, and there was no doubt that such a work was needed. It would be simple matter of reading what had been done, reviewing the obligatory files in Hyde Park and sitting before the keyboard.
How could a man of perhaps sixty be so silly? The bibliography on Roosevelt and his administration is almost without end and growing, so, true to my youthful M.O. when faced with the very daunting, I didn’t try.
Instead, after reading literally dozens of biographies and histories on FDR and the greatest generation, I determined to approach the `Sphinx’ via fiction. That would be far easier, and I would permit my imagination to fill in the blanks. My notes on the protagonist’s character and events soon ran to hundreds of pages and covered everything from his boyhood birding on the banks of the Hudson to his death in Georgia just prior to victory in World War II.
Ready, the book already written in my mind, I began typing. Fifty pages into the novel, I reviewed what was done with a critical eye. It was awful, an unmitigated disaster. There was no choice but to abandon the effort. The great man had eluded me. Defeat was complete, and I surrendered unconditionally - almost.
Since then, I have written two novels about the first half of the twentieth century, and the ghost of Roosevelt is in the background. My present efforts are devoted to a novel about the internment of the Japanese aliens and citizens residing on the West Coast when the war broke out. The ghost is closer here because of the direct role played by the man. He comes off, of course, as less of hero; regardless, he still resists being drawn from the shadows.
A Christmas present, Joseph Ellis’s biography, His Excellency, George Washington, joined the reading list and is being devoured as part of a buffet of books piled high by my chair. Early on, Ellis complains that his subject did everything in his power to hide from him. From this and my own experience, I began to theorize. Many presidents are charged with deception by their biographers. Among presidents, a few simple men like Grant and Truman seem to defy the tradition but they may be the exceptions that prove the rule.
My theorizing led to this: the vast majority of humans, heroes or not, spend their lives altering, revising, embellishing, and erasing their pasts. The difference between them and the Roosevelts, Washingtons, and Lincolns is that no one cares. The nature of the beast is not revealed by the Grants but by those who would deceive us.
Paul Simon cries out for Joe DiMaggio but his lament is for all of our heroes. We thought they were different from the rest of us, but they too suffer the defect of being human – only grander. As they obfuscated their pasts, they were confident that we would seek them out. They were right. As the rest hide, the error is that no one seeks.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
To the Barricades of the Mind!
I was opposed to the Vietnam War and took to the streets of Washington in protest. My act of moral courage in some small way helped to stop the carnage. Wasn't I great?
When that war began, like most Americans I went along. Hey, dominoes made as much sense as anything else in the Cold War. Soon, however, the pictures coming into my home were horrific and the casualty numbers extremely troubling.
The early protests didn't seem like much, and I solved the problems of the pictures and sounds of war by shutting off the TV and by not reading the coverage of the conflict.
It was only when President Johnson escalated the war that I began to pay closer attention. Still I was not ready to abandon the government's rationale for continuing to pour human and material treasure into the fray.
But as the months became years, something changed, and I prepared to act, to take to the streets and move on the barricades. Enlightenment? An epiphany? Goodness? All three but not of the kind that makes me proud today. I had been raising three boys, mere babies when the war came to my attention. It dawned on me that the madness would soon engulf me and mine.
My sons were growing up and would have to choose between the draft and defiance. I was focusing. Quickly my choice was made, I would work to stop the war. I, like millions of others, had lost confidence in the government. To the streets we turned. But the enlightenment, the epiphany and the goodness were far from altruistic. I only acted when my self interest became clear.
Now we are in a war in Iraq that does not create fear in the guts of middle class parents. In fact many of them are pleased with the way this is going. Somehow the killing and the propaganda make them feel safer from the terrorists. I don't know a single enlisted man serving in Iraq. The dead and wounded are total strangers to me. Who will demand a stop to the mad neocon dream of empire? If we do not turn the ship of state, forces from beyond our shores will do it for us, but only after a tragedy that could wreck the nation on rocky shoals.
We must fight those who attacked us. Of this there can be no doubt, but we must review the policies that have brought us to this juncture, not only this crazy Iraqi adventure but our entire foreign policy to determine if some of the complaints of the jihadists have merit. The baloney that they hate because we're free sickens the stomach.
Clearly, the Central Civilization with but a single major commodity, oil, is in crisis. Anything we would recognize as a renaissance that would elevate man is, at least at this point, nowhere in sight. The screwball notion that we will impose democracy and freedom on its peoples and make them better for it is more suited for after midnight musings in bars and psychiatric couches than for serious discussion among rational adults.
The future of the United States and its people is at stake. Spread the word. There will be no middle class parents carrying placards to save their young. This time those without personal interest must muster and maintain the courage on their own.
Enough of that Mild Bill bull crap,
Wild Bill
BLOG ON!
When that war began, like most Americans I went along. Hey, dominoes made as much sense as anything else in the Cold War. Soon, however, the pictures coming into my home were horrific and the casualty numbers extremely troubling.
The early protests didn't seem like much, and I solved the problems of the pictures and sounds of war by shutting off the TV and by not reading the coverage of the conflict.
It was only when President Johnson escalated the war that I began to pay closer attention. Still I was not ready to abandon the government's rationale for continuing to pour human and material treasure into the fray.
