Today, el Rushbo sank to a new low. He stated that those criticizing the neocons were anti-Jewish. No doubt, many of the leading neoconservatives are Jews; among the better known are the Kristols, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. But not all those associated with the term are Jewish; I believe John Bolton is not an American Jew and he’s clearly in that camp.
The point is that Limbaugh is tarring anyone opposed to the neocon inspired foreign policy of George W. Bush as being anti-Semitic. Obviously many of the intellectual stalwarts behind the neocon philosophy are American Jews, but the overwhelming majority of American Jews are not neocons. It’s heavy stuff indeed that these right wing supporters of Bush Middle Eastern, Iraq War and war on terrorism policy are aiming at the opposition, eh?
Rush also attacked Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as being a liberal, inexperienced in military affairs, and as being soft on Hezbollah. Things are not going as well as planned for us and Israel, especially in light of the bombing and killing of innocents at Qana, Lebanon. It has to be somebody’s fault other than flawed U.S. and Israeli policy and Rush gives Olmert the nod. Lucky Ehud!
Things are stalled in New York as the U.S. is pressing for a U.N. resolution on the Israeli/Hezbollah fighting that cannot gain French or much other European support. France has countered with its own proposal for an immediate cease fire. It appears that we are stalling to buy more time for the Israelis to smash Hezbollah. While I continue to believe that would be a good thing by itself, the vast majority of other nations and world public opinion, especially Muslim, and most especially Arab, sees this as U.S. hubris and aggression that is being carried out by its surrogate. Even if it succeeds – and it is no slam dunk – do we and Israel win?
These are far from the best of times for George Bush, The United States, Ehud Olmert and the neocons, but there is not a lot of wavering as they push forward. Let’s hope they’re right. I doubt it and can’t wait to vote for Democrats in November in hopes of getting some oversight on the administration.
Supporters of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut have been very successful in ascribing the Senator’s troubles to far left wing Democrat bloggers, but the New York Times unraveled it all and endorsed Ned Lamont in next week’s primary. I want Lieberman to lose, but wouldn’t it be awful if what happens in little old Connecticut determined control of both houses of Congress? It could happen.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, July 31, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Just You Wait and See
Assume for a moment that George Bush is correct in his solutions to all things Middle Eastern, terrorism, and Iraqi. I read something in the last couple of days which indicted that he and Tony Blair are convinced the approach they are taking in that part of the world will be borne out, even if the time frame is no longer the short term they began with but extends out many decades, but those of us alive in this time may not be around when this great vindication comes about. In fact, the remainder of the six billion of us here is likely to be a small minority of those walking the planet after the middle of this century when conditions are supposed to reveal whether George and Tony are owed a debt of gratitude. Timing is everything.
Suppose that by the halfway mark of this century that democracy is indeed, making headway in the Middle East and the Muslim world in general. How much of this will those alive ascribe to the wise policies of George and Tony as compared with the normal course of events?
The United States and The United Kingdom are investing huge amounts of capital – human and fiscal – to advance the cause of freedom across the globe in our time expecting a huge payback in another era. Much of the world sees that investment as narrow self interest and an example of American imperial hubris.
The bottom line question is: how great an input of present resources is worth the long term payout predicted? We all make such calculation in our lives. Parents and talented offspring must decide whether postponing personal gratification for twelve or more years for medical training is worth the price in prestige and income likely to result from this great input of time and money on the front end. How much present sacrifice should we make to assure secure retirements? Such choices are made every day.
And nations make these calculations as well. For example, after WW II our leaders had to decide whether to invest billions dollars in the reconstruction of Europe was worth the sacrifice in the face of the threat of Soviet expansionism. The Marshall Plan was approved in the belief that the investment would save lives, capital, and quality of life down the road. It was; the Western countries recovered quickly and stood with us in the containment of the Eastern Block. This is looked back upon as one of the great investments in American history.
President Bush looks back to President Truman’s experience and the great rehabilitation of Harry’s reputation as his model. There is, however, a misreading of history in this. While Truman did lead in the restoration of Europe and is remembered fondly for it, his reputation had suffered not at all for that decision but for his bold move in standing up to communist adventurism in Korea. After an initial surge of public approval, Truman began his drift downward as his drive to restore the approximate balance on the Korean Peninsula became extremely unpopular. At the time, his political critics wanted a far more aggressive response, including a nuclear confrontation with China.
Truman held firm on a policy of world wide containment of the communists, and from the low point his reputation was restored quite rapidly to the high level of approval that he bears in history. By the time of President Kennedy, Truman’s rehabilitation was virtually complete – not much longer than a decade.
In Bush’s case, citizens of the United States backed him without reservation when he proclaimed war on the terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11. His orders to take the fight to al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan were supported by almost every American. A clear connection among the Taliban, al Qaeda and the attackers of 9/11 was established, and we were prepared for total war upon all of them. It never happened.
We sent a force to topple the Taliban and to capture or kill the al Qaeda members present in the country. But George Bush, the Decider, determined that a more comprehensive approach to terrorism was in order. He said there were weapons of mass destruction available and under development in Iraq and that the government of that country was cooperating with al Qaeda. The Iraq War became inevitable. Unfortunately for Bush – and us - neither WMD nor a connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden was ever proved and we are an occupying force in a country being torn apart by sectarian strife.
Our mission in Afghanistan was not carried out thoroughly, and we find ourselves supporting a government that does not control all of the country. The vast majority of al Qaeda operatives, including its primary leadership escaped to parts unknown, and the Taliban is has regrouped and is a threat to the current regime.
We have kept Iraq and Syria under pressure. Syria removed itself from Lebanon under great pressure from the international community, especially the U.S. Iraq is alleged – and I believe it - to be developing the capacity to build nuclear weapons and the U.S. and its allies have been applying pressure to stop them, thus far unsuccessfully. In what is alleged to be an Iranian and Syrian inspired plot, Israel was attacked by Hamas from Gaza and by Hezbollah from Lebanon.
Israel responded aggressively in Lebanon and a much wider war is under way. Our Western allies and most of the Sunni Arab and secular Arab states have become very outspoken in favor of a cease fire with Hezbollah which has proven to be a far more formidable foe than was expected. President Bush has backed the Israelis as they moved to destroy Hezbollah, and Bush and Israel find themselves losing ground in world public opinion and, worse, find the effort to take on Hezbollah far more taxing than they thought and now both seem to be for a less than completely satisfactory outcome as compared to two weeks ago.
Bush’s approach to militant Islam bears almost no comparison to the efforts of Harry Truman and his successors through to Bush 41 to contain Soviet expansionism that ultimately fell of its own weight. The flaws in the system were too great to maintain the consent of the governed and the system collapsed.
The present Bush was not content to fight those who attacked us; he was intent on solving all of the problems that created the rise of terrorism. This was undertaken not by investing billions to support economic growth and the rise of freedom but at the point of a gun.
We have lost some 3,000 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan with tens of thousands wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanistanis have perished and many more have lost their homes and livelihoods. We have spent more than $300 billion with no end in sight.
You may see this playing out happily as in the case of the collective security pursued by the U.S. after W.W.II. I don’t.
It’s four o’clock.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Suppose that by the halfway mark of this century that democracy is indeed, making headway in the Middle East and the Muslim world in general. How much of this will those alive ascribe to the wise policies of George and Tony as compared with the normal course of events?
The United States and The United Kingdom are investing huge amounts of capital – human and fiscal – to advance the cause of freedom across the globe in our time expecting a huge payback in another era. Much of the world sees that investment as narrow self interest and an example of American imperial hubris.
The bottom line question is: how great an input of present resources is worth the long term payout predicted? We all make such calculation in our lives. Parents and talented offspring must decide whether postponing personal gratification for twelve or more years for medical training is worth the price in prestige and income likely to result from this great input of time and money on the front end. How much present sacrifice should we make to assure secure retirements? Such choices are made every day.
And nations make these calculations as well. For example, after WW II our leaders had to decide whether to invest billions dollars in the reconstruction of Europe was worth the sacrifice in the face of the threat of Soviet expansionism. The Marshall Plan was approved in the belief that the investment would save lives, capital, and quality of life down the road. It was; the Western countries recovered quickly and stood with us in the containment of the Eastern Block. This is looked back upon as one of the great investments in American history.
President Bush looks back to President Truman’s experience and the great rehabilitation of Harry’s reputation as his model. There is, however, a misreading of history in this. While Truman did lead in the restoration of Europe and is remembered fondly for it, his reputation had suffered not at all for that decision but for his bold move in standing up to communist adventurism in Korea. After an initial surge of public approval, Truman began his drift downward as his drive to restore the approximate balance on the Korean Peninsula became extremely unpopular. At the time, his political critics wanted a far more aggressive response, including a nuclear confrontation with China.
Truman held firm on a policy of world wide containment of the communists, and from the low point his reputation was restored quite rapidly to the high level of approval that he bears in history. By the time of President Kennedy, Truman’s rehabilitation was virtually complete – not much longer than a decade.
In Bush’s case, citizens of the United States backed him without reservation when he proclaimed war on the terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11. His orders to take the fight to al Qaeda and the Taliban government in Afghanistan were supported by almost every American. A clear connection among the Taliban, al Qaeda and the attackers of 9/11 was established, and we were prepared for total war upon all of them. It never happened.
We sent a force to topple the Taliban and to capture or kill the al Qaeda members present in the country. But George Bush, the Decider, determined that a more comprehensive approach to terrorism was in order. He said there were weapons of mass destruction available and under development in Iraq and that the government of that country was cooperating with al Qaeda. The Iraq War became inevitable. Unfortunately for Bush – and us - neither WMD nor a connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden was ever proved and we are an occupying force in a country being torn apart by sectarian strife.
Our mission in Afghanistan was not carried out thoroughly, and we find ourselves supporting a government that does not control all of the country. The vast majority of al Qaeda operatives, including its primary leadership escaped to parts unknown, and the Taliban is has regrouped and is a threat to the current regime.
We have kept Iraq and Syria under pressure. Syria removed itself from Lebanon under great pressure from the international community, especially the U.S. Iraq is alleged – and I believe it - to be developing the capacity to build nuclear weapons and the U.S. and its allies have been applying pressure to stop them, thus far unsuccessfully. In what is alleged to be an Iranian and Syrian inspired plot, Israel was attacked by Hamas from Gaza and by Hezbollah from Lebanon.
Israel responded aggressively in Lebanon and a much wider war is under way. Our Western allies and most of the Sunni Arab and secular Arab states have become very outspoken in favor of a cease fire with Hezbollah which has proven to be a far more formidable foe than was expected. President Bush has backed the Israelis as they moved to destroy Hezbollah, and Bush and Israel find themselves losing ground in world public opinion and, worse, find the effort to take on Hezbollah far more taxing than they thought and now both seem to be for a less than completely satisfactory outcome as compared to two weeks ago.
Bush’s approach to militant Islam bears almost no comparison to the efforts of Harry Truman and his successors through to Bush 41 to contain Soviet expansionism that ultimately fell of its own weight. The flaws in the system were too great to maintain the consent of the governed and the system collapsed.
The present Bush was not content to fight those who attacked us; he was intent on solving all of the problems that created the rise of terrorism. This was undertaken not by investing billions to support economic growth and the rise of freedom but at the point of a gun.
We have lost some 3,000 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan with tens of thousands wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanistanis have perished and many more have lost their homes and livelihoods. We have spent more than $300 billion with no end in sight.
You may see this playing out happily as in the case of the collective security pursued by the U.S. after W.W.II. I don’t.
It’s four o’clock.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Anybody Out There Seen Eddie?
It’s been coming for a long, long time, junior high school back in the forties, to put a time frame on it. Every social studies teacher of the era was a cheerleader for our late beloved Woodrow Wilson. Aside from studying all of the line items in the budget for the City of Brockton, MA and otherwise being brow beaten into becoming responsible citizens, we spent hours on Woodrow’s fourteen points and learned how one of our own senators, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., was a wicked old man intent on nothing more than ruining the future of not only the United States but of innocent people everywhere.
