This is the final chapter of my serial comments on Ron Suskind’s book, The One Percent Doctrine, and it is the most frightening. You may recall last week’s review of James David Barber’s The Presidential Character and John Dean’s reference to it in which he placed George W. Bush in Barber’s Active/Negative category along with Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and Dean’s own employer, Richard Nixon. Based on the assertions made by Dean and my own reading of the Barber book, I agreed with the designation.
To digress for a moment to the Iraq War, Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine gave the administration the cover needed to launch an attack that all of the key players had dreamed of for years. The war on terror and the doctrine also provided the President, Vice President, and Rumsfeld with a rationale for recovering power in relation to the Congress and the courts. Cheney and Rumsfeld, veterans of the Nixon White House, wanted to take full advantage of the new wartime environment to reassert lost executive power, and Bush, a less than happy observer of his father’s presidency, was quick to sign on.
The Suskind book is a work of journalism rather than history and, therefore, does not have a bibliography, but after reading all of his references to President Bush there can be no doubt that the author is very familiar with Barber’s work and that he carefully assessed it and – without directly stating it - came to the independent conclusion that John Dean’s placement of the President in the Active/Negative category was correct. Suskind assesses Bush as a feeling rather than analytic president and describes events from his formative years that demonstrate that he is a risk taker. He points out that Bush saw early on that Iraq would provide the opportunity for a `game changer,’ and he was more than ready to move on linking Iraq to the war on terror. In a key section of the book (pps. 211 – 216) Suskind’s analysis of Bush’s faith based character is subject to an almost Barber like examination and places him where Dean has spotted him.
Cheney comes off as the true heavy in this book, but the fault is as much the President’s. Bush operates from faith and his gut and demands action, leaving the required careful presidential analysis to the V.P. by default. It is a very sad thing to read how the President can barely read the complex reports prepared for him by the CIA and other agencies, and it becomes obvious that we should be wishing Cheney good health during the remainder of the term.
In reading Suskind’s book, I became far more empathetic to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They became aware early on after 9/11 that the nation is vulnerable to more attacks by al Qaeda and copy cat wannabes of all kinds. They come across as true patriots absolutely intent on defending us, but, sadly, like all of us, they are prisoners of their own character flaws and experience. Instead of merely doing their damnedest to defend the nation, they seized on 9/11 as an opportunity to rectify every single problem that they saw as coming from a diminished presidency dating from the power shift that emanated from Watergate.
There are so many problems that grow from this flawed analysis that a complete recitation would be a waste of your time. Suffice it to say they have a president far from stupid but one unable to do the personal analysis that goes with the job; they used flawed reasoning on their own doctrine to rectify a burr under America’s saddle in the person of Saddam and the government of Iraq; they used the doctrine to undermine their intelligence agencies and the flow of presidential decision making information; and they used the war on terror to rectify what they saw as a terrible imbalance between the branches of government.
I could go on, but it would be more of the same. Three chapters of a review are more than sufficient for you to determine if you wish to read the book.
From my perspective, it is an extremely sad and frightening book and I cannot praise it highly enough.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
The One Percent Doctrine - Continued
Today’s episode in my serial review of Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Solution goes to the destruction of the intelligence programs of the United States as we have known them for two-thirds of a century. The Central Intelligence Agency has classically provided honest analysis and coordinated the intelligence delivered to the President and other key players. The Director gave his best estimate of what any given situation was with caveats representing any dissent from within the agency or among the other intelligence agencies.
Let me begin by saying that for failing to spot or stop the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, scapegoats – if nothing more – from the FBI, CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and perhaps others should have been offered up for public satisfaction and entertainment within months of the tragedy. It never happened.
Suskind makes it clear, that in the aftermath of the attacks those making the calls on how things ran in this administration, the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and the small cadre of Bush intimates in the White House inner circle had more important things to do than watch George Tenet publicly fall on his sword for the benefit of those assembled in the national TV coliseum. They were going to transform the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA into a mechanism for supporting administration foreign and war policy.
The President and even more Cheney and Rumsfeld had a low opinion of the CIA and the FBI before the attacks. The Cheney/Rumsfeld axis had been watching the CIA fail to predict major events for almost four decades. The break up of the Soviet empire and the fall of the communist regime in Moscow as well as this extraordinary failure in New York and Washington had filled them with contempt for the agency. The honest broker role of the CIA and carefully nuanced reporting was viewed by the players as little more than the CIA covering its collective ass when things went wrong – which they often did. Their view of a clumsy FBI was not much better.
Even more galling to Cheney and Rummy, in the days immediately after the al Qaeda attacks, the President turned to the CIA which he perceived to be quicker and lighter on its feet than the ponderous Defense Department to deliver the first blows against the terrorists in Afghanistan. This enraged Rumsfeld and he complained bitterly to his staff that every glory assignment for the CIA was a direct slap at DOD. Suskind details the bureaucratic wars between the CIA and the FBI and especially between the DOD and the CIA for the heart and mind of George W. Bush. It was never pretty but ever petty.
As a veteran with experience in winning and losing in this kind – but of nowhere near the import - of bruising infighting inside and among agencies for decades, it was obvious that Suskind’s sources at CIA and elsewhere were spilling their guts and were very angry with what happened to them – the losers. Either this book is fiction of the finest quality or we have some mighty disgruntled intelligence and law enforcement officers on duty and recently retired. Suskind offers up word for word conversations from some of the most closely guarded telephones and closely held meetings in the world.
It’s clear that that the suspected but loudly denied war between the White house and the CIA is very real. The White House no longer wanted carefully nuanced and ass covering `possibly’, `likely’ and `at some time in the future` baloney; they wanted confirmation that what they were doing was in accord with the intelligence – what I would term, `If it doesn’t fit, make it fit.’ The intelligence community would now be a rubber stamp for an administration that was desperate to deter the next attack.
But soon George Tenet departed as head of Central Intelligence and Porter Goss came onboard to reform it; i.e., turn it into a cheerleader for the White House. The book closes prior to Goss leaving an agency in disarray after the most contentious and unsuccessful year and a half tenure in the history of the agency.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice comes across in the book as a person quick to blame the intelligence community – or any other handy body - for her own failure to assure that George Bush was up to speed on the issue at hand – a difficult task since the President is neither a reader nor analytical. But that’s the topic of tomorrow’s installment.
Are you scared yet? You should be but it’s four o’clock; bottoms up!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Let me begin by saying that for failing to spot or stop the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, scapegoats – if nothing more – from the FBI, CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency and perhaps others should have been offered up for public satisfaction and entertainment within months of the tragedy. It never happened.
Suskind makes it clear, that in the aftermath of the attacks those making the calls on how things ran in this administration, the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and the small cadre of Bush intimates in the White House inner circle had more important things to do than watch George Tenet publicly fall on his sword for the benefit of those assembled in the national TV coliseum. They were going to transform the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA into a mechanism for supporting administration foreign and war policy.
The President and even more Cheney and Rumsfeld had a low opinion of the CIA and the FBI before the attacks. The Cheney/Rumsfeld axis had been watching the CIA fail to predict major events for almost four decades. The break up of the Soviet empire and the fall of the communist regime in Moscow as well as this extraordinary failure in New York and Washington had filled them with contempt for the agency. The honest broker role of the CIA and carefully nuanced reporting was viewed by the players as little more than the CIA covering its collective ass when things went wrong – which they often did. Their view of a clumsy FBI was not much better.
Even more galling to Cheney and Rummy, in the days immediately after the al Qaeda attacks, the President turned to the CIA which he perceived to be quicker and lighter on its feet than the ponderous Defense Department to deliver the first blows against the terrorists in Afghanistan. This enraged Rumsfeld and he complained bitterly to his staff that every glory assignment for the CIA was a direct slap at DOD. Suskind details the bureaucratic wars between the CIA and the FBI and especially between the DOD and the CIA for the heart and mind of George W. Bush. It was never pretty but ever petty.