But as the months became years, something changed, and I prepared to act, to take to the streets and move on the barricades. Enlightenment? An epiphany? Goodness? All three but not of the kind that makes me proud today. I had been raising three boys, mere babies when the war came to my attention. It dawned on me that the madness would soon engulf me and mine.
My sons were growing up and would have to choose between the draft and defiance. I was focusing. Quickly my choice was made, I would work to stop the war. I, like millions of others, had lost confidence in the government. To the streets we turned. But the enlightenment, the epiphany and the goodness were far from altruistic. I only acted when my self interest became clear.
Now we are in a war in Iraq that does not create fear in the guts of middle class parents. In fact many of them are pleased with the way this is going. Somehow the killing and the propaganda make them feel safer from the terrorists. I don't know a single enlisted man serving in Iraq. The dead and wounded are total strangers to me. Who will demand a stop to the mad neocon dream of empire? If we do not turn the ship of state, forces from beyond our shores will do it for us, but only after a tragedy that could wreck the nation on rocky shoals.
We must fight those who attacked us. Of this there can be no doubt, but we must review the policies that have brought us to this juncture, not only this crazy Iraqi adventure but our entire foreign policy to determine if some of the complaints of the jihadists have merit. The baloney that they hate because we're free sickens the stomach.
Clearly, the Central Civilization with but a single major commodity, oil, is in crisis. Anything we would recognize as a renaissance that would elevate man is, at least at this point, nowhere in sight. The screwball notion that we will impose democracy and freedom on its peoples and make them better for it is more suited for after midnight musings in bars and psychiatric couches than for serious discussion among rational adults.
The future of the United States and its people is at stake. Spread the word. There will be no middle class parents carrying placards to save their young. This time those without personal interest must muster and maintain the courage on their own.
Enough of that Mild Bill bull crap,
Wild Bill
BLOG ON!
Live the Life You've Imagined
Aim high! Live the life you’ve imagined! Simplify! These, of course, are the lessons Thoreau intended to impart in Walden. Do many people act on these maxims? Certainly, and many who do so have no idea that these are Henry’s directions and they may in fact have come to them from other equally positive sources, especially from within their own hearts and minds.
Not all who aim high, live fully realized and authentic lives, and simplify are seeking fame and fortune. Some very private beings have done it all in tiny hamlets in which they delivered all of the babies for two generations or married the town's youth and buried it's dead or served as selectmen or emergency medical technicians. Others own local businesses that enrich the town and employ their neighbors. These lives can be just as rich and fulfilling as those whose visions were as bright as comets streaking across the heavens.
Bill Clinton dreamed of becoming president. Warren Beatty was bound to make movies. Picasso seemed born to paint. And Mother Teresa was determined to ease the pain and suffering of the dying. Did they ever aim high and live the lives they imagined. Simplify? Except for Mother Teresa, perhaps this group might have been a little light on that count.
Henry’s notion that, “In the long run men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high,” says nothing about failing and quitting. Perhaps that first dream wasn’t quite right. Bill Frist set out to be a surgeon but today finds himself the U.S. Senate Majority leader, and it’s rumored that he aspires to the White House. And Mark Twain might have lived out his life as the steamboat captain Sam Clemens were it not for the choice to act on his dreams.
Some are late bloomers. Cesar Chavez was impelled by the animal like conditions in the fields to organize his union and seek justice for his lettuce picking followers.
Just because you aimed high and failed doesn’t mean that you can’t still dream or dream again or dream anew and follow it. America is the land of second – and third, fourth and fifth – chances.
Instead of resolving for 2005 to lose twenty pounds, to curse less often or to cure some other perceived personal flaw or fault, why not aim high and live the life you’ve imagined?
It’s never too late. You can do it! Happy New Year!
Mild Bill
BLOG ON!
Not all who aim high, live fully realized and authentic lives, and simplify are seeking fame and fortune. Some very private beings have done it all in tiny hamlets in which they delivered all of the babies for two generations or married the town's youth and buried it's dead or served as selectmen or emergency medical technicians. Others own local businesses that enrich the town and employ their neighbors. These lives can be just as rich and fulfilling as those whose visions were as bright as comets streaking across the heavens.
Bill Clinton dreamed of becoming president. Warren Beatty was bound to make movies. Picasso seemed born to paint. And Mother Teresa was determined to ease the pain and suffering of the dying. Did they ever aim high and live the lives they imagined. Simplify? Except for Mother Teresa, perhaps this group might have been a little light on that count.
Henry’s notion that, “In the long run men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high,” says nothing about failing and quitting. Perhaps that first dream wasn’t quite right. Bill Frist set out to be a surgeon but today finds himself the U.S. Senate Majority leader, and it’s rumored that he aspires to the White House. And Mark Twain might have lived out his life as the steamboat captain Sam Clemens were it not for the choice to act on his dreams.
Some are late bloomers. Cesar Chavez was impelled by the animal like conditions in the fields to organize his union and seek justice for his lettuce picking followers.
Just because you aimed high and failed doesn’t mean that you can’t still dream or dream again or dream anew and follow it. America is the land of second – and third, fourth and fifth – chances.
Instead of resolving for 2005 to lose twenty pounds, to curse less often or to cure some other perceived personal flaw or fault, why not aim high and live the life you’ve imagined?
It’s never too late. You can do it! Happy New Year!
Mild Bill
BLOG ON!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)