By the time I reached the age of reason (Please!) the idealism of Woodrow was at the ready, and I was about to become a do gooder ready to make your world a better place. What could be more reasonable than the right of self determination for all peoples? Why shouldn’t the ethnic groups of the Balkans have rights to space? Why shouldn’t the Baltic States be free? Why, why, why?
But over a lifetime of watching American statesmen operate from the perspective of American self interest, my views became more like those of Dr. Strangelove – excuse me – Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Brent Scowcroft rather than old Woodrow and of European statesmen of old such as Bismark. I also realized that my political hero, Franklin Roosevelt, while committed to internationalism was so only inclined in the long term best interests of the U.S.
But as so aptly described by Andrew Bacevich in his fine book The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War after Vietnam the loss of prestige of the U.S. military and the seeming drift away from American and Christian values drove two groups, the neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians, into a strange alliance for control of America’s destiny. Both groups, idealistic to the core, fought tooth and nail for a return of values that peaked with the coming of Ronald Reagan. American foreign policy turned away from the realpolitik of presidents like John Kennedy and Richard Nixon and brought the idealism of Woodrow Wilson and his intellectual offspring, the neocons, back into vogue in the presidency of George W. Bush.
The neocon view that America at the head of a coalition of the willing had the power and prestige to remake the world in its own image became our new paradigm. Democracy would replace tyranny and the obvious dangers of dictators and terrorist organizations would be displaced by free peoples everywhere, especially in the chosen laboratory of Iraq.
The war drums began their heavy beat and quick as a wink, Saddam fell like an overripe tomato. Sadly, as I read the papers this morning, none of the idealism propounded to get us into this mess seems present. The holy proclamations of those spreading the word of American democracy ring hollow on this warm summer morning.
Today, the world is divided over the war raging in Lebanon. Frankly, the Israelis were absolutely correct to respond aggressively to the Hezbollah provocation. The question arises when is enough enough? Every player sees the conflict through its prism. The U.S. and its partner Israel view the situation through the eyes of the neocon philosophy of applying power to the struggle to the point of annihilating the Hezbollah fighters massed against them. Others, including Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, and most European governments call for an immediate end, and now most Arab states call for a cease fire in place. But the power resides with Bush and the Israelis and they appear to be going to continue with an aggressive incursion.
I’m a moderate conservative and, as indicated, much closer in view to the Scowcroft/Bush 41 view. But more important I’m of a the view of pursuing the view of enlightened self interest as proclaimed so long ago by Edmund Burke of England. Angry letters to editors from American Jews demanding explanations of proportionality in the current conflict when compared to the actions taken in the past by many asking them to halt their attack, are very difficult to answer. For example, how could anyone who supported the dropping of the a-bombs or the firebombings of WW II ever preach to the Israelis when there is no balance of proportion given that innocent deaths in Lebanon are in the hundreds and not in the hundreds of thousands?
To me the only answer lies in the concept of enlightened self interest. There are 400 million Arabs and each day significant numbers of them grow more sympathetic to the plight of the innocent Lebanese caught in the crossfire. Even if the Israeli/American vision of cleaning out the nest of terrorists is completely fulfilled, do the Israelis gain total victory over those wishing the end of their state?
American neoconservatism has pushed Arab Shiites – even beyond Iraq - into an alliance with Iran. That nation has gained great sway over many Arabs by being even more bellicose in its talk of annihilating Israel. Even Arab leaders from mostly Sunni nations are growing more uncomfortable with the heat being placed on them as innocents die.
Were I an Israeli, I’d be as outraged as they are over the terrorist attacks and the failure of outsiders to see their plight. But I’d also try to see my enlightened self interest and to attempt to balance my rage with my long term need to continue to live in a largely hostile environment in which current actions are not winning the war for hearts and minds of my neighbors.
Where’s Ed Burke when you most need him?
Blog on!
Mild Bill
By the time I reached the age of reason (Please!) the idealism of Woodrow was at the ready, and I was about to become a do gooder ready to make your world a better place. What could be more reasonable than the right of self determination for all peoples? Why shouldn’t the ethnic groups of the Balkans have rights to space? Why shouldn’t the Baltic States be free? Why, why, why?
But over a lifetime of watching American statesmen operate from the perspective of American self interest, my views became more like those of Dr. Strangelove – excuse me – Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Brent Scowcroft rather than old Woodrow and of European statesmen of old such as Bismark. I also realized that my political hero, Franklin Roosevelt, while committed to internationalism was so only inclined in the long term best interests of the U.S.
But as so aptly described by Andrew Bacevich in his fine book The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War after Vietnam the loss of prestige of the U.S. military and the seeming drift away from American and Christian values drove two groups, the neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians, into a strange alliance for control of America’s destiny. Both groups, idealistic to the core, fought tooth and nail for a return of values that peaked with the coming of Ronald Reagan. American foreign policy turned away from the realpolitik of presidents like John Kennedy and Richard Nixon and brought the idealism of Woodrow Wilson and his intellectual offspring, the neocons, back into vogue in the presidency of George W. Bush.
The neocon view that America at the head of a coalition of the willing had the power and prestige to remake the world in its own image became our new paradigm. Democracy would replace tyranny and the obvious dangers of dictators and terrorist organizations would be displaced by free peoples everywhere, especially in the chosen laboratory of Iraq.
The war drums began their heavy beat and quick as a wink, Saddam fell like an overripe tomato. Sadly, as I read the papers this morning, none of the idealism propounded to get us into this mess seems present. The holy proclamations of those spreading the word of American democracy ring hollow on this warm summer morning.
Today, the world is divided over the war raging in Lebanon. Frankly, the Israelis were absolutely correct to respond aggressively to the Hezbollah provocation. The question arises when is enough enough? Every player sees the conflict through its prism. The U.S. and its partner Israel view the situation through the eyes of the neocon philosophy of applying power to the struggle to the point of annihilating the Hezbollah fighters massed against them. Others, including Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, and most European governments call for an immediate end, and now most Arab states call for a cease fire in place. But the power resides with Bush and the Israelis and they appear to be going to continue with an aggressive incursion.
I’m a moderate conservative and, as indicated, much closer in view to the Scowcroft/Bush 41 view. But more important I’m of a the view of pursuing the view of enlightened self interest as proclaimed so long ago by Edmund Burke of England. Angry letters to editors from American Jews demanding explanations of proportionality in the current conflict when compared to the actions taken in the past by many asking them to halt their attack, are very difficult to answer. For example, how could anyone who supported the dropping of the a-bombs or the firebombings of WW II ever preach to the Israelis when there is no balance of proportion given that innocent deaths in Lebanon are in the hundreds and not in the hundreds of thousands?
To me the only answer lies in the concept of enlightened self interest. There are 400 million Arabs and each day significant numbers of them grow more sympathetic to the plight of the innocent Lebanese caught in the crossfire. Even if the Israeli/American vision of cleaning out the nest of terrorists is completely fulfilled, do the Israelis gain total victory over those wishing the end of their state?
American neoconservatism has pushed Arab Shiites – even beyond Iraq - into an alliance with Iran. That nation has gained great sway over many Arabs by being even more bellicose in its talk of annihilating Israel. Even Arab leaders from mostly Sunni nations are growing more uncomfortable with the heat being placed on them as innocents die.
Were I an Israeli, I’d be as outraged as they are over the terrorist attacks and the failure of outsiders to see their plight. But I’d also try to see my enlightened self interest and to attempt to balance my rage with my long term need to continue to live in a largely hostile environment in which current actions are not winning the war for hearts and minds of my neighbors.
Where’s Ed Burke when you most need him?
Blog on!
Mild Bill
Sunday, July 23, 2006
MORE POWER!!!
Tim Allen’s old comedy sitcom Home Improvement provides the inspiration for the neoconservatives advising the President. When things go awry the answer is - More Power!
Last year’s bad guy, Assad of Syria – out of Lebanon with him – How? More Power!
Today’s good guy, Assad of Syria – back into Lebanon with him – How? More Power!
Under Reagan – Saddam good – Iran bad – help him - How? More Power!
Under Bush 43 – Saddam bad – topple - How? More Power!
Congress/courts/citizens – pains – listen in – How? More Power!
Flip flops? Hell no! More Power!
Wild Bill – sober – answer – More Busch!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Last year’s bad guy, Assad of Syria – out of Lebanon with him – How? More Power!
Today’s good guy, Assad of Syria – back into Lebanon with him – How? More Power!
Under Reagan – Saddam good – Iran bad – help him - How? More Power!
Under Bush 43 – Saddam bad – topple - How? More Power!
Congress/courts/citizens – pains – listen in – How? More Power!
Flip flops? Hell no! More Power!
Wild Bill – sober – answer – More Busch!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, July 22, 2006
The Hole - How Deep?
In a recent posting, How Lame, I mistakenly indicated that the President had shown the door to the neoconservatives. He hasn’t. Everything that is playing out in the Middle East smacks of their tender touch. If the disaster in Iraq wasn’t enough to demonstrate to the President the folly of listening to these so-called `idealists’, nothing will, and we are doomed to another two years of nail biting.
Let’s get this straight; there is a civilization out there, Islam, with 1.2 billion members. The vast majority of its adherents want nothing more than peace for themselves and the opportunity to pursue happiness for themselves and their offspring. Many of them live in nations governed by despots and while they’d like it to be otherwise, they – like others so burdened - just keep getting up in the morning to seek their daily bread.
There is no doubt that a small but significant and growing minority of Islam is outraged at the West, the United States, and, most especially, at the governments of many Islamic countries for selling out to foreigners and for suppressing the true faith. These people are extremely dangerous and are the sworn enemies of us all. Assuming the argument that these jihadists are hopeless cases, we must do our best to stop them by all means fair and foul.
But the policies of George Bush that are clearly those inspired by the neocons have got us further from a solution to terrorism than when we began to react against the horror that was 9/11. The mad dream of the neocons for us to go it alone and by force of American arms to deal with this militant cancer on Islam has got us into far greater difficulties than we could have possibly imagined three years ago.
True Republican conservatives and moderates of all stripes have to react in a manner that’s in the best long term interests of the country. Our support and encouragement of the overwhelming response to the incursions of Hamas and Hezbollah into Israel while completely justified at one level plays right into the hands of the jihadists and the leaders of Syria and Iran.
The very idea of an axis between Syria and Iran should give us pause. That a mostly secular Arab state could find common cause with a Shiite inspired religious state populated by an ethnic group that is classically its antagonist is shocking. By our war on Iraq we’ve made the strangest bedfellows imaginable.
Hezbollah bit us on our backside. They will pay a great price for this point, but, in the process, they have destroyed the last vestiges of our role as an honest broker in the region. The neocons with their purity of vision and purpose have us and Israel in the position of being right but this isn’t a world of black and white. The larger grays of the Islamic world see us as supporting the destruction of Lebanon and the oppression of innocent Arabs.
The longer and harsher the neocon inspired response to the immediate Hezbollah attack, the worse off Israel and we become. This neocon vision that we must demonstrate no weakness – or even moderation – to bellicosity from our enemies inspires little confidence in the long term.
Bush has got to stop listening to these people. Since the idea of attacking Iraq first surfaced, each day we’ve been drawn deeper and deeper into the quagmire of the Middle East and gotten further away from our proper goal of pursuing those who planned and executed 9/11.
That’s a deep hole we’re in; we better stop digging pretty soon.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Let’s get this straight; there is a civilization out there, Islam, with 1.2 billion members. The vast majority of its adherents want nothing more than peace for themselves and the opportunity to pursue happiness for themselves and their offspring. Many of them live in nations governed by despots and while they’d like it to be otherwise, they – like others so burdened - just keep getting up in the morning to seek their daily bread.
There is no doubt that a small but significant and growing minority of Islam is outraged at the West, the United States, and, most especially, at the governments of many Islamic countries for selling out to foreigners and for suppressing the true faith. These people are extremely dangerous and are the sworn enemies of us all. Assuming the argument that these jihadists are hopeless cases, we must do our best to stop them by all means fair and foul.
But the policies of George Bush that are clearly those inspired by the neocons have got us further from a solution to terrorism than when we began to react against the horror that was 9/11. The mad dream of the neocons for us to go it alone and by force of American arms to deal with this militant cancer on Islam has got us into far greater difficulties than we could have possibly imagined three years ago.