As a veteran with experience in winning and losing in this kind – but of nowhere near the import - of bruising infighting inside and among agencies for decades, it was obvious that Suskind’s sources at CIA and elsewhere were spilling their guts and were very angry with what happened to them – the losers. Either this book is fiction of the finest quality or we have some mighty disgruntled intelligence and law enforcement officers on duty and recently retired. Suskind offers up word for word conversations from some of the most closely guarded telephones and closely held meetings in the world.
It’s clear that that the suspected but loudly denied war between the White house and the CIA is very real. The White House no longer wanted carefully nuanced and ass covering `possibly’, `likely’ and `at some time in the future` baloney; they wanted confirmation that what they were doing was in accord with the intelligence – what I would term, `If it doesn’t fit, make it fit.’ The intelligence community would now be a rubber stamp for an administration that was desperate to deter the next attack.
But soon George Tenet departed as head of Central Intelligence and Porter Goss came onboard to reform it; i.e., turn it into a cheerleader for the White House. The book closes prior to Goss leaving an agency in disarray after the most contentious and unsuccessful year and a half tenure in the history of the agency.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice comes across in the book as a person quick to blame the intelligence community – or any other handy body - for her own failure to assure that George Bush was up to speed on the issue at hand – a difficult task since the President is neither a reader nor analytical. But that’s the topic of tomorrow’s installment.
Are you scared yet? You should be but it’s four o’clock; bottoms up!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The One Percent Doctrine
Ron Suskind’s new book, The One Percent Doctrine, has to be the most frightening book since Americans had the bejesus scared out them when the Soviets got the A-bomb. It is the most amazing nonfiction work about the inner workings of the United States Government that I have ever read and has the ring of truth. If only half of the assertions are correct Americans have every right to chew their nails.
Ron Suskind’s ability as a story teller is unquestioned and his narrative forces page turning at a rate equal to a beach novel. He is fine writer and analyst and his sources appear impeccable.
I’ll hit a few of the highlights, but you must read this book yourselves. Right now! The title comes from a proposition articulated by Vice President Dick Cheney that given the nature of the world we face low-probability, high-impact threats must be addressed as if they are certain to happen. Thus, the long shot possibility of an al Qaeda nuclear device being detonated in an American city must dealt with as if terrorists are in the process of securing the device and arranging its transport at this very minute. If a foreign government could be considering providing such a device to a terrorist organization, all of the resources of the U.S. must directed to stopping the transfer.
It is common knowledge that the Iraq regime was targeted to be dealt with by the Bush administration prior to 9/11, and the One Percent Doctrine dovetailed perfectly with this preconceived notion and it became inevitable that we would make war on Saddam. While there is nothing new on the targeting of Iraq, that a rational was now available to national leaders for planning and preparing for the attack fit perfectly with the intent of those at the wheel.
But two things were wrong with the doctrine and the target: Iraq, the pre-selected target for demonstrating American capability and will, was no longer in the business of developing WMD, neither was it the most dangerous state on the planet for providing al Qaeda or other terror groups with WMD technology or devices. Other states or private entities, including some in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and even Switzerland were far more likely to be of assistance to the terrorists.
The bottom line, while the concept of `One Percent’ was draining on government human, technical, and financial resources by itself, the added overlay of having applied it dishonestly by targeting Iraq for political reasons prior to 9/11 and then proceeding without adequate intelligence was a formula for unmitigated disaster.
A supposition that derives from Iraq and the panicked response to the post 9/11 world by the American government in order to take the fight to al Qaeda instead of letting them bring it home to us again shook me to the core. Perhaps al Qaeda doesn’t want to attack the U.S. at this time. According to Suskind, one of the thoughts circulating in Washington is that the terrorists may happy to bomb our allies rather than us in hopes of separating those fighting beside us thus leaving us to fight alone in the heart of the Muslim world. Thus the attacks on Madrid and London instead of New York may be even more ominous than we thought.
Obviously, Osama bin Laden and his principal aids are brilliant tacticians and we are becoming aware that they are adept strategic thinkers as well. While they did not attack us on 9/11 to prompt the attack on Iraq, it is possible that they are happy with us stuck in the sand with fewer coalition partners each month. They are fully aware of the negative perception of the war on the American public and know that this is causing a political strain on the party in power as well as on the nation and its economy. If we pull out, they are likely to believe that we’ll be far more reluctant to enter the fray again. My thoughts raced to the Russian strategy toward Napoleon and to the Minute Men of New England during the Revolution. Scary!
This book is so full of brilliant insights and bons mots, some of which are being widely circulated by the media, that it will take several postings to do it justice. I’ll close this one since it is already too long.
What else will Ron Suskind reveal to the readers of this blog? Tune in tomorrow!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Ron Suskind’s ability as a story teller is unquestioned and his narrative forces page turning at a rate equal to a beach novel. He is fine writer and analyst and his sources appear impeccable.
I’ll hit a few of the highlights, but you must read this book yourselves. Right now! The title comes from a proposition articulated by Vice President Dick Cheney that given the nature of the world we face low-probability, high-impact threats must be addressed as if they are certain to happen. Thus, the long shot possibility of an al Qaeda nuclear device being detonated in an American city must dealt with as if terrorists are in the process of securing the device and arranging its transport at this very minute. If a foreign government could be considering providing such a device to a terrorist organization, all of the resources of the U.S. must directed to stopping the transfer.
It is common knowledge that the Iraq regime was targeted to be dealt with by the Bush administration prior to 9/11, and the One Percent Doctrine dovetailed perfectly with this preconceived notion and it became inevitable that we would make war on Saddam. While there is nothing new on the targeting of Iraq, that a rational was now available to national leaders for planning and preparing for the attack fit perfectly with the intent of those at the wheel.
But two things were wrong with the doctrine and the target: Iraq, the pre-selected target for demonstrating American capability and will, was no longer in the business of developing WMD, neither was it the most dangerous state on the planet for providing al Qaeda or other terror groups with WMD technology or devices. Other states or private entities, including some in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and even Switzerland were far more likely to be of assistance to the terrorists.
The bottom line, while the concept of `One Percent’ was draining on government human, technical, and financial resources by itself, the added overlay of having applied it dishonestly by targeting Iraq for political reasons prior to 9/11 and then proceeding without adequate intelligence was a formula for unmitigated disaster.
A supposition that derives from Iraq and the panicked response to the post 9/11 world by the American government in order to take the fight to al Qaeda instead of letting them bring it home to us again shook me to the core. Perhaps al Qaeda doesn’t want to attack the U.S. at this time. According to Suskind, one of the thoughts circulating in Washington is that the terrorists may happy to bomb our allies rather than us in hopes of separating those fighting beside us thus leaving us to fight alone in the heart of the Muslim world. Thus the attacks on Madrid and London instead of New York may be even more ominous than we thought.
Obviously, Osama bin Laden and his principal aids are brilliant tacticians and we are becoming aware that they are adept strategic thinkers as well. While they did not attack us on 9/11 to prompt the attack on Iraq, it is possible that they are happy with us stuck in the sand with fewer coalition partners each month. They are fully aware of the negative perception of the war on the American public and know that this is causing a political strain on the party in power as well as on the nation and its economy. If we pull out, they are likely to believe that we’ll be far more reluctant to enter the fray again. My thoughts raced to the Russian strategy toward Napoleon and to the Minute Men of New England during the Revolution. Scary!
This book is so full of brilliant insights and bons mots, some of which are being widely circulated by the media, that it will take several postings to do it justice. I’ll close this one since it is already too long.
What else will Ron Suskind reveal to the readers of this blog? Tune in tomorrow!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, June 24, 2006
The More things Change...
I just finished James David Barber’s The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House. It was an extraordinary read at many levels and I’m indebted to Allan Patterson for bugging me on it. He sent along a couple of articles by John Dean who used the book as the basis for comparing George W. Bush to Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and to his old boss, Richard Nixon and for finding a match.
Professor Barber died a few years back and cannot comment on the Dean proposition, but I think that the comparison fits very well, not that it makes much difference. I purchased the 1982 edition of the book which I believe was the last issued. The book was written, edited and expanded a number of times over a quarter of century. The first edition ended with the presidency of Richard Nixon and the ’82 version is extended into the term of George H. W. Bush – Bush 41.
Barber’s thesis is that by examining the formative period in a life one can predict the type of president the young person will make. This makes for great reading but as you can imagine is extremely subjective. The intention of the work is to warn the voters and party leaders not to select the worst kinds of presidents based on the categorizations by Barber.
Frankly, I loved going over the early lives of the presidents of the twentieth century. I’ve read rather extensively about Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon so I wasn’t surprised at how Barber put them on his couch. Reading about such lesser lights as Taft, Harding, and Coolidge who didn’t hit the author’s `A’ list of presidents was great fun, especially since I’m a fan – albeit a very unfanatic – of Silent Cal. Others like Ike and the first Bush were very well written up even if they didn’t particularly turn me on.
That Barber admires President Ford made me happy and put me in the professor’s corner; ditto for Harry Truman. Unfortunately, while Barber liked Jimmy Carter on a personal level, it colored his analysis and he had to do a lot of dancing to understand the flaw in his thesis when Smiley let us a down. His views on Bush 41 are also badly shaped by being too close in time to when he wrote about him. This, of course, shows the flaw in the thesis that by careful research one can predict how a presidential candidate is likely to perform if he (or she) is elected.
Obviously, every effort is made by the campaigns to hide, cover, obfuscate, and otherwise flimflam us about the candidate’s early life. The facts are often tossed out but with sufficient spin to set our heads and judgment reeling. All in all, I enjoyed and admired Barber’s efforts at selling his thesis. Unfortunately, I didn’t buy it as a great predictor of future performance.
But I bought hook line and sinker the notion that presidents can be categorized pretty much as Barber indicates. I won’t waste your time with all the good guys or even the mediocre performers. But there is no doubt that his categorization of `Active – Negative’ presidents is worthy of a moment. Wilson, Hoover, Johnson, and Nixon are placed in this category. Each of these presidents is charged by Barber – and history – with pressing to “persevere in a disastrous policy.” (p.80) Wilson was unable to make even minor compromises on his League of Nations goal. Hoover could not find any way to be flexible in the face of economic calamity. Johnson ploughed forward disastrously in Vietnam. And Nixon was unable deal with the petty crime of Watergate and was consumed by it.
John Dean sees the `stay the course’ Iraq policy of the present President Bush as a perfect match with the `Active - Negatives’ of Barber, and so do I.
At the basic level the book is a brilliant examination of what made great, mediocre, and failed presidencies. I’m certain that other historians could do the same biographical research and find differences, but the thesis really held for me. Unfortunately, as I said earlier it doesn’t seem to have much future value due to the packaging of candidates and all of the bunkum – positive and negative – being thrown at us.
But the reading was extremely valuable to me at another level. This book was extremely popular when it first came out and at each subsequent rewrite. In 1982, Barber made observations that are even more relevant for today. Barber’s review and analysis of the Constitutional issues relating to the Gulf War in 1991 are eye opening and remain relevant after almost a quarter of a century. While I remember supporting the forced removal of the Iraqi forces in Kuwait, I had completely forgotten the byplay that went as the build up to the intervention took place.
The situation is shockingly similar to that which occurred as the nation readied to attack Iraq again in 2003. This posting is already well over my self imposed word limit, but I cannot end it without a vignette concerning the squabbling between the Congress and the White House that shows that some things never change and that the leopard cannot change its spots. “When Senator Edward Kennedy asked Bush’s Defense Secretary Dick Cheney whether Bush needed the approval of Congress to go to war, his answer was, “I do not believe the President requires any additional authorization from Congress before committing U.S. forces to achieve our objectives in the Gulf.”” (Page 478)
There’s more gold in many old books than we think.
Vote and work for divided government! It really is important.
Blog On!
Wild Bill
Professor Barber died a few years back and cannot comment on the Dean proposition, but I think that the comparison fits very well, not that it makes much difference. I purchased the 1982 edition of the book which I believe was the last issued. The book was written, edited and expanded a number of times over a quarter of century. The first edition ended with the presidency of Richard Nixon and the ’82 version is extended into the term of George H. W. Bush – Bush 41.
Barber’s thesis is that by examining the formative period in a life one can predict the type of president the young person will make. This makes for great reading but as you can imagine is extremely subjective. The intention of the work is to warn the voters and party leaders not to select the worst kinds of presidents based on the categorizations by Barber.
Frankly, I loved going over the early lives of the presidents of the twentieth century. I’ve read rather extensively about Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon so I wasn’t surprised at how Barber put them on his couch. Reading about such lesser lights as Taft, Harding, and Coolidge who didn’t hit the author’s `A’ list of presidents was great fun, especially since I’m a fan – albeit a very unfanatic – of Silent Cal. Others like Ike and the first Bush were very well written up even if they didn’t particularly turn me on.
That Barber admires President Ford made me happy and put me in the professor’s corner; ditto for Harry Truman. Unfortunately, while Barber liked Jimmy Carter on a personal level, it colored his analysis and he had to do a lot of dancing to understand the flaw in his thesis when Smiley let us a down. His views on Bush 41 are also badly shaped by being too close in time to when he wrote about him. This, of course, shows the flaw in the thesis that by careful research one can predict how a presidential candidate is likely to perform if he (or she) is elected.
Obviously, every effort is made by the campaigns to hide, cover, obfuscate, and otherwise flimflam us about the candidate’s early life. The facts are often tossed out but with sufficient spin to set our heads and judgment reeling. All in all, I enjoyed and admired Barber’s efforts at selling his thesis. Unfortunately, I didn’t buy it as a great predictor of future performance.
But I bought hook line and sinker the notion that presidents can be categorized pretty much as Barber indicates. I won’t waste your time with all the good guys or even the mediocre performers. But there is no doubt that his categorization of `Active – Negative’ presidents is worthy of a moment. Wilson, Hoover, Johnson, and Nixon are placed in this category. Each of these presidents is charged by Barber – and history – with pressing to “persevere in a disastrous policy.” (p.80) Wilson was unable to make even minor compromises on his League of Nations goal. Hoover could not find any way to be flexible in the face of economic calamity. Johnson ploughed forward disastrously in Vietnam. And Nixon was unable deal with the petty crime of Watergate and was consumed by it.
John Dean sees the `stay the course’ Iraq policy of the present President Bush as a perfect match with the `Active - Negatives’ of Barber, and so do I.
At the basic level the book is a brilliant examination of what made great, mediocre, and failed presidencies. I’m certain that other historians could do the same biographical research and find differences, but the thesis really held for me. Unfortunately, as I said earlier it doesn’t seem to have much future value due to the packaging of candidates and all of the bunkum – positive and negative – being thrown at us.
But the reading was extremely valuable to me at another level. This book was extremely popular when it first came out and at each subsequent rewrite. In 1982, Barber made observations that are even more relevant for today. Barber’s review and analysis of the Constitutional issues relating to the Gulf War in 1991 are eye opening and remain relevant after almost a quarter of a century. While I remember supporting the forced removal of the Iraqi forces in Kuwait, I had completely forgotten the byplay that went as the build up to the intervention took place.
The situation is shockingly similar to that which occurred as the nation readied to attack Iraq again in 2003. This posting is already well over my self imposed word limit, but I cannot end it without a vignette concerning the squabbling between the Congress and the White House that shows that some things never change and that the leopard cannot change its spots. “When Senator Edward Kennedy asked Bush’s Defense Secretary Dick Cheney whether Bush needed the approval of Congress to go to war, his answer was, “I do not believe the President requires any additional authorization from Congress before committing U.S. forces to achieve our objectives in the Gulf.”” (Page 478)
There’s more gold in many old books than we think.
Vote and work for divided government! It really is important.
Blog On!
Wild Bill
Friday, June 23, 2006
Oversight
No matter how well conceived and operated, governments are never able to satisfy all people and the disaffected can never be won over completely. Terrorism is the strategy of choice for non-governmental entities and individuals without allies who rage against governments.
Most citizens cannot comprehend the likes of Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, or the alleged terrorists arrested today in Miami, but we can understand anger at governmental regulation and law. Obviously, a number of the Right to Life movement members were ready to harm, even murder, people willing to perform abortions and still more of them were willing to coerce those seeking the procedure. On the left, during the Cold war there were American communists and Stalinists ready to undermine the American government by stealing military secrets and delivering them to operatives sworn to harm us.