True Republican conservatives and moderates of all stripes have to react in a manner that’s in the best long term interests of the country. Our support and encouragement of the overwhelming response to the incursions of Hamas and Hezbollah into Israel while completely justified at one level plays right into the hands of the jihadists and the leaders of Syria and Iran.
The very idea of an axis between Syria and Iran should give us pause. That a mostly secular Arab state could find common cause with a Shiite inspired religious state populated by an ethnic group that is classically its antagonist is shocking. By our war on Iraq we’ve made the strangest bedfellows imaginable.
Hezbollah bit us on our backside. They will pay a great price for this point, but, in the process, they have destroyed the last vestiges of our role as an honest broker in the region. The neocons with their purity of vision and purpose have us and Israel in the position of being right but this isn’t a world of black and white. The larger grays of the Islamic world see us as supporting the destruction of Lebanon and the oppression of innocent Arabs.
The longer and harsher the neocon inspired response to the immediate Hezbollah attack, the worse off Israel and we become. This neocon vision that we must demonstrate no weakness – or even moderation – to bellicosity from our enemies inspires little confidence in the long term.
Bush has got to stop listening to these people. Since the idea of attacking Iraq first surfaced, each day we’ve been drawn deeper and deeper into the quagmire of the Middle East and gotten further away from our proper goal of pursuing those who planned and executed 9/11.
That’s a deep hole we’re in; we better stop digging pretty soon.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, July 21, 2006
Wringing Hands in Annandale
Alright, I don’t know my butt from my elbow, but I’m a citizen and still must indicate to my governmental leaders that they have my consent – or not - for what’s going on. That’s how governments derive their just powers, right? At least that’s what those boys in Philly said in 1776.
This much I know; Hezbollah and Hamas started this fight and Israel is more than happy to take it to them.
This much I’ve been told and agree that Hezbollah is being armed and encouraged by Iran and Syria as a means to further occupy America by diverting U.S. pressure from them.
This much I think; the U.S. has a plan. We’re quite content to have Israel demolish the ability of Hezbollah to make organized war against Israel. Most of the rest of the world’s nations are concerned that the fighting could spread beyond Lebanon and Gaza; I doubt that.
In wars, innocents in the way of the warriors suffer horribly. In Israel and especially Lebanon, civilian casualties are high and climbing, and the Lebanese infrastructure is taking a terrible beating. Neither we nor Israel seem to care at all about this. Israel uses the consent of the governed that I used earlier on the Lebanese as the basis for its aggressive action.
Right wingers in the U.S. are screaming for the Israelis to destroy Hezbollah and liberals and most of the world’s governments are calling for restraint. It is my view that President Bush is in the former camp and wants to degrade Hezbollah and send a strong message to Syria and Iran that they’ve made a horrible mistake. I’m for that!
But I’m in both camps. Where to? I want to see Hezbollah – and Hamas – tamed, even destroyed. But I don’t want to see innocent Israelis and, again, especially Lebanese suffer. I kind of agree with the president in this fight, but he has a credibility problem with me: Iraq and all that we’ve done to that country.
I also see the possibility of a Pyrrhic victory for Israel. Its army appears fully capable of smashing Hezbollah to a point that it will take years for it to recover. While they will never be loved, there comes a point with the disproportionate Israeli response that the horrible rhetoric of the Iranian president vowing to destroy Israel becomes acceptable to the vast majority of moderate Muslims who see the suffering of the innocent in Lebanon.
Disclaimer: the oldest one in the world – some of my best friends are Lebanese and Jews. I was raised in a neighborhood in Brockton, MA that was about half Irish and half Lebanese. They are Arabs who are Maronite Christians and I keep in friendly contact with them to this day. And, of course, many of my closest friends in adult life have been and are Jews.
I want no dog in this fight.
I think the Israelis are right to take on Hezbollah, but I think they’ve gone too far in destroying the Lebanese economy and infrastructure and in not caring about innocent civilians.
I’m for an early halt to this incursion, and I think the U.S. president has been slow to call them on it.
Blog on!
Not nearly as wild as usual, Wild Bill
This much I know; Hezbollah and Hamas started this fight and Israel is more than happy to take it to them.
This much I’ve been told and agree that Hezbollah is being armed and encouraged by Iran and Syria as a means to further occupy America by diverting U.S. pressure from them.
This much I think; the U.S. has a plan. We’re quite content to have Israel demolish the ability of Hezbollah to make organized war against Israel. Most of the rest of the world’s nations are concerned that the fighting could spread beyond Lebanon and Gaza; I doubt that.
In wars, innocents in the way of the warriors suffer horribly. In Israel and especially Lebanon, civilian casualties are high and climbing, and the Lebanese infrastructure is taking a terrible beating. Neither we nor Israel seem to care at all about this. Israel uses the consent of the governed that I used earlier on the Lebanese as the basis for its aggressive action.
Right wingers in the U.S. are screaming for the Israelis to destroy Hezbollah and liberals and most of the world’s governments are calling for restraint. It is my view that President Bush is in the former camp and wants to degrade Hezbollah and send a strong message to Syria and Iran that they’ve made a horrible mistake. I’m for that!
But I’m in both camps. Where to? I want to see Hezbollah – and Hamas – tamed, even destroyed. But I don’t want to see innocent Israelis and, again, especially Lebanese suffer. I kind of agree with the president in this fight, but he has a credibility problem with me: Iraq and all that we’ve done to that country.
I also see the possibility of a Pyrrhic victory for Israel. Its army appears fully capable of smashing Hezbollah to a point that it will take years for it to recover. While they will never be loved, there comes a point with the disproportionate Israeli response that the horrible rhetoric of the Iranian president vowing to destroy Israel becomes acceptable to the vast majority of moderate Muslims who see the suffering of the innocent in Lebanon.
Disclaimer: the oldest one in the world – some of my best friends are Lebanese and Jews. I was raised in a neighborhood in Brockton, MA that was about half Irish and half Lebanese. They are Arabs who are Maronite Christians and I keep in friendly contact with them to this day. And, of course, many of my closest friends in adult life have been and are Jews.
I want no dog in this fight.
I think the Israelis are right to take on Hezbollah, but I think they’ve gone too far in destroying the Lebanese economy and infrastructure and in not caring about innocent civilians.
I’m for an early halt to this incursion, and I think the U.S. president has been slow to call them on it.
Blog on!
Not nearly as wild as usual, Wild Bill
Thursday, July 20, 2006
How Lame?
Gulliver entwined or the king of beasts being snapped at from behind by hyenas? Take your pick of these or any other images you can conjure of the powerful being harassed by the weak. Poor George, the lamest of the lame ducks since Herby Hoover, can’t catch a break. His war is increasingly viewed by his (former) supporters as having the aspect and smell of leprosy. In a front page story in today’s Washington Post, the (formerly) faithful now point to (his) incompetence for the ever more obvious failure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901787.html?referrer=emailarticle
The president broke ranks with Tom Jefferson yesterday and vetoed his first bill. Seventy percent of the American people see stem cell research as worthy with great potential to heal the sick and to make the lame walk. But George with his usual ability to redefine inflexibility cannot break with his hard core supporters and is abandoned by many of his (formerly) most ardent Hill admirers. If stem cell research ever does find the cures for some of the horrible afflictions that torment humanity, will those who oppose it on moral grounds refuse treatment based on its immoral genesis? Just a question.
Our lion roared at Syria and Iran and their lackeys snapped at his rump. His most personal frustrations were caught on tape in St. Petersburg when he bellowed his sad lament to the soon to be former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
And of course, the drive by media – defined thus by my pal el Rushbo – never forgets anything and has everything the high and mighty have ever uttered in secure tape files in nuclear bomb shelters. Today’s turd is about Katrina, you remember her: the bitch of the bayou, when George was doing his darndest to appear sympathetic to the down and out he said some things that would lead one to believe that he gave a crap about the poor. With the passage of time, however, George kind of forgot these remarks. But no, the drive byes never forget anything and poor Uncurious George gets slammed for not giving a rat’s patooty about the down and out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901735.html?referrer=emailarticle
Sad, this lame duck business!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901787.html?referrer=emailarticle
The president broke ranks with Tom Jefferson yesterday and vetoed his first bill. Seventy percent of the American people see stem cell research as worthy with great potential to heal the sick and to make the lame walk. But George with his usual ability to redefine inflexibility cannot break with his hard core supporters and is abandoned by many of his (formerly) most ardent Hill admirers. If stem cell research ever does find the cures for some of the horrible afflictions that torment humanity, will those who oppose it on moral grounds refuse treatment based on its immoral genesis? Just a question.
Our lion roared at Syria and Iran and their lackeys snapped at his rump. His most personal frustrations were caught on tape in St. Petersburg when he bellowed his sad lament to the soon to be former Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
And of course, the drive by media – defined thus by my pal el Rushbo – never forgets anything and has everything the high and mighty have ever uttered in secure tape files in nuclear bomb shelters. Today’s turd is about Katrina, you remember her: the bitch of the bayou, when George was doing his darndest to appear sympathetic to the down and out he said some things that would lead one to believe that he gave a crap about the poor. With the passage of time, however, George kind of forgot these remarks. But no, the drive byes never forget anything and poor Uncurious George gets slammed for not giving a rat’s patooty about the down and out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901735.html?referrer=emailarticle
Sad, this lame duck business!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Anxious in Annandale
The only thing I’m sure of this morning is that Congress is composed of idiots and charlatans who can’t be trusted. Last week’s Washington Post Magazine article that asked if the Israeli lobby was too powerful was simply prologue to the dance by members of both parties that no matter what Israel is doing today is fine with them. Were I an Israeli, I’d be damned worried by that vote of confidence. Clearly, both parties are courting American Jewish votes and campaign contributions and not worrying whether that might be good for America, Israel, the war of terror, or anything else.
If you agree with the Israeli response to the Hamas/Hezbollah attacks, killings and kidnappings, there are about a gazillion media articles in favor. If you think Israel has overreacted there are an equal number of pieces supporting this position. I have no idea why – perhaps its one of my Alfred E. Newman “What me worry?” moments – but I think this horrible situation between the Israelis and Hamas and Hezbollah is going to end without turning into WWIII. But there are even columns in major outlets by writers I greatly respect who are fearful that this could be a pivotal moment in world history much like Sarajevo in 1914.
But there is joy in Mudville; the mighty neocons have struck out. Those idealistic movers and shakers who browbeat poor George W. Bush to the point that he lost focus on the war on terror in Afghanistan and decided that delivering democracy to Iraq was more important than applying the coup de grace to the Taliban and the tattered shreds of al Qaeda that were holed up on the border with Pakistan no longer have the President’s ear.
Today’s Post has a front page story on how unhappy the neocons are and how they’re saying George has lost his nerve. Sadly, George has shown them the door several years too late. Because of them we’re almost 3,000 deaths, 20,000 wounded, and committed for up to $2 trillion wasted in a war that never should have been fought in Iraq and which says nothing about the tens of thousands of poor Iraqis dead and wounded that we were attempting to help.