The anger that impelled Eric Rudolph to set off a bomb at the Atlanta Olympic Games is beyond my understanding. Just what had the governments of the United States done to develop such rage?
Clearly, the acts of terror perpetrated in New York, Arlington, Madrid, London, and elsewhere demonstrate that there are substantial numbers of disaffected people willing to make war on governments from outside of the framework of legitimacy. And many of these people are not from Islamic countries; indeed, many of the terrorists are home grown in the Western countries and some of them are at least nominally Christian.
The attack in Oklahoma City seems to have brought many – but nowhere near all - domestic whackos to their senses, and the militia movement that had been growing in the months prior to the attack proceeded to shrink precipitously as a result. But terrorists like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, can never be won over to something akin to American Civilization due to their mental state.
It is obvious, however, that even discounting the mentally ill, governments can never be universally loved; indeed they are not instituted for anything like that purpose. Trying to be as objective as possible, the United States and many of its Western allies have developed liberal and flexible systems designed as much as possible to let their citizens live and let live and to permit the pursuit of happiness, but some do not find the pursuit enough and get angry when things don’t go their way. President Garfield was shot by a fellow who didn’t get a job that he had been seeking, and we all know that you can’t hire everybody.
If the charges in the indictments handed down today in Miami are proven, it will demonstrate a danger to our system that is very difficult squelch – the copy catting of al Qaeda successes. A disaffected group of individuals coming together can magnify their problems and injuries and become a mad mob intent on destroying whatever institutions they perceive to have wronged them or their kind.
It is at moments like these when I become empathetic to President Bush and his underlings who are doing their level best to protect us from all manner of individuals and groups who want to harm us. But I’m also a civil libertarian who deplores the loss of individual freedom.
And naturally, it is clear that in his zeal to defend the nation, the president overcooked the intelligence on Iraq and made the greatest blunder of modern times by listening to Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neocon friends and attacking Iraq fully expecting to be absolved by uncovering great stocks of weapons of mass destruction. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men…
Our system of government and our personal freedoms are and will always be in danger, and the President must do all that is possible to defend our government and our persons and property from those who would harm them. But he must not become a tyrant in the process. The argument today centers not on what is being done but rather on the oversight of the executive by the Congress and the lack of restraints being imposed by the courts.
I’m not as paranoid as many of my friends about what the administration is doing in this area but want the checks and balances of the branches of government to be fully operative. I’m disappointed in the Republican majority in both houses for permitting the president to accrue more power than is warranted without proper oversight by the Congress and the courts.
Unless and until the other branches of government aggressively defend the roles assigned them under the Constitution, there will be great unhappiness with the Bush administration, indeed with the presidency itself. If the president has accrued too much power, it is because the other branches have failed in the performance of their duties.
We must have divided government if we are to check the executive in these perilous times.
Had enough? Vote Democratic!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Most citizens cannot comprehend the likes of Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, or the alleged terrorists arrested today in Miami, but we can understand anger at governmental regulation and law. Obviously, a number of the Right to Life movement members were ready to harm, even murder, people willing to perform abortions and still more of them were willing to coerce those seeking the procedure. On the left, during the Cold war there were American communists and Stalinists ready to undermine the American government by stealing military secrets and delivering them to operatives sworn to harm us.
The anger that impelled Eric Rudolph to set off a bomb at the Atlanta Olympic Games is beyond my understanding. Just what had the governments of the United States done to develop such rage?
Clearly, the acts of terror perpetrated in New York, Arlington, Madrid, London, and elsewhere demonstrate that there are substantial numbers of disaffected people willing to make war on governments from outside of the framework of legitimacy. And many of these people are not from Islamic countries; indeed, many of the terrorists are home grown in the Western countries and some of them are at least nominally Christian.
The attack in Oklahoma City seems to have brought many – but nowhere near all - domestic whackos to their senses, and the militia movement that had been growing in the months prior to the attack proceeded to shrink precipitously as a result. But terrorists like Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, can never be won over to something akin to American Civilization due to their mental state.
It is obvious, however, that even discounting the mentally ill, governments can never be universally loved; indeed they are not instituted for anything like that purpose. Trying to be as objective as possible, the United States and many of its Western allies have developed liberal and flexible systems designed as much as possible to let their citizens live and let live and to permit the pursuit of happiness, but some do not find the pursuit enough and get angry when things don’t go their way. President Garfield was shot by a fellow who didn’t get a job that he had been seeking, and we all know that you can’t hire everybody.
If the charges in the indictments handed down today in Miami are proven, it will demonstrate a danger to our system that is very difficult squelch – the copy catting of al Qaeda successes. A disaffected group of individuals coming together can magnify their problems and injuries and become a mad mob intent on destroying whatever institutions they perceive to have wronged them or their kind.
It is at moments like these when I become empathetic to President Bush and his underlings who are doing their level best to protect us from all manner of individuals and groups who want to harm us. But I’m also a civil libertarian who deplores the loss of individual freedom.
And naturally, it is clear that in his zeal to defend the nation, the president overcooked the intelligence on Iraq and made the greatest blunder of modern times by listening to Cheney, Rumsfeld and their neocon friends and attacking Iraq fully expecting to be absolved by uncovering great stocks of weapons of mass destruction. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men…
Our system of government and our personal freedoms are and will always be in danger, and the President must do all that is possible to defend our government and our persons and property from those who would harm them. But he must not become a tyrant in the process. The argument today centers not on what is being done but rather on the oversight of the executive by the Congress and the lack of restraints being imposed by the courts.
I’m not as paranoid as many of my friends about what the administration is doing in this area but want the checks and balances of the branches of government to be fully operative. I’m disappointed in the Republican majority in both houses for permitting the president to accrue more power than is warranted without proper oversight by the Congress and the courts.
Unless and until the other branches of government aggressively defend the roles assigned them under the Constitution, there will be great unhappiness with the Bush administration, indeed with the presidency itself. If the president has accrued too much power, it is because the other branches have failed in the performance of their duties.
We must have divided government if we are to check the executive in these perilous times.
Had enough? Vote Democratic!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Cut and Run
Since the United States is divided on the issue, it was inevitable that politics would be played even with the life and death situation in Iraq. Obviously, the Democrats are taking advantage of the situation the Republicans have created for themselves and the rest of us and are pushing for various forms of withdrawal from the fray. But the Republican counter attack boggles the mind; at least through the November election their mantra will be to stay the course and to call the Democrats weak on national security. In GOP parlance, the Democrats are advocating `cutting and running.’
Sadly, all thinking people realize that ultimately we will pull out of Iraq and that all casualties taken in the name of staying the course simply in hopes of retaining majorities in both houses of Congress are based on a completely cynical view of the world and are the ultimate in `dirty tricks.’ Deaths and wounds resulting from this naked political sliming will be on the heads of the cynics. Clearly, the administration is readying to draw down our forces as soon as the commanders in the field can say with straight faces that the Iraqis security forces are ready to defend the new government and the nation from enemies inside and out of the country and that the forces are under the control of the government.
No matter when this certification of readiness is rendered by our commanders, our withdrawal will be a leap of faith that the Iraqi leaders will work together to stabilize the country. To postpone the day of reckoning until after the election for partisan gain is nothing more than an effort to stir the few remaining faithful who buy into the ever rolling reasons for this fools’ errand. This ever shrinking pool of lame brained loyalists is being manipulated for one last time in hopes of maintaining control of the Hill and policy direction in the country. Naturally, if this unbelievable strategy were to work, it would be abandoned in the months following without a much as a single look backward.
`Cut and Run’ is not strategy unique to Democrats. To his credit, Gerald Ford ultimately got us out of Vietnam after Lyndon Johnson and, to a lesser degree, Richard Nixon stood obdurately in the way of withdrawal until long after the nation lost faith in that misbegotten venture. Ronald Reagan quickly withdrew our forces from Somalia when a murderous blast demonstrated to the president that our involvement was an error. Dwight Eisenhower cut and ran in Korea after the voters soured on that far more valiant effort. And the nation went on after each of these strategic withdrawals.
We must no be fooled by this cynical manipulation by Karl Rove and Republican political strategists. The president and his key advisors know full well that we must cut and run after a modest demonstration of support for the Iraqi government, and they have been preparing for this exit for many months. The Republicans must be punished at the polls for this great debacle. That they would attempt to go the well of ignorance still again speaks volumes about the patriotism. They must be turned out in November and in 2008.
Had enough? Vote Democratic!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Sadly, all thinking people realize that ultimately we will pull out of Iraq and that all casualties taken in the name of staying the course simply in hopes of retaining majorities in both houses of Congress are based on a completely cynical view of the world and are the ultimate in `dirty tricks.’ Deaths and wounds resulting from this naked political sliming will be on the heads of the cynics. Clearly, the administration is readying to draw down our forces as soon as the commanders in the field can say with straight faces that the Iraqis security forces are ready to defend the new government and the nation from enemies inside and out of the country and that the forces are under the control of the government.
No matter when this certification of readiness is rendered by our commanders, our withdrawal will be a leap of faith that the Iraqi leaders will work together to stabilize the country. To postpone the day of reckoning until after the election for partisan gain is nothing more than an effort to stir the few remaining faithful who buy into the ever rolling reasons for this fools’ errand. This ever shrinking pool of lame brained loyalists is being manipulated for one last time in hopes of maintaining control of the Hill and policy direction in the country. Naturally, if this unbelievable strategy were to work, it would be abandoned in the months following without a much as a single look backward.
`Cut and Run’ is not strategy unique to Democrats. To his credit, Gerald Ford ultimately got us out of Vietnam after Lyndon Johnson and, to a lesser degree, Richard Nixon stood obdurately in the way of withdrawal until long after the nation lost faith in that misbegotten venture. Ronald Reagan quickly withdrew our forces from Somalia when a murderous blast demonstrated to the president that our involvement was an error. Dwight Eisenhower cut and ran in Korea after the voters soured on that far more valiant effort. And the nation went on after each of these strategic withdrawals.
We must no be fooled by this cynical manipulation by Karl Rove and Republican political strategists. The president and his key advisors know full well that we must cut and run after a modest demonstration of support for the Iraqi government, and they have been preparing for this exit for many months. The Republicans must be punished at the polls for this great debacle. That they would attempt to go the well of ignorance still again speaks volumes about the patriotism. They must be turned out in November and in 2008.
Had enough? Vote Democratic!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
John F. Kennedy
I haven’t thought about John F. Kennedy as a person for many years. The Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, and the civil rights confrontations are easily handled as my old friends parry and thrust at our frequent lunches, but I don’t recall JFK, the living, breathing, and dying person ever having been discussed.
Al Patterson, one of our old pals from Washington State, emailed a couple of articles written by the almost infamous John Dean in which Dean compares President Bush with former presidents and places him squarely in the category of Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and his own employer, Richard Nixon. This categorization stems from a book, The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House, by James David Barber, the late presidential scholar at Duke University.
Silly me; the topic was fascinating and I felt compelled to read the original book and make up my own mind. On line, I found a used copy of the 1982 edition – the last I believe – and began. I haven’t quite finished but thus far have found it highly entertaining and extraordinarily interesting for reasons that I’ll explain in a later posting.
But in reading the section on JFK all of the old emotions of the period flooded back. Those us who were young when Camelot was in full flower in Washington cannot help but be nostalgic for those heady days. The glamour of the Kennedys was vicariously ours, and we idealized them so. When it all came crashing down it on that day in Dallas it was as if a beloved relative had been taken from us and all of our illusions had been shattered.
Being Irish and from the Boston area, I felt a link to JFK even though we were separated by miles, money, and class and the fact that we had never actually met. My own personal stories about Kennedy are typical of those with my background. I happened to be in New Haven on the day in 1960 when he received an honorary doctorate from Yale and made one of his thousands of witty bons mots: something along the lines of, “Today, I have the best of all worlds – a Yale degree and a Harvard education.”
When I was married in 1962, I was in the process of negotiating an internship in Washington, a huge step for a boy from Brockton, MA. Never anything but a wise guy, including at the wedding reception itself, I was rendered speechless when a young stranger approached and asked “You’re going down to Washington to help Kennedy run the government?” I quickly tried to be humble and indicated that it would be just a training position. He persisted and thanked me for my service. That a person could believe so sincerely in the new young president was a great eye opener.
New to Washington in December of 1962, I was walking from my office on Vermont Avenue past the White House and entering onto the Ellipse to catch my bus on Constitution Avenue when a limousine pulled up beside me and the president popped right out in front of me. He strode up to me and smiled broadly as he moved to light the National Christmas Tree. I was stunned and could barely nod and smile in return.
Those stories and other of similar worth aren’t much, but whenever I read of President Kennedy as a living being, those memories and all of the idealism of that time return to me. Then I remember William Manchester’s book, Death of a President, that was a gift to me and which I read once and threw away after weeping over so many of its pages.
I never knew Jack Kennedy but somehow I feel connected to him. It was great to be alive, young, and a part, albeit very small, of his team.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Al Patterson, one of our old pals from Washington State, emailed a couple of articles written by the almost infamous John Dean in which Dean compares President Bush with former presidents and places him squarely in the category of Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and his own employer, Richard Nixon. This categorization stems from a book, The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House, by James David Barber, the late presidential scholar at Duke University.
Silly me; the topic was fascinating and I felt compelled to read the original book and make up my own mind. On line, I found a used copy of the 1982 edition – the last I believe – and began. I haven’t quite finished but thus far have found it highly entertaining and extraordinarily interesting for reasons that I’ll explain in a later posting.
But in reading the section on JFK all of the old emotions of the period flooded back. Those us who were young when Camelot was in full flower in Washington cannot help but be nostalgic for those heady days. The glamour of the Kennedys was vicariously ours, and we idealized them so. When it all came crashing down it on that day in Dallas it was as if a beloved relative had been taken from us and all of our illusions had been shattered.
Being Irish and from the Boston area, I felt a link to JFK even though we were separated by miles, money, and class and the fact that we had never actually met. My own personal stories about Kennedy are typical of those with my background. I happened to be in New Haven on the day in 1960 when he received an honorary doctorate from Yale and made one of his thousands of witty bons mots: something along the lines of, “Today, I have the best of all worlds – a Yale degree and a Harvard education.”
When I was married in 1962, I was in the process of negotiating an internship in Washington, a huge step for a boy from Brockton, MA. Never anything but a wise guy, including at the wedding reception itself, I was rendered speechless when a young stranger approached and asked “You’re going down to Washington to help Kennedy run the government?” I quickly tried to be humble and indicated that it would be just a training position. He persisted and thanked me for my service. That a person could believe so sincerely in the new young president was a great eye opener.
New to Washington in December of 1962, I was walking from my office on Vermont Avenue past the White House and entering onto the Ellipse to catch my bus on Constitution Avenue when a limousine pulled up beside me and the president popped right out in front of me. He strode up to me and smiled broadly as he moved to light the National Christmas Tree. I was stunned and could barely nod and smile in return.
Those stories and other of similar worth aren’t much, but whenever I read of President Kennedy as a living being, those memories and all of the idealism of that time return to me. Then I remember William Manchester’s book, Death of a President, that was a gift to me and which I read once and threw away after weeping over so many of its pages.
I never knew Jack Kennedy but somehow I feel connected to him. It was great to be alive, young, and a part, albeit very small, of his team.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, June 12, 2006
Don't Let The Door Close
Newspapers across the country and the world are laden with the obvious, America’s approach to the Muslim world, especially those lands dominated by Arabs, has been an abysmal failure. By not at least evaluating the basic complaints of the Muslims of the Middle East to determine what if anything might be done to ease the situation; by losing our focus in Afghanistan in making war on al Qaeda, destroying the Taliban, and in turning our attention away from the government in Kabul; and by failing to demonstrate leadership in pushing towards peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, we have effectively undermined our foreign relations everywhere.