The neocons are trying to turn the tables on the President and blame him because we didn’t send enough troops to do the job in Iraq. But that doesn’t wash and it’s becoming clearer by the day that sending twice as many soldiers and marines would have merely postponed the bloodshed between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. But read the article and their lamentations for yourselves:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801373.html?referrer=emailarticle
Lost in the explosions, real and polemic, is a column by Richard Cohen – I’m sure there are many others of this kind but they’re also buried in the back pages of papers – that attempts to put Israel’s plight in historical perspective. As many of you know, I admire Richard and have extolled his virtues many times in previous postings and this is one of his most thoughtful offerings. But let me digress, in the Post Magazine article on the Israeli lobby that I linked last week, one of the questions raised was whether speaking out constructively against any Israeli policy could result in anything much beyond the questioner’s being labeled anti-Semitic? I don’t really know the answer to that, but I feel confident that only a prominent American Jew like Richard could have written a column such as the one I’m linking and not suffered an immediate attack by the lobby and its supporters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html?referrer=emailarticle
There’s not much dispute that the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah were encouraged and supplied by Iran and Syria. America is in this mess to its eyeballs, and our unwise Iraq War has damaged us and is hurting Israel. The only thing good that I see coming out of it is the loss of prestige by the neocons within the administration and in the public mind. Israel and the U.S. will ultimately get out of these corners but with plenty of wounds to lick. The Post article labels the neocons `conservative,’ but the real conservatives of the Republican Party are finally asserting themselves and there’s hope rising even as the bombs rain down on the innocent everywhere in the Middle East.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
If you agree with the Israeli response to the Hamas/Hezbollah attacks, killings and kidnappings, there are about a gazillion media articles in favor. If you think Israel has overreacted there are an equal number of pieces supporting this position. I have no idea why – perhaps its one of my Alfred E. Newman “What me worry?” moments – but I think this horrible situation between the Israelis and Hamas and Hezbollah is going to end without turning into WWIII. But there are even columns in major outlets by writers I greatly respect who are fearful that this could be a pivotal moment in world history much like Sarajevo in 1914.
But there is joy in Mudville; the mighty neocons have struck out. Those idealistic movers and shakers who browbeat poor George W. Bush to the point that he lost focus on the war on terror in Afghanistan and decided that delivering democracy to Iraq was more important than applying the coup de grace to the Taliban and the tattered shreds of al Qaeda that were holed up on the border with Pakistan no longer have the President’s ear.
Today’s Post has a front page story on how unhappy the neocons are and how they’re saying George has lost his nerve. Sadly, George has shown them the door several years too late. Because of them we’re almost 3,000 deaths, 20,000 wounded, and committed for up to $2 trillion wasted in a war that never should have been fought in Iraq and which says nothing about the tens of thousands of poor Iraqis dead and wounded that we were attempting to help.
The neocons are trying to turn the tables on the President and blame him because we didn’t send enough troops to do the job in Iraq. But that doesn’t wash and it’s becoming clearer by the day that sending twice as many soldiers and marines would have merely postponed the bloodshed between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. But read the article and their lamentations for yourselves:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801373.html?referrer=emailarticle
Lost in the explosions, real and polemic, is a column by Richard Cohen – I’m sure there are many others of this kind but they’re also buried in the back pages of papers – that attempts to put Israel’s plight in historical perspective. As many of you know, I admire Richard and have extolled his virtues many times in previous postings and this is one of his most thoughtful offerings. But let me digress, in the Post Magazine article on the Israeli lobby that I linked last week, one of the questions raised was whether speaking out constructively against any Israeli policy could result in anything much beyond the questioner’s being labeled anti-Semitic? I don’t really know the answer to that, but I feel confident that only a prominent American Jew like Richard could have written a column such as the one I’m linking and not suffered an immediate attack by the lobby and its supporters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html?referrer=emailarticle
There’s not much dispute that the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah were encouraged and supplied by Iran and Syria. America is in this mess to its eyeballs, and our unwise Iraq War has damaged us and is hurting Israel. The only thing good that I see coming out of it is the loss of prestige by the neocons within the administration and in the public mind. Israel and the U.S. will ultimately get out of these corners but with plenty of wounds to lick. The Post article labels the neocons `conservative,’ but the real conservatives of the Republican Party are finally asserting themselves and there’s hope rising even as the bombs rain down on the innocent everywhere in the Middle East.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The Israeli Lobby
Does the Israeli lobby wield too much power? That’s the question posed by a Washington Post Sunday Magazine article (July 16, 2006) that I cannot link for you but recommend that you read by going to the paper’s website when it is posted. The article that was clearly in development for a long time and appeared at a particularly dynamic time since Israel is engaged in ferocious military actions in Gaza and Lebanon even as this is being written.
There can be no doubt that these actions were provoked by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon when militants of both groups crossed into Israel, attacked outposts, killed and wounded the guards, and kidnapped soldiers from both outposts. It is the avowed policy of Israel to do all that is necessary to safely retrieve its kidnapped troops; a policy that I support without reservation.
The entire world is focused on these actions as the combatants on both sides utilize extraordinary means to make their points and as other powers are fingered for egging them on in a larger war for regional control. Iran and Syria stand accused of siccing Hamas and Hezbollah onto the Israelis to back door the U.S. which has had them both under great pressure, and the United States, in turn, stands accused of not restraining the response by Israel, its alleged dog in the fight.
All of this plays out as the parties behind the combatants are accused of using this series of events to provide leverage in both the Iraq War and the larger war on terror. World petroleum and stock markets shudder as buyers question the ability of Middle East suppliers of the world’s great commodity, oil, to guarantee deliveries. Spectators in the Arab and larger Muslim world and greater powers, including some members of the European Union, Russia, and China shed crocodile tears as the world’s remaining super power gets further bogged down in the region.
This brings us back to the article in the Post Magazine which attempts to lay out a balanced picture for readers to make up their own minds. It also points out how difficult it is for anyone to criticize the lobby or Israel without becoming labeled an anti-Semite.
Frankly, I think the lobby is too powerful. Until these attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah, I have been under the impression that many Israelis – in and out of government - have been far more forward looking in dealing with the settlements than have those leading the American lobbying effort. Being an inveterate reader of letters to the editors of major newspapers, I believe also that many American Jews – but certainly don’t mean to quantify them or try to determine polling numbers – have come to embrace the recent withdrawal from Gaza and the movement in the West Bank as being in the best interests of Israel, but the current situation may well set this policy back, at least in the short term.
The Sharon settlement policy has caused problems for Israel with its Evangelical Christian supporters, and this to me is one of the great problems for the Israeli lobby. Both the settlers and their supporters in the Christian right do not approach this issue in the manner of the governments of Israel and the U.S. and causes these governments great problems. The governments see the settlements problem in terms of their geo-political interests while the settlers and their American Christian supporters see it in Biblical terms and these views presently conflict.
I’ve been of the opinion that the Israeli lobby is too powerful because its American Christian backers push it well past what the government of Israel finds useful. If that’s anti-Semitic, I’m sorry.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
There can be no doubt that these actions were provoked by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon when militants of both groups crossed into Israel, attacked outposts, killed and wounded the guards, and kidnapped soldiers from both outposts. It is the avowed policy of Israel to do all that is necessary to safely retrieve its kidnapped troops; a policy that I support without reservation.
The entire world is focused on these actions as the combatants on both sides utilize extraordinary means to make their points and as other powers are fingered for egging them on in a larger war for regional control. Iran and Syria stand accused of siccing Hamas and Hezbollah onto the Israelis to back door the U.S. which has had them both under great pressure, and the United States, in turn, stands accused of not restraining the response by Israel, its alleged dog in the fight.
All of this plays out as the parties behind the combatants are accused of using this series of events to provide leverage in both the Iraq War and the larger war on terror. World petroleum and stock markets shudder as buyers question the ability of Middle East suppliers of the world’s great commodity, oil, to guarantee deliveries. Spectators in the Arab and larger Muslim world and greater powers, including some members of the European Union, Russia, and China shed crocodile tears as the world’s remaining super power gets further bogged down in the region.
This brings us back to the article in the Post Magazine which attempts to lay out a balanced picture for readers to make up their own minds. It also points out how difficult it is for anyone to criticize the lobby or Israel without becoming labeled an anti-Semite.
Frankly, I think the lobby is too powerful. Until these attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah, I have been under the impression that many Israelis – in and out of government - have been far more forward looking in dealing with the settlements than have those leading the American lobbying effort. Being an inveterate reader of letters to the editors of major newspapers, I believe also that many American Jews – but certainly don’t mean to quantify them or try to determine polling numbers – have come to embrace the recent withdrawal from Gaza and the movement in the West Bank as being in the best interests of Israel, but the current situation may well set this policy back, at least in the short term.
The Sharon settlement policy has caused problems for Israel with its Evangelical Christian supporters, and this to me is one of the great problems for the Israeli lobby. Both the settlers and their supporters in the Christian right do not approach this issue in the manner of the governments of Israel and the U.S. and causes these governments great problems. The governments see the settlements problem in terms of their geo-political interests while the settlers and their American Christian supporters see it in Biblical terms and these views presently conflict.
I’ve been of the opinion that the Israeli lobby is too powerful because its American Christian backers push it well past what the government of Israel finds useful. If that’s anti-Semitic, I’m sorry.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, July 14, 2006
Webb for Senate - II
Yesterday’s posting on Jim Webb’s candidacy for the U.S. senate from Virginia included a link to a Washington Post story that described his opponent’s major thrust in attempting to hold off the Democrat. Basically, the Republican intends to pooh-pooh Jim Webb’s initial opposition to the Iraq War as a mere “I told you so,” that will turn off conservative Virginians, particularly its many military residents. Here’s that link again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/login&destination=logout&nextstep=confirm
I think Webb should hammer his initial and continued opposition to the war and to demonstrate how Bush’s folly has damaged our military. This fiasco has wounded our military forces more than any other segment of our society. Today, I’m posting a news article from the New York Times that has to make all thoughtful military folks consider the adverse impacts of the war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/us/14private.html?ex=1153540800&en=b19eb45a4c0bee62&ei=5070&emc=eta1
In listening to el Rushbo when running my errands, I find that he occasionally has military officers with hard right wing leanings rant about how they should be given license to really run amok in Iraq. But most of the uniformed people I’ve known over the years have been very even handed in their politics and most realize the down side of what is happening to our forces.
Today’s posting makes mincemeat of the Pentagon’s propaganda on how well recruiting is going. Obviously, age, intellect, physical and moral standards have been compromised in order to hit the numbers. I do not for an instant believe that the standards have been lowered to the point that the subject of the article, the soldier alleged to have raped and murdered a young Iraqi woman and to have killed her family, is anything but an isolated case, but clearly the officers and non-coms have their hands full in dealing with the less qualified people now coming into the force.
I’m convinced that military residents of Virginia will embrace Jim Webb’s candidacy and compare him favorably with the chicken hawks who so aggressively rush our troops into harm’s way but who were themselves too tied up with important things to serve. Webb is a true American hero who put his life on the line in Vietnam. President Bush and many others in the lead in Iraq understand military service from a merely theoretical position. But they’re always ready to stand by as those who really fought are slimed and Swift Boated.
Had Enough? Vote Democrat!
Blog on!
Wild Bill.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/login&destination=logout&nextstep=confirm
I think Webb should hammer his initial and continued opposition to the war and to demonstrate how Bush’s folly has damaged our military. This fiasco has wounded our military forces more than any other segment of our society. Today, I’m posting a news article from the New York Times that has to make all thoughtful military folks consider the adverse impacts of the war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/us/14private.html?ex=1153540800&en=b19eb45a4c0bee62&ei=5070&emc=eta1
In listening to el Rushbo when running my errands, I find that he occasionally has military officers with hard right wing leanings rant about how they should be given license to really run amok in Iraq. But most of the uniformed people I’ve known over the years have been very even handed in their politics and most realize the down side of what is happening to our forces.
Today’s posting makes mincemeat of the Pentagon’s propaganda on how well recruiting is going. Obviously, age, intellect, physical and moral standards have been compromised in order to hit the numbers. I do not for an instant believe that the standards have been lowered to the point that the subject of the article, the soldier alleged to have raped and murdered a young Iraqi woman and to have killed her family, is anything but an isolated case, but clearly the officers and non-coms have their hands full in dealing with the less qualified people now coming into the force.
I’m convinced that military residents of Virginia will embrace Jim Webb’s candidacy and compare him favorably with the chicken hawks who so aggressively rush our troops into harm’s way but who were themselves too tied up with important things to serve. Webb is a true American hero who put his life on the line in Vietnam. President Bush and many others in the lead in Iraq understand military service from a merely theoretical position. But they’re always ready to stand by as those who really fought are slimed and Swift Boated.
Had Enough? Vote Democrat!
Blog on!