While there can be no doubt that support of tyrannical regimes squatting on huge oil reserves has permitted the flow of petroleum products into the U.S. for the past half a century, but at what cost?
The Saudi royals, our great friends, support the teaching of hatred of the West and Israel; our installation and support of the Shah continues to poison our relations with Iran; and, of course, our on again off again relations with Saddam led ultimately to the greatest foreign policy blunder in all of our history.
As we drift, the initiative in Afghanistan appears to be swinging back to the Taliban. Our espousal of democracy in the Palestinian region led to the freely elected leadership of Hamas. Our reaction led to the withholding American aid and to not pushing the Israelis to return earned monies to the Palestinians and this has created the worst crisis in that area since the beginning of the Iraq War. And of course our unwarranted preemption in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there has led to the destruction of the Bush presidency and the weakening of the nation.
Even as we encouraged the Israelis in their self interest withdrawal from Gaza, we support them in long term expansion on the West Bank. While we pride ourselves in having negotiated with Israel to return some huge percentage of the occupied territory to the Palestinians, we support them in proposing to maintain huge settlements in conquered land. And we wonder how Arafat and now Hamas could refuse such a generous offer? International law and the U.N., which we support by daily invective and with an ambassador who is an avowed enemy of the institution and not confirmed by the Senate, consider the occupation of these territories to be illegal. One must ask how Palestinian leaders could be expected to negotiate away this acreage and still maintain the support of their citizens.
We are morally bound to support Israel to the extent of the territories in its hands prior to the attacks by the Arab states. Any more than that and we condemn Israelis and Palestinians to endless warfare, deprivation, and suffering. Many Israelis know this and with leadership from the U.S. appear ready to step back from the long ago heady days of conquest and optimism. But President Bush must lead toward a goal of dismantlement of even the closest in settlements. Perhaps with American leadership in that direction partial Israeli control of Jerusalem would be possible; trying to achieve goals more aggressive than this will lead only to endless fighting.
Since 1967, we have supported the Israelis in a policy that even they are beginning to perceive as far too grand. But even as such aggressive fighters as Ariel Sharon see the long term folly of the old ways, America does little to ease the path.
Our problems across the Muslim world are great. It’s time to act, Mr. President.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
While there can be no doubt that support of tyrannical regimes squatting on huge oil reserves has permitted the flow of petroleum products into the U.S. for the past half a century, but at what cost?
The Saudi royals, our great friends, support the teaching of hatred of the West and Israel; our installation and support of the Shah continues to poison our relations with Iran; and, of course, our on again off again relations with Saddam led ultimately to the greatest foreign policy blunder in all of our history.
As we drift, the initiative in Afghanistan appears to be swinging back to the Taliban. Our espousal of democracy in the Palestinian region led to the freely elected leadership of Hamas. Our reaction led to the withholding American aid and to not pushing the Israelis to return earned monies to the Palestinians and this has created the worst crisis in that area since the beginning of the Iraq War. And of course our unwarranted preemption in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there has led to the destruction of the Bush presidency and the weakening of the nation.
Even as we encouraged the Israelis in their self interest withdrawal from Gaza, we support them in long term expansion on the West Bank. While we pride ourselves in having negotiated with Israel to return some huge percentage of the occupied territory to the Palestinians, we support them in proposing to maintain huge settlements in conquered land. And we wonder how Arafat and now Hamas could refuse such a generous offer? International law and the U.N., which we support by daily invective and with an ambassador who is an avowed enemy of the institution and not confirmed by the Senate, consider the occupation of these territories to be illegal. One must ask how Palestinian leaders could be expected to negotiate away this acreage and still maintain the support of their citizens.
We are morally bound to support Israel to the extent of the territories in its hands prior to the attacks by the Arab states. Any more than that and we condemn Israelis and Palestinians to endless warfare, deprivation, and suffering. Many Israelis know this and with leadership from the U.S. appear ready to step back from the long ago heady days of conquest and optimism. But President Bush must lead toward a goal of dismantlement of even the closest in settlements. Perhaps with American leadership in that direction partial Israeli control of Jerusalem would be possible; trying to achieve goals more aggressive than this will lead only to endless fighting.
Since 1967, we have supported the Israelis in a policy that even they are beginning to perceive as far too grand. But even as such aggressive fighters as Ariel Sharon see the long term folly of the old ways, America does little to ease the path.
Our problems across the Muslim world are great. It’s time to act, Mr. President.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Neatness Counts
An article in this morning’s Washington Post shows in how much danger the American public really is from an attack by terrorists. Unfortunately it is an indictment of bureaucrats everywhere and of political leaders, including the Mayor of Washington, DC, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and, most importantly, the President of The United States.
The Department of Homeland Security has taken the time to explain in exquisite detail to the governments of the communities making up the Washington DC Metropolitan Area and the media just how the grant application for anti-terrorist grant money for the region came up short and why the area lost funding in the recent grant cycle. Well there; now we here in Washington know why we won’t be getting the money. I guess that we're expected to feel good about that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901769.html
Unfortunately, the beautiful and clear explanation misses the entire point. The paper work of the local governments wasn’t as good or thorough as those from other jurisdictions, so the department had no choice but to send funds to Omaha (and a lot of other places) and had to penalize the National Capital Area. Pretty much the same situation obtained with New York. Neatness counts and we and they flunked. Too many erasures? Guess so. Case closed!
The only thing that seems to have been missed is that the terrorists really don’t much care about the grant making process or misspelled words in applications; they simply want to blow up the trophies of American civilization – like Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Unfortunately, the paper work of at least two of these icons of America failed to fill out the paper work as well as some lower ranking target cities, so DHS had no choice but to direct the money elsewhere. See?
If this were highway grant money it would be one thing, but we’re in a war – ask the Decider – and our main targets are being unduly exposed to attack because of bad paper work. If anyone reading this knows Mike Chertoff or the Decider, could you please assure that they understand that their employees are risking the symbols of the nation and millions of its citizens unduly because some other bureaucrats didn’t write good grant applications.
Is it four o’clock yet? I’m on Team Bud and need to practice.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
The Department of Homeland Security has taken the time to explain in exquisite detail to the governments of the communities making up the Washington DC Metropolitan Area and the media just how the grant application for anti-terrorist grant money for the region came up short and why the area lost funding in the recent grant cycle. Well there; now we here in Washington know why we won’t be getting the money. I guess that we're expected to feel good about that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901769.html
Unfortunately, the beautiful and clear explanation misses the entire point. The paper work of the local governments wasn’t as good or thorough as those from other jurisdictions, so the department had no choice but to send funds to Omaha (and a lot of other places) and had to penalize the National Capital Area. Pretty much the same situation obtained with New York. Neatness counts and we and they flunked. Too many erasures? Guess so. Case closed!
The only thing that seems to have been missed is that the terrorists really don’t much care about the grant making process or misspelled words in applications; they simply want to blow up the trophies of American civilization – like Washington, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Unfortunately, the paper work of at least two of these icons of America failed to fill out the paper work as well as some lower ranking target cities, so DHS had no choice but to direct the money elsewhere. See?
If this were highway grant money it would be one thing, but we’re in a war – ask the Decider – and our main targets are being unduly exposed to attack because of bad paper work. If anyone reading this knows Mike Chertoff or the Decider, could you please assure that they understand that their employees are risking the symbols of the nation and millions of its citizens unduly because some other bureaucrats didn’t write good grant applications.
Is it four o’clock yet? I’m on Team Bud and need to practice.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, June 09, 2006
Life for the Death Tax
Because most media outlets, thousands of bloggers and millions of ordinary citizens would not permit the Senate to operate in the dark, the complete abolition of the estate tax failed. Hurrah! Your grandchildren thank you.
Perhaps now the Congress will consider this tax in its proper perspective. Certainly there is need for a tax that protects the vast majority of estates from taxation. As it stands now fewer than 10,000 estates each year are taxed. That seems reasonable since a tax of 46% of the amount over $4 million will leave few heirs without latte or cause the sale of very few family farms. If I recall correctly, something in the neighborhood of $7 million would be a proper indexation of the original estate tax of $1 million. That should probably be the ultimate target for reform legislation.