Wild Bill.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Webb for Senate
While it is still not clear how George Bush’s Congressional apologists for the Iraq War will defend their seats in November, two trial balloons have been loosed. The first, prominently represented by Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, is to spit into the wind and continue the mindless chant that it was a great idea when we attacked and remains one now. And the second, championed by Virginia Senator George Allen in his constantly tightening race with Democrat James Webb, is to pooh-pooh Webb’s pre-war warnings against attacking Iraq as placing him in an “I-told-you-so-caucus” that will turn off The Old Dominion’s middle of the road and conservative voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101555_2.html?referrer=emailarticle
Republicans in anything resembling contested seats will obviously see Lieberman’s growing difficulties with the head on attack and are likely to opt for the Allen approach. The question is will the sloughing off of this national tragedy have traction with voters already not committed? Clearly, Bush’s base, of which no one is baser than Allen who is regularly and correctly labeled a Bush lap dog, will buy the proposition but how will it play with independents and moderates who along with liberals are now firmly in the camp of those who see the war as a horrible blunder and an endless quagmire?
Webb – and the other Democrats (except Lieberman) – should counterattack opponents who propose to cavalierly toss off the endless war as something that we must just slog on with despite limitless casualties and wasted treasure. Allen offers no way out of Iraq; only Jim Webb and the Democrats can find an honorable way out in some reasonable time frame.
Allen and other defenders of the war must be challenged when they claim the Democrats are divided and have no plan on how to end the war with the administration’s policy of standing down only when the Iraqis a ready no matter how long it takes. Clearly that day is far off and may well be receding further into the distant future with each passing day. Not only that, but office holders who persist in calamitous policies must see that failure to change course in the face of overwhelming evidence of error must end in defeat and banishment from Congress.
We must have Congressional oversight of this administration and divided government in 2008.
Had enough? Vote Democrat! Virginians – vote for Jim Webb!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101555_2.html?referrer=emailarticle
Republicans in anything resembling contested seats will obviously see Lieberman’s growing difficulties with the head on attack and are likely to opt for the Allen approach. The question is will the sloughing off of this national tragedy have traction with voters already not committed? Clearly, Bush’s base, of which no one is baser than Allen who is regularly and correctly labeled a Bush lap dog, will buy the proposition but how will it play with independents and moderates who along with liberals are now firmly in the camp of those who see the war as a horrible blunder and an endless quagmire?
Webb – and the other Democrats (except Lieberman) – should counterattack opponents who propose to cavalierly toss off the endless war as something that we must just slog on with despite limitless casualties and wasted treasure. Allen offers no way out of Iraq; only Jim Webb and the Democrats can find an honorable way out in some reasonable time frame.
Allen and other defenders of the war must be challenged when they claim the Democrats are divided and have no plan on how to end the war with the administration’s policy of standing down only when the Iraqis a ready no matter how long it takes. Clearly that day is far off and may well be receding further into the distant future with each passing day. Not only that, but office holders who persist in calamitous policies must see that failure to change course in the face of overwhelming evidence of error must end in defeat and banishment from Congress.
We must have Congressional oversight of this administration and divided government in 2008.
Had enough? Vote Democrat! Virginians – vote for Jim Webb!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
IRAQ REVISITED
President George W. Bush took us to war with Iraq more than three years ago. The Saddam regime has been gone for all but a few weeks of that period yet we are unable to see an end to our participation. What are we to make of these years and our predicament?
The most obvious is that the rationales for the preventive attack on Iraq were wrong. It is clear to all but the lunatic fringe that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Saddam’s arsenal, and no policy cooperation connection has been proven between the government of Iraq and al Qaeda. Nor is it believed, except by the aforesaid morons, that despite Saddam’s constant hullabaloney toward Israel and his occasional call for the restoration of the Caliphate of all Arabs under his well tattered banner that any of this science fiction had any real basis.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, DOD Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the neocons who persistently pushed the president’s buttons, and the claque of Senators – Warner, McCain, Lieberman, and Bayh - who can all proudly claim credit for leading us to Baghdad were wrong on all counts.
Far less important in hindsight as far as I’m concerned, we did not enter the fray with enough troops to occupy Iraq when the Saddam government fell. That this was called to the attention of the policy makers by the Army Chief of Staff is merely a sad footnote. Had we sent the number recommended, we’d still be in the extraordinarily difficult position of trying dismount from this terrible tiger, a mere postponement of the day of reckoning when old tribal and religious enemies could settle ancient scores.
For months now extending into years, the Republicans who cheered madly as the president prepared for the conflict and baited their weakling brethren across the aisle as wimps and flip-floppers now call to the attention of American voters that the negativist Democrats are badly split on how to get us out of Iraq, offer nothing but negativity on the war, and want to cut and run – a breach of trust with those who have fought and died.
That leaves the Grand Old Party as the happy warriors going about the business of securing the battered nation while the Dems wring their hands. The president has never said how the Shock and Awe disposal of Saddam in weeks would translate into getting American military men and women out of harm’s way. The only pledge is that when the Iraqi government can defend itself, we’ll stand down. Frankly, the news – obviously cooked by the mainstream media – leads ignorant Americans to believe that things aren’t going well in Baghdad when indeed everything is perfectly swell. Those pictures of people getting blown up each day are simply for consumption by the media.
When the President labeled Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the Axis of Evil, it became incumbent upon him and America to deal with that axis. It is quite clear from books by Bob Woodward, Ron Suskind, and others and from Congressional testimony from people like Richard Clark that we would take action against the member least likely to be able to respond effectively; so long, Saddam.
Saddam’s fall would clearly demonstrate to the Mullahs and the mad midget of Pyongyang that we weren’t kidding and that they better start talking or the same fate might be in the cards for them. I guess we showed them. Iran is working feverishly to attain nuclear weapons and Kim is believed to already have them. These nations are far more dangerous than they were three years ago, and we’re badly bogged down in a terrible quagmire.
All the fancy dancing to change the rationales for toppling Saddam – democracy for all Muslim nation’s governed by tyrants is a little ragged these days – which seem to be settling on his being a really bad guy who was really, really cruel to his own people can’t paper over what we’ve done to our military. All of the lost and broken lives and hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain with no end in sight and now our difficulty in funding weapons programs that we need against far more important long range competitors such as China leave us in far greater difficulties than when we attacked Iraq.
What we’ve done to our armed forces and to ourselves says nothing about the people we’ve rescued. While life under Saddam was clearly awful, I can’t for the life of me say that the human cost to Iraqis since our attack has been anything but terrible as well. America and Iraq are now in a terrible embrace with no clear way to break free.
In recent months it has become apparent that the fully justifiable war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan has take a turn for the worse. The government on Kabul has less control over the outlying provinces than it had – with us as its surrogate – when the slide became noticeable. When we turned our focus from this war that we should have been fighting to take on a nation that was – while loudly rattling its rusty sabers – little threat to us or our allies.
Most Americans have turned against the Iraq War not because they don’t have staying power but because they’ve come to understand that it was the wrong war whose basis was phony, a classic fool’s errand.
Yes, the Democrats are divided – unlike the lemmings on their right. Yes, the Democrats are unhappy – unlike their deliriously smitten Republican friends. Well damn it, anyone who isn’t gravely concerned should be locked up in the booby hatch. It’s too bad this Happy Warrior B.S. seems to be selling among the yahoos. If we don’t get at least one House of Congress intent on providing oversight to this administration, we’ll remain in serious trouble
I don’t fault those who supported the Iraq War when the spoon feeding of faulty intelligence could not be challenged. But now there is no doubt, we were misled into this mess. It’s George Bush’s war and he’s unlikely to ever say he was wrong. But people like Joe Lieberman should be ashamed of themselves; all of the reasons he gave for encouraging the President to attack Saddam were wrong. The Democrats in Connecticut have figured him out, and he’s willing to bring the house down rather than admit error.
Had enough? Vote Democrat – except for Joe!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
The most obvious is that the rationales for the preventive attack on Iraq were wrong. It is clear to all but the lunatic fringe that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Saddam’s arsenal, and no policy cooperation connection has been proven between the government of Iraq and al Qaeda. Nor is it believed, except by the aforesaid morons, that despite Saddam’s constant hullabaloney toward Israel and his occasional call for the restoration of the Caliphate of all Arabs under his well tattered banner that any of this science fiction had any real basis.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, DOD Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the neocons who persistently pushed the president’s buttons, and the claque of Senators – Warner, McCain, Lieberman, and Bayh - who can all proudly claim credit for leading us to Baghdad were wrong on all counts.
Far less important in hindsight as far as I’m concerned, we did not enter the fray with enough troops to occupy Iraq when the Saddam government fell. That this was called to the attention of the policy makers by the Army Chief of Staff is merely a sad footnote. Had we sent the number recommended, we’d still be in the extraordinarily difficult position of trying dismount from this terrible tiger, a mere postponement of the day of reckoning when old tribal and religious enemies could settle ancient scores.
For months now extending into years, the Republicans who cheered madly as the president prepared for the conflict and baited their weakling brethren across the aisle as wimps and flip-floppers now call to the attention of American voters that the negativist Democrats are badly split on how to get us out of Iraq, offer nothing but negativity on the war, and want to cut and run – a breach of trust with those who have fought and died.
That leaves the Grand Old Party as the happy warriors going about the business of securing the battered nation while the Dems wring their hands. The president has never said how the Shock and Awe disposal of Saddam in weeks would translate into getting American military men and women out of harm’s way. The only pledge is that when the Iraqi government can defend itself, we’ll stand down. Frankly, the news – obviously cooked by the mainstream media – leads ignorant Americans to believe that things aren’t going well in Baghdad when indeed everything is perfectly swell. Those pictures of people getting blown up each day are simply for consumption by the media.
When the President labeled Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the Axis of Evil, it became incumbent upon him and America to deal with that axis. It is quite clear from books by Bob Woodward, Ron Suskind, and others and from Congressional testimony from people like Richard Clark that we would take action against the member least likely to be able to respond effectively; so long, Saddam.
Saddam’s fall would clearly demonstrate to the Mullahs and the mad midget of Pyongyang that we weren’t kidding and that they better start talking or the same fate might be in the cards for them. I guess we showed them. Iran is working feverishly to attain nuclear weapons and Kim is believed to already have them. These nations are far more dangerous than they were three years ago, and we’re badly bogged down in a terrible quagmire.
All the fancy dancing to change the rationales for toppling Saddam – democracy for all Muslim nation’s governed by tyrants is a little ragged these days – which seem to be settling on his being a really bad guy who was really, really cruel to his own people can’t paper over what we’ve done to our military. All of the lost and broken lives and hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain with no end in sight and now our difficulty in funding weapons programs that we need against far more important long range competitors such as China leave us in far greater difficulties than when we attacked Iraq.
What we’ve done to our armed forces and to ourselves says nothing about the people we’ve rescued. While life under Saddam was clearly awful, I can’t for the life of me say that the human cost to Iraqis since our attack has been anything but terrible as well. America and Iraq are now in a terrible embrace with no clear way to break free.
In recent months it has become apparent that the fully justifiable war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan has take a turn for the worse. The government on Kabul has less control over the outlying provinces than it had – with us as its surrogate – when the slide became noticeable. When we turned our focus from this war that we should have been fighting to take on a nation that was – while loudly rattling its rusty sabers – little threat to us or our allies.
Most Americans have turned against the Iraq War not because they don’t have staying power but because they’ve come to understand that it was the wrong war whose basis was phony, a classic fool’s errand.
Yes, the Democrats are divided – unlike the lemmings on their right. Yes, the Democrats are unhappy – unlike their deliriously smitten Republican friends. Well damn it, anyone who isn’t gravely concerned should be locked up in the booby hatch. It’s too bad this Happy Warrior B.S. seems to be selling among the yahoos. If we don’t get at least one House of Congress intent on providing oversight to this administration, we’ll remain in serious trouble
I don’t fault those who supported the Iraq War when the spoon feeding of faulty intelligence could not be challenged. But now there is no doubt, we were misled into this mess. It’s George Bush’s war and he’s unlikely to ever say he was wrong. But people like Joe Lieberman should be ashamed of themselves; all of the reasons he gave for encouraging the President to attack Saddam were wrong. The Democrats in Connecticut have figured him out, and he’s willing to bring the house down rather than admit error.