We’re all better off with the stance taken yesterday.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Perhaps now the Congress will consider this tax in its proper perspective. Certainly there is need for a tax that protects the vast majority of estates from taxation. As it stands now fewer than 10,000 estates each year are taxed. That seems reasonable since a tax of 46% of the amount over $4 million will leave few heirs without latte or cause the sale of very few family farms. If I recall correctly, something in the neighborhood of $7 million would be a proper indexation of the original estate tax of $1 million. That should probably be the ultimate target for reform legislation.
We’re all better off with the stance taken yesterday.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
The End of al-Zarqawi
That Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed this week is indeed good news for the Iraqi, United States and the other coalition governments. Obviously, this will not end the insurgency but destroying its leader who exhibited total disregard for innocent lives is a blow to it and to al Qaeda itself.
There can be no doubt that this will demoralize some of Zarqawi’s followers while energizing others. The American and Iraqi force that conducted the successful raid can feel justifiably proud. While we may never know the truth about how the terrorist’s location was ferreted out, under the best condition he may well have been fingered by Sunnis sick of the constant fighting. While this does not guarantee a peaceful solution among the major factions in the civil unrest – or war – it eliminates once source of its obvious fomentation.
This changes little in the short run and does not mean that going into Iraq was worth the casualties or the treasure, but it is an event that has heartened President Bush and – as it should - all Americans. Zarqawi was clearly a brilliant and ruthless enemy of all civilized people. He will not be missed.
Good hunting to all involved!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
There can be no doubt that this will demoralize some of Zarqawi’s followers while energizing others. The American and Iraqi force that conducted the successful raid can feel justifiably proud. While we may never know the truth about how the terrorist’s location was ferreted out, under the best condition he may well have been fingered by Sunnis sick of the constant fighting. While this does not guarantee a peaceful solution among the major factions in the civil unrest – or war – it eliminates once source of its obvious fomentation.
This changes little in the short run and does not mean that going into Iraq was worth the casualties or the treasure, but it is an event that has heartened President Bush and – as it should - all Americans. Zarqawi was clearly a brilliant and ruthless enemy of all civilized people. He will not be missed.
Good hunting to all involved!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Stuff Happens
Oh Canada! Since the Canadians failed to support us in our fool’s errand in Iraq, many Americans have gone out their way to intensify jokes about the rubes to our north. But those of us who fear a terrorist attack on the U.S. might well pay attention to what the say, “Eh?” folks have discovered in plain sight. Home grown terrorists are a real possibility and they understand symbolism. The alleged plot uncovered in Ontario called for blowing up the Parliament Building and for the assassination of the Prime Minister. Trying to learn from this, would it be way off base to surmise that Washington, New York, and Los Angels might rank higher in terrorist minds than Fairbanks, Alaska?
Do you have a job with a company or a government? Are you retired and living on somewhat of a fixed income? Do you own a small business that has almost no chance of being worth more than $5million? Absent winning the lottery, are your chances of leaving an estate worth in excess of $5 million almost zilch? If you answer in the affirmative to the substance of these questions, the Republican president and the Republican Congress have surprise gift in store for you: a bill for $600 million over the next ten years that you or your children will have to pay if these lawmakers have their way in repealing the estate tax, the death tax as they call it. By the by, a goodly number of those supporting the measure have conflicts of interest in casting their votes on this as they will be saving their poor little old kin folks from having to pay taxes on their own estates.
As they did during early years of The Great Depression, Republicans are doing their damnedest to assure that moneyed interests are defended in these uncertain times at the expense of the middle classes. During the horrible Hoover years, while small farmers went bankrupt and millions of unemployed went hungry, it was the president’s program to lend money to still solvent farmers to feed their cattle, but there could be no dole for those agrarians too broke to borrow or for the urban workers without food on their tables. The Republican president and his Republican leaders in Congress went out of their ways to assure that cattle but not men, women, or children might eat.
Today the richest of the farmers are getting huge subsidies as are the large oil companies. Top corporate executives are getting huge compensation packages while middle class wages are stagnant. Please write your member of Congress and your Senator to assure that the estates of these plutocrats are passed without taxation to the next generation. They need your help if they are to continue living the lives that some of you may have fantasized.
The only thing that supports my optimism in life is the belief that no matter how clever, greedy, and craven those in charge may be, it’s shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations. Of course, there’ll be some wild living in the interim.
As my mother always told me, “Billy, no matter how badly you may want to think about people, always remember that they’re the same the world over.” It took me seven decades to realize how right she was and, more importantly, how sad it is.
Well, it’s four o’clock somewhere in the world. Cheers!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Do you have a job with a company or a government? Are you retired and living on somewhat of a fixed income? Do you own a small business that has almost no chance of being worth more than $5million? Absent winning the lottery, are your chances of leaving an estate worth in excess of $5 million almost zilch? If you answer in the affirmative to the substance of these questions, the Republican president and the Republican Congress have surprise gift in store for you: a bill for $600 million over the next ten years that you or your children will have to pay if these lawmakers have their way in repealing the estate tax, the death tax as they call it. By the by, a goodly number of those supporting the measure have conflicts of interest in casting their votes on this as they will be saving their poor little old kin folks from having to pay taxes on their own estates.
As they did during early years of The Great Depression, Republicans are doing their damnedest to assure that moneyed interests are defended in these uncertain times at the expense of the middle classes. During the horrible Hoover years, while small farmers went bankrupt and millions of unemployed went hungry, it was the president’s program to lend money to still solvent farmers to feed their cattle, but there could be no dole for those agrarians too broke to borrow or for the urban workers without food on their tables. The Republican president and his Republican leaders in Congress went out of their ways to assure that cattle but not men, women, or children might eat.
Today the richest of the farmers are getting huge subsidies as are the large oil companies. Top corporate executives are getting huge compensation packages while middle class wages are stagnant. Please write your member of Congress and your Senator to assure that the estates of these plutocrats are passed without taxation to the next generation. They need your help if they are to continue living the lives that some of you may have fantasized.
The only thing that supports my optimism in life is the belief that no matter how clever, greedy, and craven those in charge may be, it’s shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations. Of course, there’ll be some wild living in the interim.
As my mother always told me, “Billy, no matter how badly you may want to think about people, always remember that they’re the same the world over.” It took me seven decades to realize how right she was and, more importantly, how sad it is.
Well, it’s four o’clock somewhere in the world. Cheers!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, June 02, 2006
Remember Where You Came From
Alright already, I’m on the bandwagon being driven with the ruthless intent of running over the bureaucrats at The Department of Homeland Security who have cut the grants to defend against terrorism for New York and Washington.
Unfortunately, the proud employee who runs the program simply does not understand terrorists. Tracy Henke is proud of her small town roots – to the point of having a sign on her desk, “Remember where you came from.” Now isn’t that precious? A woman from Moscow Mills, MO, a hamlet not too far from St. Louis is proud of and will never forget her roots. Obviously a Cardinals and Budweiser fan, she shipped a keg of Homeland Security dough to St. Louis to protect the stadium, local breweries, and, of course, the Arch.
In today’s Washington Post, Dana Milbank carves up the plucky representative of the Show Me state along with her supporting cast of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and President George W. Bush, the Decider himself. It would appear that if an al Qaeda attack appears imminent, the cry to all key national security and homeland defenders will be, “Meet me in St. Louis!” From there the motorcade will proceed to Moscow Mills where the national response will be formulated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060101722.html?referrer=emailarticle
The New York Times in an editorial on the subject stole some of my thunder. Henke, Chertoff, and Bush don’t seem to get it. Regardless of whether New York and Washington do not seem to have any more vulnerable targets than other cities of similar population densities, they are icons of American life and are the targets of greatest value to terrorists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/opinion/02fri1.html
As we all know, on the world hit parade of hate, the United States, the Great Satan, is number one. The Islamic terrorists see Washington as the source of our military and political power and the city where we plan our global hegemony; New York is the center of our world financial and intellectual hubris; and Los Angeles (which – in fairness - got a substantial homeland grant increase) is the center of moral corruption and cultural decadence by which we ruin the world of innocents.
At this point it is not unfair to point out the obvious fact that New York and Washington were the prime targets of al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, that the World Trade center was attacked earlier, and that Los Angeles International Airport, LAX, was the target of a major disrupted plot.
While it is obvious that if the iconic cities are hardened and protected to the point that our enemies feel that they cannot succeed in attacking them, they will seek lesser priority targets. There can be no doubt that the American reaction to an attack on Milwaukee, Gillette, WY, or the outlet mall in Freeport, ME would create as much rage and determination as an attack on the White House or Disneyland, but there is not enough money on the planet to protect every possible target and choices must be made. The Times and the Post clearly make the case that despite Ms. Henke’s bold words on the legitimacy of the grant making process the dough is being disbursed as pork. Of this there is no doubt in my mind. So while we all hope and pray that another attack never happens, should one occur against New York or Washington, blood will be on the hands of those who disbursed this bacon.
I’m pleased that Ms. Henke remembers where she’s from. I’m from Brockton, MA and would be shattered if anything horrific occurred there. But Ms. Henke must also understand where she is living in one of the terrorists’ bulls eyes, the nation’s capital. Oh, by the way, I’m here with her and I’m an awful scaredy cat. More money for Washington and New York now!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Unfortunately, the proud employee who runs the program simply does not understand terrorists. Tracy Henke is proud of her small town roots – to the point of having a sign on her desk, “Remember where you came from.” Now isn’t that precious? A woman from Moscow Mills, MO, a hamlet not too far from St. Louis is proud of and will never forget her roots. Obviously a Cardinals and Budweiser fan, she shipped a keg of Homeland Security dough to St. Louis to protect the stadium, local breweries, and, of course, the Arch.
In today’s Washington Post, Dana Milbank carves up the plucky representative of the Show Me state along with her supporting cast of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and President George W. Bush, the Decider himself. It would appear that if an al Qaeda attack appears imminent, the cry to all key national security and homeland defenders will be, “Meet me in St. Louis!” From there the motorcade will proceed to Moscow Mills where the national response will be formulated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060101722.html?referrer=emailarticle
The New York Times in an editorial on the subject stole some of my thunder. Henke, Chertoff, and Bush don’t seem to get it. Regardless of whether New York and Washington do not seem to have any more vulnerable targets than other cities of similar population densities, they are icons of American life and are the targets of greatest value to terrorists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/opinion/02fri1.html
As we all know, on the world hit parade of hate, the United States, the Great Satan, is number one. The Islamic terrorists see Washington as the source of our military and political power and the city where we plan our global hegemony; New York is the center of our world financial and intellectual hubris; and Los Angeles (which – in fairness - got a substantial homeland grant increase) is the center of moral corruption and cultural decadence by which we ruin the world of innocents.
At this point it is not unfair to point out the obvious fact that New York and Washington were the prime targets of al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, that the World Trade center was attacked earlier, and that Los Angeles International Airport, LAX, was the target of a major disrupted plot.
While it is obvious that if the iconic cities are hardened and protected to the point that our enemies feel that they cannot succeed in attacking them, they will seek lesser priority targets. There can be no doubt that the American reaction to an attack on Milwaukee, Gillette, WY, or the outlet mall in Freeport, ME would create as much rage and determination as an attack on the White House or Disneyland, but there is not enough money on the planet to protect every possible target and choices must be made. The Times and the Post clearly make the case that despite Ms. Henke’s bold words on the legitimacy of the grant making process the dough is being disbursed as pork. Of this there is no doubt in my mind. So while we all hope and pray that another attack never happens, should one occur against New York or Washington, blood will be on the hands of those who disbursed this bacon.
I’m pleased that Ms. Henke remembers where she’s from. I’m from Brockton, MA and would be shattered if anything horrific occurred there. But Ms. Henke must also understand where she is living in one of the terrorists’ bulls eyes, the nation’s capital. Oh, by the way, I’m here with her and I’m an awful scaredy cat. More money for Washington and New York now!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Gamers
In eighteenth century England, the theory went something along the lines that the `inferior classes’ should be encouraged to breed like rabbits to increase the supply of workers, the competition for jobs, and to keep costs down. It seemed to work like a charm except for the problem of the inferiors occasionally getting out of hand and rioting and pillaging when they understood the exploitation they were suffering.
The gentlemanly class finally discovered a way to lubricate this system to both minimize the anger of their inferiors and to cut down on the damage when the workers got out of hand: gin. Gin became the cheapest way to keep up the breeding and to ease the fight in their inferiors when they got angry. Mothers’ Ruin, the appellation tagged on gin, was magic; it seemed to serve everyone with what they needed to get through the day, to breed the next generation of producers, to anesthetize them to their daily pain, and to carry them off to a better place before there were substantial societal costs.
In 1700, the annual gin consumption in England and Wales was about one and a quarter million gallons. By 1735 that figure had risen to 6.4 million gallons, and in 1751, when the conscience of the nation forced passage of legislation to curb the exploitation of the workers, something over 7 million gallons of gin were gargled and swallowed by the inferiors, a significant portion of this consumption was in the working class neighborhoods of London.
Some thirty or forty years ago, I became enamored with the novels of Kurt Vonnegut who was one of the first serious writers to consider the impacts of computers on the production process and what that might lead to in the greater society. While I haven’t gone back to reread these books, my impression was that of a world of a modern gin epidemic. Naturally, being young and an anti-Luddite, I wrote Kurt off as simply a brilliant eccentric.
But in our time, there is a phenomenon that bears a surprising similarity to the gin epidemic: video gaming, both home and internet. Last week, the Washington Post ran an article on the subject, and it had for me all of the earmarks of the gin epidemic. World wide gaming is apparently centered in South Korea but many of the symptoms have spread to Japan and the United States. Clearly the games are becoming a mass opiate and boys and young men are the target audience.
Anecdotal lamentations of parents, teachers, and college professors have reached the noise level of jet engines without ear protection, but the Post article shows that the problem is real and spreading more rapidly than the bird flu. This is a problem to be watched. The linked article hit me like an historical abstract straight out of eighteenth century London, but I leave that for your judgment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601960.html?referrer=emailarticle
Blog on!
Wild Bill
The gentlemanly class finally discovered a way to lubricate this system to both minimize the anger of their inferiors and to cut down on the damage when the workers got out of hand: gin. Gin became the cheapest way to keep up the breeding and to ease the fight in their inferiors when they got angry. Mothers’ Ruin, the appellation tagged on gin, was magic; it seemed to serve everyone with what they needed to get through the day, to breed the next generation of producers, to anesthetize them to their daily pain, and to carry them off to a better place before there were substantial societal costs.
In 1700, the annual gin consumption in England and Wales was about one and a quarter million gallons. By 1735 that figure had risen to 6.4 million gallons, and in 1751, when the conscience of the nation forced passage of legislation to curb the exploitation of the workers, something over 7 million gallons of gin were gargled and swallowed by the inferiors, a significant portion of this consumption was in the working class neighborhoods of London.
Some thirty or forty years ago, I became enamored with the novels of Kurt Vonnegut who was one of the first serious writers to consider the impacts of computers on the production process and what that might lead to in the greater society. While I haven’t gone back to reread these books, my impression was that of a world of a modern gin epidemic. Naturally, being young and an anti-Luddite, I wrote Kurt off as simply a brilliant eccentric.
But in our time, there is a phenomenon that bears a surprising similarity to the gin epidemic: video gaming, both home and internet. Last week, the Washington Post ran an article on the subject, and it had for me all of the earmarks of the gin epidemic. World wide gaming is apparently centered in South Korea but many of the symptoms have spread to Japan and the United States. Clearly the games are becoming a mass opiate and boys and young men are the target audience.
Anecdotal lamentations of parents, teachers, and college professors have reached the noise level of jet engines without ear protection, but the Post article shows that the problem is real and spreading more rapidly than the bird flu. This is a problem to be watched. The linked article hit me like an historical abstract straight out of eighteenth century London, but I leave that for your judgment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601960.html?referrer=emailarticle
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)