Had enough? Vote Democrat – except for Joe!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Score One for the Good Guys
I’ve been getting a lot of feedback from readers concerning the break up of the recent terrorist plots in Miami and New York. Folks have been concerned that the actions by the FBI, police and prosecutors prior to the alleged culprits showing that they were true threats somehow undermined the seriousness of the plots. Initially, I had some of the same questions about breaking up conspiracies before they showed any real danger to the Sears Tower and to the tunnels under the Hudson.
Yesterday, I listened to Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff babble on about it saying that it is sometimes only a short time between planning and execution. Frankly, that wasn’t too convincing either.
But in thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that there might well be another even more important reason for jumping on these conspiracies very early rather than waiting until the terrorists actually planted their bombs. If potential terrorists – international or domestic – come to understand that the government has sophisticated means of learning about and listening in on their conspiracies and planning they’re much less likely to begin their murderous conniving.
Seeding paranoia in the minds of potentially bad people isn’t the worst thing in the world when you’re dealing with potential killers preparing to take their initial steps toward terrorist conspiracies. While the government isn’t likely to announce this as a salutary benefit from the breakup of those two groups of bumbling plotters, it is just that. While this may do little good in dealing with hard core enemies of the U.S. and the West, it doesn’t hurt to scare the stupid wannabes – who can be mortally dangerous.
Score one for the good guys of the Department of Justice, FBI, local and state police, and Homeland Security Department. Their lot hasn’t been pleasant, so let’s put these cases on the positive side of the ledger. I feel a little safer and hope you do too.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Yesterday, I listened to Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff babble on about it saying that it is sometimes only a short time between planning and execution. Frankly, that wasn’t too convincing either.
But in thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that there might well be another even more important reason for jumping on these conspiracies very early rather than waiting until the terrorists actually planted their bombs. If potential terrorists – international or domestic – come to understand that the government has sophisticated means of learning about and listening in on their conspiracies and planning they’re much less likely to begin their murderous conniving.
Seeding paranoia in the minds of potentially bad people isn’t the worst thing in the world when you’re dealing with potential killers preparing to take their initial steps toward terrorist conspiracies. While the government isn’t likely to announce this as a salutary benefit from the breakup of those two groups of bumbling plotters, it is just that. While this may do little good in dealing with hard core enemies of the U.S. and the West, it doesn’t hurt to scare the stupid wannabes – who can be mortally dangerous.
Score one for the good guys of the Department of Justice, FBI, local and state police, and Homeland Security Department. Their lot hasn’t been pleasant, so let’s put these cases on the positive side of the ledger. I feel a little safer and hope you do too.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, July 07, 2006
JOE MUST GO
On October 2, 2002, Senator Joe Lieberman (D. Conn.) was the co-sponsor of Joint Senate Resolution #46, Use of U.S. Armed Forces Against Iraq, along with Senators Warner, McCain and Bayh. Senator Lieberman’s speech in support of the resolution indicated no doubt that Iraq was a threat to the region, that he was intent on making Iraq the dominant Arab power, and that he was developing WMD and the means to deliver them against U.S. interests and his neighboring states.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/senate-liebermanwarnermccainbayh-100202.htm
This hawkish stance predates the March 2003 attack on Iraq which the senator continues to support to this day. While Joe Lieberman was not alone in believing that Iraq was a threat to American interests and its neighbors, he has never backed down from the benefits of and the need for war against Iraq despite the fact that the WMD were never found and almost certainly did not exist at the time of the resolution or the attack.
The senator continues to say that the overthrow of Saddam was a good thing and worth going to war for. Since the basis for his original position was the danger posed by Saddam against his neighbors based on his weapons capability and since that balloon has been punctured, he is left with the argument that Saddam was a very bad person who did horrible things to his internal enemies; no one has disputed this but it was not the basis of the threat against our interests or Iraq’s neighbors.
Since Iraq clearly did not pose the threat that was the basis for the attack, Joe Lieberman and George Bush are stuck with bringing democracy to Iraq and overthrowing a very bad tyrant who threatened no one but his own internal enemies. For this and not the attacks against New York and Washington we have lost more than 2,500 lives, 20,000 wounded – many severely, and $4 billion every week of the year with no end in sight. And, of course, Iraq has become the center of the war on terror.
It is one thing for Senator Lieberman to oppose pulling out of Iraq saying that in his view it would be bad for the U.S. and its interests, but he cannot bring himself to say that going in was based on erroneous intelligence and that he was wrong. He has accused his primary opponent of not understanding the geo-political situation. As all his support for the attack was based on his estimates of Iraqi power that has turned out to be completely wrong, he should be more specific about what his opponent doesn’t get.
Iraq has proven to be one of the worst American geo-political blunders of all time. Joe Lieberman was one of the principal instigators of this blunder. The people of Connecticut have seen through the calamity and are calling him on it. Their fear is that through his political trickery going against Joe will be hurtful to their goal of electing a Congress that will provide real oversight to an administration that has lost its way and has no idea how to get us out this mess. Joe Lieberman is out for no one but himself at this point.
Please forward my two postings on Senator Lieberman to any Connecticut voters you may know. Thanks!
Joe must go!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/senate-liebermanwarnermccainbayh-100202.htm
This hawkish stance predates the March 2003 attack on Iraq which the senator continues to support to this day. While Joe Lieberman was not alone in believing that Iraq was a threat to American interests and its neighbors, he has never backed down from the benefits of and the need for war against Iraq despite the fact that the WMD were never found and almost certainly did not exist at the time of the resolution or the attack.
The senator continues to say that the overthrow of Saddam was a good thing and worth going to war for. Since the basis for his original position was the danger posed by Saddam against his neighbors based on his weapons capability and since that balloon has been punctured, he is left with the argument that Saddam was a very bad person who did horrible things to his internal enemies; no one has disputed this but it was not the basis of the threat against our interests or Iraq’s neighbors.
Since Iraq clearly did not pose the threat that was the basis for the attack, Joe Lieberman and George Bush are stuck with bringing democracy to Iraq and overthrowing a very bad tyrant who threatened no one but his own internal enemies. For this and not the attacks against New York and Washington we have lost more than 2,500 lives, 20,000 wounded – many severely, and $4 billion every week of the year with no end in sight. And, of course, Iraq has become the center of the war on terror.
It is one thing for Senator Lieberman to oppose pulling out of Iraq saying that in his view it would be bad for the U.S. and its interests, but he cannot bring himself to say that going in was based on erroneous intelligence and that he was wrong. He has accused his primary opponent of not understanding the geo-political situation. As all his support for the attack was based on his estimates of Iraqi power that has turned out to be completely wrong, he should be more specific about what his opponent doesn’t get.
Iraq has proven to be one of the worst American geo-political blunders of all time. Joe Lieberman was one of the principal instigators of this blunder. The people of Connecticut have seen through the calamity and are calling him on it. Their fear is that through his political trickery going against Joe will be hurtful to their goal of electing a Congress that will provide real oversight to an administration that has lost its way and has no idea how to get us out this mess. Joe Lieberman is out for no one but himself at this point.
Please forward my two postings on Senator Lieberman to any Connecticut voters you may know. Thanks!
Joe must go!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
We Feel Good
In the Washington Post on July 4, 2006, columnist Abigail Trafford waxed eloquently about the tragedy of suicide, particularly among older men among whom it is becoming quite common. Basically, Trafford linked most such suicides to depression, mental illness and the impact of ageism. I’ll link this posting with her column so that you may make your own judgments about these views.
Today at lunch, three of my friends and I discussed the subject and came to a rather different conclusion from Trafford. All of us are in our early to mid-seventies and all suffer from a smorgasbord of the maladies associated with aging, including cancer, heart disease, arthritis, and mild to serious vision and hearing impairments, among other things. We are retired federal managers who worked together and have been friends for more than a third of a century. The event that inspired the column and the luncheon topic was the highly publicized apparent suicide of a prominent Maryland publisher who was reportedly depressed because of heart disease. The columnist found that this duality matched her profile of the suicide prone quite well.
At least three of us indicated that we had contemplated suicide as a possible end to our lives many times since middle age. The discussion quickly cut to the heart of the matter: talk is cheap and such thoughts are purely hypothetical until acted upon – and none of us has attempted it. We discussed the Maryland case as well as the death of George Eastman, founder of Eastman Kodak who committed suicide at the height of his corporate power. In both of these cases, the perpetrator/victims were men of wealth who did not match the profiles of those at our table.
Trying not to be snappy, the consensus at the light hearted luncheon discussion was that ending one’s own life might well be based on far different circumstances from those who were the prime subjects of the article. Economics did not come into play in the column, but we felt that this was a very important element in the decision. Sticking strictly with the older men subset of suicides, we thought that poor men had less of a financial stake in the decision. A poor older fellow intent on going on living despite a determination that his quality of life was poor could do so much longer than subjects of middle or higher income and resources but who were still not wealthy. The death of the former was considered to have less economic impact on his survivors than the latter who would have to use resources initially intended for his survivors to continue on.
Leaving money behind – no pun intended – the question arises: is it normal to feel the loss of quality of life without being depressed? Speaking for myself and – I’m guessing for my companions – we have all lost some physical abilities, but this, in itself, has not caused us great difficulties or undue depression. Since all of us had worked in highly charged atmospheres using our mental faculties and long experience in complex bureaucratic situations, it is the loss of mental acuity that we fear most.
It was at this juncture that we agreed that if we sensed significant drop in our intellectual abilities that there would be in a very real sense a loss of our personhood. With no great sense of depression would it not be reasonable to attempt to end it all before a total loss of ourselves and our esteem set in? Obviously, we, like most, wish to cling a little longer and at some point, the danger would be that we would no longer have the physical, mental or emotional capacity to commit suicide.
Before we skipped to lighter topics such as world peace, we toasted our health, such as it is, and the very high quality of each of our lives. While the statistics used by Trafford are very interesting, we felt strongly that her conclusions were far from the mark when it came to men like ourselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/03/AR2006070300764.html
World peace is good and worthy of serious contemplation, and we drank to it.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Today at lunch, three of my friends and I discussed the subject and came to a rather different conclusion from Trafford. All of us are in our early to mid-seventies and all suffer from a smorgasbord of the maladies associated with aging, including cancer, heart disease, arthritis, and mild to serious vision and hearing impairments, among other things. We are retired federal managers who worked together and have been friends for more than a third of a century. The event that inspired the column and the luncheon topic was the highly publicized apparent suicide of a prominent Maryland publisher who was reportedly depressed because of heart disease. The columnist found that this duality matched her profile of the suicide prone quite well.
At least three of us indicated that we had contemplated suicide as a possible end to our lives many times since middle age. The discussion quickly cut to the heart of the matter: talk is cheap and such thoughts are purely hypothetical until acted upon – and none of us has attempted it. We discussed the Maryland case as well as the death of George Eastman, founder of Eastman Kodak who committed suicide at the height of his corporate power. In both of these cases, the perpetrator/victims were men of wealth who did not match the profiles of those at our table.
Trying not to be snappy, the consensus at the light hearted luncheon discussion was that ending one’s own life might well be based on far different circumstances from those who were the prime subjects of the article. Economics did not come into play in the column, but we felt that this was a very important element in the decision. Sticking strictly with the older men subset of suicides, we thought that poor men had less of a financial stake in the decision. A poor older fellow intent on going on living despite a determination that his quality of life was poor could do so much longer than subjects of middle or higher income and resources but who were still not wealthy. The death of the former was considered to have less economic impact on his survivors than the latter who would have to use resources initially intended for his survivors to continue on.
Leaving money behind – no pun intended – the question arises: is it normal to feel the loss of quality of life without being depressed? Speaking for myself and – I’m guessing for my companions – we have all lost some physical abilities, but this, in itself, has not caused us great difficulties or undue depression. Since all of us had worked in highly charged atmospheres using our mental faculties and long experience in complex bureaucratic situations, it is the loss of mental acuity that we fear most.
It was at this juncture that we agreed that if we sensed significant drop in our intellectual abilities that there would be in a very real sense a loss of our personhood. With no great sense of depression would it not be reasonable to attempt to end it all before a total loss of ourselves and our esteem set in? Obviously, we, like most, wish to cling a little longer and at some point, the danger would be that we would no longer have the physical, mental or emotional capacity to commit suicide.
Before we skipped to lighter topics such as world peace, we toasted our health, such as it is, and the very high quality of each of our lives. While the statistics used by Trafford are very interesting, we felt strongly that her conclusions were far from the mark when it came to men like ourselves.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/03/AR2006070300764.html
World peace is good and worthy of serious contemplation, and we drank to it.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Joe Lieberman for Senate
Should Joe Lieberman be turned out of the United States Senate?
Democrats in Connecticut must choose whether to keep Lieberman who has been acceptable to them for eighteen years or to elect his primary opponent based on his position on a single issue, the Iraq War. This is the nature of republican form of government. We elect people to represent us, to study the issues and to make decisions based on balancing the short term desires of the voters and the long term needs of the constituents and the nation.
Democratic voters in Connecticut are incensed by Lieberman’s stand on the war. It was one thing to be in favor of the conflict based on the yarns that the Bush administration wove into a fabric alleging that Saddam posed a security threat to the U.S. But the lame defenses of the attack put up by the President after his WMD rationale tripped over itself have completely turned off Nutmeg voters – and the vast majority of other Americans. But Joe hops from clambake to clambake happily spouting that getting rid of Saddam was a great thing despite the facts about WMD and the unmade connection between al Qaeda and Saddam’s government and his seemingly obliviousness to the great cost in blood and treasure and the bogging down of our military even as the world grows evermore dangerous.
Suffice it to say, Joe’s apologies for the Bush war are convincing almost none of the Democratic faithful in his state. He still appears to be in the lead in the primary, but that is clearly based on the balancing that the voters in a republic are forced to stagger under. Almost no Democrats facing the choice agree with the baloney Joe is spewing on the war, and seeing the he’s in trouble in, the Senator is preparing to run in the general election as an Independent and has signaled his intent to vote in the Senate Democratic Caucus if he’s returned to office.
Obviously, we expect our representatives to use their independent judgment in voting on issues and only when they fail us too many times or too badly should we turn them out. That is exactly the equation the Democrats in Connecticut are figuring, and the decision of each voter hinges on the answer to: does the Senator’s unrelenting support of the President on the Iraq War when balanced against the possibility, however remote, that their decision could sustain the Republican majority in the Senate that is viewed by these same voters as damaging to the national interest warrant the defeat of Joe Lieberman?
Each voter must balance eighteen years of relative happiness with one grave failure. To me this is a watershed decision. Lieberman’s unrepentant stance in favor of the Bush administration’s policy on the war on terror, highlighted by the attack on Iraq, is so great that were I a voter in this primary, I’d turn him out in a heartbeat. If we don’t show our politicians that they are being judged and that we’re willing to send them packing in a case of grievous departure from our wishes then we have in effect created a permanent class of office holders.
Thumbs Down! Off with his head!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Democrats in Connecticut must choose whether to keep Lieberman who has been acceptable to them for eighteen years or to elect his primary opponent based on his position on a single issue, the Iraq War. This is the nature of republican form of government. We elect people to represent us, to study the issues and to make decisions based on balancing the short term desires of the voters and the long term needs of the constituents and the nation.
Democratic voters in Connecticut are incensed by Lieberman’s stand on the war. It was one thing to be in favor of the conflict based on the yarns that the Bush administration wove into a fabric alleging that Saddam posed a security threat to the U.S. But the lame defenses of the attack put up by the President after his WMD rationale tripped over itself have completely turned off Nutmeg voters – and the vast majority of other Americans. But Joe hops from clambake to clambake happily spouting that getting rid of Saddam was a great thing despite the facts about WMD and the unmade connection between al Qaeda and Saddam’s government and his seemingly obliviousness to the great cost in blood and treasure and the bogging down of our military even as the world grows evermore dangerous.
Suffice it to say, Joe’s apologies for the Bush war are convincing almost none of the Democratic faithful in his state. He still appears to be in the lead in the primary, but that is clearly based on the balancing that the voters in a republic are forced to stagger under. Almost no Democrats facing the choice agree with the baloney Joe is spewing on the war, and seeing the he’s in trouble in, the Senator is preparing to run in the general election as an Independent and has signaled his intent to vote in the Senate Democratic Caucus if he’s returned to office.
Obviously, we expect our representatives to use their independent judgment in voting on issues and only when they fail us too many times or too badly should we turn them out. That is exactly the equation the Democrats in Connecticut are figuring, and the decision of each voter hinges on the answer to: does the Senator’s unrelenting support of the President on the Iraq War when balanced against the possibility, however remote, that their decision could sustain the Republican majority in the Senate that is viewed by these same voters as damaging to the national interest warrant the defeat of Joe Lieberman?
Each voter must balance eighteen years of relative happiness with one grave failure. To me this is a watershed decision. Lieberman’s unrepentant stance in favor of the Bush administration’s policy on the war on terror, highlighted by the attack on Iraq, is so great that were I a voter in this primary, I’d turn him out in a heartbeat. If we don’t show our politicians that they are being judged and that we’re willing to send them packing in a case of grievous departure from our wishes then we have in effect created a permanent class of office holders.
Thumbs Down! Off with his head!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, July 03, 2006
Energy Independence
Yesterday, this posting was begun in anger, and I’m glad that I didn’t place it before you without sleeping on it.
In listening to President Bush and Republican presidents since Richard Nixon you could easily surmise that America doesn’t have a real energy crisis and that all we have to do is apply the principals of supply side economics to our fuel needs. We can simply produce our way to energy independence. Oh, sure, we might have to make some minor adjustments at the fringes but nothing really hurtful to our life style.
For openers, presidents of both parties from Nixon to the incumbent pooh-pooh naysayers and pessimists who they charge with being wrong on energy and all other spheres and have no future in America. Looking back at the darkest moments in living memory, politicos remember the ostrich approach championed by presidents from Harding to Hoover whose `chicken in every pot’ held sway until the whole house nearly collapsed. The Democrats had no chance until Franklin Roosevelt came forward and promised to do something – anything. Damned if he didn’t, and the right has been railing about the high taxes on the rich ever since.
Democrats, on the other hand, have led on the energy crunch using the Chicken Little approach of pointing out that the sky is falling. Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election almost as much for his views on energy and the negativity permeating America as for his appearance of helplessness in the face of Iran’s kidnapping of the American Embassy personnel in Tehran. In government things sometimes have to get worse before they get better. Clearly Carter was too far out in front of his countrymen on energy. Democrats have sought conservation through regulation, and they ought to look at their position in the electoral process before reaffirming their usual direction.
Since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, it’s been government by musical chairs in dealing with the long term crises. Presidents and Congress approach the energy crisis as they did hurricanes: develop disaster plans, file reports, issue press releases, create agencies, and hope the damn thing holds off until they’re in Hawaii happily collecting their annuities. Sadly, along came Katrina and, like Hoover, the incumbent – Bush – had no one but Brownie to blame.
Similarly, Bush was the odd man out on gasoline prices. Being an expert on deflection, he had to turn the fan on the Saudis, Chinese, and even his pals in big oil when the excrement started to fly. Instead of recognizing that it might actually be time to level with the public and begin an adult approach to energy a full generation after Carter tried, Bush opened the classic Republican playbook and offered us supply side energy policy.
Energy is much like Katrina: pols make plans for energy independence, fund lots of pork on alternative sources, pay for some exotic R&D, give tax breaks for technologies that might be viable in twenty years and pray that their pensions kick in before reality of the situation becomes obvious. Oh, and most important, they make fun of serious scientists and intellectually bent members of their own class who say we’re in trouble. Cassandras like Al Gore, James Hansen, and lots of environmentalists are negativists who see nothing but bad things. Ronald Reagan wiped the floor with Jimmy Carter by pointing out that America remains the city on the hill with no need for gloom and doom. America is the land of opportunity, and we’ll be damned if we’ll change our ways in the face of temporary bad news.
Hovering, however, is that a major goal of al Qaeda is to kick us – America and our Western allies - out of Muslim lands and to overthrow the governments of some of the richest oil states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and now Iraq which are perceived to be propped up by us simply to get at their oil without so much as a by your leave for the poor citizens. For sixty years we’ve built our society on cheap oil, and we’ve approached the Middle East commodity owners with the single minded idea of keeping the supply flowing. We’ve ridden this tiger for so long we don’t have a clue on how to dismount and neither political party has uttered a word on how to deal with this problem. Don’t expect one before November.
Every Republican policy statement is based on supply. We’ll increase the use of ethanol, drill offshore on the continental shelf, open up the Arctic wildlife refuge, build more nuclear plants, fund clean coal technologies, encourage alternate forms of energy such as wind and solar; the list goes on and on. Frankly, some of these approaches do make sense given the pains we’re beginning to suffer and that will increase exponentially in the years ahead. But we can’t just go cold turkey on Middle Eastern oil. We will have to increase supply and disappoint some liberals, but we’re going to have to come to grips with a future with expensive – very expensive - energy.
But today’s approach is all happiness and there will be little pain in the future. There will be no increase in the federal gasoline tax. Conservation will be mandated by the market, but that is mentioned only in passing, if at all. But the market will weigh most heavily on the poor and middle classes. Filling up Jaguars or BMWs at $5.00 a gallon will never be a problem for the well to do but that price will drown the exurban poor driving ten year old Chevys thirty miles to low wage jobs.
We’ve built the society on cheap energy: huge houses, gas guzzling SUVs, and roads to the horizon. The cars will be dealt with over a decade or so as we trade for smaller more efficient vehicles, but the last to get the appropriate vehicles will be those most in need. The McMansions will be with us for several generations and as their values go down the nature of their residents will change. Oil and gas will continue to be the energy sources of need, if not choice.
How are we to deal with these painful adjustments? The supply siders are wrong, and the liberals are too draconian, and we must find a middle way. We must do what is reasonable to ease the economy and our people through what is bound to be a very agonizing process of conservation. We’ve got to be realistic on domestic oil. Can we pass up the chance to provide up to six percent of the daily petroleum needs of the country at a price that is likely to dampen the world cost and be developed with very reasonable safety risks by passing up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Many say yes; I say no – we must proceed. The same goes for the continental shelf. It’s easy for environmentalists to say no, but they condemn the poor and middle classes to ever greater pain in the market.
On the other hand, no matter how much bunkum is spread about clean coal, it’s filthy stuff. Even the low sulfur coal of the Powder River basin will spew thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. New nuclear plants will almost certainly have to be built to provide the electric power for our ever more conservation conscious society.
The article that prompted this gusher of words about oil was in yesterday’s Washington Post. Two energy scientists exploded the myth of ethanol. Sad to say, all of the alternatives to oil have plenty of minuses. I’m linking the op-ed article. It makes all the sense in the world and destroys the dreams of farmers and politicians for a painless yet profitable transition from Middle Eastern oil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html?referrer=emailarticle
None of this makes for joyful reading, but we are in the beginning stages of our recovery from the addiction to oil. As we move into the new era, the withdrawal symptoms will lessen, so don’t fret. Remember, even if we can’t make cost effective energy from crops, beer, wine and spirits come from our green friends, and it’s four o’clock somewhere.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
In listening to President Bush and Republican presidents since Richard Nixon you could easily surmise that America doesn’t have a real energy crisis and that all we have to do is apply the principals of supply side economics to our fuel needs. We can simply produce our way to energy independence. Oh, sure, we might have to make some minor adjustments at the fringes but nothing really hurtful to our life style.
For openers, presidents of both parties from Nixon to the incumbent pooh-pooh naysayers and pessimists who they charge with being wrong on energy and all other spheres and have no future in America. Looking back at the darkest moments in living memory, politicos remember the ostrich approach championed by presidents from Harding to Hoover whose `chicken in every pot’ held sway until the whole house nearly collapsed. The Democrats had no chance until Franklin Roosevelt came forward and promised to do something – anything. Damned if he didn’t, and the right has been railing about the high taxes on the rich ever since.
Democrats, on the other hand, have led on the energy crunch using the Chicken Little approach of pointing out that the sky is falling. Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election almost as much for his views on energy and the negativity permeating America as for his appearance of helplessness in the face of Iran’s kidnapping of the American Embassy personnel in Tehran. In government things sometimes have to get worse before they get better. Clearly Carter was too far out in front of his countrymen on energy. Democrats have sought conservation through regulation, and they ought to look at their position in the electoral process before reaffirming their usual direction.
Since the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, it’s been government by musical chairs in dealing with the long term crises. Presidents and Congress approach the energy crisis as they did hurricanes: develop disaster plans, file reports, issue press releases, create agencies, and hope the damn thing holds off until they’re in Hawaii happily collecting their annuities. Sadly, along came Katrina and, like Hoover, the incumbent – Bush – had no one but Brownie to blame.
Similarly, Bush was the odd man out on gasoline prices. Being an expert on deflection, he had to turn the fan on the Saudis, Chinese, and even his pals in big oil when the excrement started to fly. Instead of recognizing that it might actually be time to level with the public and begin an adult approach to energy a full generation after Carter tried, Bush opened the classic Republican playbook and offered us supply side energy policy.
Energy is much like Katrina: pols make plans for energy independence, fund lots of pork on alternative sources, pay for some exotic R&D, give tax breaks for technologies that might be viable in twenty years and pray that their pensions kick in before reality of the situation becomes obvious. Oh, and most important, they make fun of serious scientists and intellectually bent members of their own class who say we’re in trouble. Cassandras like Al Gore, James Hansen, and lots of environmentalists are negativists who see nothing but bad things. Ronald Reagan wiped the floor with Jimmy Carter by pointing out that America remains the city on the hill with no need for gloom and doom. America is the land of opportunity, and we’ll be damned if we’ll change our ways in the face of temporary bad news.
Hovering, however, is that a major goal of al Qaeda is to kick us – America and our Western allies - out of Muslim lands and to overthrow the governments of some of the richest oil states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and now Iraq which are perceived to be propped up by us simply to get at their oil without so much as a by your leave for the poor citizens. For sixty years we’ve built our society on cheap oil, and we’ve approached the Middle East commodity owners with the single minded idea of keeping the supply flowing. We’ve ridden this tiger for so long we don’t have a clue on how to dismount and neither political party has uttered a word on how to deal with this problem. Don’t expect one before November.
Every Republican policy statement is based on supply. We’ll increase the use of ethanol, drill offshore on the continental shelf, open up the Arctic wildlife refuge, build more nuclear plants, fund clean coal technologies, encourage alternate forms of energy such as wind and solar; the list goes on and on. Frankly, some of these approaches do make sense given the pains we’re beginning to suffer and that will increase exponentially in the years ahead. But we can’t just go cold turkey on Middle Eastern oil. We will have to increase supply and disappoint some liberals, but we’re going to have to come to grips with a future with expensive – very expensive - energy.
But today’s approach is all happiness and there will be little pain in the future. There will be no increase in the federal gasoline tax. Conservation will be mandated by the market, but that is mentioned only in passing, if at all. But the market will weigh most heavily on the poor and middle classes. Filling up Jaguars or BMWs at $5.00 a gallon will never be a problem for the well to do but that price will drown the exurban poor driving ten year old Chevys thirty miles to low wage jobs.
We’ve built the society on cheap energy: huge houses, gas guzzling SUVs, and roads to the horizon. The cars will be dealt with over a decade or so as we trade for smaller more efficient vehicles, but the last to get the appropriate vehicles will be those most in need. The McMansions will be with us for several generations and as their values go down the nature of their residents will change. Oil and gas will continue to be the energy sources of need, if not choice.
How are we to deal with these painful adjustments? The supply siders are wrong, and the liberals are too draconian, and we must find a middle way. We must do what is reasonable to ease the economy and our people through what is bound to be a very agonizing process of conservation. We’ve got to be realistic on domestic oil. Can we pass up the chance to provide up to six percent of the daily petroleum needs of the country at a price that is likely to dampen the world cost and be developed with very reasonable safety risks by passing up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? Many say yes; I say no – we must proceed. The same goes for the continental shelf. It’s easy for environmentalists to say no, but they condemn the poor and middle classes to ever greater pain in the market.
On the other hand, no matter how much bunkum is spread about clean coal, it’s filthy stuff. Even the low sulfur coal of the Powder River basin will spew thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. New nuclear plants will almost certainly have to be built to provide the electric power for our ever more conservation conscious society.
The article that prompted this gusher of words about oil was in yesterday’s Washington Post. Two energy scientists exploded the myth of ethanol. Sad to say, all of the alternatives to oil have plenty of minuses. I’m linking the op-ed article. It makes all the sense in the world and destroys the dreams of farmers and politicians for a painless yet profitable transition from Middle Eastern oil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html?referrer=emailarticle
None of this makes for joyful reading, but we are in the beginning stages of our recovery from the addiction to oil. As we move into the new era, the withdrawal symptoms will lessen, so don’t fret. Remember, even if we can’t make cost effective energy from crops, beer, wine and spirits come from our green friends, and it’s four o’clock somewhere.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, July 01, 2006
The War on Drugs
Mom always said that running rum, home brewing beer, and making bathtub gin were acts of mercy and certainly not sins. The four adult males in our extended family household during Prohibition subscribed to that tenet but were avid consumers rather than producers. While I broke the law by imbibing slightly below the legal age, I made up for my crime by continuing the practice of moderate consumption into my dotage.
I took up dragging on coffin nails at the tender age of twelve but cannot certify that I was anywhere near the youngest on my block to be avidly supporting North Carolina tobacco farmers. Thankfully, when the Surgeon General of the United States finally made the pronouncement that smoking was mortally dangerous, I quit. Smoking was not considered addictive in those days, merely a difficult to break `bad habit.’ Amen! I was never so sick or depressed in my life and for five years I had withdrawal symptoms whenever I saw anyone puffing.
My first novel, A Tattered Coat Upon A Stick, devotes a number of chapters to the characters doing their damnedest to meet the heartfelt needs of our Irish American brethren. I was from a culture that did not agree with Prohibition and believed that it did more damage to society than any the so-called moral improvement that was the basis for its installation. Obviously, over time the American people came to believe that too and rose to rid the nation of the pox placed upon it by the goody-goodies among us.
This preface is not designed to demonstrate that I favor scofflaws who use illicit drugs; rather, it’s an effort to show the folly of prohibiting the use of substances that are not perceived by the users as dangerous and which are viewed as a corruption of governmental powers by over-jealous do-gooders.
When Prohibition was repealed the initial incidence of alcoholism rose. Certainly the number of people killed by drunk drivers rose during my long lifetime of driving – even though it is equally obvious that there were more sheer numbers of cars and drinkers. Today, alcohol continues to play a significant role in the number of highway deaths. But even Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) – which I happily support – would never call for a return to Prohibition. Yet through the action of MADD, groups that had previously supported the notion of outlawing demon rum, and a clear thinking and brave health care community, the statistical incidence of drunk driving and resulting roadway deaths has been significantly reduced through education, medical treatment of alcoholics, and aggressive enforcement of laws against DUI and public drunkenness, and we now find ourselves in an era of much more responsible drinking – and driving.
Similarly, in the years since the Surgeon General first cited the dangers of smoking right up until the twenty-ninth report from the current office holder concerning second hand smoke issued this week, through education and social disapproval the per capita use of tobacco products has gone down significantly. It is clear that the approach made by society and its representatives in dealing with a product that is far more dangerous than some of the drugs currently prohibited is a much more sensible approach than the multi-billion dollar war on drugs that was declared in the seventies by President Richard Nixon and which continues in fully fury to this day with little impact on the enemy.
The roles of government toward drugs should be as an honest evaluator of the dangers of the substances, an educator on the dangers of the drugs, a regulator of the market, the greatest funder of research and medical treatment of addicts, the leading institution of social disapproval, and the enforcer of laws and regulations put in place against bad behavior of users. There are many private institutions ready to support these governmental roles with political and social pressure, independent research and educational programs that dovetail with the public efforts.
Our successes with alcohol and tobacco are prima-facie evidence that alternatives to prohibition exist. Our experience with Prohibition in the third and fourth decades of the last century during which the rule of law was undermined and the growth an underworld that still plagues us was encouraged should have shown us another way.
But we did not go in a different direction; we spent billions for little gain. Governments of many poor nations were undermined and a new and even more dynamic underworld was developed. And still we fell further behind in the war.
The following are links to two articles that sparked this posting. While from the liberal press, they clearly support libertarian notions on individual behavior and undermine the value of the War on Drugs.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/27/the_wrong_way_to_fight_the_war_on_drugs/?p1=email_to_a_friend
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/health/27cnd-smoke.html?ex=1152072000&en=fb78e953d875908f&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Is it four o’clock yet?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
I took up dragging on coffin nails at the tender age of twelve but cannot certify that I was anywhere near the youngest on my block to be avidly supporting North Carolina tobacco farmers. Thankfully, when the Surgeon General of the United States finally made the pronouncement that smoking was mortally dangerous, I quit. Smoking was not considered addictive in those days, merely a difficult to break `bad habit.’ Amen! I was never so sick or depressed in my life and for five years I had withdrawal symptoms whenever I saw anyone puffing.
My first novel, A Tattered Coat Upon A Stick, devotes a number of chapters to the characters doing their damnedest to meet the heartfelt needs of our Irish American brethren. I was from a culture that did not agree with Prohibition and believed that it did more damage to society than any the so-called moral improvement that was the basis for its installation. Obviously, over time the American people came to believe that too and rose to rid the nation of the pox placed upon it by the goody-goodies among us.
This preface is not designed to demonstrate that I favor scofflaws who use illicit drugs; rather, it’s an effort to show the folly of prohibiting the use of substances that are not perceived by the users as dangerous and which are viewed as a corruption of governmental powers by over-jealous do-gooders.
When Prohibition was repealed the initial incidence of alcoholism rose. Certainly the number of people killed by drunk drivers rose during my long lifetime of driving – even though it is equally obvious that there were more sheer numbers of cars and drinkers. Today, alcohol continues to play a significant role in the number of highway deaths. But even Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) – which I happily support – would never call for a return to Prohibition. Yet through the action of MADD, groups that had previously supported the notion of outlawing demon rum, and a clear thinking and brave health care community, the statistical incidence of drunk driving and resulting roadway deaths has been significantly reduced through education, medical treatment of alcoholics, and aggressive enforcement of laws against DUI and public drunkenness, and we now find ourselves in an era of much more responsible drinking – and driving.
Similarly, in the years since the Surgeon General first cited the dangers of smoking right up until the twenty-ninth report from the current office holder concerning second hand smoke issued this week, through education and social disapproval the per capita use of tobacco products has gone down significantly. It is clear that the approach made by society and its representatives in dealing with a product that is far more dangerous than some of the drugs currently prohibited is a much more sensible approach than the multi-billion dollar war on drugs that was declared in the seventies by President Richard Nixon and which continues in fully fury to this day with little impact on the enemy.
The roles of government toward drugs should be as an honest evaluator of the dangers of the substances, an educator on the dangers of the drugs, a regulator of the market, the greatest funder of research and medical treatment of addicts, the leading institution of social disapproval, and the enforcer of laws and regulations put in place against bad behavior of users. There are many private institutions ready to support these governmental roles with political and social pressure, independent research and educational programs that dovetail with the public efforts.
Our successes with alcohol and tobacco are prima-facie evidence that alternatives to prohibition exist. Our experience with Prohibition in the third and fourth decades of the last century during which the rule of law was undermined and the growth an underworld that still plagues us was encouraged should have shown us another way.
But we did not go in a different direction; we spent billions for little gain. Governments of many poor nations were undermined and a new and even more dynamic underworld was developed. And still we fell further behind in the war.
The following are links to two articles that sparked this posting. While from the liberal press, they clearly support libertarian notions on individual behavior and undermine the value of the War on Drugs.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/06/27/the_wrong_way_to_fight_the_war_on_drugs/?p1=email_to_a_friend
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/health/27cnd-smoke.html?ex=1152072000&en=fb78e953d875908f&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Is it four o’clock yet?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)